The Lechmere trail - so far

[Pierre]

Pierre, running away from the other thread won´t do. We have unfinished business there to handle first.
Besides, this is uninteresting chit-chat that has had it´s answers hundreds of times already.

Goodnight to you for now.

Hi Fisherman,

No, you must have misunderstood me. I am not running away. I am just testing the possibility to give an alternative interpretation, from the point of view of my research, to certain points in your theory. So it is my own test and I am just doing it for myself.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Pierre, running away from the other thread won´t do. We have unfinished business there to handle first.
Besides, this is uninteresting chit-chat that has had it´s answers hundreds of times already.

Goodnight to you for now.

[Pierre]

"Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in the newspaper article. Coincidence?"

Seeing a policeman at a murder site and thinking that policeman was a suspect would have made Lechmere unwilling to come forward with his statement and identity.

[Pierre]

"Lechmere seems not to have given his address in open court during the inquest. Coincidence?"

Giving his adress meant taking the risk of getting it published in the newspapers where the killer could read it.

[Pierre]

"Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself."

And so Lechmere did tell Mizen about the policeman in Buck´s Row. And during the time from the sighting of that policeman and to the inquest, Lechmere had come to the conclusion that the policeman was a suspect. But knowing about the risk of having this statement in the newspapers together with his name, he lied at the inquest.

[Pierre]

"Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm at the Nichols murder site. He waited until Paul tried to pass him, and only then placed his hand on his fellow carmans shoulder, saying ”Come and look over here ...”
He did not call out to Paul as the latter approached, and neither man contacted any of the dwellers in Bucks Row. They instead left Nichols lying and set out to work, professing to wanting to find a PC on their way."

If Lechmere was uncertain of what he should think about the policeman he saw at the murder site he would not have called out to Paul or contacted the dwellings in Buck´s Row given that the policeman could be somewhere nearby.

[Pierre]

"Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carman´s contacts with different authorities. In all of them but one, he used the name Lechmere.
Is it another coincidence that he should swop to Cross when contacting the police in a murder errand?"

No coincidence. Being a witness to the killer, one would be very scared. Lechmere saw it as his duty to protect his family.

[Pierre]

"Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.
Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case. If this emerged, then he may have reasoned that there was a risk that his family and aquaintances would be more wary of any future connections to the coming murders. For example, as long as his family and aquaintances did not know about his involvement in the Nichols case, they would not react very much about the Chapman case a week later. But if they had been alerted to his role in the Nichols murder, then it may have seemed odd to them that the next victim should fall along his working route.
In light of this, he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes, so that he could give his wife the impression that he was instead headed for work."

My suggestion is that he used a false name before the inquest in order to avoid having it published in the newspapers so the killer could find him and his family.

And in light of this he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes so he would not alarm his wife and family about having become a murder witness.

[Pierre]

"Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.
It can be argued that much as Lechmere wanted to look as a helpful man trying to do what he could for the woman, he also knew that propping her up would immediately give away that she had had her neck cut to the bone."

It can also be argued that since Lechmere´s stepfather was a policeman and Lechmere knew things about police work he would have known better than to move a body on a crime scene.

[Pierre]

"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."

It is very hard to see that anybody else than the policeman Lechmere saw could have been the killer.

[Pierre]

"The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? "

It could have served the practical purpose of hiding from Lechmere what had really happened when Lechmere arrived at the murder scene and saw an unknown policeman there.

[Pierre]

"Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A pathologist has told me that stretching the bleeding time beyond five minutes is not to be expected. If that is correct, then we are left with very little or no time for an alternative killer."

Yes, there is time as you say for an alternative killer. He could have been the policeman that Lechmere told Mizen he saw at the murder site.

[Fisherman]

I will here reproduce a post of mine made on an adjacent thread. I would like to have your comments on it, since I think it is very interesting. Here it is:

"It is reasoned by some of those who do not favour Lechmere as the killer, that PC Mizen was the liar. Some will even say it is a thing beyond discussion.

These posters say that the reason Mizen told the jury that he had been informed that another PC was already in place in Bucks Row, was that he was tardy himself in going down to Browns stable yard. And so, it is said, he invented that other PC, so that he could point to how he would not have had any real need to rush - the other PC would already have had the matter in hand!

However, notice how Mizen also says that he was only informed that there was a woman lying flat on her back in Bucks Row. From what Mizen tells us, he was NOT informed about how grave the errand - potentially - was.
This too is picked up on by the so called naysayers - they say that not only did Mizen invent that other PC, he also played down that he had been told that it was a serious errand. The scoundrel!

But consider this:

Why did not Mizen ONLY say that he was told that there was a drunken woman lying in the street? Going by what Lechmere said, PC Mizen was told that the woman was either drunk or dead. How easy it would have been, then, to ONLY acknowledge that he had heard the drunken part!

It would corroborate what the carman said (and what Mizen would have known he was going to say), and it would not have him entangled in an elaborate lie that he KNEW the carmen would both deny. And it would be quite enough to explain why he did not rush - if we are to believe that he didn´t.

If he DID invent the "other PC" lie, he stood to BOTH be faced with both of the carmens denials, blowing him out of the water, plus having a PC in place that had specifically requested his help without defining why,and that would be a very compelling reason to make haste. It could potentially be very pressing.

No matter how we turn these matters inside out, the lies do not fit with Mizen trying to make an excuse - but they DO fit eminently with the carman lying his way past Mizen."

The question has been asked why I do not discuss whether the "other policeman" issue could have been a mishearing on behalf of Mizen.
Technically, it could have.
But we must keep in mind that there were three things involved in the discussion between Mizen and Lechmere where they disagreed:
1. The other PC
2. The seriousness of the errand
3. The question whether one or two carmen spoke to Mizen

Each of these matters would have been important to the possibilitites of Lechmere to be able to pass by Mizen and to avoid being disclosed afterwards.

If Mizen misheard one thing, it would be odd but understandable.

To suggest that he misheard all three is taking it way too long.

I would primarily want comments from people who have so far not commented on the issue.

[Fisherman]

FrankO: Mr. Payne-James informed you that 3 or 5 minutes were more likely estimations than 7 and that 7 minutes was not very realistic. Since 7.5 to 8 minutes is even longer (regardless of whether it’s a realistic option), I'm wondering: if Nichols was still bleeding after 7.5 to 8 minutes, would he still think she bled according to the ‘normal bleeding schedule’? Or would he rather see this as a deviation from the ‘normal scheme’?

It would be an unexpectedly long bleeding time, quite simply. But Payne-James also takes great care to say that exceptions occur. He was clear on saying that both the bleeding and coagulation placed Lechmere in the danger zone but could not totally exclude another killer.

Sorry if I was unclear, Fish, but I was just asking what you would see as a fair and feasible suggestion. You've done the math in earlier posts, I was really asking you to do that sort of thing again, based on the approximate 285 m.

Hmm. I think it would be a bit moot. we can never reach any certainty. I am sure your estimation is a fair one, but it equally applies that it can be argued that a minute or two can be either added or detracted.

No matter what, more meters mean less chance of an alternative killer, that much is indisputable.

[FrankO]

Are you thinking that he could say something else?

Mr. Payne-James informed you that 3 or 5 minutes were more likely estimations than 7 and that 7 minutes was not very realistic. Since 7.5 to 8 minutes is even longer (regardless of whether it’s a realistic option), I'm wondering: if Nichols was still bleeding after 7.5 to 8 minutes, would he still think she bled according to the ‘normal bleeding schedule’? Or would he rather see this as a deviation from the ‘normal scheme’?

I think it would be a bit presumptous to try and estblish an absolute minimum, Frank.

Sorry if I was unclear, Fish, but I was just asking what you would see as a fair and feasible suggestion. You've done the math in earlier posts, I was really asking you to do that sort of thing again, based on the approximate 285 m.

I hope you can see how I think that works!

You're quite transparant, Fish.