Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Pierre]

Connections to the other victims Fisherman?

caz: You reckon? How? If Lechmere killed Nichols and deliberately gave no identifying details to either man, you think he would have made it remotely easy for them to recognise him again? Lengthy eye contact, perhaps, under a street lamp? Blotches and a ginger moustache (letting Mrs Cox see them too, that November)? Showing off his distinctive "I heart Mum" tattoo?

Funny, Caz, as always!

Remember Mizen? When "Cross" was brought in to the inquest room, Mizen identified him as the man he had spoken to.
Thatīs how dark it was. Once we come close to each other, we can see a whole lot. Paul dived out of the darkness and was seen by Mizen.

I don't blame him, considering his response.

If had suspected foul play, I would have blamed him. If not, I wouldnīt.

If Lechmere killed Nichols and manipulated Mizen with his "policeman in Buck's Row" claim, Mizen would be feeling distinctly uncomfortable upon learning the woman's fate, especially when Neil denied seeing any carmen and Mizen realised his informant had lied to him.

No, no and no again. He would NOT blame himself, since he did nothing wrong at all. It was unfortunate with the woman, but if you have only been told that she was lying in the street and that a colleague had the situation in hand, then there was nothing to feel bad about.

I doubt he would have robustly challenged Cross's flat denial at the inquest, because he either accepted it was a misunderstanding or he didn't want to make a song and dance over the fact he had been lied to by the man who had 'found' the victim, and had let him go without searching him or taking any details.

He had stepped down from the stand, Caz. It is not for the audience to participate.
How he reacted is written in the stars. He could have gone to his superiors and said "Iīm sure the man lies". They could have answered "You must have mnisunderstood". We are left to speculate only. It is moot, therefore.

But why would he go to the police when he had already successfully wound Paul and Mizen round his little finger? If either suspected him of anything, Paul wasn't talking and Mizen would be damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Without one or both of these men having the will or the means of finding this grey 'other man' again, and giving him up to the authorities for questioning, how the devil do you suppose he would ever have been positively identified? Once he had been proactive and identified himself as the finder, he'd have been snookered if he ever became associated with a subsequent murder.

How "the devil" - Wow, some strong language there, Caz!
How would Lechmere know that Mizen suspected him of nothing if Neil told his colleague that he had never seen any carmen? Eh?

Nigh on total darkness? So what 'dilemma'? He was a good deal more anonymous than Blotchy ever was, but the latter was never identified. Again, if he did become the prime suspect, Paul and Mizen were the only two men in the world who might just be able to help - if Paul suddenly became co-operative with the police and Mizen didn't mind risking the sack for having let him go in the first place.

The darkness would have sufficed to disenable Paul to establish a distance. But it would not be enough to hide Lechmere. We know that since Mizen ID:d him.
Make the experiment to place yourself forty yards from another person on a dark night out in the woods. Ask what he sees. Then walk up at close distance. Ask what he sees.
Donīt get surprised if there is a difference!

You mean the black cat in the coal hole, who didn't have a label round its neck, with its name, address or workplace?

See the above. All of it. Four years of it.

And it's bag by the way, not box. You're no doubt thinking of Jack in the Box.

No, for some reason I was thinking of Pandoras box...

If. But why would he think that, having set in motion and succeeded with his cunning plan to leave Paul and Mizen clueless, and the latter in an awkward position if he admits he let this suspected killer just walk away?

See the above. All of it. Four years of it.

A PC who sends a civilian for assistance from another PC would play the case up if anything, to explain in no uncertain terms the urgency, and why the fellow officer has been authorised to leave his post and must attend without delay. Yet neither carman seems to know if the woman is dead or could merely be drunk. How would that have made any sense to Mizen, as an official appeal for help, either at the time or later, when he found PC Neil at the scene with the woman who had almost been decapitated?

It wouldnīt. He said at the inquest that the carman had not spoken of any murder or suicide. But at the murder site, he would not have had much time to discuss the carmen. He was sure that Neil had sent them, and that would have been enough to stop him from a number of questions.

Yes, but in your scenario he soon finds out he has been conned, because Neil never did send the carmen and wasn't at the scene until after they left. He was also obliged to admit, probably thanks to Paul, that he had not gone straight to the scene, but had done a bit more knocking up first. He could not have set off for Buck's Row while either man was still around to see him. Do you seriously imagine he'd have been chuffed to bits at the prospect of either carman being sought as the suspected murderer?

I do not understand half of what you are saying. I donīt think he quickly understood that he had been conned at all, for instance.

I wish I could, Fish. It would save me a deal of time and trouble. I just don't see it though. Sorry.

Be that as it may, it is now MY turn to ask a question. You have asked a thousand and I have answered them all.

To your mind, of all the things you have suggested as being an argument AGAINST Lechmere having been the killer, which do you regard as the best argument on your behalf? Has any issue been raised that disenables - or comes close to disenabling - the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer of Polly Nichols?

Thanking you in advance,

Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I see there is a lot of discussion on the subject of the Nichols murder. That is one single murder.

But do you have any evidence for connections to the other murders?

(And I donīt mean passing by the murder sites, living in the area, working in the area or having relatives living there. A lot of people lived close to the murder sites, had their family there or worked there.)

Best regards Pierre

[Robert]

Are you still pedalling that tosh about Crossmere being a cycle path, Fish?

[caz]

Condemned from his own mouth

caz: Not me, Fish. Read my words again, this time with a little more care. I said that you have used Cross's own stated time of leaving home to incriminate him, by claiming there were several 'missing' minutes in which he could have encountered Nichols, gone with her to Buck's Row (on his route to work) and done the horrible deed before he heard someone approaching. You are relying on the ripper being accurate and therefore honest about the time he left home, otherwise you would have no idea if your suspect could have done all that before being joined by Robert Paul.

Hereīs what you wrote, Caz:

"Fish uses Cross's own stated time of leaving home to try and hang him. Cross apparently incriminates himself by telling the truth - more than once, if you count where he also admits he heard and saw nobody who could have left the crime scene before he got there."

Clearly you claim that Lechmere told the truth about when he left. It is hard to read this in any other fashion.

What don't you understand about: "Fish uses..."?

I claimed nothing. You want your suspect to have told the truth, thereby incriminating himself, which is nuts. That's where my use of "apparently' comes in too, because I'm not buying it. If innocent he had no need to lie about the time; if guilty he'd have missed a trick if he didn't lie.

You can't make a case against a suspect by relying on any of his own statements being true.

But it now seems that you are asking WHY he would say 3.30 if it incriminated him. Well, I cannot know why. I can suggest that his Mrs was awake and knowing that he left at 3.30, and that Lechmere realized that he could be investigated.

So he wasn't banking on his use of the name Cross preventing the missus finding out and being questioned about his movements? Fair enough. And she had an accurate clock to consult the moment the front door closed behind him at 3.30? Not so fair enough, but let's run with it. She saw hubby consult the clock too, so he couldn't even risk being vague about the time when asked? He must have credited the missus with one heck of a suspicious mind!

Claiming that he told the truth and that I should really not question him is disingenous.

It might be if I did that, but I didn't. You are claiming he incriminated himself - at least twice - with information he volunteered. Why would he have done that if he could have told a white lie or said he was unsure and not given you the chance to say "gotcha!"? If you are saying he had to attend the inquest and tell the truth on both these occasions because he risked being found out otherwise, then again, you are the one claiming he told the truth, not me. But according to you again, he seemed to have no trouble lying to Mizen and again at the inquest when he denied saying a PC wanted him, even though Mizen, if nobody else, would have known he was lying through his teeth if he did say it. One rule for the missus, another for Mizen?

As for Lechmer suggesting "there was a man running down Bucks Row", what was he supposed to do if it surfaced that Mizen was at the junction and said "No, that is a lie. There was absolutely nobody"?
That would be game up, Caz. He may not have desired that. he may therefore have been the more clever of the two of you in this department.

See my previous paragraph. So one rule for Mizen, and another one for - er - Mizen?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I see there is a lot of discussion on the subject of the Nichols murder. That is one single murder.

But do you have any evidence for connections to the other murders?

(And I donīt mean passing by the murder sites, living in the area, working in the area or having relatives living there. A lot of people lived close to the murder sites, had their family there or worked there.)

Best regards Pierre

There is no connection other than the ones you donīt want me to name when it comes to the other murders, Pierre. He is "merely" placed in Bucks Row at the time of the Nichols murder.

Have a look at the menagerie of suspects and see bow many of them are placed at a murder spot at the relevant time. Or in the East End. Or in London.

[Fisherman]

Are you still pedalling that tosh about Crossmere being a cycle path, Fish?

Yep. You donīt have to bike into it, though. But if you want to assist, letīs do it in tandem!

[Phil Carter]

Yes, we are of course talking minutes. But we are also talking differences of a hundred per cent plus. And in the context of the bloodflow and coagulation scheme, any little difference will play a role.

If the carmen and Mizen had managed the whole stretch back and forth in a minute and a half, it would be a whole different ballpark.

Instead, we are looking at a combined time of four minutes or more.

Hello Christer,

A point to be made here.

When discussing speed, we talked of the policeman taking 4mins 39 secs to cover the distance of 311.68 yards.

Would this speed apply to the carmen and Mizen?
Forgive me, but isnt normal walking pace is faster than a night time beat policeman?

Contrarily, if the time difference is now shown to over double the time generally stated.. what, in your estimation, does this mean in terms of actual happenings at the scene?

Thank you

................

Hello Frank,

Thank you for providing this map. can you tell me the exact place name for the point of ending of the line? (311.68 yards along to the right of the red line)

Many thanks



Phil



Phil

[Fisherman]

Caz: What don't you understand about: "Fish uses..."?

Caz, Caz... you break my heart! I want to look clever and quick on the uptake, but you wonīt give me a chance.

I claimed nothing. You want your suspect to have told the truth, thereby incriminating himself, which is nuts.

I donīt "want" anything. I canīt rule in retrospect what he said. He said 3.30. And 3.30 is not dovetailing with having been outside Browns a 3.45. And it could have been MORE nuts to say 3.37 if he knew that he could be given away - for example.
But why look at it from both sides, when just the one makes you case?

That's where my use of "apparently' comes in too, because I'm not buying it. If innocent he had no need to lie about the time; if guilty he'd have missed a trick if he didn't lie.

Or he had a reason. Full stop.

You can't make a case against a suspect by relying on any of his own statements being true.

Yes, you can. Edward once said that an accomplished liar tries to stay as close as possible to the truth. It is an interesting observation.
In the end, and to be perfectly frank, I think he didnīt start out either 3.20 or 3.30. I think he started out earlier, giving himself a lot of time.

But that is nothing but a hunch on my side, and whenever I have hunches, it usually incites public flogging time for the mob. I just have to live with that, I guess.

My hunch (yes!) is that he said that he left home at, say, 3.00 (just a suggestion taken out of nowhere). He found a victim, he ended up conning Paul and Mizen and it took him to the inquest room where he did NOT want to say that he left home at 3.00. Instead, he tried to spirit the impression of having had much time away, and so he added ten minutes to his normal departure time, not realizing that it shot beside the real target.

A suggestion! Forgive me!

So he wasn't banking on his use of the name Cross preventing the missus finding out and being questioned about his movements? Fair enough. And she had an accurate clock to consult the moment the front door closed behind him at 3.30? Not so fair enough, but let's run with it. She saw hubby consult the clock too, so he couldn't even risk being vague about the time when asked? He must have credited the missus with one heck of a suspicious mind!

Must we? How about this version: He leaves bed and slips into his trousers, waking the Mrs, who says "Is it time for you to leave already? At that exact time, the clock in a nearby church chimes the half-hour stroke, and the Mrs says "Itīs already half past, better hurry!"

How VERY suspicious, eh?

Or he lied. Forgive me again. It is ONLY a suggestion, and it is NOT proven. Public whipping, perhaps?

It might be if I did that, but I didn't. You are claiming he incriminated himself - at least twice - with information he volunteered. Why would he have done that if he could have told a white lie or said he was unsure and not given you the chance to say "gotcha!"? If you are saying he had to attend the inquest and tell the truth on both these occasions because he risked being found out otherwise, then again, you are the one claiming he told the truth, not me. But according to you again, he seemed to have no trouble lying to Mizen and again at the inquest when he denied saying a PC wanted him, even though Mizen, if nobody else, would have known he was lying through his teeth if he did say it. One rule for the missus, another for Mizen?

See the above.

See my previous paragraph. So one rule for Mizen, and another one for - er - Mizen?

You may just have confused that, Caz. But that is just a suggestion, and NOT proven. I am ever so sorry.

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer,

A point to be made here.

When discussing speed, we talked of the policeman taking 4mins 39 secs to cover the distance of 311.68 yards.

Would this speed apply to the carmen and Mizen?
Forgive me, but isnt normal walking pace is faster than a night time beat policeman?

Contrarily, if the time difference is now shown to over double the time generally stated.. what, in your estimation, does this mean in terms of actual happenings at the scene?

Thank you

Phil

I think it is hard to determine the exact speed at which these men travelled. They would have had reason to make speed in both directions, the carmen both being late, and PC Mizen having been alerted to help a fellow PC (or at the very least being en route to help a woman in need).

As I keep saying, the more time that passes, the smaller the chance of another killer than Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

Fish's use of English is quite exceptional.

Iīm flattered, Caz - thank you!

I can offer Swedish lessons in return, should you want to. An example:

Körkarlar, det vet man ju hur de är! (Carmen, we all know what they are like!)

[FrankO]

Hello Frank,

Thank you for providing this map. can you tell me the exact place name for the point of ending of the line? (311.68 yards along to the right of the red line)

Hi Phil,

I'm assuming you mean the point where the red line ends on the right. I can't tell you an exact place name (other than "the crime spot" ) for that point, but it's approximately the red dot on the 1888 map below.

All the best,
Frank

[Pierre]

There is no connection other than the ones you donīt want me to name when it comes to the other murders, Pierre. He is "merely" placed in Bucks Row at the time of the Nichols murder.

Have a look at the menagerie of suspects and see bow many of them are placed at a murder spot at the relevant time. Or in the East End. Or in London.

Hi Fisherman,

I appreciate your honesty and I am impressed by the amount of work you have been doing and the energy you have used to investigate the murders, given the fact that you say there is a connection to only one victim (not counting the other data). I wish I had your interest in the case.

The reason Iīm asking is that I have more connections and still am very critical of my own theory and research.

I wish I could tell you more about my data and I am truly sorry for not revealing the data as it is. I have a reason.

But l can tell you the number of data connecting him to the murders and I can also give you the strenght of the connections (and I am being very restrictive in interpreting data as anything else than "weak"!):

Number of data pieces connecting this man to five of the murders:

Strong data: 4 pieces
Medium strong data: 6 pieces
Weak data: 3 pieces

That is 13 pieces of data, Fisherman. And then I have just ignored data that supports the theory because I reckon they are redundant.

Fisherman, I am sorry to bother you with what some posters here in the forum call meaningless information. But I want you to know that I think you are on the wrong track. I see the hard work youīre doing and I have also understood that others have been hanging on to their interest of this killer, and even trying to solve the case, for 20 or 30 years, even more.

And I can tell you, this killer is like a vampire. He drains people and makes people work for nothing even after his own death.

So I will just go ahead and do my last bit of it when I have the possibility and time and if it isnīt him, Iīll be glad. But if it is, Iīll have some writing to do to be able to send this serial killer off to the past, where he belongs. And I hope then there will be silence.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I appreciate your honesty and I am impressed by the amount of work you have been doing and the energy you have used to investigate the murders, given the fact that you say there is a connection to only one victim (not counting the other data). I wish I had your interest in the case.

The reason Iīm asking is that I have more connections and still am very critical of my own theory and research.

I wish I could tell you more about my data and I am truly sorry for not revealing the data as it is. I have a reason.

But l can tell you the number of data connecting him to the murders and I can also give you the strenght of the connections (and I am being very restrictive in interpreting data as anything else than "weak"!):

Number of data pieces connecting this man to five of the murders:

Strong data: 4 pieces
Medium strong data: 6 pieces
Weak data: 3 pieces

That is 13 pieces of data, Fisherman. And then I have just ignored data that supports the theory because I reckon they are redundant.

Fisherman, I am sorry to bother you with what some posters here in the forum call meaningless information. But I want you to know that I think you are on the wrong track. I see the hard work youīre doing and I have also understood that others have been hanging on to their interest of this killer, and even trying to solve the case, for 20 or 30 years, even more.

And I can tell you, this killer is like a vampire. He drains people and makes people work for nothing even after his own death.

So I will just go ahead and do my last bit of it when I have the possibility and time and if it isnīt him, Iīll be glad. But if it is, Iīll have some writing to do to be able to send this serial killer off to the past, where he belongs. And I hope then there will be silence.

Regards Pierre

I think I neeed to point out to you tht what you call strong, medium strong and weak data will not necessarily be regarded as representing these magnitudes when the wild bunch out here sinks their teeth into it.

Being found alone with a freshly slain woman, who is still bleeding from her neck and where the blood is in the process of coagulating six to eight minutes after you left here is but a trifle in Ripperology.
It is sneered at and mocked, and it is said that it is not incriminating in any shape or form.

In my world, it is a piece of evidence that is all important and extremely troublesome to any suspect.

So that particular part does not even count as weak data out here. It counts for nothing.

That is the measuring rule you need to be wary of. Strong data will probably amount to having been found with the knife in hand, while in the process of cutting the neck of a victim. Such a thing would perhaps reach that level provided it was not Lechmere who did the cutting.

I will comment no further on your suspect until I see any evidence. I can say that I am convinced that you are wrong - there can be but one killer (sorry, members of the diverse killers club), and how that killer would NOT be Lechmere is something I have difficulties to understand.

But I am prepared to be swayed, if the swaying is good.

[Harry D]

Being found alone with a freshly slain woman, who is still bleeding from her neck and where the blood is in the process of coagulating six to eight minutes after you left here is but a trifle in Ripperology.

Except the blood "evidence" as you so delicately put it, isn't conclusive and still allows for a killer before Lechmere.

Saying that Paul FOUND Lechmere with a 'freshly slain victim' is also deliberately misleading and neglects to mention that Lechmere was standing in the middle of the road and approached HIM.

[Fisherman]

Except the blood "evidence" as you so delicately put it, isn't conclusive and still allows for a killer before Lechmere.

Saying that Paul FOUND Lechmere with a 'freshly slain victim' is also deliberately misleading and neglects to mention that Lechmere was standing in the middle of the road and approached HIM.

Did Paul find Lechmere standing in the street or did he not?

Was Nichols freshly slain or was she not?

To claim that Lechmere did the finding is asinine. He was the part that stood still and Paul was the part moving. Lechmere could therefore not find Paul, it was only Paul who could find Lechmere.

As for the blood evidence, can you please point out to me when I - or anybody else - said that it was conclusive? It seems to me that you are nagged by something that never existed.

But I am eternally grateful to you, Harry, for amplifying what I just told Pierre. You are a prime example of just how blind and ignorant people can be when judging things.

I could not have been happier about your ill founded contribution!

[Pierre]

Fisherman, thanks for describing the picture you see in your head when you interpret data from the Nichols case:

"Being found alone with a freshly slain woman..."

I fight all the time against making up my own pictures. I do it by examinig them and comparing them to data.

Data must rule, not oneīs own bias! Data must be allowed to kick back even if it hurts.

Please try and look at this picture you have imagined, put it beside the data, compare it and then draw at least three conclusions about your suspect from it.

Then try to analyze the conclusions starting with data, one by one.

What is the critical core that makes you want to draw the conclusion that your suspect is a murderer, and not any murderer, but the murderer of at least five women in London (Whitechapel and the city) in 1888?

Is it in really in the data or is it in your head?

I know you are an honest person looking for truth.

Regards Pierre