The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

harry: We know that Cross contacted the police very shortly after finding the body.He contacted Mizen.So it is incorrect to imply he never contacted the police at any time.

You are absolutely correct here, Harry. But I donīt think that anybody has suggested that Lechmere never contacted the police. He did so twice, going by the looks of things.

That he didn''t give,or wasn't asked for a name at that time is immaterial.It certainly isn't suggestive of guilt.

No, it is not suggestive of guilt in any way. I completely agree. It is only when you are asked by the authorities to state your name and either refuse to do so or give them a wrong name that we have reasons to become suspicious.

We do not know what transpired that weekend,or what Cross's thoughts were on the matter of reporting further,but certainly on the Monday he appeared at the inquest.

All very true.

Why that is,we can't be sure,but the probability is that he felt he had to do something,talked it over with someone,and the authorities were informed.No guilt there whatsoever.

I think the part about talking it over with someone is not something that must belong to the picture, otherwise I agree. He would have felt that he needed to step forward - but your reason for that and my reason for it are quite different. I will once more point to the fact that this decision seemingly came about in the direct aftermath of the Paul interview in Lloyds Weekly. There is also the interesting fact that a number of the things that Paul says in that interview are echoed by Lechmere at the inquest, suggesting that he may have read what Paul had to say. And among what Paul had to say was that Lechmere had been standing where the body was.

Oh! but the working clothes.Great clue that.He must have been the killer otherwise he would have worn a suit.

The clothing was remarked upon by a paper, implicating that he would have been expected to dress more appropriately. It can be suggested that he did not want to show his wife that he was not goinf to work that day, something that would be in accordance with our suggestion that he kept his real name and address from the papers too. You can mock all you want about that, but it changes nothing.

What you seem to be doing now is something that has been done a million times already, so I am going to save you some time and breath: Do not use up any more space by saying that the different details in the Lechmere theory may all have had innocent explanations, taken one by one.

That has already been pointed out - by me, for example.

What you need to address is the full amount of implications - would they ALL have been coincidentally pointing to the carman? Or produce something that proves that one or more of the points we are making is/are wrong. Thatīs when you will produce something of weight - not before.

Listen here, Harry:

-Did he have to be the man who found Nichols? No- but somebody would find her, so there is nothing strange with that.

-Did he have to find her at a remove in time that fits the blood evidence? Certainly not - the blood would not have run for more than a couple of minutes, so it was a sad coincidence that he should stumble over the corpse at that stage. If he had been only a few minutes later, then she would reasonably not have been still bleeding and he would have walked free.

-Did the blood have to be somewhat congealed some six minutes after Lechmere left her? Absolutely not. Bad luck on his behalf again - an unlucky coincidence. Or?

- The wounds to the abdomen were covered by Nicholsī clothing. In the other evisceration cases, no such effort was made. Rather, the victims were left on display. Was it just a coincidence that Nichols had her damage hidden?

- Did Paul have to say that he just found Lechmere standing in the middle of the street as he arrived outside Browns? No, he could have said "there was this man who walked in front of me - I first noticed him in Bath Street when he passed under the lamps of the brewery as I stepped out into the street - and who stopped shorth up at the stable yard...". But no, if this was what Paul saw, then he coincidentally forgot to tell the papers and inquest. Or they coincidentally forgot to take note of it.

- After having called upon Paul to help see to the woman, Lechmere suddenly refuses to help prop her up. Was it a coincidence that the carmans helpfullness should stop at this exact point?

- Did Lechmere have to come forward after the Lloyds Weekly interview? No, he could - and should if he read the papers - have come forward long before that. Was it just a coincidence that he didnīt?

- Did Lechmere have to reiterate stuff from Pauls interview? Was that just a coincidence? For example:

"I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle." (Paul)
"the deceased looked then as if she had been outraged, and had gone off in a swoon." (Lechmere)

"He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth." (Paul)
"I waited for the man, who started on one side as if afraid that I meant to knock him down. (Lechmere)

Was this coincidental too?

- Did the carman have to give the inquest a name that was not the one he was registered by? Especially since we know that he otherwise always used his real name when contacting the authoritites? Was it a coincidental slip of the tongue? Or did he think that it was about time that he for once used another name than Lechmere when speaking to the authorities? If so, was it coincidental that the inquest became the chosen starting point?

- Was it a coincidence that no other paper got his address than the Star? Did all the other papers coincidentally miss out on it? They all wrote down all the other addresses, regardless if they had gotten them right or wrong.

-Was it a coincidence that Lechmere and Mizen should disagree on whether one or to of the carmen spoke to the PC? Or should we accept that both spoke to him, and accept that Mizen coincidentally forgot to mention Paul in this respect?

- Is it a coincidence that the only paper that places Paul physically during this part of the story, actually places him walking down Hanbury Street?

- Is it purely coincidental that Lechmere and Mizen disagreed about how much of the gravity of the situation that was divulged to the PC by the carman? Or did Mizen by coincidence hear just half of what Lechmere told him?

- In his inquest testimony, Paul never says exactly what Mizen was told and he never says that he himself spoke to the PC. He simply states that Mizen was informed about "what they had seen". Not a word about what it involved, no confirmation that the PC was told that the errand was potentially one of death, no specific stating that Paul himself talked to the PC.
This opens up for Paul not having spoken to the PC at all and for Lechmere having played down the message. Is it just a coincidence that Paul was not able to lay these suspicions to rest?

- Is it a coincidence that Mizen witnessed about how the carman he did speak to told him that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row? Did Mizen mishear that? If so, is it just a coincidence that this was one of three things Lechmere and the PC disagreed on?

- If Mizen lied about it all, is it just a coincidence that he should choose a lie that simultaneaously sounds like the ultimate wording for taking Lechmere past the police?

- When Charles Lechmere walked to work, he would pass precisely by the murder site of Chapman, at a time that seemingly tallied very well with the given TOD for her, as per Bagster Phillips. Was that just an unlucky coincidence?

- If Lechmere wanted to make a shortcut to Broad Street from Hanbury Street, then he would pass right by Dorset Street where Mary Kelly was killed, and at a time that seems to tally with when she died. Was that a coincidence?

-If Lechmere used the shortest route to work on the 7:th of August, he would also have passed right by the spot where Tabram was killed - and at a time that tallied roughly with her TOD. Was that a coincidence?

- Liz Stride was killed in the midst of the houses where Lechmere had grown up. Was that a coincidence too?

- If Stride and Eddowes had the same killer, then that killer would have walked to Mitre Square along the same route that Lechmere took to work for twenty years. Was that a coincidence too?

- Two of the six victims Tabram-Kelly, were killed on times that did NOT dovetail with Lechmeres trek to work. Is it a coincidence that these two murders were the only ones that did not happen along his logical working treks?

- Was it a coincidence that the murders started in combination with Lechmeres move away from a close proximity to his mother?


You see, Harry, on each and every one of these issues you have to answer "Yes, that was just a coincidence!"

If you fail to do so throughout, and instead just once say "No, that was probably no coincidence", then you are at the same time saying that Lechmere was the probable killer.

This leaves us with one very pertinent question: How unlucky can a man get before we start to think that we are not dealing with rotten luck? How many coincidences can stack up against somebody, without one single or all of them being damning?

Remember how James Scobie saw it? "When the coincidences stack up, mount up against somebody - and they do in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many".

When Lechmere was fist suggested as the killer, many, many of the bits we list today were not in place. It was still enough for a justified suspicion.

After that, it has been added that he gave the wrong name to the coppers. It does not help his cause.

It has been added that he had reason to visit the area where Stride died. That does not help his cause.

It has been added that Eddowes died along his old working route from James Street. That does not help his cause.

It has been added that he seemingly served Jonas Mizen a lie to pass him by. That is not a good thing on his record.

It has been pointed out that the bloodflow pattern seemingly would not offer much - if any - space for another killer. And it can be shown that Lechmere fits the bloodflow. That was not what he needed.

The coagulation also seems to point directly in Lechmeres direction. It is not something that helps. Not at all.

More and more pressure is added, more and more circumstantial evidence points directly to the carman.

When somebody comes under suspicion by the police, this somebody will be subjected to intense scrutiny. If the material that surfaces is in accordance with this person being the culprit, then the police will dig further into him. If more circumstantial evidence is added, and if nothing surfaces to exonerate the person in question, the police will consider their suspicions confirmed. After that, it is another question whether the evidence is enough for a conviction.

What we have is a QC, James Scobie, saying that there is a prima faciae case, suggesting that Lechmere was the killer.

Interestingly, that was before the blood evidence was looked into. So in a sense, Trevor Mariott is correct - Scobie did not see all there was to see.

Now, Harry, ALL of these matters are what you need to address. I already know that he may have wanted to use the name Cross because he liked the sound of it, and I know that liking the sound of a name is not equal to being a killer. But I dont want any more alternative explanations to isolated parts - I want to know if a list like the one I just provided can be one where all the parts represent just unlucky coincidences, one after the other.

Plus I want to know why in the whole wide world Lechmere would not be the prime suspect, when a list like this can be compiled against him. Who is a better prime suspect, and what is it grounded on?

That is what you need to answer.

[drstrange169]

>>Paul said that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he walked into Bucks Row, and that phrasing has nothing of guesswork about it. It speaks of knowledge, certainty and exactitude ...<<


Paul also said without guesswork, but with certainty and exactitude,


“I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.”

“I told him what I had seen”

“I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not”

“I had told him the woman was dead”

“The woman was so cold that she must have been dead sometime”

“she was plain enough to see”

"no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time"


And so we have the dictionary definition of "cherry-picking".

Where was Paul's "speaking with knowledge", "no guesswork about it" "certainty, exactitude" and "no other timing given in combination with the murder that has this quality to it" when it came to the acid test of swearing under oath?

Suddenly, when it REALLY counted, Paul became evasive and vague and contradictory.

The inquest wasn't interested in when he left home, it was irrelevant. If Paul could say with "exactitude" etc. the time he was in Buck's Row, that was what was the only relevant time and he avoided giving it.

A jury would not like that.

[drstrange169]

- Did he have to be the man who found Nichols? No- but somebody would find her, so there is nothing strange with that.

Agreed


- Did he have to find her at a remove in time that fits the blood evidence?

There is no such thing as “blood evidence”. It is an artificially manufactured excuse. Selected carefully, not only to avoid all the known evidence, but avoid Baxter’s official finding in the inquest.


- Did the blood have to be somewhat congealed some six minutes after Lechmere left her? Absolutely not. Bad luck on his behalf again - an unlucky coincidence. Or?

… was it simply made up by Lechmereites.
Two people described blood running to the gutter and blood congealing.Thain made it VERY plain that this happened when the body was lifted onto the ambulance. The newspaper reports claim Mizen said the same thing,

“(Mizen)…and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck.”
Evening Post 3 Sept 1888


- The wounds to the abdomen were covered by Nicholsī clothing. In the other evisceration cases, no such effort was made. Rather, the victims were left on display. Was it just a coincidence that Nichols had her damage hidden?

No, Paul covered them. And he was the only witness in all the murders to admit doing so.


- After having called upon Paul to help see to the woman, Lechmere suddenly refuses to help prop her up. Was it a coincidence that the carmans helpfullness should stop at this exact point?

Why would a guilty man volunteer that information when Paul never mentioned it? Where in either man’s testimony does it say Xmere was being helpful? He was just curious, no more, no less.


- Did Lechmere have to come forward after the Lloyds Weekly interview? No, he could - and should if he read the papers - have come forward long before that. Was it just a coincidence that he didnīt?


Prove he didn’t. There is nothing odd or unusual about Xmere’s timings. Loss of pay in the East End in 1888 was not just inconvenient, it was crucial to families, a matter of eating or not eating.
Xmere worked Friday and Saturday, as Paul verified, going to the police tied up your time. The first available time for Xmere to conveniently go to the police was Saturday after work or Sunday.
As noted before, the newspapers reported that Abberline told Baxter new evidence had just come to light late Saturday. As Reynolds Newspaper put it,
“Evidence of a rather singular character is expected to be given at tomorrow’s (Monday) adjourned hearing.”
Could that "evidence of a rather singular character" be that Xmere not Neil discovered the body? What else was new at Monday’s inquest other than that?


- Did Lechmere have to reiterate stuff from Pauls interview? Was that just a coincidence?


What should two people who experienced the same thing be expected to say? Did Paul when he entered the stand contradict ANYTHING that Xmere said?

- Did the carman have to give the inquest a name that was not the one he was registered by?

Interesting point I’ve just discovered, you can give any surname but you must give your real Christian names, which, of course is exactly what Xmere did.
"A man may have divers names at divers times, but not divers Christian names. Any one may take on himself whatever surname or as many surnames as he pleases, without statutory licence"
Dictionary of American and English Law, definitions.


-Was it a coincidence that Lechmere and Mizen should disagree on whether one or to of the carmen spoke to the PC? Or should we accept that both spoke to him, and accept that Mizen coincidentally forgot to mention Paul in this respect?

Where there is a disagreement between two parties, turn to the third witness for the answer.
Xmere spoke the truth. Mizen either lied or misunderstood.


- Is it a coincidence that the only paper that places Paul physically during this part of the story, actually places him walking down Hanbury Street?

Isn’t it a fact that Mizen stated the two men were together?


-Is it purely coincidental that Lechmere and Mizen disagreed about how much of the gravity of the situation that was divulged to the PC by the carman?


Facts Christer, stick with the actual facts. Xmere and Paul claimed they weren’t sure she was was dead, in fact both said under oath they thought she might be alive. How could Xmere and Paul tell Mizen she was murdered or dead when they saidthey didn’t know for sure she was? Xmere gave an accurate description of what they found.


- In his inquest testimony, Paul never says exactly what Mizen was told and he never says that he himself spoke to the PC.

Do you have a full account of Paul’s testimony? The newspapers gave it scant coverage, how do you know Paul didn't say he spoke to Mizen?



- If Stride and Eddowes had the same killer, then that killer would have walked to Mitre Square along the same route that Lechmere took to work for twenty years.

Prove that sentence is actually true.
Prove he worked at Broad Street for twenty years.
Prove that the most obvious route from James Street to Braod Street isnm't Houndsditch.



- Was it a coincidence that the murders started in combination with Lechmeres move away from a close proximity to his mother?

Lechmere moved socially upward, why would that spark a killing spree?


... on each and every one of these issues you have to answer "Yes, that was just a coincidence!"

No you just have to see if they are actually true claims.


Remember how James Scobie saw it? "When the coincidences stack up, mount up against somebody - and they do in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many".

I wonder what Scobie would say if I presented evidence to him?

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

Where was Paul's "speaking with knowledge", "no guesswork about it" "certainty, exactitude"and "no other timing given in combination with the murder that has this quality to it" when it came to the acid test of swearing under oath?
Suddenly, when it REALLY counted, Paul became evasive and vague.

Bravo, Dust! You have seen the light! Yes, yes and yes again - when Paul attended the inquest, his heroic one-man show from Lloyds Weekly was no longer on display. Very well noted - and absolutely essential in trying to understand what Paul was about.
Other posters out here have exhibited a great amazement at how I have stated that Paul would have been less than truthful either with the papers or with the inquest. But to those of us who can read, it is abundantly clear that Robert Paul told an untrue story on at least one of these occasions.
Of course, since Mizen and Lechmere both corroborate the inquest story, it stands the much better chance of being true, and the paper story therefore will be untrue to a smaller or larger extent.

So why was it untrue?

The answer is equally easy: Because either

- Paul wanted to have his fifteen minutes of fame, and so he painted himself in the light of a powerful hero, in command of the situation and issuing the orders.

- The reporter wanted to spice the story up.

I can see no other viable explanations. Can you?

In both cases we would get a picture of a man who acted promptly and in control of a serious situation, a man who realized the woman was dead and who took care of things commandably.

But letīs look at your examples - and then letīs add the inquest versions of them to the picture!

“I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.” (Lloyds) as opposed to "The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman." (Inquest)

“I told him what I had seen” (Lloyds) as opposed to "they... told him what they had seen." (Inquest)

“I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not” as opposed to "they... told him what they had seen." (Inquest)

“I had told him the woman was dead” (Lloyds) as opposed to "they... told him what they had seen." (Inquest)

“The woman was so cold that she must have been dead sometime” (Lloyds) as opposed to "he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint" (Inquest)

“she was plain enough to see” (Lloyds) as opposed to It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. (Inquest)

"no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time" (Lloyds) as opposed to "he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint"[/I] (Inquest)

What is the common denominator of these quotes? Exactly, they all have Paul in the heroes role in Lloyds but not at the inquest.

How does the "It was exactly 3.45" sentence cast Paul in the heroes role? Exactly - it does not. It is not something that can be used to big him up.

Now, Dust, you write "The inquest wasn't interested in when he left home, it was irrelevant."

That is of course silly to propose. How could it be irrelevant? It had a bearing on the overall picture and it was an essential piece of information.

The Times have it "He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning" and the Morning Advertiser has it " I left home just before a quarter to four".

It therefore dovetails perfectly with the time he gave in Lloyds - one of the few bits and pieces where Paul could not big up his own role. And therefore also one of the very few bits he did NOT change between paper and inquest.

And if that is irrelevant, then I am The Green Lantern.

Finally, you claim: If Paul could say with "exactitude" etc. the time he was in Buck's Row, that was what was the only relevant time and he avoided giving it.

Avoiding to do something is a conscious choice. If Paul was never asked at what time he entered Bucks Row, he never "avoided" answering that question. He did not ADD this information at the inquest, but why would he - if he was never asked? He informed the inquest that he left home just before 3.45, and he had but a minutes walk to Bucks Row. Do the maths, Dust.

A jury would not like that.

No jury would be happy about your reasoning, Dust, seeing as you tend to forget and leave out things that are essential to the understanding of the case.

But why would we lend the phrase? It belongs to Scobie, who said that the carmans behaviour was suspicious - and that a jury would not like that.

[harry]

Thank you Drstrange,you have demolished all the points put by Fisherman.I'll only add that courts usually expect a person appearing there,to be presentable.There is nothing printed in the papers of that time,that Cross,although in working clothes,was not presentable.I'm sure Baxter would have passed some remark,had it been otherwise.

[Fisherman]

Your other post is not very interesting. I will just pick the one thing out (here I go, cherry-picking again) to show what you are all about:

"There is no such thing as “blood evidence”.

Did Mizen say or did not Mizen say that she bled from the neck as he saw her?

Did Mizen say or did he not say that the blood in the pool underneath Nichols was somewhat congealed?

Did Neil say that she bled from the neck as he saw her?

Did Thain say that the blood was a congealed mass as it was cleaned away, off the pavement?

Does what PC:s say at an inquest count as evidence or does it not count as evidence?

Answer those questions with a set of yesīs or noīs, please!

[Fisherman]

Thank you Drstrange,you have demolished all the points put by Fisherman.

Yeah, right.

Letīs take just one example:

-Is it purely coincidental that Lechmere and Mizen disagreed about how much of the gravity of the situation that was divulged to the PC by the carman?

Facts Christer, stick with the actual facts. Xmere and Paul claimed they weren’t sure she was was dead, in fact both said under oath they thought she might be alive. How could Xmere and Paul tell Mizen she was murdered or dead when they said they didn’t know for sure she was? Xmere gave an accurate description of what they found.

How does this even touch on the question I asked? I asked about why Mizen and Lechmere presented different versions of how much of the involved gravity of the errand was divulged by the carman. Mizen only says that he was told that there was a woman lying in Bucks Row. He does not say that he was told anything about the woman perhaps or probably being dead.

Can you see any answer to that question here, Harry? I know I canīt.

But itīs right up your pitch dark alley, so I can see why you gratefully accept and welcome it.

[Fisherman]

Hereīs another whopper:

- The wounds to the abdomen were covered by Nicholsī clothing. In the other evisceration cases, no such effort was made. Rather, the victims were left on display. Was it just a coincidence that Nichols had her damage hidden? (My phrase)

No, Paul covered them. And he was the only witness in all the murders to admit doing so. (Dustīs phrase)

That, Harry, is the quality you need to opt for. Why give a damn about Lechmere himself saying: "When I found her, her clothes were above her knees."

No, Paul was the ONLY man who pulled the dress down, and before that, the abdominal wounds were on display but the carmen did not see of feel them in the darkness.

When arguments like these come crawling out from under stones on a rainy day, we have a duty to set things straight.

I personally very much like how Scott Nelson put it in an earlier post:

"Just to reiterate my opinion without going into detail: Charles Cross is an excellent suspect for the murder of Polly Nichols. If you try to push it to Annie Chapman, it's somewhat feasible in my opinion. Beyond that (further murder victims), it's very questionable."

A sound and courageous judgement from a sound and courageous poster. And then there are the extremes on the other side of that line, on whom I have already spent far too much time and effort ...

Good day to you, gentlemen.

[caz]

Point one. Paul was not likely to miss the woman. He said that she was impossible to miss, more or less: "If a policeman had been there he must have seen here, for she was plain enough to see."

Hi Fish,

I think you are missing the point. We know that Paul did not discover the horrible truth, even after examining Nichols with your conventional, unremarkable 'grey' man at fairly close quarters. So with the wounds covered, 'grey man' could have walked past or away from the stranger with his head down, and let him see the woman in his own good time if there was little chance of him missing her entirely, and by the time he realised she had been murdered (or rather if he realised - we know he didn't), 'grey man' could have been streets away, virtually unidentifiable. Even in the highly unlikely event that the stranger saw him again and thought he recognised him, a simple denial would have sufficed with no other evidence to connect him to the crime. You can't be hanged for hurrying past what looks like a tarpaulin on your way to work without stopping to see if it might be a dead prostitute. Paul certainly wouldn't have been, in those circumstances.

Caz, in discussing all of this you need to respect that my suggestion is that we are dealing with a psychopath. They thrive on playing games, lying, playing the upright citizen etcetera. If Lechmere decided long before Paul reached the stable gate to bluff the oncomer - and the hiding of the wounds indicates this - then we can be sure that this was a man who had nothing at all against taking his chances and playing a dangerous game.

There is nothing at all untenable about it, Iīm afraid.

And here it comes again, with the regularity of a bowel movement - your bottom line argument for 'grey man' being the killer and staying to bluff it out with the stranger, followed by the most dependable, yet most gullible policeman in the force - PC Mizen, followed by everyone at the inquest, when he could so easily have disappeared without trace and never become associated with the case, is that if he was a psychopath it might explain such behaviour and how he could have got away with all the murders. But there's one more coming before you can wipe: if he was the ripper, he must also have been a psychopath to explain such behaviour, and an arsehole lucky one to get away with it.

Unfortunately, no male alive in 1888 without a rock solid alibi can be safe from exactly the same circular reasoning, so it doesn't help to elevate your 'grey man' above the unremarkable.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Do I think that Mizen did something terribly wrong? Absolutely not. He perhaps made a snap judegement that this was another false alarm. A woman lying drunk, no more. He then simply omitted information that may lead one to conclude that he didn't act he himself probably felt - after the fact - that he should have.

Prior to Nichols there has been Smith and Tabram. Tabram (most recently) had occured almost two months prior. One can understand Mizen's reaction.

Hi Patrick,

I'm only up to page 43, so forgive me if this has already been dealt with, but Tabram had been found murdered (near Whitechapel High Street) just over three weeks before Mizen was allegedly told that a fellow police officer needed his assistance with a woman who had been found lying in Buck's Row (near the Whitechapel Road). I don't think he could have felt very well when he realised it had happened again and he had not responded as he could or should have done, taking the men's details for example before going straight to the scene. Ten times worse if he wasn't told there was a policeman already with her, and he carried on knocking up, leaving her alone and at the mercy of any passing ruffian, rapist or murderer, if she was drunk or sleeping. Hell, if the two men had told him she might just be drunk, he may have been terrified that she could have been attacked and murdered between the men leaving her to fetch him and his tardy arrival at the scene, perhaps even while he was still knocking up. I doubt the 'blood evidence' would have reassured him that wasn't the case.

Being able to put Neil at the scene before he was told about the woman (by putting the words in Lechmere's mouth) would have suited Mizen down to the ground, because in that case his delay could not possibly have left a drunken Nichols alone to face her killer after Lechmere and Paul had gone to seek help.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz:

... forgive me if this has already been dealt with, but Tabram had been found murdered (near Whitechapel High Street) just over three weeks before Mizen was allegedly told that a fellow police officer needed his assistance with a woman who had been found lying in Buck's Row (near the Whitechapel Road). I don't think he could have felt very well when he realised it had happened again and he had not responded as he could or should have done, taking the men's details for example before going straight to the scene.

Mizen had no reason to take the mens names, and he made no professional error, as per Monty. Unless, that is, he was NOT lied to about the second PC. That in itself speaks - at least to my mind - about how he WAS lied to, as do the ensuing steps he took.
Letīs not try and perpetuate the myth that Mizen did not follow protocol, shall we?

Ten times worse if he wasn't told there was a policeman already with her, and he carried on knocking up, leaving her alone and at the mercy of any passing ruffian, rapist or murderer, if she was drunk or sleeping.

I would not want to try and quantify it but yes, that would have been worse. But look at the fact that Mizen said that Lechmere was the one approaching him and sepaking to him, whereas Lechmere himself said that both he and Paul did. Explain to me why Mizen would lie about that - and then I can tell you why Lechmere would!

Hell, if the two men had told him she might just be drunk, he may have been terrified that she could have been attacked and murdered between the men leaving her to fetch him and his tardy arrival at the scene, perhaps even while he was still knocking up. I doubt the 'blood evidence' would have reassured him that wasn't the case.

Why do you put quotation marks around the blood evidence, Caz?
Mizen was told that there was a woman lying flat on her back in the street in Bucks Row. Nothing was said about any conversation between the carmen and the woman. It would therefore stand to reason that Mizen expected to have found her the way the carmen left her. I donīt think for a moment that he would speculate that she had been killed inbetween - it is all too fanciful to my taste.

[caz]

I've edited my last post to add a bit, Fish. I haven't read yours yet as I'm still catching up and have to go now.

See you next week!

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Fish,

I think you are missing the point. We know that Paul did not discover the horrible truth, even after examining Nichols with your conventional, unremarkable 'grey' man at fairly close quarters. So with the wounds covered, 'grey man' could have walked past or away from the stranger with his head down, and let him see the woman in his own good time if there was little chance of him missing her entirely, and by the time he realised she had been murdered (or rather if he realised - we know he didn't), 'grey man' could have been streets away, virtually unidentifiable.

"Could", yes. But "would"? If Lechmere had left, he would have put his fate in the hands of the newcomer. Whoīs to say that this man would not immediately try and prop Nichols up - as we know Paul wanted to do?

Three seconds and the game would have been up.

I still think itīs a bit academic, since the wounds were covered. Therefore the decision was taken before the newcomer arrived. There was never any intention at all of fleeing on Lechmereīs behalf - or so it seems, at the very least.

Even in the highly unlikely event that the stranger saw him again and thought he recognised him, a simple denial would have sufficed with no other evidence to connect him to the crime. You can't be hanged for hurrying past what looks like a tarpaulin on your way to work without stopping to see if it might be a dead prostitute. Paul certainly wouldn't have been, in those circumstances.

No, but you WILL get hanged if you still have a bloody knife on your person, or if you throw it away in the chase. It appears that Lechmere simply did not want to deal with a scenario where he was not in the overall control. And that is sooo typical psychopath behaviour. It fits that way.

And here it comes again, with the regularity of a bowel movement - your bottom line argument for 'grey man' being the killer and staying to bluff it out with the stranger, followed by the most dependable, yet most gullible policeman in the force - PC Mizen, followed by everyone at the inquest, when he could so easily have disappeared without trace and never become associated with the case, is that if he was a psychopath it might explain such behaviour and how he could have got away with all the murders. But there's one more coming before you can wipe: if he was the ripper, he must also have been a psychopath to explain such behaviour, and an arsehole lucky one to get away with it.

Unfortunately, no male alive in 1888 without a rock solid alibi can be safe from exactly the same circular reasoning, so it doesn't help to elevate your 'grey man' above the unremarkable.

That elevation comes with - among other things - the name swop, the correspondance of the streets he would have walked and the murder spots, the bloodflow etcetera, etcetera. There is just too much for him not to be the prime suspect and the probable killer. Some of it is purely circumstantial, other matters represent physical evidence.
It is all very comfortable to wave the psychopath suggestion aside with a bit of used toilet paper, but the fact of the matter is that very many serialists ARE psychopaths, and the Ripper killings had psychopathy written all over them, so IF Lechmere was the killer, than he would with near 100 per cent certainty have been a psychopath.
Nota bene - again - that I am NOT saying that it is a proven thing that Lechmere was a psychopath. I am going nowhere near saying such a thing.

I AM saying that the Ripper was clearly a psychopath, and it THEREFORE applies that Lechmere would have been one if he was the killer.

It would have been a circular resaoning if I said that Lechmere was a psychopath, without adding "if he was the killer". But I donīt, do I?

You need to recognize that difference, subtle though it may seem.

[Fisherman]

I've edited my last post to add a bit, Fish. I haven't read yours yet as I'm still catching up and have to go now.

See you next week!

Love,

Caz
X

Looking forward to it. Constant dropping wears away a stone.

[drstrange169]

>>I can see no other viable explanations. Can you?<<

Since you asked, yes I can, the most important one.
It is clear to any reader of Paul’s Interview that Paul had an agenda against the police.

>>How does the "It was exactly 3.45" sentence cast Paul in the heroes role? Exactly - it does not. It is not something that can be used to big him up.<<

Au contraire, by claiming “it was exactly 3:45” he was challenging the police version of events. There is no mistaking this as he returns to the allegation towards the end of his interview,
“If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”

>>Now, Dust, you write "The inquest wasn't interested in when he left home, it was irrelevant." That is of course silly to propose. How could it be irrelevant? <<

It was irrelevant because it was a non-specific time as opposed to his VERY specific,“exactly 3:45”.

That time was essential information because it changed everybody else's testimony. By refusing to repeat his claim under oath the claim goes into the same grandstanding bag his other untrue quotes are stuffed into.


>>… And therefore also one of the very few bits he did NOT change between paper and inquest.<<

See above. By suddenly altering this testimony under oath he allowed himself wriggle room to avoid being charged with perjury.