The Lechmere trail - so far

[harry]

Fisherman,
You say what was misleading is that the police thought they were dealing with a man named Cross,when they were instead dealing with a man named Lechmere.
Whom they KNEW they were dealing with, was a witness who confessed to finding a body,and who,had they checked,would be found to be telling the truth,both as to home address and workplace.No misleading there ,wouldn't you think.
Yes I conducted the experiment in darkness.T welve cutting movements with a knife,none needing excessive force or expert placement.So what does it prove?Only that it could take little time.Important? Yes if one need an explanationas to why it would take less tha seven minutes from the first stroke of the killer until the time Mizen arrived at the body.

[Barnaby]

He would have run.

Perhaps. I suppose most would unless they were taken almost by surprise and couldn't flee. Maybe the question is how does he benefit by staying?

[Fisherman]

I dont need to defend myself. You have been give the opportunity to go back to these experts and put to them the full facts as they are now known. Facts that may or may not have been available to them at the time.

I did not specifically say he had been misled and I have not called anyone a fraud. Scobie can only give and opinion based on what was actually and physically provided to him what that was I do not know. Do you know what Blink films provided him with and provided your other experts with?

Have you seen the full un edited versions of their interviews I suspect you have not.

As to the conversation I had with Scobie as it was an off the cuff phone conversation when he rang me at a time when I was not able to write things down. I can only say that I did put certain specifics to him with regards to his participation and with regards to his one minute of air time, which from your perspective is crucial to your theory. material which he said he had not been provided with.

Now referring to your experience murder squad detective who you hold in high esteem. Isn't it correct that based on what he was provided with he only went as far as to say that based on that Lechmere was only "A PERSON OF INTEREST"

Thats a long way from saying he is a prime suspect and a long way, and in direct conflict with what Scobie says.

Flaws Flaws and even more Flaws !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So there we are - Trevor cannot present one single thing to bolster his claims that vital information was withheld from James Scobie. He has nothing at all on record, and he now says that he has not claimed that Scobie was misled.

Trevor for some reson claims that it would somehow be MY duty to check what exact material Scobie was provided with, and he urges ME to go back to Scobie. He also asks whether I have seen all the unedited material Blink Films shot with the QC!

Why not ask if I have seen all the material shot for the documentary as a whole? It will be many weeks watching, but who knows - maybe somewhere there is hidden something that will be very negative to Lechmere as a suspect?

We may now conclude that what I foreshadowed has been proven totally correct. Thus, the one accusing turns into the accused: Trevor Marriott has presented serious allegations and he has not been able to substantiate them in any way.

It is shameful, ignorant, malicious and unfit for any sound discussion.

I will not even go into the rot about Andy Griffiths and how he would supposedly be in conflict with Scobie. Anybody who has seen the documentary will know how that rhymes with the truth.

I will until futher notice not debate any further with Trevor, since I do not think he deserves any attention at all. Ignorance can be touching in a sense, and people who get things wrong can contribute the odd good laugh.

This, however, is something quite different.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
You say what was misleading is that the police thought they were dealing with a man named Cross,when they were instead dealing with a man named Lechmere.
Whom they KNEW they were dealing with, was a witness who confessed to finding a body,and who,had they checked,would be found to be telling the truth,both as to home address and workplace.No misleading there ,wouldn't you think.

But he would also be found to have given the wrong name, Harry. And that IS misleading.

Yes I conducted the experiment in darkness.T welve cutting movements with a knife,none needing excessive force or expert placement.So what does it prove?Only that it could take little time.Important? Yes if one need an explanationas to why it would take less tha seven minutes from the first stroke of the killer until the time Mizen arrived at the body.

What matters, Harry, is not how long it took for the killer to subdue and kill Nichols. The only thing that matters is at what stage her neck was cut. We know that it was still bleeding when Mizen saw her. We know that even if we imagine very quick walking treks on behalf of the carmen and Mizen, we are still faced with a total trekking time of four minutes plus. We know that Paul said that it took no more than four minutes from the time he found Lechmere until the time the carmen found Mizen. Tham implies two more minutes for the examination, taking it to six minutes plus. Then we need to add time for the conversation Mizen/Lechmere, closing in on seven minutes in total.

That is a perfectly sound estimation. Maybe it was only six, if everything went quickly and if Paul was mistaken about the four minutes.

Whichever way, we are left with little time to cram that alternative killer in, allowing for him to escape unheard as Lechmere arrived. That is not to say that it could not be done - maybe it could. We must allow for the possibility.

But why is there such a need? Why is it, Harry, that we MUST have another killer, when there is already a man who semingly fits the bill perfectly? A man of whom James Scobie said that he acted suspiciously? A man who seemingly lied to Mizen, and to boot it was a ie that was perfectly shaped to take him past the police? A man who withheld his real name?

He has been under suspicion since the turn of the century, by Connor, by Osborne and by Edward and myself, and now we can see that he seemingly fits the blood evidence perfectly, whereas another killer must be a bit of a stretch - at least.

How can there be any other conclusion than this: Charles Lechmere was probably the killer of Polly Nichols, although it cannot be conclusively proven that he did the deed.

You seem to be of the opposite meaning: Charles Lechmere will in all probability not have been the killer of Polly Nichols. The things that point to him should all be discarded, and we should accept that the probability of another killer is much larger.

Is that how you see it, Harry? If so, on what grounds?

Motivate to me: Precisely WHY would there have been another killer?

[Fisherman]

Perhaps. I suppose most would unless they were taken almost by surprise and couldn't flee. Maybe the question is how does he benefit by staying?

A/ He would not cause any stir.

B/ He would be provided with another man to walk with, and the police would be looking for a lone killer.

C/ If he was a psychopath, he would get an added thrill.

It has been discussed numerous times, as you will know.

[drstrange169]

Hello all,

Just catching up with this thread.There's a lot to comment on so I'll post five of Fish's points at a time.



"Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body ..."

Xmere had a legitimate reason for being in Bucks Row around that time.
He would have been there around that time constantly prior to the murder.
He would have been there around that time constantly post the murder.
It was his regular route to work.
It was his regular time to go to work.

Whether he was the killer or not, he was always going to be there, no "happens" about it.


"Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases ..."

Robert Paul claimed to have pulled down Mrs. Nichols dress, whereas no other witness to any of the other murders claimed to have done that.
Exactly how high the dress was when Paul pulled at, it is subject to debate. To say the wounds were deliberately covered is opinion only, not an ascertained fact.



"... If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion."

Despite being alone with a body with visible wounds, Alfred Crow and John Reeves were not suspected of Mrs. Tabram's murder.
Ditto Richardson and Davis with Mrs.Chapman's murder.
Ditto Deimshitz with Elizabeth Stride.
Ditto Bowyer and McCathy with Mary Kelly.



"Number 3: ... neither man professes to have seen or heard the other."

Factually in correct, Xmere specifically stated,
"I heard a man come up behind me."

Without the aid of technical equipment, it is impossible for the average human to accurately estimate the distance of sound.

The "thirty or forty yards is a guess only, NOT a statement of fact.

Until he stopped, Xmere, like all of us on our way to work, would have had no reason to be listening for someone in the distance behind him.



"And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buck´s Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away! "

Point 1: PC Neil was specifically looking and listening for help.
Point 2: PC Neil knew Thain would be patrolling along that beat at about that time.
Point 3: Victorian policeman's footfalls were loud and distinctive, due to their wooden soles and measured beat.

There is no real comparison between Xmere's situation and Neil's.



"Was it a coincidence that Paul did not hear Lechmere?"

Paul makes no reference to "not hearing" Xmere. That is speculation not a known fact.

Paul was actually quoted as,
"He had not MET any one before he reached Bucks-Row, and did not see any one running away."

Look up the definition of "met" to understand what Paul was talking about. Robert Paul left his house to go to work, not to search for a murderer. Like all of us, he had no reason to pay attention to anyone or anything that was not out of the ordinary.


"Note how a remark from Paul that he saw and heard Lechmere in front of him, ”There was this man walking right in front of me who suddenly halted outside Browns...”, would have meant that there could be no viable case for Lechmere as the killer."

Note how Paul did not say, "Xmere couldn't have been walking in front of me or I would have seen him."

Both are speculation not fact.


"Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street crossing at the more or less exact moment Paul exited his lodgings, thirty, forty yards down on Foster Street. There were large lamps outside the brewery situated in the crossing."

These would be the same lights that, according to the Evening News,
“It has been stated that the street (Bucks Row) is a dark one, but this is altogether wrong, for it is well lighted at all hours of the night by the great lamps outside the brewery of Messrs. Mann and Crossman, in addition to the ordinary street lamps, and it seems inconceivable that such a well-lighted street would be selected for the crime.”

Saying some thing is fact because it was reported in the newspaper is not the same as proving something actually was fact.



"... why did not Paul at least hear Lechmere, perhaps only thirty yards away?

A continual myth perpetuated by Lechmerites is the fabrication that Paul said he didn’t see or hear Xmere. In fact he did no such thing. (See previous answer)

Paul may or may not have been aware that Xmere was in front of him, we simply don’t know. To suggest otherwise is only guesswork.

The other fallacy with this distortion is that someone going to work is actively looking out for and paying close attention to other people. We all go to work and we all know to alleviate the tedium we do it immersed in our own thoughts. In the real world Paul could have easily heard and seen Xmere ahead and simply not registered the fact until Xmere stopped. The phenomenon of blanking out of peripheral vision, is a widely recognized brain function.



"Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. "


This is not a fact, it is an opinion. Exactly when and in what state the blood was in when Mizen arrived at the body is unclear and highly debatable. It can certainly be suggested as a theory but cannot state it as fact.

ALL the newspaper reports bar one give Mizen's observations as coming AFTER he returned with the ambulance.
The one exception was The Echo,
"Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance, The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then" - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

The Echo was the only newspaper to confuse the time sequence, so it is worth seeing if their reporter was paying close attention to Mizen's testimony.
"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row..."

They reported Mizen meeting Xmere and Paul over half an hour after the actual time (3:45).

The other problem with this evidence,is the sentence,
"There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter"

Dr Llewellyn specially noted that when he arrived the blood was solely concentrated in a small pool around the neck. No mention of any blood running to the gutter. That pinpoints Mizen's observation as coming after the ambulance arrival.

[drstrange169]

Part two

"Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” according to Mizen. Normally, blood congeals fully around minute seven whereas the congealing starts to show after three or four minutes."

Given the fact all the newspapers bar one places this event after Mizen fetched the ambulance and the one newspaper that gave a confused version also contained errors in Mizen's tetimony, speculation is pointless.


"Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.

There was no "suddenly" Xmere was consistent. He was reluctant to go near the body until someone arrived and he was reluctant to touch it. That is not an uncommon reaction. In fact, several people at the Berner Street club had exactly the same reaction.

It is also worth noting that we only know about Xmere's reluctance to move the body, because of his own testimony. Paul never mentioned it. It does not seem the type of insight a guilty man would offer.



"Number 8: Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses."

Point 1: there is no way of proving this statement as true.
Point 2. Xmere was brought into the inquest during Mizen's testimony, for identification purposes. How do we know that the police didn't ask him to wear his apron?
Point 3: What is guilty or suspicious about him wearing an apron?


"Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case."

Point 1: We do not know that he avoided giving his address.
Point 2: Why should we assume that his friends and family would not recognize the name "Cross" given his close connection to the name?



"Lechmere´s mother was at the time of the double event living in 1 Mary Anne Street, a stone´s throw away from Berner Street and directly to the south of the murder spot, meaning that if he had visited his mother, he would have to head north past the murder spot to get home."

Factually incorrect. Doveton Street was north east of Mary Ann Street. Existing via Stutfield Street, Xmere would have had to go in the opposite direction, west, to get to Berner Street and then completely out of his way to get to Mitre Sq.


"It can be argued that his mother was a dominant force in his life – she managed to bring her two children up singlehandedly until Lechmere was around ten year old (her husband, Charles´ father, had left the family), and then she married a ten year younger man. After his premature death, she remarried again,with a ten year older man. Both these marriages were bigamous. She also changed occupations on different occasions, all pointing to a strong and resourceful character."

Since the Victorian alternative was death “it can be argued” that she just did what all women did in her situation at the time.



"It can be reasoned that the move to Doveton Street released dammed urges within Lechmere."

Doveton Street was a better area than where he had been living. The move “can be reasoned” as Xmere improving his, and his family’s, life. Rather than a disturbing factor in his life, it was almost certainly an improving factor.



"Charles Lechmere´s family came to be involved in the horse flesh business ... Lechmere would have had a proximity to the butchery business for many a year. And we know that handling dead carcasses can desensitise people."

According to every account of the Cats Meat business I’ve read, the meat is cut and cooked (well boiled actually) before it is sold to the Cat Meat sellers. Xmere and his family should have been no more desensitized than my wife is when she buys steaks for the BBQ from our local butcher.


"During the time Lechmere had a stand in Broadway Market, two dead women were found floating in Regents canal, passing through the market. Neither death was fully explained and the causes of death were not established."

Regents Canal seems to have been a popular place for murder with or without Xmere’s presence over the years.
Which specific ones is this in reference to? Presumably not the two women's bodies found in Regents Canal when Xmere was 11 years old.



Number 19: Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm at the Nichols murder site.

If Xmere’s story was true, he did not know whether an alarm needed to be raised. The body could have been a sleeping homeless person or a trap to mug him, both possibilities were an everyday occurrence in the area.

The facts we have are that he alerted the first person he saw.



"He waited until Paul tried to pass him, and only then placed his hand on his fellow carmans shoulder, saying ”Come and look over here ...”
He did not call out to Paul as the latter approached..."

If I remember correctly, the police expert you used in your TV show told you he thought there was nothing usual about that kind of reaction.



"Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest."


Two people tell the same story, Xmere and Paul, one differs, Mizen. Logic goes with the corroborated version. Also given Xmere's alledged wording,
"Your wanted in Bucks-row"
it is entirely credible that Mizen, on finding Neil present at scene, merely misunderstood Xmere and Paul.

[drstrange169]

“Number 21: The things Lechmere say at the inquest mirrors the wordings Paul used in his newspaper report to a considerable extent, implying that having read the article was what made him come forward. Coincidence?”

If they were telling a true story, it would be expected that large portions of Paul and Xmere’s stories would coincide surely?


“Number 22: Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in the newspaper article. Coincidence?”

Proof of this statement. i.e. specific time and date of Xmere’s contact with police?

Proof that Xmere was even aware of Paul’s interview in Lloyds?


“Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nichols´ neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?”

Since a couple of minutes would have passed by the time Paul had examined the head and chest area, the cuts could hardly be called “fresh”. Blood should have been flowing by that point.


“Number 24: In spite of Old Montague street being the shorter route, Lechmere took the Hanbury Street route…”

The difference between the two is so negligible it would take a scientific instrument to measure it. It is unlikely Xmere would have known the difference.


“Number 25: Serialists regularly lack a father figure growing up. That fits Lechmere´s life. Coincidence?”

Question: how many families were without a father figure in the East End of London during the Victorian period?
Appyling 21st century values on a 19th century psyche is not relevant in this case.


“Number 27: The quickest road from Berner Street to Mitre Square is Lechmere´s logical old working route from James Street to Broad Street. Coincidence?”

Question: what evidence is there that Xmere worked at Broad Street when he lived in James Street?
Question: If Xmere’s modus operandi was to murder on route why did he go in the opposite direction to Doveton Street to Murder Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Sq?
Question: IF he did work at Broad Street when he lived in James Street, why wasn’t Houndsditch a far more “logical “route to Broad Street Station for Xmere to take?



“Number 28: The Pinchin Street torso was discovered in a street where Lechmere has lived earlier with his family, and a very short route from 147 Cable Street where his mother, who became a cat´s meat woman, had her lodgings. The body had been dismembered with a sharp knife and a fine-toothed bone saw, tools that were used by cat´s meat people to cut up horses. Coincidence?”

Once again, where is the information that Cats Meat vendors cut up horses come from?

Ignoring for a moment the fact that the body was placed in the archway during Xmere’s work hours is it really being now suggested that his mother was a partner in the crimes?


“Number 29: The implications are that the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to the dumping site.”

During Xmere’s working hours?

[Trevor Marriott]

So there we are - Trevor cannot present one single thing to bolster his claims that vital information was withheld from James Scobie. He has nothing at all on record, and he now says that he has not claimed that Scobie was misled.

Trevor for some reson claims that it would somehow be MY duty to check what exact material Scobie was provided with, and he urges ME to go back to Scobie. He also asks whether I have seen all the unedited material Blink Films shot with the QC!

Why not ask if I have seen all the material shot for the documentary as a whole? It will be many weeks watching, but who knows - maybe somewhere there is hidden something that will be very negative to Lechmere as a suspect?

We may now conclude that what I foreshadowed has been proven totally correct. Thus, the one accusing turns into the accused: Trevor Marriott has presented serious allegations and he has not been able to substantiate them in any way.

It is shameful, ignorant, malicious and unfit for any sound discussion.

I will not even go into the rot about Andy Griffiths and how he would supposedly be in conflict with Scobie. Anybody who has seen the documentary will know how that rhymes with the truth.

I will until futher notice not debate any further with Trevor, since I do not think he deserves any attention at all. Ignorance can be touching in a sense, and people who get things wrong can contribute the odd good laugh.

This, however, is something quite different.

The truth hurts !!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the documentary Scobie suggests in his 30 second clip that there is a prima facie case to put before a jury, whereas Andy Griffiths refers to Lechmere as a person of interest. Now that by my interpretation suggest a conflict.There is no supposedly about it

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=drstrange169;352042]Hello all,

Just catching up with this thread.There's a lot to comment on so I'll post five of Fish's points at a time.



"Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body ..."

Xmere had a legitimate reason for being in Bucks Row around that time.

Yes.

He would have been there around that time constantly prior to the murder.

No. He started out at 3.30 and should have been halfways down Hanbury Street at 3.46.

He would have been there around that time constantly post the murder.

No. He normaly started out at 3.20, and so he should have passed the spot at 3.27.

It was his regular route to work.

Yes.

It was his regular time to go to work.

No.

"Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases ..."

Robert Paul claimed to have pulled down Mrs. Nichols dress, whereas no other witness to any of the other murders claimed to have done that.
Exactly how high the dress was when Paul pulled at, it is subject to debate. To say the wounds were deliberately covered is opinion only, not an ascertained fact.

It was either the fairies or the killer who pulled the heavy ulster over the wounds.

"... If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion."
[/B][/I]
Despite being alone with a body with visible wounds, Alfred Crow and John Reeves were not suspected of Mrs. Tabram's murder.
Ditto Richardson and Davis with Mrs.Chapman's murder.
Ditto Deimshitz with Elizabeth Stride.
Ditto Bowyer and McCathy with Mary Kelly.[I][B]

Out of these men, one only nearly matched the estimated TOD: Diemschitz. Maybe that had something to do with it? Could it be that Bowyer was not made the prime suspect since Kelly was stone cold when he found her?

Diemschitz´s horse and cart was still outside the door of the clubhouse as the steward called out to the clubbers. He was heard by Mortimer, so either he went right in the yard, left the horse and cart stnding, killed Stride and then called the clubbers attention to it - or he was not the killer.

Plus the TOD is not spot on anyway. Diemschitz found Stride at 1.00 and Backwell, who arrived 1.16 said that she had been ded for between 20 and 30 minutes, leaving Diemschitz in the clear.

Can you see now how useless your argument is?

"Number 3: ... neither man professes to have seen or heard the other."

Factually in correct, Xmere specifically stated,
"I heard a man come up behind me."

Without the aid of technical equipment, it is impossible for the average human to accurately estimate the distance of sound.

The "thirty or forty yards is a guess only, NOT a statement of fact.

Yes, it COULD have been twenty.

Until he stopped, Xmere, like all of us on our way to work, would have had no reason to be listening for someone in the distance behind him.

We do not have to have a reason to actively listen for something to hear it. And there would have been two sounds only in the silent night, inside the accoustic tunnel of Bucks Row - Lechmere´s and Pauls respective footfalls.

"And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buck´s Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away! "

Point 1: PC Neil was specifically looking and listening for help.*
Point 2: PC Neil knew Thain would be patrolling along that beat at about that time.
Point 3: Victorian policeman's footfalls were loud and distinctive, due to their wooden soles and measured beat.

There is no real comparison between Xmere's situation and Neil's.

All shoes were loud, as a rule. They should have heard each other.

"Was it a coincidence that Paul did not hear Lechmere?"

Paul makes no reference to "not hearing" Xmere. That is speculation not a known fact.*

Paul was actually quoted as,
"He had not MET any one before he reached Bucks-Row, and did not see any one running away."

Which makes it reasonable to suppose that he would exclude speaking about having*heard*anybody? Yeah, right.

"Note how a remark from Paul that he saw and heard Lechmere in front of him, ”There was this man walking right in front of me who suddenly halted outside Browns...”, would have meant that there could be no viable case for Lechmere as the killer."

Note how Paul did not say, "Xmere couldn't have been walking in front of me or I would have seen him."

Both are speculation not fact.

It IS a fact that Paul could have cleared Lechmere, but he did not.


"Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street crossing at the more or less exact moment Paul exited his lodgings, thirty, forty yards down on Foster Street. There were large lamps outside the brewery situated in the crossing."*

These would be the same lights that, according to the Evening News,
“It has been stated that the street (Bucks Row) is a dark one, but this is altogether wrong, for it is well lighted at all hours of the night by the great lamps outside the brewery of Messrs. Mann and Crossman, in addition to the ordinary street lamps, and it seems inconceivable that such a well-lighted street would be selected for the crime.”

Saying some thing is fact because it was reported in the newspaper is not the same as proving something actually was fact.


There were large lamps outside the brewery in Bath Street. If Lechmere passed under them when Paul walked down Foster Street, the latter would have been able to see Lechmere. End of.

"... why did not Paul at least hear Lechmere, perhaps only thirty yards away?*

A continual myth perpetuated by Lechmerites is the fabrication that Paul said he didn’t see or hear Xmere. In fact he did no such thing. (See previous answer)

Paul gave a stement that nade it clear that he noticed Lechmere when he came upon him.

Wow! A-ma-zing!

Paul may or may not have been aware that Xmere was in front of him, we simply don’t know.*To suggest otherwise is only guesswork.*

The other fallacy with this distortion is that someone going to work is actively looking out for and paying close attention to other people. We all go to work and we all know to alleviate the tedium we do it immersed in our own thoughts.*In the real world Paul could have easily heard and seen Xmere ahead and simply not registered the fact until Xmere stopped. The phenomenon of blanking out of peripheral vision, is a widely recognized brain function.

I am more interested in the brain functions that are seemingly lost in this discussion.

"Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. "

This is not a fact, it is an opinion. Exactly when and in what state the blood was in when Mizen arrived at the body is unclear and highly debatable. It can certainly be suggested as a theory but cannot state it as fact.

Actually, it IS a fact that the lenght of the trek enables us to establish what time it would take to walk. It is likewise a fact that Mizen said that blood was flowing from the neck and that it was somewhat congealed in the pool.


ALL the newspaper reports bar one give Mizen's observations as coming AFTER he returned with the ambulance.
The one exception was The Echo,*
"Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance, The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then" - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter."

The Echo was the only newspaper to confuse the time sequence, so it is worth seeing if their reporter was paying close attention to Mizen's testimony.
"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row..."

They reported Mizen meeting Xmere and Paul over half an hour after the actual time (3:45).

The other problem with this evidence,is the sentence,
"There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter"

There was only one time when the blood could have been flowing and somewhat congealed. It was NOT thirty minutes or more after the murder.

Dr Llewellyn specially noted that when he arrived the blood was solely concentrated in a small pool around the neck. No mention of any blood running to the gutter.*That pinpoints Mizen's observation as coming after the ambulance arrival.

Aha. So the blood did not run into the gutter until AFTER Llewellyn arrived? And he arrived at 4.10, justaboutish, 25 minutes or so after Nichols was cut. And at that stage, the blood had not run over the brim yet. Then, as Mizen arrived with the ambulance, it flowed over? And Llewellyn was still around, but made no mentioning of it?

And what was it Mizen said? "He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."

So the blood was not dried up - it was running. Wet. Flowing. Meaning that he saw it as he came to the spot at around six minutes after lechmere had left the body. And, of course, this is led in evidence further by how Mizen says that the blood was somewhat congealed. Not ALL congealed and dried.

Just as I expected, the quality of your post does not encourage me to have any further exchange with you. Asking why people who were ruled out by the respective TOD:s were not suspected says it all. That is what happens when sense is shoved aside in favour of a burning desire to deny.

Here´s a few questions for you, before we put an end to our exchange (for the simple reason that nothing new is presented and all answers have been provided numerous times):

Exactly and precisely why would it be as credible or more credible wit another killer than Lechmere, who had 31 points listed against him at the outset of this thread? And that´s because I left a few other points out.

Why would a man who gave the wrong name, who seemingly lied to the police, who is caught in the midst of the blood evidence, who according to the police played down the seriousness of the errand in Bakers Row but changed his mind at the inquest etcetera etcetera stand aside for a killer nobody ever heard or saw?

Why could it not have been Lechmere? How could he NOT be the prime suspect in the Nichols case, especially seeing as there is no contendor?

[GUT]

"And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buck´s Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away! "

Point 1: PC Neil was specifically looking and listening for help.
Point 2: PC Neil knew Thain would be patrolling along that beat at about that time.
Point 3: Victorian policeman's footfalls were loud and distinctive, due to their wooden soles and measured beat.

There is no real comparison between Xmere's situation and Neil's.

And of course our murderer wouldn't be listening for footfalls would he?

[Fisherman]

Duplicate

[Trevor Marriott]

Why could it not have been Lechmere? How could he NOT be the prime suspect in the Nichols case, especially seeing as there is no contendor?[/B]

But there are no contenders for any of the other murders despite the bodies being found by different people. In the light of what is now known there is nothing to suggest Lechmere was the killer of Nichols except for you and the other half of "Super Sleuths Inc" Inspector Gadget

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I will waste a little time to check if there is anything at all you have to say that has not been said before, Dust. If there is, I will comment on it.

So don´t expect to hear from me.

[Sally]

Doveton Street was a better area than where he had been living. The move “can be reasoned” as Xmere improving his, and his family’s, life. Rather than a disturbing factor in his life, it was almost certainly an improving factor.

...As he appears to have sought to improve his, and his family's life throughout his own, retiring from Pickfords to a second career as a grocer and leaving a respectable sum to his wife when he died - no mean feat for a humble working man.

Ah - but perhaps the indisputable fact that he did these things is a further pointer to his controlling nature and thus tantamount to proof that he was 'likely' a psychopath and thus very likely Jack the Ripper, all things considered.

Murderin' Charlie Rides Again!

I wish I'd never started this post now....