The Lechmere trail - so far

[Sally]

Springheeled Charlie??

[caz]

...I do not believe that:

A. The killer had no blood on his person. The throat was cut. Abdominal mutilations were made. This occured in the dark. It would have been very difficult if not impossible to have SEEN the blood in order to have avoid it.

B. Even if the killer HAD successfully avoided getting blood on his person, he would have not have KNOWN that he'd avoided getting blood on is person. Therefore, I think it's highly unlikely that the killer would have approached Robert Paul (who had not to that point even noticed the body) in the street, placed his HAND on him (Paul did not testify that he found blood on his clothing where Cross had touched him - or anywhere for that matter: thus, we know that - SECONDS after the murder - Charles Cross' hand(s) were free of blood), and gone looking for a policeman (who carried with him a latern).

C. Clearly a murder weapon was used. It was not found with the victim. It was not found at he scene. If Charles Cross was the killer than we can assume with almost total certainty that he carried the murder weapon on his person as he dealt with Paul and Mizen. Fisherman, you state that Cross did not run as he heard Paul 30-40 yards off, as he entered Buck's Row. Instead, he decided, to play innocent bystander and APPROACH Paul. It follows, then, that he did not THROW the knife. Paul would have certainly heard a metal knife hitting the pavement or a building and the police would most certainly have found the knife during their subsequent searches. He had now time to scurry into a corner a hide it. If that's the case then he had to have heard Paul, hurried some distance from the body (a few feet or yards), hid the knife (quietly), returned to the body, then approached Paul. I think a rational person can conclude that Cross - if we assume he killed Nichols - hid the weapon on his person. I think we can assume then that the KNIFE was bloody. Thus, Cross hid the knife, perhaps cleaning it first with a rag he ALSO had stowed on his person, without getting blood on his hands or clothing. And he's so confident - after all this - that he did not get blood on himself (in total darkness) that he approaches - TOUCHES - Paul and seeks out a PC with a lantern.

Good points, Patrick. Lechmere the ripper is beginning to look not so much like Fisherman's reckless, ridiculously lucky psychopathic everyman, and more like the supernatural, all-powerful fiend of legend.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: This is a great point, Pcdunn, which I can't recall being made before.

You are having a field day, my dear: Great listings, great points. There is greatness all around you. Lucky you.

Let´s not ruin the moment by saying that we A/ cannot tell where he found Nichols and B/ point out how all you helpful people have made the point that THOUSANDS of men would have used these streets.
Are you really going to help me reduce those numbers now? That´s about time. So, Lechmere would never kill in a street that would give him away that very easily?


It kind of makes your reasoning belong to some club. Somewhere.

[Fisherman]

I take it you are the steward then - or just the doorman? Thanks, but I won't come in, old man. I was just passing and wondered what the latest Lechmere buffoonery was all about.

Love,

Caz
X

Now, why would I strip you of these honours, Caz, when they so clearly belong to you?

Where´s my answer to the question of whether you really put Lechmere and Mulshaw on equal footing, or if something else lies behind? Answer it, and then you can resume your duties at the club.

[Fisherman]

Eh? I said your case does go down the plughole if Prosector is even half right. Unless of course you are holding back evidence that Lechmere attended public dissections or had a shelf full of books on the subject.

Love,

Caz
X

Aha, it goes down the plughole IF he is half correct. Now, where have I seen that word before...?

You are really producing a lot of very hands-on evidence, Caz. As always.

[Fisherman]

caz: You see but you do not observe, Fisherman.

Still, that must be better than doing neither...

Don't mention it.

Oh, but I will: The ensuing discussion was clearly about KILLING and not about eviscerating.

These two are different matters, you see.

[caz]

Another answer is Cross/Lechmere met her in a more crowded street and led her there on purpose-- though why to one of his routes to work, is beyond me.

This is a great point, Pcdunn, which I can't recall being made before.

If, as is generally believed, the ripper trawled the main roads for unfortunates trying to earn their doss money, and they went together somewhere quieter to conduct business, it is likely Nichols ended up in Buck's Row having led him there, or having been led there by him, from the Whitechapel Road. It is also beyond me why he would have gone ahead and done the deed in a road he often walked down on his way to and from work.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=caz;351817]So when did the family, including Patrick senior, move to 3 Rupert Street? That's where our watchman was living when Nichols was murdered.

That would be somewhere between 1871 and 1891, for the rest of the family, Caz. Whereas it seems reasonable that Patrick Senior could have moved in with them at a later stage. Really...!

The expression 'old man' does not necessarily refer to age. In fact it was/is used like 'old sport', more so by the middle and upper classes, to address anyone regardless of their age, and not meant unkindly or as an insult. Mrs Prater was reported to say to the youthful Mary Kelly: "Good night, old dear", so I wouldn't read too much into it.

Of COURSE you wouldn´t! I do, however. I also take very careful note of how Mulshaw senior was listed as a watchman in the infirmary records of April 1888, so we have an A/ Old man, who was a B/ Watchman and who quite probably lived with his son at the time of the murder.

[caz]

Welcome to the buffoon club, Toots!

I take it you are the steward then - or just the doorman? Thanks, but I won't come in, old man. I was just passing and wondered what the latest Lechmere buffoonery was all about.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

My case does not go down the plughole? Thank you, thank you, thank you, Caz - I was SO worried!!!

Not.

Eh? I said your case does go down the plughole if Prosector is even half right. Unless of course you are holding back evidence that Lechmere attended public dissections or had a shelf full of books on the subject.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Here is what was said, Toots:

Originally Posted by*pinkmoon*
My dear caz people seem to forget that whoever was committing these appalling crimes certainly knew how to kill very quickly and very efficiently.


Not a word about the eviscerations, thus - all that is mentioned is that he killed quickly and eeficiently- Then yiu answer:


Indeed so, pinkster.
Where, when and how might Lechmere have acquired the necessary know-how? He seems to have worked the usual long hours over many a long year, when he wasn't at home making babies.


Again, not a word about the eviscerations.

So then I asked:

Do you think it took a lot to kill either of Chapman and Eddowes?

Not a word about eviscerations.

And you answered:

Ask Prosector. I tend to think it took what Prosector - a professional - says it took. And there is*nothing*at present to suggest Lechmere had what it took.

Once again, the eviscerations are not mentioned. It is spoken of the ability to KILL, nothing else.

So you are the whole cause of the confusion, Caz, not me. Ever so sorry, but there you are.

You see but you do not observe, Fisherman.

You need to go back to the post to which pinkmoon was responding, and all will (or should) become clear. I know you read that post because you made a comment about me congratulating Patrick on a 'great summary'.

As I'm feeling generous I'll take the effort out of it for you and even highlight the relevant part:

Hi Patrick,

I would just like to add here that if Lechmere didn't want Paul propping up the body and immediately discovering the neck had been cut to the bone, he was rather lucky after having persuaded him to examine the poor woman! Lechmere could only refuse to do so himself, as Fisherman pointed out, but he couldn't have stopped Paul without it looking suspicious, had Paul gone ahead and recoiled in horror.

Great summary by the way, and your point about Lechmere possibly being squeamish is a reasonable one. We simply have no idea if his bag was messing about in prossies' innards, or if he would have fainted at the sight of a blue steak.

I wonder if any research has been done to see if Lechmere had the spare time or opportunity to go and observe any local dissections open to the paying public. I think it might open my mind considerably if there was evidence that he did. Whoever cut into Chapman and Eddowes must have learned the required techniques somehow.

Love,

Caz
X

Don't mention it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

If that's the case (and assuming Mulshaw can't be eliminated by other known facts about him), then perhaps it does all boil down to the name change, which has yet to prove in any way suspicious, let alone incriminating.

You guys might be onto something here.

Firstly, we have the man openly talking about using cocaine during his shift, and why does Patrick Mulshaw give his name as Alfred Mulshaw at the inquest ?

Something not right here.
Well spotted.

[caz]

Oh, and here is a useful comment on Mulshaws age:

"The Casebook Wiki suggests that Patrick Mulshaw was born c.1857 in Spitalfields, the second of eight children born to Patrick (1834-1890) and Margaret (b.1833) Mulshaw. His siblings were Francis (1855-1912), Kate (b.1858), Jane (b.1862), John (b.1866), Richard (b.1868), Mary Ann (b.1871) and William (b.1874).

In 1861, the family were living at 5 Thrawl Street, Spitalfields. Ten years later they were residing at 17 Goulston Court.

As an aside Goulston Court no longer existed by 1888, its entrance from Goulston Street being built on with the erection of the Wentworth Model Dwellings where a part of Eddowes’ apron and the ‘Juwes’ message were left on the night of the ‘double event’.

In 1891 the family were living at 33 John Street, St George North with Patrick Mulshaw senior not mentioned and Margaret listed as a widow, so Patrick senior had died by then.

However taking a look at more details for Mulshaw we see an entry in the Whitechapel Infirmary records for a Patrick Mulshaw suffering from an ulcerated leg admitted on 14th April 1888 and living at 51 Church Street at the time.

His age was given as 60. In the infirmary record he was said to be married and his job is given as Watchman.

This would suggest that it was Patrick Mulshaw senior (1834-1890) and not his son who was the watchman that night in August 1888. The age given in the infirmary record of 60 correlates with the age of Mulshaw senior given in the 1881 census."

Now, to whom would that passing man say "Watchman, old man, there is..."? To a 31 year old - or to a 60 year old man?

I think that it is much more credible that it was Mulshaw senior who was the watchman, not least since we know that he WAS a watchman.

So when did the family, including Patrick senior, move to 3 Rupert Street? That's where our watchman was living when Nichols was murdered.

The expression 'old man' does not necessarily refer to age. In fact it was/is used like 'old sport', more so by the middle and upper classes, to address anyone regardless of their age, and not meant unkindly or as an insult. Mrs Prater was reported to say to the youthful Mary Kelly: "Good night, old dear", so I wouldn't read too much into it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

And you, Fisherman, apparently still don't understand that Lechmere was not found alone next to the body. He was in the middle of the road and practically had to waylay Paul to go with him to where the woman was lying.

I don't find it remarkable any more. I find it absolutely pathetic.

Love,

Caz
X

What is truly remarkable is how you claim to think that Mulshaw and Lechmere are on equal footing suspectwise.

That means that you compare a (apparently 60 year old) man who can not be proven to have been at the murder spot in close relation to when the victim was killed, to a man who we know was there at a remove in time when the blood would still run for another five minutes from the neck, being somewhat congealed at that stage.

That means that no matter how we look upon it, Lechmere can never be exonerated on account of the blood evidence - on the contrary, he fits it perfectly.

I find it very, very hard to accept that you are THAT ignorant and THAT unfit to tell the relevant bits apart from the irrelevant. Speaking about pathetic.

I can therefore only surmise that something else governs your posting.

Which is it, Caz?

[caz]

The single fact that Lechmere was found alone next to the body while it was still going to bleed for five minutes or more, outweighs your whole list with the greatest of ease.

You apparently do not understand this. That is absolutely remarkable.

And you, Fisherman, apparently still don't understand that Lechmere was not found alone next to the body. He was in the middle of the road and practically had to waylay Paul to go with him to where the woman was lying.

I don't find it remarkable any more. I find it absolutely pathetic.

Love,

Caz
X