Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Pcdunn]

Plausible to a degree

Hi Harry,

I just answered Pcdunns question. I'm asked questions about the theory Fisherman put forth. I've already expressed that I don't know if it's true in several of my responses.

There are holes in this theory that have been acknowledged which I agreed with when they came up.

But so many posts are totally biased against Fisherman being wrong that they don't see the possibility of it being right. Sure it may seem far fetched to some but barring some nitpicking it's possible.

I'm not going to say if it's right or wrong. We'll never know. But I will say it's plausible. That's all I've ever said.

Let's put it this way. Put aside all the discussions about time and who said what etc. On the face of it, do you or don't you think you could consider that Cross, no matter how small the possibility, could've killed Nichols?

Columbo

Hi, Columbo,

Thanks for answering my question in a previous post.

I'm not sure "possible" is the same as "plausible", to be honest. Anything, after all, may be possible in imagination-- pigs could fly, hobbits outsmart dragons, so on.

In the real world, possibilities might need conditions, expressed by the word "if", to help them become plausible. It is certainly possible that Lechmere came across Nichols on his walk to work, killed her, then managed to evade capture and suspicion by a combination of luck and lies. It may even become plausible, if we accept all the "ifs" that Fisherman and his collaborator have laid out.
I will acknowledge this.

However, I'm just not able to accept that Lechmere's theorized murder of Polly absolutely means he must have killed the other victims. I get the impression that the Ripper killed all of the accepted Five victims, and if a case is made for Lechmere's guilt in the first of that series, then he "probably" is guilty of all the rest.
Fisherman also has expressed the opinion that Lechmere could have killed the dismembered torsos which were scattered around the city.
I think this stretches possibility -- never mind plausibility.

[Columbo]

Hi, Columbo,

Thanks for answering my question in a previous post.

I'm not sure "possible" is the same as "plausible", to be honest. Anything, after all, may be possible in imagination-- pigs could fly, hobbits outsmart dragons, so on.

In the real world, possibilities might need conditions, expressed by the word "if", to help them become plausible. It is certainly possible that Lechmere came across Nichols on his walk to work, killed her, then managed to evade capture and suspicion by a combination of luck and lies. It may even become plausible, if we accept all the "ifs" that Fisherman and his collaborator have laid out.
I will acknowledge this.

However, I'm just not able to accept that Lechmere's theorized murder of Polly absolutely means he must have killed the other victims. I get the impression that the Ripper killed all of the accepted Five victims, and if a case is made for Lechmere's guilt in the first of that series, then he "probably" is guilty of all the rest.
Fisherman also has expressed the opinion that Lechmere could have killed the dismembered torsos which were scattered around the city.
I think this stretches possibility -- never mind plausibility.

I'm sure I've used "plausible" in the wrong context. I"m like a kid who learned a new word in school, so everyone put "possible" in place of "plausible" in all my posts

I'm in total agreement with you. I think I said in a previous post that Lechmere was good for Nichols, but I'm not sure if he is good for any of the other murders, because I have my own theories on some of those, and I haven't had time to see if Lechmere can fit into them. that's a completely different thread.

I don't know anything historically or factually about the torso murders which is the reason I can't approve if him being accused of it at this time.

Columbo

[Columbo]

This is the problem, who is honest "The suspected killer" it is a circular argument, if Cross is innocent who would you consider the honest witness or the policeman who stood accused of knocking up rather than going to the woman's aid.

Very true.

I think too that we need to remember that at this point in time Cross should be considered innocent. This is a theory put forth by Fisherman, and it does have a lot of potential. I'm impressed with it but it doesn't mean I think Cross is guilty, just that it's possible, and we should look at him as a person of interest. But lets remember this whole thread is theoretical and we should approach it that way. All the suspects on this site should be considered innocent because we have no proof against them. Just theories and conjecture. It is fun though.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Well Fisherman you are right about one thing. You have still failed to understand me. As shown by the above quote.

It's amazing that you seem to attribute to me a belief that my scenario is "as viable" as yours. You don't seem to understand that I am not actually pushing a scenario. Mine is a counter-scenario which exists only to invalidate yours. All I need to do is show that yours is not the ONLY scenario and I win!

And not only that, you demolish too, like you said in a recent post! David the demolisher...
The problem is, David, that there can only be one thing that is demolishable in this campaign of yours, and that would be a claim on my behalf that there MUST have been a time-gap.
But there is no such claim. There is a claim that going by appearances, it seems there WAS a time-gap.
So, you see, you can´t win. That road is closed to you. You can point out that people sometimes are wrong on times, and that timings are often unreliable. In other words, you can re-invent the wheel. But if you think you can take that to a fight that you can somehow "win", then you are joining Don Quijote. Plus you are joining the legions of people out here who falsely claim that I have stated a good many things as facts when I have instead pointed to possi- and probabilities. Nothing new there!

Do you see? I am not saying that my scenario is what happened. Only that it is what could have happened. You, on the other hand, are trying to say that your scenario was what happened.

Nope. I am saying that according to me, it is the more likely scenario. I am saying that there was probably a gap. I am not saying that there must have been a gap, nor am I establishing the length of it. But I DO say that if X applies (which is reasonable), then the gap would have been there and it would have been of the size Z.

If you are only saying it "could" have happened that is no good to you. For your purposes, Lechmere must have left his house at 3.30 and Paul must have entered Bucks Row at 3.45 for there to be any kind of timing gap.

Actually, David, I am quite pleased with it. I find that when things point to something, it is quite enough to be interesting, even if I cannot conclusively confirm the matter. If I find a man with a smoking gun in his hand, I can´t say with certainty that he has fired the gun - but if I want to speculate that he did so, I would not say that the scenario is "no good" to me.


If you can ever acknowledge what I am saying, rather than getting it wrong in a variety of different ways each time you post, then perhaps we can end this lengthy discussion, considering that your previous promises not to respond further have not been kept.

We can end it right now, David. Contrary to you, I don´t think that any discussion that does not end with you being proclaimed the "winner" is one that must be prolonged until that happens. I instead think that you are making very mundane points as if they were rocket science, while all the time keeping up appearances about how I would not be able to comprehend you. So yes, let´s - I am only to happy to save valuable space out here.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman also has expressed the opinion that Lechmere could have killed the dismembered torsos which were scattered around the city.
I think this stretches possibility -- never mind plausibility.

To be as exact as possible, I am saying that to my mind, the two killers were probably one and the same. And of course, since I think Lechmere killed Nichols, and since I think that the person who killed Nichols is the same person who killed the other Ripper victims, I do think that Lechmere is an excellent bid for the combined role. Not least since I rule in the 1873 and 1874 torso murders. in 1873, Lechmere was 24 (while f ex Kosminski, Druitt, Bury et al were mere boys), so he fits the bill agewise.

But overall, I want to keep Lechmere out of this equation, and keep it on a more basic level, since the comparisons I make do not involve anything much that can be directly knit to Lechmere. So what I am saying is that the Torso killer and the Ripper are probably the same man, and that is where I want the discussion to move. I agree that on the surface of things, it seems implausible. But there is compelling evidence to dispell that notion.

[Pierre]

Lechmere Torsokiller

[QUOTE=Fisherman;377571]

So what I am saying is that the Torso killer and the Ripper are probably the same man, and that is where I want the discussion to move. I agree that on the surface of things, it seems implausible. But there is compelling evidence to dispell that notion.

Hi Fisherman,

I would really like to discuss this subject with you.

So what do you think is "the compelling evidence" for Lechmere being the Torso killer?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;377574]

Hi Fisherman,

I would really like to discuss this subject with you.

So what do you think is "the compelling evidence" for Lechmere being the Torso killer?

Regards, Pierre

Once again, let´s leave Lechmere out of the equation. Let´s compare an anonymous Ripper to a likewise anonymous Torso killer.

The evidence I have is not up for grabs as of now. It will be, though.

So for once, we are on the same level - we say we´ve got the goods, but we don´t display it. It´s a new feeling to me.

What I will say is that I think I have the source of inspiration for the killings, just as I have numerous forensic bits of evidence, all pointing to a shared identity. To me, the case seems a clear one.

How´s that, Pierre? It is - I am sorry to say - a helping of your own medicine...

[harry]

Colombo,
I do not think anyone has stated Cross could not have killed Nichols,but if we accept could have as a sound base on which to prove and convict a person,thats stepping over the mark.What is needed is proof.
Cross has been touted as a suspect who would,on the basis of proof,pass a Prima Facia test in a court of law,and that's been done on these boards,and in a documentary,and posters like myself are not prepared to accept that.

One of the continued accusations,and supposedly vital pieces of incriminating evidence is that Cross lied. About the time he left home,about his presence in Bucks Row,in his conversation with Mizen,and in his appearance at the inquest.In fact about almost everything.An habitual liar,and not one shred of truth to support it.

Could'ave killed Nichols?.One of the doctors said any able bodied person could have killed the victims,why should I prefer Cross?

[Fisherman]

Colombo,
I do not think anyone has stated Cross could not have killed Nichols,but if we accept could have as a sound base on which to prove and convict a person,thats stepping over the mark.What is needed is proof.
Cross has been touted as a suspect who would,on the basis of proof,pass a Prima Facia test in a court of law,and that's been done on these boards,and in a documentary,and posters like myself are not prepared to accept that.

One of the continued accusations,and supposedly vital pieces of incriminating evidence is that Cross lied. About the time he left home,about his presence in Bucks Row,in his conversation with Mizen,and in his appearance at the inquest.In fact about almost everything.An habitual liar,and not one shred of truth to support it.

Could'ave killed Nichols?.One of the doctors said any able bodied person could have killed the victims,why should I prefer Cross?

Because he was actually found there, alone with the victim? None of the other "able bodied persons" were, you know...

[Billiou]

All right, fine, that's not unreasonable. So we have this straightforward possible timeline:

Cross leaves his house at 3.33.

Walks slowly, arrives Bucks Row 9 minutes later at 4.42

Stands looking at body for a minute while Paul walks down the row:

It's now 4.43

The two men examine the body in the dark and discuss what they should do. They then start walking towards Bakers Row. I don't think 4 minutes is unreasonable for this (and probably too generous).

It's now 4.47

As Cross and Paul leave Bucks Row PC Neil enters at the other end, makes his way slowly down and sees the body.

It's now 4.48.

Neil examines the body, works out it's a dead body, looks around the immediate area for clues or someone hiding, knows he needs help and knows that Thain will be along on his beat in a minute or two. He hears Thain coming.

It's now 4.50.

Calls Thain and Thain walks down Bucks Row to speak to him.

We are at 4.51.

At this time, Cross and Paul have spoken to Mizen who then finishes knocking up before walking towards Bucks Row.

Neil says to Thain "Run at once for Dr Llewellyn" (Neil's evidence) or "For God's sake, Jack, go and fetch the doctor " (Thain's evidence) depending on who you prefer.

He is at Dr Llewellyn's two minutes later at 4.53. The housemaid or servant gets dressed and opens the door, finds out what Thain wants and wakes Dr Llewellyn. He notes the time is 4.55 which is the very time he said he was woken in his statement of 31 August.

So you see Fisherman, it can all be easily explained. The times can be easily adjusted. If Cross's walk to Bucks Row took seven minutes then he just left his house two minutes later or his conversation with Paul took six minutes not four. I remind you that this discussion began as a result of your claim that "Thain spent up towards 18-19 minutes on a walk that should have occupied around two minutes of brisk walking".

I'm sorry of this seems dated, but compared to what I posted on another thread (and correcting your from 4:42 etc to 3:42 etc):

"And this would then all tie together:
~3:45 Paul and Cross meet in Buck's Row
~3:50 Neil finds Polly's body
~3:50 Mizen meets the carmen
~3:50-3:51 Neil signals Thain
~3:52-3:55 Thain arrives at the Doctor's (depending on how fast Thain went to get the Doctor, the murder site being approx. 240m from the Doctor's residence – 3 mins walking fast, faster if he ran). This then matches in with the Doctor's own account of the time.
~3:54 Mizen arrives in Baker's Row and is signalled by Neil

Note: If we use the policemen's account of the time ie Neil signalled Thain 3:45, then why did it take Thain 10 or 15 minutes to arrive at the Doctor's house?"

Our timelines approximately concur.

The point I was trying to make was that if we anchor one end of the timeline to the time as stated by the Doctor (and I believe if anyone had a reliable and accurate timepiece it would be a doctor) and work backwards then we can estimate the times, given we know the various distances between the different sites eg from Paul's house to the murder site, from the corner of Hanbury St/Bakers Row to the murder site, from the murder site to the doctor's etc. I am not saying these are exact times, only approximations.

The one time I have not included as it cannot be held against that of any other witness is the time Cross left home and/or arrived at the murder site.

[Columbo]

Because he was actually found there, alone with the victim? None of the other "able bodied persons" were, you know...

Exactly!

Columbo

[Billiou]

Colombo,
I do not think anyone has stated Cross could not have killed Nichols,but if we accept could have as a sound base on which to prove and convict a person,thats stepping over the mark.What is needed is proof.
Cross has been touted as a suspect who would,on the basis of proof,pass a Prima Facia test in a court of law,and that's been done on these boards,and in a documentary,and posters like myself are not prepared to accept that.

One of the continued accusations,and supposedly vital pieces of incriminating evidence is that Cross lied. About the time he left home,about his presence in Bucks Row,in his conversation with Mizen,and in his appearance at the inquest.In fact about almost everything.An habitual liar,and not one shred of truth to support it.

Could'ave killed Nichols?.One of the doctors said any able bodied person could have killed the victims,why should I prefer Cross?

Is this a valid summary of the "marks" against Cross/Lechmere (I am not saying they are signs of "guilt", just possible marks):

a) He is found near to the (possibly still alive but fatally wounded) body of Polly Nicholls
b) He and Paul leave behind a woman who they think may only be drunk lying on the pavement alone in the dark, instead of one of them staying to look after her while the other fetches a policeman
c) Lechmere is identified as Cross in the Inquest reports and this is never corrected
d) Cross doesn't state his address out loud during the Inquest
e) The five canonical murders happen either on the way between his house and his place of work, or nearby to an area were he used to live and would therefore know well
f) By at least three newspaper accounts, according to Mizen, Cross "informed him that has was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row" (or words to that effect), when we know there was no policeman in Buck's Row when Cross was there

Please feel free to add anything to this.

May I add for discussion, why would Cross state "He [Paul] then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, “No, let us go and tell a policeman”.", which was also reported as Cross "refused to touch her" or that "[Cross] would not do so" or "[Cross] said, “I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him.”". Paul makes no mention of this in his own statement to the Inquest, but why would Cross state this when it [may] make him look in a bad light? He had afterall, already said that he had touched her hand himself (and in one newspaper account he said he also touched her face).

[Columbo]

Colombo,
I do not think anyone has stated Cross could not have killed Nichols,but if we accept could have as a sound base on which to prove and convict a person,thats stepping over the mark.What is needed is proof.
Cross has been touted as a suspect who would,on the basis of proof,pass a Prima Facia test in a court of law,and that's been done on these boards,and in a documentary,and posters like myself are not prepared to accept that.

One of the continued accusations,and supposedly vital pieces of incriminating evidence is that Cross lied. About the time he left home,about his presence in Bucks Row,in his conversation with Mizen,and in his appearance at the inquest.In fact about almost everything.An habitual liar,and not one shred of truth to support it.

Could'ave killed Nichols?.One of the doctors said any able bodied person could have killed the victims,why should I prefer Cross?

Harry, you keep asking for proof. There is no proof. It's just a theory. There are bits of evidence that suggested he lied, that's all. Evidence is not proof. The evidence in front of you is that it's been printed in contemporary reports that he lied about his name and he lied to a police officer. you don't have to believe it, it's just out there for consideration.

I think Fisherman nailed it. Cross was able bodied and found with the body.

As much as people have tried, there is no way to exclude Cross as a person of interest at this time. If you believe he didn't do it, show evidence he didn't. Not opinion, evidence.

Don't take the above as I believe Cross did it. I don't know. He's just another possibility.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Is this a valid summary of the "marks" against Cross/Lechmere (I am not saying they are signs of "guilt", just possible marks):

a) He is found near to the (possibly still alive but fatally wounded) body of Polly Nicholls
b) He and Paul leave behind a woman who they think may only be drunk lying on the pavement alone in the dark, instead of one of them staying to look after her while the other fetches a policeman
c) Lechmere is identified as Cross in the Inquest reports and this is never corrected
d) Cross doesn't state his address out loud during the Inquest
e) The five canonical murders happen either on the way between his house and his place of work, or nearby to an area were he used to live and would therefore know well
f) By at least three newspaper accounts, according to Mizen, Cross "informed him that has was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row" (or words to that effect), when we know there was no policeman in Buck's Row when Cross was there

Please feel free to add anything to this.

May I add for discussion, why would Cross state "He [Paul] then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, “No, let us go and tell a policeman”.", which was also reported as Cross "refused to touch her" or that "[Cross] would not do so" or "[Cross] said, “I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him.”". Paul makes no mention of this in his own statement to the Inquest, but why would Cross state this when it [may] make him look in a bad light? He had afterall, already said that he had touched her hand himself (and in one newspaper account he said he also touched her face).

Hi Billiou,

I think that's pretty accurate.

Columbo

[Patrick S]

Note: If we use the policemen's account of the time ie Neil signalled Thain 3:45, then why did it take Thain 10 or 15 minutes to arrive at the Doctor's house?"
[/B]

Try as one might, it's hard to put much stock in the times that were reported, tracking the actors movements in and around Buck's Row. As it applies to Thain, though, his delay in reaching Llewellyn may have been affected by his retrieving his cape from the slaughterhouse and informing Tomkins of the murder:

"He (Tomkins) deposed that he was in the employ of Messrs. Barber, and was working in the slaughterhouse, Winthrop-street, from between eight and nine o'clock on Thursday evening till twenty minutes past four on Friday morning. He and his fellow workmen usually went home upon finishing their work, but on that morning they did not do so. They went to see the dead woman, Police-constable Thain having passed the slaughterhouse at about a quarter-past four, and told them that a murder had been committed in Buck's-row."

Yet, Thain, in his testimony denied this: "When I went to the horse-slaughterer's for my cape I did not say that I was going to fetch a doctor, as a murder had been committed. Another constable had taken my cape there."

Clearly Tomkins and co. learned of the murder somehow because they reported to Buck's Row and were observed to have remained there until the body was removed to the mortuary. Further, it is not obvious what would have motivated Tomkins to lie about such a thing while it is obvious why Thain might lie: in order to protect both himself and the Met from further embarrassment.

The same can be surmised with respect to Mizen's testimony regarding his interaction with Cross and Paul in Baker's Row. Cross and Paul are fairly consistent in describing Mizen's reaction. Mizen denies much of what both men had to say.

Both PCs testimony would seem quite understandable, and somewhat innocuous and forgivable, were it not for the fact that allowing for Mizen's dishonesty damages the Lechmere the Ripper theory.