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.
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.
Comment