Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[GUT]

From what I've read, the police believed she was murdered elsewhere and deposited there. If it was Lechmere, he would have had to get past the PC on Brady Street and drop her in Bucks, Row to pull this off.
Was that on his route?

Can you point me to the police believing she was dumped after being killed elsewhere.

[SuspectZero]

Can you point me to the police believing she was dumped after being killed elsewhere.

Hi GUT. See accompanying image. Reynolds Newspaper - Sept 2, 1888

[Hercule Poirot]

I quite liked the TV program on Lechmere, but I'd note here that there is a reason that our judicial system is adversarial in nature. We lack Lechmere's side of the story, and we lack any record of what the police might have done in deciding to dismiss Lechmere as a suspect, or perhaps not even consider him as such.

Despite what the QC said on TV, there isn't a prosecutor on the planet who would file a case against a suspect without at least hearing his side of the story.

Usually, and I'm refering to the process in Canada which was similar to the British way of handling things at that time, a prosecutor doesn't decide by himself to press charges against someone. Evidence is gathered by the police and if they have reasonable belief that a crime has occurred and the suspect did it (reasonable doubt), they will submit a recommendation to the Cheif Prosecutor. He will go through the evidence, possibly ask for additional information or advice and if he comes to the same conclusion he will hand it down to a subsitute prosecutor.

Maybe Monty could help out and give us the actual way it was handled back then.
Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[GUT]

Hi GUT. See accompanying image. Reynolds Newspaper - Sept 2, 1888

G'day SZ

no mention of the police holding that opinion.

"A very general opinion....."

[SuspectZero]

G'day SZ

no mention of the police holding that opinion.

"A very general opinion....."

I couldn't post the whole article due to size constraints but I wanted to provide you the gist of it. Still, I thought it interesting about the blood trail down Brady Street.

[SuspectZero]

More of the same article...

[SuspectZero]

More of the same article...

Please note that the article says one of the many theories of the police and then goes on to say "the other theory"......
It seems to tie the two together to say that is was a theory the police were pursuing. I've not read anything else that says that this latter theory could not be possible.

[drstrange169]

Police, Helson and Abberline, specifically knocked back the theory.

"Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady street to Buck's row was not true. The place was examined by Sergeant Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither bloodstains nor wheel marks were found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere. Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot. That conclusion was fortified by the post mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn. At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming. The blood from those wounds Inspector Helson considers was held by the dress and the ulster, and it is evident, from that view of the matter, that the woman was lying on her back when her throat was cut."

Daily News 3 Sept. (My emphasis)

There is a thread about the bloodstains, with a good informative discussion about the pros and cons on Casebook, well worth a look.

[Mirandola]

'It seems difficult to believe the woman received her death wounds there.' [Daily News, 1 Sept.]. 'A general opinion is now entertained that the spot where the body was found was not the scene of the murder .... in Brady Street what appeared to be blood stains leading to Buck's Row ...' [Evening News, 1 Sept.]. 'The report that blood stains were found leading from Brady Street to Buck's Row was not true.' [Daily News, 3 Sept.]. 'This morning two reporters watched in Buck's Row from 1 a.m. to 11 a.m .... the murder happened around the corner in Winthrop Street ...' [Evening News, 7 Sept.].
Coroner's Summing Up: 'The condition of the body appeared to prove conclusively that the deceased was killed on the exact spot in which she was found.' [Telegraph, Sept. 24th.].
The Evening News reports in particular relied heavily on 'local rumours' and increasingly unlikely hypotheses (a "High-Rip" style extortion gang, an epileptic, a 'maniac', a lascar). They plot very graphically the atmosphere of fear and panic among local people, but they are not sources for the thinking of the official investigators.

[SuspectZero]

'It seems difficult to believe the woman received her death wounds there.' [Daily News, 1 Sept.]. 'A general opinion is now entertained that the spot where the body was found was not the scene of the murder .... in Brady Street what appeared to be blood stains leading to Buck's Row ...' [Evening News, 1 Sept.]. 'The report that blood stains were found leading from Brady Street to Buck's Row was not true.' [Daily News, 3 Sept.]. 'This morning two reporters watched in Buck's Row from 1 a.m. to 11 a.m .... the murder happened around the corner in Winthrop Street ...' [Evening News, 7 Sept.].
Coroner's Summing Up: 'The condition of the body appeared to prove conclusively that the deceased was killed on the exact spot in which she was found.' [Telegraph, Sept. 24th.].
The Evening News reports in particular relied heavily on 'local rumours' and increasingly unlikely hypotheses (a "High-Rip" style extortion gang, an epileptic, a 'maniac', a lascar). They plot very graphically the atmosphere of fear and panic among local people, but they are not sources for the thinking of the official investigators.

Hi Mirandola,
I understand there are conflicting reports but even Inspector Helson stated at the inquest that there might have been blood found in Brady Street.
It's a possibility.

[Mirandola]

There may indeed, Zero; and traces of blood might easily be found in any street near a number of slaughter-houses, not to mention the normal rough-and-tumble of late Victorian Whitechapel at night. The only reason the blood came up as being of any importance at all was the atmosphere of panic created by the murder and the deliberate rumour-mongering of the Evening News, which had a long-standing and continuing campaign against the effectiveness of local Policing. The significant point is that the original report was of 'blood stains leading to Buck's Row' and this is specifically what the Daily News of 3rd. September denied outright.
I think the Coroner's long-deliberated (twenty-one days) statement that there was no possibility that she was killed anywhere other than 'on the exact spot in which she was found' needs to be taken at face value for what it is - the professional judgment of an official who had seen and evaluated all the available evidence.

[GUT]

There may indeed, Zero; and traces of blood might easily be found in any street near a number of slaughter-houses, not to mention the normal rough-and-tumble of late Victorian Whitechapel at night. The only reason the blood came up as being of any importance at all was the atmosphere of panic created by the murder and the deliberate rumour-mongering of the Evening News, which had a long-standing and continuing campaign against the effectiveness of local Policing. The significant point is that the original report was of 'blood stains leading to Buck's Row' and this is specifically what the Daily News of 3rd. September denied outright.
I think the Coroner's long-deliberated (twenty-one days) statement that there was no possibility that she was killed anywhere other than 'on the exact spot in which she was found' needs to be taken at face value for what it is - the professional judgment of an official who had seen and evaluated all the available evidence.

Unfortunately the police stating that no such blood trail existed doesn't carry much weight with some posters, so why would the opinion of the coroner.

It seems some read what suits their ideas and ignore anything that may contradict it.

[Elamarna]

Unfortunately the police stating that no such blood trail existed doesn't carry much weight with some posters, so why would the opinion of the coroner.

It seems some read what suits their ideas and ignore anything that may contradict it.

Dear GUT
I think the problem is that people become so emotionally attached to either an idea they have had or read from someone else, that they become partial blinded to what they are saying, even when they may normally talk much common sense.

Its particularly true for those who propose suspects, or indeed don't so to speak

Steve

[caz]

Hi All,

My interest in all this at the moment is what a guilty Lechmere could have learned in the run-up to his coming forward, that would have changed the goal posts for him and made the risk of staying out of it and hoping to remain anonymous (like Blotchy did for example) greater than the risk of identifying himself as the true finder of Nichols.

This piece of information was only to be found in Robert Paul's story until Lechmere confirmed it.

Nobody on the planet at the time except Paul knew that his 'other man' had been there first.

Nobody else on the planet at the time knew it wasn't Paul who alerted Mizen (and lied to him), but the 'other man' - until Lechmere stepped forward to claim that honour for himself.

Nobody else on the planet at the time knew that Paul hadn't found the woman dead and already 'cold', as he claimed, which was the best thing a guilty Lechmere could have read.

Early speculation that the body had been transported to Buck's Row would have been the second best news Lechmere could have read.

Lechmere wasn't identified or even described in Paul's story; nobody knew who he was, where he had come from, where he was going, or that he was a carman by trade. Nothing.

Lechmere knew Paul had misrepresented both their roles in the newspaper, and Paul's version of the conversation wouldn't tally with Mizen's account of what he was told (by Lechmere).

If Lechmere hadn't come forward to confirm or deny anything, all of Paul's claims would have been called into question, including that he had arrived after this 'other man'. Who says so? Why, it's only that Robert Paul, the wretch who has it in for the police and has made several false allegations in the paper.

Why on earth would the killer rush to confirm that Paul was telling the truth about who was there first? Why on earth would he rush to deny other stuff that Paul claimed that was to his advantage?

In fact, I'm seriously struggling to imagine how things could have been any better designed to spare Lechmere the trouble of attempting to stay out of trouble. He wasn't in any! Paul and Mizen potentially were.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

Hi All,

My interest in all this at the moment is what a guilty Lechmere could have learned in the run-up to his coming forward, that would have changed the goal posts for him and made the risk of staying out of it and hoping to remain anonymous (like Blotchy did for example) greater than the risk of identifying himself as the true finder of Nichols.

This piece of information was only to be found in Robert Paul's story until Lechmere confirmed it.

Nobody on the planet at the time except Paul knew that his 'other man' had been there first.

Nobody else on the planet at the time knew it wasn't Paul who alerted Mizen (and lied to him), but the 'other man' - until Lechmere stepped forward to claim that honour for himself.

Nobody else on the planet at the time knew that Paul hadn't found the woman dead and already 'cold', as he claimed, which was the best thing a guilty Lechmere could have read.

Early speculation that the body had been transported to Buck's Row would have been the second best news Lechmere could have read.

Lechmere wasn't identified or even described in Paul's story; nobody knew who he was, where he had come from, where he was going, or that he was a carman by trade. Nothing.

Lechmere knew Paul had misrepresented both their roles in the newspaper, and Paul's version of the conversation wouldn't tally with Mizen's account of what he was told (by Lechmere).

If Lechmere hadn't come forward to confirm or deny anything, all of Paul's claims would have been called into question, including that he had arrived after this 'other man'. Who says so? Why, it's only that Robert Paul, the wretch who has it in for the police and has made several false allegations in the paper.

Why on earth would the killer rush to confirm that Paul was telling the truth about who was there first? Why on earth would he rush to deny other stuff that Paul claimed that was to his advantage?

In fact, I'm seriously struggling to imagine how things could have been any better designed to spare Lechmere the trouble of attempting to stay out of trouble. He wasn't in any! Paul and Mizen potentially were.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi, Caz. You bring up an interesting point, one that - when he was still talking to me - Christer and I have gone back and forth on (somewhere on these pages).

If you've seen Christer's documentary, you'll recall that Paul's statement in Lloyd's was described as a 'bombshell' that drove Cross/Lechmere out of hiding, forcing him to come forward and testify at the inquest. Obviously, when the entire story is told, this makes no sense.

As you pointed out, Paul - in his statement - not only marginalizes the 'other man', he describes him only to that extent: the 'other man'. He's not described at all. Further, it is known that Mizen did not collect names. No one knew his name, his occupation, where he worked. There is no description of him. He's a man. Not all tall man. Not short, old, young, bearded, mustachioed, clean shaven. No description of his clothes. THIS was a bombshell? A KILLER managed to draw attention to his crime, find a cop, TELL him about the woman he'd killed, managed to disappear without some much as anyone taking name. And a statement by a man who diminishes his (the KILLER) involvement at the scene and offers no description of him at all beyond that he was 'a man' is a BOMBSHELL that sends him immediately to the police to take the stand and submit to questions?