The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Patrick!

I have found a way to save time: I will just take the first point you make in each post, and since it is inevitably wrong, that will go to implicate the quality of the rest.

Deal?

Here goes:

You dismiss the fact that Cross lived a rather good life, taken as whole, as either proof of nothing or proof of guilt (citing examples of other serial killers (members of distinct minority) who did similarly). You discount his stable employment. You discount his marriage and family. You discount his lack of criminal record. You discount the inheritance he was able to pass on to the next generation. All irrelevant, you say. Immaterial.

Wrong. I do not discount it and I say nothing of the sort. I have no proof either way; that´s why.

And over to the next post:

First off, Paul lying does not make Cross Jack the Ripper. But, let's play your game. I understand you're playing catch-up. You're behind on points and you're looking for a haymaker.

Wrong. I am not behind on points. I am the guy who has a worldwide sent documentary and who has achieved press coverage in India and Pakistan, for example.

THAT is a haymaker, Patrick.

You are the bitter poster with lacking insights into the Ripper case and a habit of getting it wrong. I don´t think that counts as a haymaker. Maybe as a whopper, though?

But you DO make the odd funny point; "stable employment", for instance. Thats a good pun.


Seriously, Patrick, you cannot keep on misrepresenting me, and leve yourself open to being exposed. Ask me before you claim things on my behalf. I know the answers, you don´t.

[Patrick S]

I just wanted to point out the existence of shorthand back then. There's probably no way to find out which reporters were on location, using shorthand VS those getting their info from first hand reporters who would certainly not provide them with their personal notes. Let's remember also that newspapers had editors who would add some 'pepper' to texts presented by journalists or soften them a bit to avoid libel. Hence inconsistencies did exist and suggest caution regarding the reliability of what has been printed.

Just to give you an example, take a look at Michael Hawley's article in Ripperologist 133 : 'Francis Tumblety and the Yellow Press’. He gives a fair explanation of the difference in Tumblety's press coverage in the USA vs UK.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

Thanks, Mr. Poirot. I'm sure it was widely used and I'm sure there were many reports skilled in the art. Shorthand, as you likely know dates back to late Republican Rome (it's thought at Cicero's slave Tiro used a form of it). Alas, my point was simple. I don't want to appear argumentative toward you as I understand the point you're making, and I appreciate it. As we've seen though, Christer is now forced to seize upon anything that he feels may aid his cause even in cases - like this - where no such thing is possible. The point remains. Many things were reported in error thought he killings. Names incorrect. Profession incorrect. Inaccuracies were pervasive. And the 'Mizen Scam' makes me laugh.

[Hercule Poirot]

I think there are enough inconsistencies through out the reporting of the murders to indicate that there problems in reporting. Rober BAUL. GEORGE Cross. Incorrect street names. Total fabrications in many cases. The point being that to call something 'blood evidence' based on what you read in the papers may be problematic, to say the least.

I just wanted to point out the existence of shorthand back then. There's probably no way to find out which reporters were on location, using shorthand VS those getting their info from first hand reporters who would certainly not provide them with their personal notes. Let's remember also that newspapers had editors who would add some 'pepper' to texts presented by journalists or soften them a bit to avoid libel. Hence inconsistencies did exist and suggest caution regarding the reliability of what has been printed.

Just to give you an example, take a look at Michael Hawley's article in Ripperologist 133 : 'Francis Tumblety and the Yellow Press’. He gives a fair explanation of the difference in Tumblety's press coverage in the USA vs UK.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Patrick S]

I´m sure that this little diversion of yours is very interesting. But the issue we are speaking of is how you tried to paint me out as a dunce for saying that Paul would not have told the truth.

So returning to the question: Is it or is it not apparent that he must have lied on at least one of the occasions I quoted?

First off, Paul lying does not make Cross Jack the Ripper. But, let's play your game. I understand you're playing catch-up. You're behind on points and you're looking for a haymaker. Let's look some other possiblities:

1. Paul - in his interview - wanted to take the lion's share of the glory and excluded any reference to Chuck the Ripper. Paul showing an ego here does not make him a pathological liar and it doesn't make Cross Jack the Ripper.

2. The reporter - skilled in shorthand as he likely was - got some of the fact wrong. I know that's somethat that doesn't happen now and it didn't happen then, expecially.....but......well.....the reporter's mistake doesn't make Paul a a serial liar and it doesn't make Cross Jack the Ripp...uh...Torso Kill...you get the idea.

3. PAUL LIED! GASP! AHHHHHH! You got me. I'm beaten. You genius, you! Of course, and I know you - being a dunce, as you say - can't understand this: It. Doesn't. Matter. I don't care if he said he went into Bake's Row with the Mad Hatter, with Cross, without Cross, or with your buddy Edward........what matters is that he states - as does Cross - that Mizen knew Nichols may be dead and that Mizen wasn't particularly concerned. Mizen states he continued knocking up. Paul states Mizen continued knocking up.

Again, when it suits you one lie, overstatement, mistake or otherwise means we throw it all out in order to put a knife in Cross' (very clean) hands. When it doesn't...well....we pick and choose, don't we.

But, then....this would have been a lot harder sell had we been told the Mizen Scam (....let me catch my breath here....cant hold in the laughter) and Lechmere the most prolific serial killer ever...depended on Paul being a liar, as well. And not only that! But Paul had to be exactly the kind of liar Cross needed to have with him, shoulder to shoulder, fooling good PC Mizen in Baker's Row. Ah...but Cross had that crytal ball. Sorry. Forgot about that.

[Patrick S]

Another aspect of this whole thing that stands out to me, Christer.

You dismiss the fact that Cross lived a rather good life, taken as whole, as either proof of nothing or proof of guilt (citing examples of other serial killers (members of distinct minority) who did similarly). You discount his stable employment. You discount his marriage and family. You discount his lack of criminal record. You discount the inheritance he was able to pass on to the next generation. All irrelevant, you say. Immaterial.

Yet, when we discuss Mizen, you bring up his faith, his service record. This matters, you say. Even though lying to cover up his assuming that Buck's Row was another false alarm and not reacting appropriately wouldn't invalidate anything that may recommend Jonas Mizen for Cop of the Century or Sainthood, for that matter.....you still cite it and say, "Let's believe this man."

Then we have what you said about Abberline:

Abberline attended days two and three of the Nichols inquest, so he would have seen and heard Lechmere speaking.

Now, let's look at Abberline. Was he not a long time veteran of the force? You cite this as plus for Mizen. Was he not highly regarded and decorated? Yet, he sat in court, heard Cross give testimony. And suspected him not at all. Ah! But he was, perhaps "Lechmere´s personality - or at least the personality that came across at the inquest - disagreed with the notion that he could be the killer. I think that people overall expected some kind of flamboyancy from the killer - that he was exotic, looked dangerous, was a criminal mastermind, lashed out at the audience at the inquest, something like that.Here, again, you pick and choose what matters and what doesn't. Personal history and accomplishment matter when it serves your conclusion. It doesn't what it may harm it." Too bad you weren't there instead of Abberline, Christer. You'd have nailed him!

Of course, everything works when you "try viewing Lechmere's actions with an eye on him being guilty", eh Christer?

[Fisherman]

They didn't have tape recorders but shorthand was widely used in the 19th century by the UK press and would allow for a totally reliable 'record' of any verbatim.

Ah, but Hercule, now you are making sense. But sense is not what Patrick is primarily after.

[Fisherman]

This is like fishing with TNT, Christer. Really.

First off, I'm not naming a killer (much less a suspect) after 127 years based on what Robert Baul...er...PAUL...said either in court (and reprinted in the papers because....the OFFICAL record is lost) or in an interview. I'm also not convinced that the press got all the details and syntax correct. But, that's not vital, either.

You don't seem understand that I'm not interested in which version of his trek is true. What is that Cross and Paul agree on two very high level details that are not flattering to Mizen or the police:

1. They both indicate that Mizen was told Nichols either was or may be dead
2. They both indicate that Mizen didn't spring into action and head to Buck's Row

What's most consipicuous is that you ignored what Paul said to the press when you spelled out your.....(sorry.....I'm surpressing a chuckle)..uh...Mizen Scam. Now, it's part of the story.....only now...Paul is liar. So we have Mizen, correct in all things at all times approached in Baker's Row by a serial killer and police-hating liar with an axe to grind. Sorry. Doesn't work for me, or anyone else it seems. Glad you're back though. Don't take your ball and go home again as we move forward. I get worried about you.

I´m sure that this little diversion of yours is very interesting. But the issue we are speaking of is how you tried to paint me out as a dunce for saying that Paul would not have told the truth.

So returning to the question: Is it or is it not apparent that he must have lied on at least one of the occasions I quoted?

[Patrick S]

Patrick! A little something for you:

Yestarday, you spilled gall over me. The general idea was that I was an idiot for claiming that Robert Paul could also have lied.

Robert Paul said in his paper interview that "I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row..."
It is thus apparent that Paul claims to have made the trek up to Bakers Row himself in this interview.

At the inquest Paul said that "The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."
It is apparent here that Paul now claims that both of the carmen wlked to Baker Row together.

You say that I have a problem indicating that Paul lied.

I think your problem is to explain how both versions of the trek can be true.

But don´t spill any time on it, Patrick. There is no mending it, you have sold out, and it is better to try and let it pass unnoticed.

It is always better to have people suspecting that you don´t know the first thing about the Ripper case than to open your mouth and confirm it.

Right, now you can go back to safeguarding people from my suggestions. Keep up the ... ehrm, barrage. A noble quest indeed!

This is like fishing with TNT, Christer. Really.

First off, I'm not naming a killer (much less a suspect) after 127 years based on what Robert Baul...er...PAUL...said either in court (and reprinted in the papers because....the OFFICAL record is lost) or in an interview. I'm also not convinced that the press got all the details and syntax correct. But, that's not vital, either.

You don't seem understand that I'm not interested in which version of his trek is true. What is that Cross and Paul agree on two very high level details that are not flattering to Mizen or the police:

1. They both indicate that Mizen was told Nichols either was or may be dead
2. They both indicate that Mizen didn't spring into action and head to Buck's Row

What's most consipicuous is that you ignored what Paul said to the press when you spelled out your.....(sorry.....I'm surpressing a chuckle)..uh...Mizen Scam. Now, it's part of the story.....only now...Paul is liar. So we have Mizen, correct in all things at all times approached in Baker's Row by a serial killer and police-hating liar with an axe to grind. Sorry. Doesn't work for me, or anyone else it seems. Glad you're back though. Don't take your ball and go home again as we move forward. I get worried about you.

[Patrick S]

They didn't have tape recorders but shorthand was widely used in the 19th century by the UK press and would allow for a totally reliable 'record' of any verbatim.

I think there are enough inconsistencies through out the reporting of the murders to indicate that there problems in reporting. Rober BAUL. GEORGE Cross. Incorrect street names. Total fabrications in many cases. The point being that to call something 'blood evidence' based on what you read in the papers may be problematic, to say the least.

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;352289]One may of course ask oneself WHY people respond to the Lechmere threads, running them up into hundreds of posts.

Because its interesting. Even if Cross is eliminated as a suspect (and I think that eliminating suspects is amost as foolish an exercise as NAMING one), he's still part of fabric of the case. Thus, any and all research into him is valuable, interesting, and excellent fodder for discussion and debate.

I say that I think that a number of things point to guilt on the carmans behalf. I take it I am allowed to do so.

I say many more point elsewhere. The majority agree with me...but, hey, whose keeping score, right?

I say that I think he is the prime suspect for the Nichols murder, speaking on factual grounds,

FACTUAL GROUND? I think we've established THAT'S not the case. But, I'd have been disappointed had you given up so easily.


and I urge anybody to present a better suspect.

Its not for anyone to present a 'better suspect'. The supect you present has to withstand scuitiny. He hasn't. That's clear. The ABSENCE of a BETTER SUSPECT does not, therefore, recommend a poor suspect. You know this....right? RIGHT?

Generally, nobody does. (There WAS an exception from the rule when a man who cannot be shown to have had anything to do with any of the victims and who cannot be shown to have been at any of the murder sites , was suggested as being a better choice that Lechmere who WAS at the murder site and who IS thereby connected to one of the victims - ha!)

So surely I am allowed to think he is the prime suspect.

Of course. Most disagree with you, as they disagree regarding Sickert, Van Gough, Carrol, et al.

I say that there must be room for another killer, although personally I think that room is very small. Once again that is my view, and I should be entitled to it.

And you are entitled to it. No doubt!

I say that I think that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, and that too must be a right of mine.

Indeed. And it's my right to bet on the field.

For some reason this has people going berserk. And all the while, they assure me that they find the suggestions I make laughable.

I think that's me. And to be fair, it was just the Mizen Scam. But, I'll own up. I find it laughable. More so now that I've put it through the wash a few times.

And they stress how little stock they put in it, how untouched they are by it and how ridiculous it is of me to think that anybody would listen to my theory.

Overall, it is all very strange how people go out of their way to flood these threads with all sorts of posts, when the suggestion that Lechmere is the killer is supposedly so uninteresting to them. But there you are.

I'm incredibly interested. I've said it again and again. I wouldn't have printed reams of information and combed through it to see if I could buy into what you've been selling. I'm entitled to refute what you say.

Of course, personally, I think that most people realize that the killer has probably been identified, at least in the Nichols case.

I doubt that. But, hey. I can only speak for me.

I even think that some are hypocritical enough not to admit it, and that some are afraid that it will be bad for business.

Everything is good for business, Christer. Even you.

Some are just ill-informed loud megaphone types of people with a much larger gift for insulting than they have for intellectually understanding the implications of the case.

Ah! Dismissing both the 'intellctual understanding' and the complete eviseration of your concusion because you got your feelings hurt. Nice ploy if it works.

But of course, that too is just my take on things.
And once again I AM entitled to it.

Indeed you are!


This post smacks of self-pity. Cry me a river, Christer. There's an old saying about dishing it out and not being able to take it. It's not a Klingon Proverb or anything...but most people know it.

[Hercule Poirot]

[B]...Now, I’d like to pause here to mention that I feel that it is folly to put much stock in what was reported. One cannot put complete stock in Paul’s statement, even though it appears to be a direct quote, because there were no recording devices (as I have PROVEN!) in 1888. We rely completely on the reporter and the editor. We do not know if they were capable of getting a quote down verbatim. We do not know if they had any axes to grind or what they may or may not have included in order to sell newspapers. Thus, we must take the detail with a grain of salt. However, it's clear that Paul did stress his point. And it's clear his recollection of Mizen's actions in Baker's Row reflect a distinct lack of urgency/seriousness from the good, honest, Christian Jonas...

They didn't have tape recorders but shorthand was widely used in the 19th century by the UK press and would allow for a totally reliable 'record' of any verbatim.

[Fisherman]

Patrick! A little something for you:

Yestarday, you spilled gall over me. The general idea was that I was an idiot for claiming that Robert Paul could also have lied.

Robert Paul said in his paper interview that "I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row..."
It is thus apparent that Paul claims to have made the trek up to Bakers Row himself in this interview.

At the inquest Paul said that "The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."
It is apparent here that Paul now claims that both of the carmen wlked to Baker Row together.

You say that I have a problem indicating that Paul lied.

I think your problem is to explain how both versions of the trek can be true.

But don´t spill any time on it, Patrick. There is no mending it, you have sold out, and it is better to try and let it pass unnoticed.

It is always better to have people suspecting that you don´t know the first thing about the Ripper case than to open your mouth and confirm it.

Right, now you can go back to safeguarding people from my suggestions. Keep up the ... ehrm, barrage. A noble quest indeed!

[Fisherman]

One may of course ask oneself WHY people respond to the Lechmere threads, running them up into hundreds of posts.

I say that I think that a number of things point to guilt on the carmans behalf. I take it I am allowed to do so.

I say that I think he is the prime suspect for the Nichols murder, speaking on factual grounds, and I urge anybody to present a better suspect. Generally, nobody does. (There WAS an exception from the rule when a man who cannot be shown to have had anything to do with any of the victims and who cannot be shown to have been at any of the murder sites , was suggested as being a better choice that Lechmere who WAS at the murder site and who IS thereby connected to one of the victims - ha!)
So surely I am allowed to think he is the prime suspect.

I say that there must be room for another killer, although personally I think that room is very small. Once again that is my view, and I should be entitled to it.

I say that I think that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, and that too must be a right of mine.

For some reason this has people going berserk. And all the while, they assure me that they find the suggestions I make laughable. And they stress how little stock they put in it, how untouched they are by it and how ridiculous it is of me to think that anybody would listen to my theory.

Overall, it is all very strange how people go out of their way to flood these threads with all sorts of posts, when the suggestion that Lechmere is the killer is supposedly so uninteresting to them. But there you are.

Of course, personally, I think that most people realize that the killer has probably been identified, at least in the Nichols case. I even think that some are hypocritical enough not to admit it, and that some are afraid that it will be bad for business. Some are just ill-informed loud megaphone types of people with a much larger gift for insulting than they have for intellectually understanding the implications of the case.
But of course, that too is just my take on things.
And once again I AM entitled to it.

[Patrick S]

Patrick, I am sorry to say that I have not found the time to take part of your wisdoms. I have chosen to be happy about how you have stated that there are many points in the Lechmere theory that may well point to guilt, and how you say that you find my work very interesting.

That´s fine by me.

That's what I'd do if I were you. I'll keep up the barrage though, for other's who may bought into the "Christer Scam".

[Patrick S]

Christer's Lechmere Law 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.
A logical timing suggests that Mizen reached the body some six minutes after Lechmere had left it. This means that if the normal coagulation scheme applied, then it is very hard to see that anybody else than Lechmere could have been the killer.
Of course, deviations may apply here too, but we know that the blood had turned into a congealed mass, a clot, at the time it was washed away, so the blood had no problems to coagulate. We also know tgat much as alcohol can prolong the coagulation time, a more excessive intake of alchol, such as in alcoholism, will instead make the blood coagulate more easily.

Now, did you mean to say "Mizen" here? So, even more of your theory depends on the opinion of Jonas Mizen? It should be clear by now that Mizen fibbed a bit while recounting his interactions in Baker's Row with Cross and Paul.

We have Paul saying:

“I saw (a policemen – PC Jonas Mizen) in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.”

We have Cross saying:

"They (Cross and Paul) informed (PC Jonas Mizen) that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before."

Now, for the moment, I'm going to pretend that both Cross and Paul aren't lying, as you say. I know that's a stretch in that Cross was in the midst of perpetrating his "Mizen Scam" while Paul unwitting corroborated Cross' impressions later through his dishonest, police-hating, diatribe to the press.

So now we have two (Cross and Paul) sources claiming independently that:

1. Mizen was told that Nichols may be dead, and that

2. upon hearing this, Mizen reacted with something falling far short of urgency

Now, I’d like to pause here to mention that I feel that it is folly to put much stock in what was reported. One cannot put complete stock in Paul’s statement, even though it appears to be a direct quote, because there were no recording devices (as I have PROVEN!) in 1888. We rely completely on the reporter and the editor. We do not know if they were capable of getting a quote down verbatim. We do not know if they had any axes to grind or what they may or may not have included in order to sell newspapers. Thus, we must take the detail with a grain of salt. However, it's clear that Paul did stress his point. And it's clear his recollection of Mizen's actions in Baker's Row reflect a distinct lack of urgency/seriousness from the good, honest, Christian Jonas.

So, now we learn tha your earth-shattering "BLOOD EVIDENCE" rests upon....who? Jonas Mizen. It's clear we have very strong reason to believe that the dear, sweet, god-fearing Jonas may have been somewhat later in arriving back in Buck's Row than he reported. I know that you play fast and loose with timeframes in order to pin guilt on our hero, Charles Cross.

But, it's possible for kind Jonas to get a repreive. The judgement of history may ultimately be somewhat more favorable to The Lord's Favorite, PC Mizen, speaker of truths, fighter of evil. It could be that his words with respect to the state of the blood didn't accurately make it onto the page. This is why I say, again, that there IS NO BLOOD EVIDENCE. By the time Mizen arrived, we have Neil finding the body. We have Neil signalling to Thain. We have Thain responding to the signal and going to Neil. We have this happening: "With the aid of his lamp, he (Neil) noticed the wound to Nichols' throat and that blood was still oozing out. He felt her arm, which he claimed was still warm and noted that her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was lying nearby." We then have Neil dispatching Thain to get Llewellyn. At some point, a few of the fellas from the neighborhood pop by to have a chat and look at Nichols dead body. Around this time, Mizen comes ambling around the corner. Based on what he saw when he arrived, it sounds as if the timing of his arrival is pretty reflective of the attitude both Killer Chuck (Cross) and Liar Bob (Paul) say displayed in Baker's Row. That is to say, pretty unconcerned. Despite his pious nature, he told what was - in the end - a white lie that cast both he and the police in better light. Well, it was a white lie, that is...until you built not only the daring and complex MIZEN SCAM around his words and actions, but also based the validity of your rock-solid BLOOD EVIDENCE on his observations.