Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Joshua Rogan]

For those who haven't seen the documentary, it is at this very moment being shown in the UK on Spike.

[Columbo]

Let me understand this. You ask ME why I disagree with the Lechmere theory. I respond. I tell you why, at length repeating much of what I've posted on these pages over the years. And that makes me childish and jealous? Very good. Welcome to the board, Columbo.

You asked ME about 'ruling out'. I told you my metrics. Others have theirs. Take that up with them. Someone not meeting a physical description does not - for me - "rule" someone out in that I do not put my full faith in any one witness. That is to say that cannot say definitively that any one witness actually saw "Jack the Ripper" (although if anyone may have, it likely was Joseph Lewende, in my view). The rest of your post is simply a restatement of what others - and yourself - accept as enough "evidence" to "rule" someone out. They and you are welcome to that.

I'll repeat this for you: I do not think any name appearing on this site or elsewhere is the "true" name of "Jack the Ripper" (if he ever existed). But, most of them cannot be "ruled out", as I define it. Essentially, I take "the field". "Jack" was likely a name lost to history. Someone who died quietly without much note, some short time after the killings stopped. This does NOT mean that I would not accept ANY of the suspects that have been presented, including Lechmere, if I felt that a compelling case had been made. TO ME, the Lechmere "theory" is far from compelling, for reasons I've listed for you at length, only be to be called jealous and childish. I might call you a sycophant. But I wont, as I am happy that "Fisherman" has a friend. For now. We'll see where this goes if you decide to disagree with some aspect of this rock solid case.

Well you do seem to have a vendetta against this guy. you challenge him to a debate on another thread, you mock that he had a documentary, and you continue to insult those who think this is plausible. I would call that rude and childish, but even that's not important.

I'll tell you what I've posted elsewhere. Lechmere is not an airtight suspect. He has problems as a suspect. I think we can all agree to that. I don't know if he killed Nichols anymore than you, or Fisherman or anyone on this board. I simply suggest that it's a solid theory backed up with great research. that's all.

I am in agreement with you that JTR was lost to history and probably was never in the police files or even on their radar. He was a nobody who probably got away with murder.

But I don't know that as a fact, which is why we have websites and forums such as this. The theories I think are plausible I agree with. the ones I disagree with I don't even bother arguing about. Look how offended and how much time you spent on this thread being defensive, offensive, condescending and obnoxious. But when you say something worthwhile you'll see that I agreed with you. I suggest having more fun and have an open mind.

Fisherman has been nothing but polite to me. I can see where he also has been belittling to others but I kinda chalk that up to the European/Swedish sense of dry humor, along with frustration. All of us do that, except I'm American and when we fight we're ruthless and not as nice as you or fisherman are to each other.

I like joking back and forth, but getting nasty with me will get you nowhere.

Now bring on the facts!!

Columbo

[CertainSum1]

In the end, my own best guess is that Paul exagerrated his own role in the drama. But when it comes to the question I was discussing in my former post, it´s kind of moot since I was comparing Mizen to Lechmere, I was not comparing the two carmen.

Upon comparing the two carmen, however, it's interesting to note that Paul exaggerated his role in the discovery of the body, while Lechmere downplayed his role.

[Fisherman]

"...to make sure we do not conclude things as facts when we cannot be sure that they are."

With respect, Fisherman, I think you do just this with the Lechmere as JTR theory. I've read all the threads about him here at Casebook, and I saw the television documentary. There is a good deal of supposition and may haves in your list of evidence against him-- in my opinion.

I´ve heard it before. But take some time, draw you breath, and then tell me what it is I claim as a fact without it being a fact.

I will answer as best as I can.

[Fisherman]

Upon comparing the two carmen, however, it's interesting to note that Paul exaggerated his role in the discovery of the body, while Lechmere downplayed his role.

Yes, indeed - and guess why I think that is...!

[Patrick S]

Well you do seem to have a vendetta against this guy. you challenge him to a debate on another thread, you mock that he had a documentary, and you continue to insult those who think this is plausible. I would call that rude and childish, but even that's not important.

I'll tell you what I've posted elsewhere. Lechmere is not an airtight suspect. He has problems as a suspect. I think we can all agree to that. I don't know if he killed Nichols anymore than you, or Fisherman or anyone on this board. I simply suggest that it's a solid theory backed up with great research. that's all.

I am in agreement with you that JTR was lost to history and probably was never in the police files or even on their radar. He was a nobody who probably got away with murder.

But I don't know that as a fact, which is why we have websites and forums such as this. The theories I think are plausible I agree with. the ones I disagree with I don't even bother arguing about. Look how offended and how much time you spent on this thread being defensive, offensive, condescending and obnoxious. But when you say something worthwhile you'll see that I agreed with you. I suggest having more fun and have an open mind.

Fisherman has been nothing but polite to me. I can see where he also has been belittling to others but I kinda chalk that up to the European/Swedish sense of dry humor, along with frustration. All of us do that, except I'm American and when we fight we're ruthless and not as nice as you or fisherman are to each other.

I like joking back and forth, but getting nasty with me will get you nowhere.

Now bring on the facts!!

Columbo

I'm an American, too, Columbo. And I'm not really interested in your thoughts on Jack the Ripper, European/Swedish senses of humor, or much of anything else for that matter. I don't recall asking for them. You may have more fun in "Pub Talk". You asked why I was dismissive of "Fisherman's" Lechmere theory, I told you.

[David Orsam]

Why you should find it "disappointing", I fail to see - I am stating that it is my belief that this was what happened, not that it is a fact.

As for comparisons with other cases, I remain at the stance you seem to dislike: I don´t judge the Nichols case by the Chapman case time handling. It is interesting per se, but not applicable as such.

The fact that Swanson's timings are not accurate in the Chapman case must provide a strong indication that they are not accurate in the Nichols case either. My disappointment is based on the fact that you fail even to consider the point and affect to treat it as of no significance, continuing to maintain that Swanson must have re-investigated the issue, and corrected Abberline's timeline of events by five minutes, when this would appear to be unlikely in the extreme.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I have to agree with you on this. I would hope that Swanson would include at least a range and not make his own judgement and set a time he doesn't know is accurate or not.

But even given a 5 minute discrepancy, Fisherman is right in that Cross should not have been there in Buck's Row at 3:45 or 3:40.

Columbo

Hi Columbo,

Why is Fisherman right that Cross should not have been in Bucks Row at 3.45 or 3.40? He does not know what time Cross left his house. The best we can do, based on Cross's evidence, is say that it was "about 3.30". That could easily be plus or minus 5 minutes or even 10 minutes. It was about a 7-10 minute walk from Cross's house to the spot in Bucks Row where the body was found depending on the pace Cross walked. On his own account, Cross could easily have been there at 3.40, which is no doubt why Abberline put that time in his report.

Just to add regarding the discussion about Cross being late for work, this was after he stopped to look at the body with Paul, chat with Paul and go off to search for Mizen. After that of course he was running late but we don't know if he was running late when he left his house, hence we can't say whether he was walking fast or slow at that time.

[David Orsam]

If we instead accept that Paul was correct when he said that he walked down Bucks Row at EXACTLY 3.45.

We've been over this so many times; Paul didn't say this in his testimony at the inquest. Nor do we know if he ever said it. It comes from a newspaper report which contains definite inaccuracies and might well have been a reporter's poorly recollected summary of what he had been told by Paul rather than a verbatim account. At the inquest, Paul simply said that he left home at "about a quarter to four" (alternatively, in some reports "just before"). It doesn't matter though because Paul's timing could have easily been wrong by five minutes

[David Orsam]

But in such a case, we need to accept that Neil was in place at 3.40, and he should have spoken to Thain at around 3.41-3.42, sending him to fetch Llewellyn. And if this was what happened, then Thain spent up towards 18-19 minutes on a walk that should have occupied around two minutes of brisk walking.

This is so wrong. If the body was discovered by Cross and Paul at about 3.40, allowing them a few minutes to examine the body and go off to look for Mizen (who said they found him at about 3.45), Neil would have discovered the body at about 3.45. It might have taken a few minutes for Thain to appear while he was working out what to do. He and Thain might have had a chat about the situation so that Thain didn't go off to find the doctor until after 3:50. You seem to assume that the doctor leapt out of bed once Thain rang the doorbell. Thain might have first had to get the servant or housemaid out of bed, who needed a few minutes to get dressed then wake up the doctor who needed to get dressed and perhaps have something to eat and drink before noting that it was "about five minutes to four" (as he said in a statement issued to the press on 31 August).

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;377236]I'm an American, too, Columbo. And I'm not really interested in your thoughts on Jack the Ripper, European/Swedish senses of humor, or much of anything else for that matter. I don't recall asking for them. You may have more fun in "Pub Talk". You asked why I was dismissive of "Fisherman's" Lechmere theory,

Oh well. I think I'll hang around anyway. Keep up those informative, neutral and mature posts.

I bet your babysitter hopes your parents will come home early. I'm sure she won't tell them you went over your computer time limit.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Hi Columbo,

Why is Fisherman right that Cross should not have been in Bucks Row at 3.45 or 3.40? He does not know what time Cross left his house. The best we can do, based on Cross's evidence, is say that it was "about 3.30". That could easily be plus or minus 5 minutes or even 10 minutes. It was about a 7-10 minute walk from Cross's house to the spot in Bucks Row where the body was found depending on the pace Cross walked. On his own account, Cross could easily have been there at 3.40, which is no doubt why Abberline put that time in his report.

Just to add regarding the discussion about Cross being late for work, this was after he stopped to look at the body with Paul, chat with Paul and go off to search for Mizen. After that of course he was running late but we don't know if he was running late when he left his house, hence we can't say whether he was walking fast or slow at that time.

Hi David,

To be transparent, my source is the Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion by Evans and Skinner.

I'm going to use Swanson's reported time of 3:45 in his report. I use this because we have to start somewhere and Swanson had access to the Officers involved. Also I don't want to be accused of the "Pick and Choose" syndrome.

Neil says he found the body at 3:45.

With that as our baseline we can work backwards.

So, unfortunately we have no official inquest papers and the newspapers are all over the place. For example The Times Edition from the 4th of September says Cross told Mizen at a quarter passed four he was wanted in Buck's Row because a woman had been found there. That same paper also says Cross left at 3:30 and made it to work at 4. The Times reported in the Sept. 18th edition that Paul left home a quarter to 4, the same time Neil says he found the body. With these kind of discrepancies I will discount the papers as a reliable source.

So if Fisherman is right and Cross' trek from his home to Bucks Rows was 7 minutes and he left home at 3:30 (give or take a few minutes)that would place him at the murder scene at 3:37 (give or take a few minutes).

So we have approximately an 8-9 minute period where Cross, instead of being out of Bucks Rows like he should have been is now sighted with a dead body.

So if it takes him 7-8 minutes to get to the middle of Buck's Row the it should've only taken a few minutes for him to traverse the rest of the way off of Buck's Row to the next intersection.

If the timing is correct he should've (a)seen the murder taken place. (b)seen someone running away.

Or he could've been given the unexpected opportunity to kill Nichols.

The same can be applied to Paul. If he was 40 yards from Cross in Buck's Row then he should've seen Cross discover the body. Some parts of Buck's row did have street lighting. Plus 40 yards is only 120ft. I'll even give him 50 yards and he still should've seen Cross walking in front of him at some point.

So what's the catch? Neil's time of 3:45a. If his time is accurate and Cross' time for leaving the house is accurate, then Cross did not kill Nichols.

Why? Because Neil would've discovered Cross and Paul just leaving the scene.

So since my baseline is an official document, and I believe Paul should've seen Cross at some point during the walk to work and didn't, I suggest that Cross left home much earlier than generally accepted, because whether you add more time or subtract it, Cross still has an 8-9 minute discrepancy in his story. Plenty of time to kill someone.

Idea's or suggestions? Don't batter me too hard!

Columbo

[harry]

Colombo,
You surprise me.You say remarks of fisherman should be taken as humorous,and not offensive.What about his recent remarks about me,for example..do you not believe I could be humourous too.I will admit I Wasn't.You are so one sided,one might say you appear to be in bed with fisherman.You aren't are you?.Literaly that is.

[harry]

Neil is reported as speaking of one street light in Bucks row,at the end.How is that to be interpreted?.One light only in the row or only one lit.So a person taking care,as the killer would be,might be hard to see at twenty yards.
Also one inquest report has Cross saying,that as he and Paul stepped away from examining the body,footsteps of a policeman were heard retreating along the Row..As no policeman can be placed in the row at that time,and Cross does not state he saw one,what can be made of that claim.Cox?,in the Kelly murder,also speaks of footsteps in Millers Court as being like those of a policeman.Makes one wonder.

[Columbo]

Colombo,
You surprise me.You say remarks of fisherman should be taken as humorous,and not offensive.What about his recent remarks about me,for example..do you not believe I could be humourous too.I will admit I Wasn't.You are so one sided,one might say you appear to be in bed with fisherman.You aren't are you?.Literaly that is.

Hi Harry,

I don't believe I said to take Fisherman's comments as not offensive, I think I suggested his offensive comments come from another place and not to take them seriously like others on this forum. That's a personal decision of course. I have read several remarks by him and others and sometimes he's just as bad as Patrick, but he doesn't offend me. Most remarks made by people on this forum are so childish I can't believe people bother with them. I do enjoy some decent jabs and sarcasm though.

I certainly don't fault anyone fighting back. If anyone decided to attack me on a personal level it would get ugly real quick.

Hmmm....I've seen Fisherman. I doubt I'd trade my wife for a Swedish man who's taller than me!

It's all about the Ripper man, it's all about the Ripper. Let's get back to that.