The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Hercule Poirot: It would be interesting to have a mathematical modeling tool which could weigh in each and every piece of evidence giving it a value that once added to the value of other pičces of evidence would offer a heuristic view of each suspect's level of guilt.

It would indeed! But I think it would be hard in the extreme to find acceptance among many posters out here when it comes to the suggested levels. For instance, I know quite well that the police would be extremely interested in a person found alone close to a freshly killed corpse, where it can be proven that the bleeding very much allows for the person in question to be the killer. It is a piece of evidence that should rate up at the very top of any sound list of evidence ratings.

The problem is that Lechmere answers up to this. And people out here do NOT like the idea that he was the killer of Nichols. The evidence implicates him, but most out here would swear that ANOTHER killer is more credible. None of these posters would be able to explain how that works, but that would not bother them - anybodyīs entitled to their own view, they would say. And somebody had to find the body, donīt you know!?

So much as it is an interesting excercise you suggest, you may as well drop the idea here and now. Out here, having been mentioned by a police officer back in 1888 trumps trifles like having been found with the body and having no alibi for it. Thatīs the way it goes, Hercule, and the sooner you realize it, the better you will fare here.

PS. I note that you think that I get too little credit. Thatīs of course true, but saying it out loud will do you no good.

[Jonathan H]

Christer,

You don't understand the fragility and unreliability of written sources, as opposed to data that comes from physical-forensic evidence.

Which we entirely lack (sorry Russell).

You don't know, and none of us know, how long people took to do this this and that, or how long blood took to flow, and so on.

Your theory is built on shifting sand.

There is no rebuttal required, or counter-theorizing, or explanation as to why Lechmere is not the bets suspect because you have not shown what you must show--that the police of the day, or anybody of the day, missed something incriminating that you have found at this enormous distance.

I realize that you have decided not to respond to my posts and that is your right. But it does not change what most people here think and who agree with me --and they loathe me here unlike you, whom they dismiss as a 'mark' who thinks he is a 'smart' -- e.g. that you have failed to provide anything os substance to make your theory viable.

[Fisherman]

Christer,

You don't understand the fragility and unreliability of written sources, as opposed to data that comes from physical-forensic evidence.

Which we entirely lack (sorry Russell).

You don't know, and none of us know, how long people took to do this this and that, or how long blood took to flow, and so on.

Your theory is built on shifting sand.

There is no rebuttal required, or counter-theorizing, or explanation as to why Lechmere is not the bets suspect because you have not shown what you must show--that the police of the day, or anybody of the day, missed something incriminating that you have found at this enormous distance.

I realize that you have decided not to respond to my posts and that is your right. But it does not change what most people here think and who agree with me --and they loathe me here unlike you, whom they dismiss as a 'mark' who thinks he is a 'smart' -- e.g. that you have failed to provide anything os substance to make your theory viable.

What makes you think that I have decided not to respond to your posts, Jonathan? I have done no such thing.

And what makes you think that I do not realize that written sources must be looked upon with some scepticism? I donīt think I have ever said anything else. But I have also said that what he have is what we have. If we were not to go by the written sources, then there would be no Ripperology.

You write "You don't know, and none of us know, how long people took to do this this and that, or how long blood took to flow, and so on."

No, I donīt know that in detail. But I can present a viable schedule that cannot be far off the mark. That is a very easy thing to do, since there are many timings involved and much information.

The distance from the murder spot to Mizen is the exact same today as it was back then. It takes two minutes to walk, give or take a little. We know that the carmen examined the woman, we know that Paul said "no more than four minutes", we know that there was a number of elements involved in the examination and so on. We can be absolutely certain that it could not all be managed in four minutes. It must have taken more, and a reasonable suggestion points to around six minutes.

There is nothing at all strange involved in this, and no shifting sand. Mizen could have been in place in five minutes, but more likely, he took around six to get there.

Likewise, blood has flowed and congealed along the same patterns since the dawn of man. We can be certain, therefore, that a bloodflow of six minutes from the neck is a long period of blodflow, just as we can be certain that the congealing points to the blood having flown for more than three or four minutes.

These are estimations but they are perfectly sound estimations. There can be deviations, but there is no sign of any such deviation: after half an hour the blood was a congealed mass, and Nichols was an alcoholic, probably given to quick blod-clotting.

What this all means is that there could never be a case built on the material that would stand up in a court of law as enough on itīs own to convict. More would be needed.

However, as Jason Payne-James pointed out, it is abundantly clear that Lechmere at least can never be exonerated on grounds of the blood evidence. And it is equally clear that a fair weighing of the evidence, working from a presumption that the blood behaved normally, seems to opint to how there can only be a small window of time for another killer to operate in.

But who IS that other killer? One of the many men who fled the scene when Robert Paul arrive? Noone did. One of the persons who produced loud footfalls in the distance? Nobody did. There is not a living soul recorded, there were PC:s and watchmen a plenty around. The contemporary police marvelled at how the killer could have escaped and the legend of a phantom killer was born. It was considered that the killer seemingly did the impossible.

Once again: There are many anomalies attaching to Lechmere. He gave the wrong name, he was claimed by a PC to have told him that another PC waited in Bucks Row, he said he walked 30-40 yards ahead of Paul who never heard him, he was found alone with Nichols and with no alibi, he should have been halfways down Hanbury Street at 3.46 if he left home at 3.30.

Why would he NOT be the prime suspect? What in the whole world swears against it? Who acted more suspicously on the night? Which are the contenders? Why must Lechmere be innocent? What should we do with him - drop him?

You think that it is impossible to find something today that points to a specific person being the killer, you say that it is too far away in time. Iīm sorry, but that is just plain ignorant.
If it was true, there would equally be no Ripperology. There would be no reason to research the case.

How long a time should be conclusive in this respect? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty?

What is it that happens at these removes in time? Why does the door shut - BANG?

I have pointed to things - the Mizen scam, the blood evidence - that HAVE been there for all those years. Yet nobody has pointed to them before. Are you saying that they have been thoroughly examined and logically taken of the list of possible evidence?

You ar wrong on all counts, Jonathan. From the idea that I would avoid answering you to the point that a case can get so old that it is impossible to solve.
The age of the case has absolutely nothing at all to do with that. Not a iot.

You see, only the evidence counts. And evidence is overlooked all the time.

But not this time.

[Jonathan H]

I wrote a post directly to you, some time back, and you did not respond, which is your right not to respond. I'm not a cop and you are not under interrogation.

But it seems you simply missed it and, if so, I apologize.

Now, here are two things you get fundamentally wrong about the evidence, which gives me no pleasure to point out (and also about my argument) as you have put a lot of time and effort into all this.

1. When you write that we know this, and we know that, we don't
know any such thing to the degree of exactitude that you claim, or need to know and then claim, in order to build a case for incriminating dodginess.

The documents you treat as gospel to make these measurements could be wrong.

2. I am not saying that the case ipso facto cannot be [provisionally] solved at this distance, e.g. because of the distance.

I am saying that second-guessing the people who were there is extremely difficult without really strong evidence that they missed and that they can be shown to have missed said evidence.

This might be documentation, for sure, showing criminal and/or violent behavior by this man under a separate identity (you have none whatsoever) or forensic evidence involving blood (but you don't have any blood or bodies).

Thirdly, and I am not bringing up my theory here as it is irrelevant.

But you make an assertion about my opinion that I have to correct.

I am not arguing that some of the 'Jack the Ripper' murders cannot be solved -- except, and its a big except, absolutely (we do not know that Lizzie Borden, who was acquitted, is absolutely guilty either but we can live with the contingent nature of knowing she axed her father and step-mother).

No, it cannot be solved absolutely and I realize you agree with me about that.

But I am arguing it was not a mystery after 1891. I am not putting this forward as evidence that the Lechmere theory is wrong. Not at all. I am trying to say that I think it was solved at the time, albeit a posthumous solution.

It was rebooted as a 'mystery' after the Great War.

PS

The term 'Ripperology' is made-up and is simply a tabloid, pop term. It has no academic weight, and nor should it. In the real world people use it to denigrate people like you and I who write books on this subject. It is the equivalent of the 70's term for believing in UFO cattle mutilations, e.g. Mutologists. If you want to use it, well, that's your funeral but if you use the even more appalling and grating term 'suspectology' then I really will have to call the police ...

[pinkmoon]

I think I can end this interesting thread by pointing out the "bleeding obvious "as basil fawlty would say.Who ever was doing this wasn't going to wake up the next day after slaughtering poor Mary Kelly no longer a deranged physco we are asked to believe that Mr cross did and lived to good old age .Something happened to our killer that physically stopped him from killing this fact as well as the fact that our killer knew how to kill quickly and effeciently is always forgotten about.

[Fisherman]

Jonathan H: I wrote a post directly to you, some time back, and you did not respond, which is your right not to respond. I'm not a cop and you are not under interrogation.

But it seems you simply missed it and, if so, I apologize.

Thatīs fine, Jonathan - it seems I may be the one owing you an apology! I just cannot remember that post, so you are welcome to ask again whatever it was you asked.

Now, here are two things you get fundamentally wrong about the evidence, which gives me no pleasure to point out (and also about my argument) as you have put a lot of time and effort into all this.

1. When you write that we know this, and we know that, we don't
know any such thing to the degree of exactitude that you claim, or need to know and then claim, in order to build a case for incriminating dodginess.

The documents you treat as gospel to make these measurements could be wrong.

There are so many things that can be wrong, Jonathan. There is no denying that. But once again, when Mizen says the blood was congealed, he could be wrong or right - but the better guess is that he is right. When Paul says that it took no more than four minutes between his finding of Lechmere and reachin Mizen, he could be wrong or right - but the better guess is that he was correct. And so on. What we have is what he have, and that is what we go by. We donīt treat it as gospel, but we DO accept it as more credible than incredible.
Then there are other matters where we cannot drag the papers in. A distance is a distance, bloodflow is bloodflow etcetera.

2. I am not saying that the case ipso facto cannot be [provisionally] solved at this distance, e.g. because of the distance.

Good on you, Jonathan.

I am saying that second-guessing the people who were there is extremely difficult without really strong evidence that they missed and that they can be shown to have missed said evidence.

One of the elements that is added on account of the distance in time is that a police force back then would have ben faultily or inadequately informed about matters that we today have go right. These were men who to a smaller or lesser degree accepted that a thick neck was a sign of atavism, Jonathan. They had advantages comparing to us, but they also had disadvantages. To try and establish to what degree they were a competent force, compating to the forces of today, is a very hard thing to do. There is therefore a lot of room to alow for speculation that they may have missed out on many things because they acted along guidelines that were not always sound.

This might be documentation, for sure, showing criminal and/or violent behavior by this man under a separate identity (you have none whatsoever) or forensic evidence involving blood (but you don't have any blood or bodies).

To be frank, I DO have two separate identtites - Cross and Lechmere. I also know that many of todays serialists are caught with no earlier convictions at all. As for forensic evidence and blood, I have already pointed to the bloodflow and the coagulation, where Lechmere as the killer fits the picture and can never be discarded.

Thirdly, and I am not bringing up my theory here as it is irrelevant.

But you make an assertion about my opinion that I have to correct.

I am not arguing that some of the 'Jack the Ripper' murders cannot be solved -- except, and its a big except, absolutely (we do not know that Lizzie Borden, who was acquitted, is absolutely guilty either but we can live with the contingent nature of knowing she axed her father and step-mother).

No, it cannot be solved absolutely and I realize you agree with me about that.

But I am arguing it was not a mystery after 1891. I am not putting this forward as evidence that the Lechmere theory is wrong. Not at all. I am trying to say that I think it was solved at the time, albeit a posthumous solution.

It was rebooted as a 'mystery' after the Great War.

I am going to read your book when it arrives, Jonathan. I can only say that so far, I think the difference between your theory and mine is that mine is hand-on, practically simple, supported by evidence and in line with serial killing as we know it today, whereas I find your theory the exact opposite.

PS

The term 'Ripperology' is made-up and is simply a tabloid, pop term. It has no academic weight, and nor should it. In the real world people use it to denigrate people like you and I who write books on this subject. It is the equivalent of the 70's term for believing in UFO cattle mutilations, e.g. Mutologists. If you want to use it, well, that's your funeral but if you use the even more appalling and grating term 'suspectology' then I really will have to call the police ...[/QUOTE]

I think the term Ripperology is quite convenient. That does not mean that I regard it as an academic discipline. I am an academic myself and I am married to a PhD who spent many years working at Lund University. I have helped people write academic papers.
Believe me, I can tell the difference.

[Fisherman]

I think I can end this interesting thread by pointing out the "bleeding obvious "as basil fawlty would say.Who ever was doing this wasn't going to wake up the next day after slaughtering poor Mary Kelly no longer a deranged physco we are asked to believe that Mr cross did and lived to good old age .Something happened to our killer that physically stopped him from killing this fact as well as the fact that our killer knew how to kill quickly and effeciently is always forgotten about.

Have you seen what Danny Rolling, Arthur Shawcross and Ted Bundy did to their victims?

Did THEY have traits that we could read on the outsides of them, giving away that they were deranged psychos?

There goes that argument.

Do we know that Lechmere stopped killing?

There goes THAT argument.

Could Lechmere have been able to kill quickly and efficiently? Are we sure that all the victims WERE killed quickly? Was not Tabram stabbed 38 times while alive? Is it not true that Nichos may have had her stomach cut while alive?

There goes that argument.

Itīs all good and well that we have fixed ideas, Pink. But we need to be able to bolster them also.

[Fisherman]

Jonathan, could I ask one thing of you?

Could you go through the evidence and try and establish, to the best of your knowledge, how long you think it took from the moment when Paul arrived at the body to the moment when Mizen arrived at Browns, after having been informed by Lechmere about the woman lying there?

I would be very interested to see what you arrive at, if you feel up to it!

[Jonathan H]

You can ask, of course, ask anything you like but you surely know my answer is going to be not how long does this, or that take, or who met who, and when, but rather what is the source we are relying on to inform us about the past, about a particular past event.

Is the source reliable to a point of exactitude where the difference of a few minutes supposedly puts somebody in the frame -- somebody who was not in the frame in any extant source from the period being studied?

PS

Ironically, I do not agree with the "awful glut" litmus test -- that the murderer of Mary Jane Kelly could not go on -- a test set up by Macnaghten for reasons of bureaucratic scrambling in 1894.

Twenty years later his memoir abandoned this dodge and conceded that his "belief", rightly or wrongly, was based on information received "some years after" the Kelly atrocity, e.g. "certain facts" which led to a "conclusion".

Part of abandoning the dodge was to have the killer kill himself the next day, or evening, or next night of the Kelly murder, ruining the dodge because it meant the Ripper could function to get away from the crime scene.

I do not propose the above as 'proof' that the Lechmere theory is wrong. Just that Macnaghten did not believe in Druitt's guilt because the drowned barrister fit a preconceived notion, e.g. the false notion of his own report(s) of a madman who could not go on even "a single day" (Sims, 1907).

[Fisherman]

Jonathan H: You can ask, of course, ask anything you like but you surely know my answer is going to be not how long does this, or that take, or who met who, and when, but rather what is the source we are relying on to inform us about the past, about a particular past event.

Is the source reliable to a point of exactitude where the difference of a few minutes supposedly puts somebody in the frame -- somebody who was not in the frame in any extant source from the period being studied?

Forensically, there can be no doubt that Lechmere has always been in the frame as far as the timings and the bloodflow goes, Jonathan. Look at it from two extremes, if you will:

A/ The examination of the body, the trek down to Hanbury Street/Bakers Row, Mizens return trek to Browns Stable Yard - letīs assume that this magically was performed in a manner that took no time at all. If so, then Mizen arrives at the stable yard door around a minute or two before Lechmere leaves it. The blood is at that stage flowing from the wounds to the neck, telling us that Lechmere is in the frame.

B/ All of these matters take a lot longer than we have formerly thought, and Mizen only arrives down at Browns stable yard seconds before Llewellyn comes there. At this stage, the blood is still flowing and it is in a process of coagualating, which means that the coagulation only started to show some 25-28 minutes after the cuts to the neck. Or that it started shwoing after the ordinary three to four minutes, but for some reason did not turn into the finished coagulation stadium until seconds before turning into a congealed mass. Nevertheless, Lechmere stays in the frame, on account of alone having found the woman on the ground, a woman who was subsequently found to have been murdered.

Both of these scenarios are of course La-La-land inventions. The more important thing to notice is that we cannot discuss any take from the contemporary policeīs side that would exonerate Lechmere, as far as the blood evidence goes.

I would nevertheless call upon you to make an estimation of your own: Read all the material, and then give me an estimation of the time span withing which you would say it is reasonable that Mizen arrived at Browns stable yard. It would be very intersting and - I foreshadow - quite, quite revealing. Once you have done it, we will together reason about what the evidence implicates. I promise that it will be a rewarding journey!

[Jonathan H]

I can't make this clear.

It does not matter what I think, only the historical result.

Which is no suspicion of this man -- in the extant record -- by anybody at the time.

I would need very strong evidence to second guess that opinion, e.g. Lechmere having a dual identity that we know, but they did not know -- and an explanation as to why they did not know -- which could be criminal and/or violent, or both.

[Fisherman]

I can't make this clear.

It does not matter what I think, only the historical result.

Which is no suspicion of this man -- in the extant record -- by anybody at the time.

I would need very strong evidence to second guess that opinion, e.g. Lechmere having a dual identity that we know, but they did not know -- and an explanation as to why they did not know -- which could be criminal and/or violent, or both.

Thatīs convenient.

But never mind. Letīs look at a few unbendable facts:

From the spot where Nichols lay to the spot where the carmen found Mizen, it is a stretch of around 250 meters.

Average walking speed varies. In a survey of some 7000 people walking over streets at green light, it was extablished that the fastest walkwers were young men. They averaged 1,5 meter per second.

If you walk 1,5 meters per second, then you need 167 seconds to cover 250 meters. That is two and a half minutes and some more.

This will not change. It was no different in 1888.

A fit novice jogger will cover a kilometer in around 5 min 40 seconds, or 340 seconds. That means that 25 meters will take 85 seconds, five seconds short of one and a half minute.

Mizen walked, as far as we know, and so did the carmen. The carmen were both late, so they could have improved a bit on the 167 seconds, but they would not reach 85 seconds. A viable suggestion is perhaps that they shaved thirty seconds off the 167 second suggestion, landing at 137 seconds, 17 seconds over two minutes.

We KNOW that both stretches had to be covered, one by the carmen and the stretch back by Mizen. It lands us on 274 seconds if we are optimistic. That means that the treks took four minutes and thirtyfour seconds to cover. Add to this the examination time and the time it took to inform Mizen, and we can not possibly be speaking of five minutes only. Six minutes or slightly more is the only sensible suggestion.

And when Mizen arrived, the blood was STILL flowing from the neck, plus it was somewhat congealed. Jason Payne-James, who is just about the best forensic expert you can find, says that the expected bleeding time would be more expected to be three or possibly five minutes, but not very likely seven or more.

The things that point to Lechmere are not wobbly guesswork - they are facts to a very large degree.

Do the exercise yourself, Jonathan, if you dare! Or stay away from it if it feels uncomfortable. But rest assured that we ARE looking at a time of four minutes plus for the treks only, and that means that we DO have Lechmere in the eye of the storm. Like it or not, but donīt try to claim that I have nothing to go on.

[pinkmoon]

Have you seen what Danny Rolling, Arthur Shawcross and Ted Bundy did to their victims?

Did THEY have traits that we could read on the outsides of them, giving away that they were deranged psychos?

There goes that argument.

Do we know that Lechmere stopped killing?

There goes THAT argument.

Could Lechmere have been able to kill quickly and efficiently? Are we sure that all the victims WERE killed quickly? Was not Tabram stabbed 38 times while alive? Is it not true that Nichos may have had her stomach cut while alive?

There goes that argument.

Itīs all good and well that we have fixed ideas, Pink. But we need to be able to bolster them also.

I think you have convinced yourself that cross/lechmere was jack the ripper when there is no real evidence to support that theory.It's just a shame that been so blinkered means you cannot look at other theories concerning this fascinating case .

[Jonathan H]

You write as if these are unimpeachable facts; ones that rely on split-second timing and observations in the dark about unusual things (a person brutally murdered) that are, according to you, laser-beam accurate.

They aren't. How could they be? It's silly.

Instead we have to rely on the way people of the time acted and reacted to the people and events of the time.

What does that tell us?

That nobody was suspicious about Lechmere, not in the extant record.

And we can see why they would not be.

Nothing you have produced proves they should have been.

Sorry, but our positions are unbridgeable. We will have to agree to disagree.

As for Mutologists and Ufologists and ... Ripperologists?

I am not sure you can 'tell the difference', because your field is not history.

Only historical methodology, not modern forensic science, not police profiling, not lawyers, can provide us with a provisional solution, e.g. it could be wrong, and/or allow for strongly argued yet competing theories to co-exist.

And just to be clear, I'm not an historian either.

Because you do not accept the above, yours is not an academic solution, but it does make for a for a sexy doco.

[Fisherman]

I think you have convinced yourself that cross/lechmere was jack the ripper when there is no real evidence to support that theory.It's just a shame that been so blinkered means you cannot look at other theories concerning this fascinating case .

And once again it happens! When will people read and understand what I say?

I have not convinced myself that Lechmere was the Ripper. The evidence has. If there was no evidence, there would be no case. The reason a QC and a retired murder squad detective with a clearing rate of 97 per cent say that there is a prima faciae case and that Lechmere must be cleared before anybody else can be looked into, is that the evidence suggests this.

How in the whole world can you say that I cannot look at other theories??? I have looked at other theories for thirty years! I have read up on Bury, on Kelly, on Mann, on Levy and on van Gogh. I have spent weeks and months in the company of Kosminsy and Druitt. I have bought books and watched documentaries.

The problem you have and the question you need to ask is why I donīt like the other theories as much as I like the Lechmere theory, and the answer is simple: because they are not half as good.

But donīt tell me I donīt know these theories, and havenīt looked into them. That is just plain daft.