Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Trevor Marriott]

Clearly Christer has yet to read my book, which explains statement taking, and Coroners Officer duties (validation of witnesses and their statements, assisting the coroner in selection of witnesses to appear etc), along with Inquest procedure (including summons action etc).

Its a classic case of picking and choosing evidence to fit a suspect and theory, rather than following no matter where it leads.

Monty

Eloquently put !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

Problem 1: Why did Nichols bleed for ten minutes - which she must have done in this scenario.

Problem 2: Paul WAS en route to work - he was hauled in by the police at a later stage, and they will have scrutinized him thoroughly, so he was not lying about the work he had.

Problem 3: There are no side alleys that would work the way you suggest. The closest one is up at the schoolhouse (Queen Anne Road) and that would put him in front of Lechmere.

Problem 4: Paul was scrutinized, and so the time he gave for his departure that morning may well have been checked. And he had but two minuteīs walk to the murder site.

Problem 5: For him to have doubled back, Paul must have passed Lechmere.

Problem 6: Paul wanted to have Lechmere helping him prop Nichols up, at which stage Lechmere would inevitably have seen that the head hung on by the spine only.

Iīm sure that there are other problems too, but I think this is a listing that goes to show that Paul is not a very good candidate.

Lechmere is, though.

They'd have scrutinized Paul thoroughly, but didn't even look at Cross long enough to check his name??.

[c.d.]

Thank you, Trevor.

It seems like we are always trying to determine what the police would or would not do in a given situation. The standard I use is to ask myself, and I have no training whatsoever in criminal investigations, if I would find something suspicious. If the answer is yes, I think it is a reasonable assumption that trained Scotland Yard detectives would find it suspicious as well and act accordingly.

Do I find the fact that Lechmere was found by himself next to a recently killed victim suspicious in and of itself? The answer is yes. I find it very hard to believe that Scotland Yard would not reach the same conclusion. Since they were desperate to solve these murders, you would think that they would have dispatched a couple of detectives to talk to his family, his neighbors and his employer and co-workers. If that turned up anything suspicious you ramp up the investigation.

Yes, this is ultimately an assumption and it is possible that it never occurred to the police that Lechmere could have been the killer so we are left to determine if our assumptions are reasonable and more probable than not.

c.d.

[RivkahChaya]

Well, we can eliminate Lechmere as Pierre's mysterious suspect.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Harry D;354866]Because it doesn't show anything out of the ordinary, Fish. I thought that would've been obvious. Lechmere was on his way to work, like any other day, only this time he happened to find a corpse along his route.
/QUOTE]

Waiting for a friend to come out of her house is nothing out of the ordinary either.

Staking out a victim is.

And killing en route to work is too.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: It is quite simple for those who want to understand, but for you who doesn't want to accept more plausible explanations it become hard and your posts contain more attacks on the posters than positive comments.

Itīs not that I donīt try, Trevor...

The police had access and in fact more than has been available today. Yet they nor did the coroner think anything untoward about him giving different names.

But he did NOT give different names, Trevor. He gave just the one.

So why is it that you and Inspector Gadget have gone on a mission to suggest that all of the authorities were incompetent in 1888 and totally missed out catching a killer.

"Inspector Gadget" - is that one of YOR "positive comments"?

If the same circumstances prevailed today everything about this man and his movements would have been checked. That`s basic police procedures I am sure the same prevailed in 1888.

Iīm not. Would you have checked all the dwellers in Bucks Row or just handful? That was the procedures that prevailed back then.

Going on Montys comments about assumptions it is right to assume then that the police did check on him and as there is no mention of him ever becoming anything other than a man who found the body of a murdered woman.Whatever the explanation for the name error was given at some point and must have been accepted, otherwise he might have been recorded as a suspect or more mention made of him.

If the name was cleared up, he would have been called LECHMERE in the reports. Otherwise it was "cleared up" after the 19:th of October...

You seek to rely on unreliable timings, on newspaper articles which cannot be relied upon. In addition you rely on your own interpretation of what you term blood evidence, and again you accept and reject which ever expert does not concur with you on this.

No, I donīt reject it. I simply say it is less credible.

All in all you have a just a theory, one of hundred that make up Ripperolgy.

And the best one at that.

I am not going to bother even discussing this further with you.

You are way too kind, Trevor!

[Fisherman]

Clearly Christer has yet to read my book, which explains statement taking, and Coroners Officer duties (validation of witnesses and their statements, assisting the coroner in selection of witnesses to appear etc), along with Inquest procedure (including summons action etc).

Its a classic case of picking and choosing evidence to fit a suspect and theory, rather than following no matter where it leads.

Monty

Well, it seems I will go glip of that information then, since i Iīm not buying your book, Monty.

[Fisherman]

They'd have scrutinized Paul thoroughly, but didn't even look at Cross long enough to check his name??.

Yes, exactly so. One called in voluntarily, the other kept away.

[Monty]

Well, it seems I will go glip of that information then, since i Iīm not buying your book, Monty.

If you wish to prolong your ignorance, so be it.

Monty

[Fisherman]

c.d.:
Do I find the fact that Lechmere was found by himself next to a recently killed victim suspicious in and of itself? The answer is yes.

Noooo, C.D. - somebody had to find her, dontīcha know?

I find it very hard to believe that Scotland Yard would not reach the same conclusion. Since they were desperate to solve these murders...

It was still relatively early days, so the full panic was not on. But of course I agree - tje police really should have checked him! Not least on account of the blood evidence - even if we allow scared posters to discard Mizen, it still remains that Neil saw her bleeding a few minutes after Lechmere left her. That should have the alarm bells ringing.

But there is not a word in the papers about how the extremely suspicious man who was found with the body was interrogated and raked over the coals. Walter Dew cannot even remember his name, and has him down as a morose, rough member of the unintersting working class. Plus the police never found out that he was really named Lechmere.

Spelling that out, he never evoked any interest at all. The police bought his story, hook, line and sinker, and so did the press, no questions asked.

, you would think that they would have dispatched a couple of detectives to talk to his family, his neighbors and his employer and co-workers. If that turned up anything suspicious you ramp up the investigation.

Exactly - they should have hauled him in and put the thumbscrews on him. But there is not a iot to suggest that they did. This is why I believe that his double searching out the cops on his own behalf helped to clear him in advance in the minds of the police. Plus I am very well read up on criminal anthropology by now, and it is not any reassuring reading. He is everything a criminal anthropologist would NOT look for.

Yes, this is ultimately an assumption and it is possible that it never occurred to the police that Lechmere could have been the killer so we are left to determine if our assumptions are reasonable and more probable than not.

Look at the evidence, C.D! Look at how people in the periphery like Violenia get their fifteen minutes of fame in the press. And look at how "Cross" is not mentioned with a word. Look at how Dew treats him - and the infinitely more interesting Robert Paul!

Lechmere cleared up things for the police, who had gotten tangled up in the misconception that Neil was the finder. They hosted a press conference where the carmen were pooh-poohed. They let Neil on the stand to misinform the world.

Then along came this humble, simple carman and said "I am sorry, but you have got it all wrong. It was I who foud the body, I and that other carma you seem to disbeleive."

What were the odds that the copper would think "It has to be him" at that stage, C.D.?

[Fisherman]

If you wish to prolong your ignorance, so be it.

Monty

Itīs more a question of not wasting money, Monty.

[c.d.]

Sorry, Fish. I think you are wearing Lechmere colored glasses so it is not surprising that everything comes up Lechmere.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Fish. I think you are wearing Lechmere colored glasses so it is not surprising that everything comes up Lechmere.

c.d.

Heard that one before, C.D.! But really, why do you think that there is not a shred of information or any interest in the papers about Lechmere? If they had keelhauled him, how is it that there is no mentioning at all about it? Why does not Dew say that there was a lot of suspicion against him initially? And why is he called Cross in the reports?

You are a thoughtful man. Surely you have some ideas to offer?

[c.d.]

Hi Fish,

I think there are two possible explanations. Either the police were extremely stupid and negligent or they simply determined that he was not their man in ways we don't know about. I have to go with the latter.

c.d.

[Monty]

Itīs more a question of not wasting money, Monty.

I understand. You value cash over knowledge, enjoy your bliss Christer.

Monty