Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Pcdunn]

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?

Hi, Patrick. Fisherman recently agreed with me for stating that the police sought out Robert Paul following his "bombshell" interview with Lloyd's. Obviously, a person claiming to have found a body prior to a policeman would be a person of interest.

I wonder if Fisherman reasons that Paul would have tried to save his bacon by giving police a description of "the other man" (i.e., Cross/Lechmere) which would have led to them finding the real finder of Nichols. Even if this is true, and Cross was afraid of the same outcome, I'm still not convinced that Cross "had no choice" but to come forward on his own.

We simply don't know WHEN Cross approached the police, if Mizen really hadn't taken any notes, if Paul gave a description, or what really went down prior to Cross appearing to testify. There is too much documentation lacking, other than the newspaper stories (flawed, as you have pointed out).

[Fisherman]

I wonder if Fisherman reasons that Paul would have tried to save his bacon by giving police a description of "the other man" (i.e., Cross/Lechmere) which would have led to them finding the real finder of Nichols.

He doesn´t, no.

[Pcdunn]

Then, why--?

He doesn´t, no.

Well, then, I'm honestly confused why you feel Paul's interview meant Lechmere HAD to come forward and testify. As many others have stated, Lechmere had evaded the police up to that point. If he didn't fear them after the interview, why did he testify at the inquest?

[Fisherman]

Well, then, I'm honestly confused why you feel Paul's interview meant Lechmere HAD to come forward and testify. As many others have stated, Lechmere had evaded the police up to that point. If he didn't fear them after the interview, why did he testify at the inquest?

Who says he didn´t fear the police after the interview?

Then again, I don´t think "fear" is necessarily the best expression.

Goodnight for now.

[Pcdunn]

All right, good night.
(More speculation and guessing, I see. Very well...g)

[Fisherman]

All right, good night.
(More speculation and guessing, I see. Very well...g)

Until there is definitive proof, I´m afraid all suspect theories will involve speculation. For example, when it comes to the suspects having been alone with one or more of the victims, we must speculate such a thing about all these suspecs.

All but one, that is.

[Fisherman]

This bit by PC Dunn is interesting:

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?

It works from the suggestion that nobody managed to discern any traits at all about Lechmere but for his gender.
However, why would we presuppose that the Lloyds reporter would ask for a description of the manby the body? And if he didn´t, why would we expect Paul to provide it anyway?
More importantly - how do we know that Paul did not get a real good look at Lechmere? The two men spent a good many minutes together.
Moreover, Mizen also got a look at him.

Even if Paul and Mizen had not gotten a good look at him, he would nevertheless have become of very great interest to the police if they bought Pauls story. Being aware of that, it would all be up to Lechmere to mak the guess whether he was at peril to be recognized if he stayed away from the proceedings.
And it also applies that IF he was to have an impact on the thinking of the police, then he stood to gain a whole lot from being quick about it, acting BEFORE the police put two and two together.

Just saying.

[Patrick S]

This is - again - more of what I've called 'crystal ball' reasoning. In order for Christer to have Lechmere act as he wishes him to act, he'd - in all likelihood - have had to have had a crystal ball. As it applies to his coming forward, let's consider that Paul's 'Remarkable Statement' appeared in Lloyd's on Sunday, September 2.

In that statement Paul relates that he saw 'a man' standing 'where the woman was'. 'The man' comes toward Paul and asks him to 'come see this woman'. Paul was worried about being late. So, he told the 'other man' he'd send the first policeman he saw. That's it. Three reference. Each time simply 'a' man, the 'other' man, 'the' man. Thus, it's not a mystery what Lechmere knew upon reading this in Lloyd's on Sunday. He knew that Paul described him only as a 'man'. That's it. A 'man'.

What else do we know? We know that Lechmere testified at the inquest on Monday, September 3. The very next day. The timing suggests that Lechmere was not compelled to testify by the police. I find it somewhat incredible that the police would read Paul's statement. Find Paul. Interview him. Get a description of the man (Lechmere). Find Lechmere. And have him at the inquest the following day. Bear in mind ALSO that this is NOT Christer's theory. As described in the documentary, the interview with Paul was a BOMBSHELL that DROVE Lechmere from hiding. Again, when we look at FACTS we'd have to ask, "What kind of bombshell was this? A bombshell with no name, occupation, description? One that has Paul as the prime actor and Lechmere as bystander? Bear in mind also that Christer has promulgated the idea that Paul was not believed by the police. They thought him a 'crackpot'. Alas, I guess Lechmere's crystal ball didn't tell him that part. It told him only that:

1. the safest thing to do after cutting Nichols throat and beginning to disembowel her and hearing footsteps from some 40 yards away would be to step a few feet from her body, flag the man down - even has he tried to avoid him, TOUCH him on the shoulder - and ask him to come have a look.....

2. that if the fella he asked to view Nichols body suggests that she may be alive, tell him, "Nope! I think she's dead!" You see, the safest course would not be to say, "AH! Another drunk then! I'm off!" No. As the killer, he should try to convince this other man that Nichols is dead.

3. he should not walk in the opposite direction as Paul upon leaving the body. The best course of action would be go WITH Paul, to find a policeman.

4. don't part company with Paul along the way. Don't say, "I go this way to work. I'll keep looking for a cop!" Stay the course....

5. And by all means, stick it out until you find a cop. Don't worry that you'll be dragged back the murder scene, searched, and the knife found. Don't worry that your clothes will be inspected. After all, the crystal ball tells you that the PC won't ask your name, won't tell anyone about meeting you, and will allow Neil to testify that he found the body, first and exclusively.

6. When a newspaper story appears that mentions you in only the vaguest terms, by all means, go BACK to he police and give your statement under oath. After all, the crystal ball said there's nothing to worry about. And it's never wrong.

[Pcdunn]

Just for the record...

This bit by PC Dunn is interesting:

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?

It works from the suggestion that nobody managed to discern any traits at all about Lechmere but for his gender.
However, why would we presuppose that the Lloyds reporter would ask for a description of the manby the body? And if he didn´t, why would we expect Paul to provide it anyway?
More importantly - how do we know that Paul did not get a real good look at Lechmere? The two men spent a good many minutes together.
Moreover, Mizen also got a look at him.

Even if Paul and Mizen had not gotten a good look at him, he would nevertheless have become of very great interest to the police if they bought Pauls story. Being aware of that, it would all be up to Lechmere to mak the guess whether he was at peril to be recognized if he stayed away from the proceedings.
And it also applies that IF he was to have an impact on the thinking of the police, then he stood to gain a whole lot from being quick about it, acting BEFORE the police put two and two together.

Just saying.

Thank you for your reply, Fisherman.
However, I just want to clarify that you are not replying to my own words, but rather to those of another poster, Patrick S., whose comments I had quoted in my post.

I guess we don't all see Cross/Lechmere being quite so intelligent as you make him out to be.

[Patrick S]

Thank you for your reply, Fisherman.
However, I just want to clarify that you are not replying to my own words, but rather to those of another poster, Patrick S., whose comments I had quoted in my post.

I guess we don't all see Cross/Lechmere being quite so intelligent as you make him out to be.

Hi, Pcdunn.

This is, of course, more 'crystal ball' logic in that it only makes sense if one knows the outcome. Otherwise, its inexplicable behavior. For instance, "Fisherman" states that Lechmere reasoned that coming forward, voluntarily attending the inquest, being sworn in, interrogated, and putting himself at risk was more likely to produce the desired outcome (i.e. not being arrested, jailed, executed) than simply staying away and going about his business. Of course, we must ask what compelled him, right? What impacted his thinking, causing him to decide to go into the dragon's lair, so to speak, rather than to simply avoid it? It's obvious: Innocence.

Let's consider this, as well. Elizabeth Long saw a man - she thought - with Annie Chapman. She describes him in somewhat more detail (i.e. not just 'a man'): "he was dark. She described him as wearing a brown deer-stalker hat, and she thought he had on a dark coat, but was not quite certain of that. She could not say what the age of the man was, but he looked to be over 40, and appeared to be a little taller than deceased. He appeared to be a foreigner, and had a 'shabby genteel' appearance." This man did NOT come forward. And more importantly he was NEVER identified by police. Yet, Lechmere was convinced they'd find him? Based on what? The Met's ability to find suspects based on eye witness descriptions that fit half the male population of the most populous city on Earth?

What of Lewende's description of the man he saw with Eddowes (of all the witnesses, he's mostly likely to have actually seen the killer)? He's much more than a 'man', as well. " 30 years old, 5 foot 7 inches tall, fair complexion and mustache with a medium build. He is wearing a pepper and salt colored jacket which fits loosely, a grey cloth cap with a peak of the same color. He has a reddish handkerchief knotted around his neck. Over all he gives the appearance of being a sailor." Now, I'd surmise there was a very good reason this man didn't come forward. He didn't come forward because he killed Catherine Eddowes mere moments later. A much more reasonable tactic for avoiding capture than showing up at the police station, wouldn't you say?

This case is RIFE with descriptions, some very detailed, of people that simply vanish. Finding them was - after all - no easy task, right? Yet, "Fisherman" supposes that Lechmere, aka Jack the Ripper, came forward to manipulate the process because he was 'the man' in Paul's 'remarkable story'.

I ask you, Pcdunn, how does this strike you? How is "Fisherman's" theory holding up? I have to admit, this all seems just too easy to debunk.

[GUT]

Hi, Pcdunn.

This is, of course, more 'crystal ball' logic in that it only makes sense if one knows the outcome. Otherwise, its inexplicable behavior. For instance, "Fisherman" states that Lechmere reasoned that coming forward, voluntarily attending the inquest, being sworn in, interrogated, and putting himself at risk was more likely to produce the desired outcome (i.e. not being arrested, jailed, executed) than simply staying away and going about his business. Of course, we must ask what compelled him, right? What impacted his thinking, causing him to decide to go into the dragon's lair, so to speak, rather than to simply avoid it? It's obvious: Innocence.

Let's consider this, as well. Elizabeth Long saw a man - she thought - with Annie Chapman. She describes him in somewhat more detail (i.e. not just 'a man'): "he was dark. She described him as wearing a brown deer-stalker hat, and she thought he had on a dark coat, but was not quite certain of that. She could not say what the age of the man was, but he looked to be over 40, and appeared to be a little taller than deceased. He appeared to be a foreigner, and had a 'shabby genteel' appearance." This man did NOT come forward. And more importantly he was NEVER identified by police. Yet, Lechmere was convinced they'd find him? Based on what? The Met's ability to find suspects based on eye witness descriptions that fit half the male population of the most populous city on Earth?

What of Lewende's description of the man he saw with Eddowes (of all the witnesses, he's mostly likely to have actually seen the killer)? He's much more than a 'man', as well. " 30 years old, 5 foot 7 inches tall, fair complexion and mustache with a medium build. He is wearing a pepper and salt colored jacket which fits loosely, a grey cloth cap with a peak of the same color. He has a reddish handkerchief knotted around his neck. Over all he gives the appearance of being a sailor." Now, I'd surmise there was a very good reason this man didn't come forward. He didn't come forward because he killed Catherine Eddowes mere moments later. A much more reasonable tactic for avoiding capture than showing up at the police station, wouldn't you say?

This case is RIFE with descriptions, some very detailed, of people that simply vanish. Finding them was - after all - no easy task, right? Yet, "Fisherman" supposes that Lechmere, aka Jack the Ripper, came forward to manipulate the process because he was 'the man' in Paul's 'remarkable story'.

I ask you, Pcdunn, how does this strike you? How is "Fisherman's" theory holding up? I have to admit, this all seems just too easy to debunk.

And a host of others too.

Ash man
Blotchy
Wide Awake (if not Hutch)
Pipe Man

[Abby Normal]

And a host of others too.

Ash man
Blotchy
Wide Awake (if not Hutch)
Pipe Man

Whos Ash man?

[GUT]

Whos Ash man?

Astracan man when you're on a small screen and auto correct kicks in.

[Ben]

Whos Ash man?

Astrakhan man post-incineration!

[Pcdunn]

Hi, Pcdunn.

This case is RIFE with descriptions, some very detailed, of people that simply vanish. Finding them was - after all - no easy task, right? Yet, "Fisherman" supposes that Lechmere, aka Jack the Ripper, came forward to manipulate the process because he was 'the man' in Paul's 'remarkable story'.

I ask you, Pcdunn, how does this strike you? How is "Fisherman's" theory holding up? I have to admit, this all seems just too easy to debunk.

Hi, Patrick,

I have gradually grown to find the Lechmere theory very far-fetched, that's true. We have no inquest documents, other than some newspaper articles, no records from Pickford's to attest to Lechmere's name, work schedules, duties, or routes, and only Dew's rather confused recollections of "the carman" who supposedly "never came forward". It is difficult enough to make sense of Cross/Lechmere without speculating that he was a criminal clairvoyant.