If

[GUT]

So that is it. The best reason to free Lechmere is that you personally donīt think that he would have gone to the inquest. Although it has been explained to you that he would otherwise in all probability have become the prime suspect, you still think you have a great point here.

A bit shoddy, is it not, that all the blustering about how the carman is innocent has nothing more substantial to stand on?

I of course already knew that there was no effective objections to offer. But I wanted you to step forward and confirm it.

Many thanks.

No the best reaon to free him is the th prosecution has failed to prove it's case.

[DJA]

A bit shoddy, is it not, that all the blustering about how the carman is innocent has nothing more substantial to stand on?
.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Carmen_-_illustration_by_Luc_for_Journal_Amusant_1875.jpg

Doesn't exactly look innocent to me.

[Fisherman]

No the best reaon to free him is the th prosecution has failed to prove it's case.

That is another way of looking on things. Whether it holds true or not is an open question, since we have Scobie saying that there is a prima faciae case suggesting that Lechmere was the killer BEFORE we added the blood evidence, solidly pointing to Lechmere being very much in the middle of the picture. Neither of us knows how a jury would have looked on the case, and neither of us ever will.

But overall, a guess that he would not be convicted was not what I asked for. Whay I asked for - and whan Caz accordingly provided - was the one important factor, the top point of defence that spoke against the points of accusation.

It seems to me that these points are all of the same character: "There is an alternative, innocent explanation."

That is where it all started out, and nothing at all has been added since then. There has been no evidence pointing to how the carman COULD not have done it, speculation about how he WOULD not have done it is all there is.

The main problem about the defence is that so many new elements have been introduced since Connor and Osborne first pointed to Lechmere. And this is exactly what Scobie recognized too: "When the coincidences mount up - and they DO in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many".

I am perfectly fine with people saying that they don`t think that Lechmere did it - anybodyīs hunch is as good as mine, relatively speaking.
But to suggest that Lechmere should stand back to any other suspect is just ridiculous.

Just saying.

[GUT]

That is another way of looking on things. Whether it holds true or not is an open question, since we have Scobie saying that there is a prima faciae case suggesting that Lechmere was the killer BEFORE we added the blood evidence, solidly pointing to Lechmere being very much in the middle of the picture. Neither of us knows how a jury would have looked on the case, and neither of us ever will.

But overall, a guess that he would not be convicted was not what I asked for. Whay I asked for - and whan Caz accordingly provided - was the one important factor, the top point of defence that spoke against the points of accusation.

It seems to me that these points are all of the same character: "There is an alternative, innocent explanation."

That is where it all started out, and nothing at all has been added since then. There has been no evidence pointing to how the carman COULD not have done it, speculation about how he WOULD not have done it is all there is.

The main problem about the defence is that so many new elements have been introduced since Connor and Osborne first pointed to Lechmere. And this is exactly what Scobie recognized too: "When the coincidences mount up - and they DO in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many".

I am perfectly fine with people saying that they don`t think that Lechmere did it - anybodyīs hunch is as good as mine, relatively speaking.
But to suggest that Lechmere should stand back to any other suspect is just ridiculous.

Just saying.

But of course Fish you have put him before a jury (as t were) here on Casebook and iooks like you are a looooooooooong way from anything remotely like a unanimous guilty verdict, in fact should a knd hearted judge allow a 10:2 majorty verdict it looks like Lech still walks.

[Barnaby]

Fisherman,

I'm confused by the intention of the original question because the answer seems obvious. If Lechmere lied, that is suspicious. Especially suspicious because he also didn't give the name he went by for the entirety of his adult life outside of this one day, so far as we know. Would I convict on this alone? No.

Were you trying to elicit other feedback? Am I missing something?

[Pierre]

Problems with building a case on one source

Hi Fisherman,

I appreciate that you try and analyze your own hypothesis about Lechmere-Cross from the perspective of the usefulness of the only historical data source you have that could connect Lechmere-Cross to the murder of Mary Ann Nichols.

In this particular thread you have constructed a theoretical model to test your hypothesis by letting all the other posters in the forum reveal themselves as having a strong bias towards your theory that Lechmere-Cross was Jack the Ripper. The bias shows, according to you, that they interpret the theory from the point of view of this bias and therefore do not think Lechmere-Cross is guilty.

Now, the problem is that you cannot draw any conclusions as to the question of Lechmere-Cross beeing Jack the Ripper from this test. The only conclusion you can draw from it is that people interpret historical data sources differently and that the interpretations depend on bias.

The fact that you only have one single source to build your theory on is a big problem. Even if you would like to think it isnīt, it is. And this is why:

1. To be able to start trying hypotheses and thereafter perhaps construct a theory, you need several historical data sources.

2. You must test these sources scientifically, trying to reject your own hypotheses. If you are not able to do you can keep them for now.

3. If you find contradictory sources, you have to reconsider. You must also be aware of the problem with finding no sources at all. That doesnīt mean that there are no contradictions.

4. The quality of the sources you keep must be extremely high. I understand that you are constantly trying to give your only historical data source a higher value than it should have. This is now creating problems for you when you get the input of others on the matter, since they often think the value of your source is lower than you hope for.

5. The more valid and reliable sources you have, given that you have tested them, the better your theory will be.

Suggestions to make your research on Lechmere-Cross more effective if you donīt mind:

Please consider every theoretical problem with your data source, try to interpret the consequences for each problem and write them down.

When you have listed the worst problems, go over your data once more and try new interpretations. When you reinterpret data, there is a chance of making progress.

My own historical data is a set of several sources tested and retested. They connect a single person to several of the murders. They give a clear motive as to why he became a murderer and why he used certain methods. They also explain why the murders stopped in 1889 and they give an hypothesis of him also being the torso murderer. And the sources also give answers to important problems concearning Jack the Ripper.

Every part of the theory is based on tested data. I have tryed to reject this data but I canīt. At least not yet.

What I say is well-meant, Fisherman. I understand that you are serious in your research, and I think sometimes you are even to generous with your time on this forum, given that people not always understand what you are doing.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

But of course Fish you have put him before a jury (as t were) here on Casebook and iooks like you are a looooooooooong way from anything remotely like a unanimous guilty verdict, in fact should a knd hearted judge allow a 10:2 majorty verdict it looks like Lech still walks.

A jury, Gut, should be chosen from people who have no preconceptions in relation to the crime they are to look in to and judge.

Do you feel that such a jury can be found out here on Casebook?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

I'm confused by the intention of the original question because the answer seems obvious. If Lechmere lied, that is suspicious. Especially suspicious because he also didn't give the name he went by for the entirety of his adult life outside of this one day, so far as we know. Would I convict on this alone? No.

Were you trying to elicit other feedback? Am I missing something?

I am just as confused as you are, Barnaby, believe me. The question should answer itself, but out here, other rules apply. Out here, it has been suggested on many occasions that it would be more credible that Lechmere lied in order to get in time to work than it would be that he lied in order to hide that he was the killer.

That is why I asked the question. My own take when I first looked into the wordings in the Mizen scam was that it constituted powerful evidence that Lechmere really was the killer. I remain at that stance.
But out here, it is regarded a more or less proven thing that Mizen lied, and that the theory is debunked.

I consider that intellectually corrupt, and I accordingly prove my point. Asking this question together with asking the question which is the best argument against the Lechmere theory is very revealing in that context.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I appreciate that you try and analyze your own hypothesis about Lechmere-Cross from the perspective of the usefulness of the only historical data source you have that could connect Lechmere-Cross to the murder of Mary Ann Nichols.

In this particular thread you have constructed a theoretical model to test your hypothesis by letting all the other posters in the forum reveal themselves as having a strong bias towards your theory that Lechmere-Cross was Jack the Ripper. The bias shows, according to you, that they interpret the theory from the point of view of this bias and therefore do not think Lechmere-Cross is guilty.

Now, the problem is that you cannot draw any conclusions as to the question of Lechmere-Cross beeing Jack the Ripper from this test. The only conclusion you can draw from it is that people interpret historical data sources differently and that the interpretations depend on bias.

The fact that you only have one single source to build your theory on is a big problem. Even if you would like to think it isnīt, it is. And this is why:

1. To be able to start trying hypotheses and thereafter perhaps construct a theory, you need several historical data sources.

2. You must test these sources scientifically, trying to reject your own hypotheses. If you are not able to do you can keep them for now.

3. If you find contradictory sources, you have to reconsider. You must also be aware of the problem with finding no sources at all. That doesnīt mean that there are no contradictions.

4. The quality of the sources you keep must be extremely high. I understand that you are constantly trying to give your only historical data source a higher value than it should have. This is now creating problems for you when you get the input of others on the matter, since they often think the value of your source is lower than you hope for.

5. The more valid and reliable sources you have, given that you have tested them, the better your theory will be.

Suggestions to make your research on Lechmere-Cross more effective if you donīt mind:

Please consider every theoretical problem with your data source, try to interpret the consequences for each problem and write them down.

When you have listed the worst problems, go over your data once more and try new interpretations. When you reinterpret data, there is a chance of making progress.

My own historical data is a set of several sources tested and retested. They connect a single person to several of the murders. They give a clear motive as to why he became a murderer and why he used certain methods. They also explain why the murders stopped in 1889 and they give an hypothesis of him also being the torso murderer. And the sources also give answers to important problems concearning Jack the Ripper.

Every part of the theory is based on tested data. I have tryed to reject this data but I canīt. At least not yet.

What I say is well-meant, Fisherman. I understand that you are serious in your research, and I think sometimes you are even to generous with your time on this forum, given that people not always understand what you are doing.

Regards Pierre

Thans for the advice, Pierre. Forgive me for not taking it.

[DJA]

Hi Fisherman,

When you have listed the worst problems, go over your data once more and try new interpretations.

Regards Pierre

Like looking for a haystack in a needle.

Often found a good working hypothesis will lead to the required data.

[Patrick S]

Fisherman,

I'm confused by the intention of the original question because the answer seems obvious. If Lechmere lied, that is suspicious. Especially suspicious because he also didn't give the name he went by for the entirety of his adult life outside of this one day, so far as we know. Would I convict on this alone? No.

Were you trying to elicit other feedback? Am I missing something?

Barnaby,

You most certainly aren't missing something. What we are now seeing with poor Christer is this: He has invented things that he now holds as "evidence". One of the "bedrocks" of his case this absurd "Mizen Scam" (an embarrssing term that he's wisely stopped using, it seems). The "Mizen Scam" ( ) begins, of course, with Lechmere telling Mizen that he was:

A. Wanted in Buck's Row by a Policeman
B. A woman was "lying" in Buck's Row (with no mention that she might be dead)

Thus, Lechmere avoids the gallows by - with those few words - convincing Mizen that he's been vetted at the scene by said police officer in Buck's Row and the situation in Buck's Row wasn't quite as dire as it proved to be (i.e. Nichols lying dead, nearly decapitated). Let's forget the fact that as far as Paul and Lechmere knew Nichols was simply lying in Buck's Row and that to refrain from telling Mizen that she was "dead" or "likely dead" would not consitute a "scam" ( ). Let's focus instead instead on Paul. Now, in the new and improved version of the "Mizen Scam" ( ) Christer has to sell Robert Paul as a grandstanding, police-hating, LIAR. Because, you see, Robert Paul does not agree with the one man we must assume is honest and correct in all things: PC Jonas Mizen. Paul tells us this:

"I saw one (a policeman - PC Mizen) in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

When reading this we must bear one thing in mind: Paul made this statement before he hear anything at all from Lechmere. He was not asked his name by Mizen (or Paul for that matter), yet he showed up the following day to tell his tale at the inquest. Also, Paul made this statement before we hear from Mizen. In fact, Paul's statement appears in Lloyd's before ANYONE hears from Mizen. We know this because Neil testified that he and he alone found the body. Thus, even as Neil and Mizen interacted over the dead woman in Buck's Row, Mizen did not mention the men that had sent them there. Mizen did not mention Paul and Lechmere to his colleges at the mortuary that day (Friday) or the following day (Saturday) when the inquest began and Neil testified.

So, I'd ask this: How can we not consider Mizen's act of not telling a SOUL that two men had met him in Baker's Row and directed him to Buck's Row anything other than a lie of omission? Let's - at this point - not even debate if Mizen was told a policeman was awaiting him there or if the woman was dead or not. We must believe first that Mizen never discussed the matter with Neil. Then we must believe that - upon hearing Neil's version of events and hearing no mention of Neil meeting two men and sending them for Mizen - Mizen didn't feel the need to ask Neil for clarification? He didn't say, "Hold on?! I thought you sent two fellas to find me?"

So, we have an obvious lie of omission. We have two men (Lechmere and Paul) telling a story that has PC essentially unconcerned with a woman lying in Buck's Row. Again, both say that they told Mizen she was likely dead. Paul says bluntly, "I had told him the woman was dead." Lechmere says, "...for my part, I think she is dead.", and neither man says that they told Mizen another policeman sent them. But, they DO both say that Mizen showed no urgency at all once told of Nichols' body. Lechmere says that he replied, "All right', and walked on." We saw what Paul had to say. He was outraged and said so in no uncertain terms.

So, we have a PC who tells an obvious lie of omission to obscure what - in hindsight - proved to be a reaction that he knew would be viewed very negatively by both the public and his superiors. Now, Christer has this man as the only one telling the truth about what occurred in Baker's Row?

As I've said ad nauseum: This is not damning proof that Mizen was an awful human being or even anything less than an excellent PC. It shows simply that he intially didn't relate his story to protect his job and reputation (as well as that of the police as a whole). He then modified the dialogue somewhat to make his actions (or lack thereof) seem more palatable to both his superiors and the public. I would spectulate the Met was more than willing to let this little bit of obvious dishonesty stand, as well. That's why - in my view - the conflicting testimony went unchallenged. Mizen told his tale (i.e. the "Mizen Scam" ( )). Lechmere was asked if told he Mizen that a policeman was awaiting him (Mizen) back in Buck's Row. Lechmere said that he most certainly did not:

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.

Of couse, Mizen was not the only PC to bend the truth that night. Thain clearly wasn't honest about having told Tompkins and friends about the dead woman in Buck's Row. He too lied to protect his job and reputation. The disagreement in testimony was similarly ignored at the inquest.

So, what we have is a very simply but not very sinister explanation for what occured in and around Buck's Row that night. Christer has what he has always had: The fact that Lechmere gave the name Cross at the inquest. Rather than admit that there are miles to go between that fact and Lechmere being Jack the Ripper (not to mention the Torso Killer, and others) he invents an elaborate theory that can only work with the aid of a crystal ball and an assumption that Jonas Mizen could never tell a lie.

That's it in a nutshell. Christer's theory is absurd on its face, as we've seen by the reception it has received on these pages. Yet, when you dig in and find the obvious, real story staring you in the face, it's even more so.

I can't resist one more.......

[Barnaby]

I've thought more about this and if we grant Fisherman's scenario, then this is a bold lie by Lechmere. The only possible wiggle room is that he misremembered at the inquest. Let's suppose he lied. Why? To get to work on time? When if the lie was uncovered he would have some serious explaining to do? It doesn't seem worth it. The only rational reason to take the risk would be to avoid being detained and discovered as the killer.

I'm not sure he did lie, but if he did, this conclusion may just be the most reasonable.

[Rosella]

His stepfather was a serving policeman and he may have said his name was Cross to stay sweet when speaking with the police. He had no convictions before or after 1888.

I think we have to put ourselves in his place on that early Friday morning. If Lechmere is innocent, and I believe he is, he is going to work in the dim early light when he sees what appears to be a piece of tarp. Instead it is a woman, lying insensible in the gateway to a property. He approaches Paul about the woman.

He and Paul can't see much in the dim light but probably wonder whether she's been attacked, raped, fallen down from sheer want or drunkenness, has had a heart attack, has cut her throat, or something else.

Lechmere and Paul walk along and Constable Mizen is informed when they come across him. These two men may well have gone on to work thinking they will never see or hear about this woman again, certainly not that they would have to give evidence at an inquest if they knew nothing of the law.

They didn't know, IMO, that Polly was an early victim of arguably the most notorious serial killer who ever lived.

People in the East End went under various names consistently for all sorts of reasons. Consider Mrs Long er Durrell/ Darrell, and she almost certainly was no murderer!

[Fisherman]

I've thought more about this and if we grant Fisherman's scenario, then this is a bold lie by Lechmere. The only possible wiggle room is that he misremembered at the inquest. Let's suppose he lied. Why? To get to work on time? When if the lie was uncovered he would have some serious explaining to do? It doesn't seem worth it. The only rational reason to take the risk would be to avoid being detained and discovered as the killer.

I'm not sure he did lie, but if he did, this conclusion may just be the most reasonable.

I would like to add one more thing to this, Barnaby.

It is reasoned by some of those who do not favour Lechmere as the killer, that PC Mizen was the liar. Some will even say it is a thing beyond discussion.

These posters say that the reason Mizen told the jury that he had been informed that another PC was already in place in Bucks Row, was that he was tardy himself in going down to Browns stable yard. And so, it is said, he invented that other PC, so that he could point to how he would not have had any real need to rush - the other PC would already have had the matter in hand!

However, notice how Mizen also says that he was only informed that there was a woman lying flat on her back in Bucks Row. From what Mizen tells us, he was NOT informed about how grave the errand - potentially - was.
This too is picked up on by the so called naysayers - they say that not only did Mizen invent that other PC, he also played down that he had been told that it was a serious errand. The scoundrel!

But consider this:

Why did not Mizen ONLY say that he was told that there was a drunken woman lying in the street? Going by what Lechmere said, PC Mizen was told that the woman was either drunk or dead. How easy it would have been, then, to ONLY acknowledge that he had heard the drunken part!

It would corroborate what the carman said (and what Mizen would have known he was going to say), and it would not have him entangled in an elaborate lie that he KNEW the carmen would both deny. And it would be quite enough to explain why he did not rush - if we are to believe that he didnīt.

If he DID invent the "other PC" lie, he stood to BOTH be faced with both of the carmens denials, blowing him out of the water, plus having a PC in place that had specifically requested his help without defining why,and that would be a very compelling reason to make haste. It could potentially be very pressing.

No matter how we turn these matters inside out, the lies do not fit with Mizen trying to make an excuse - but they DO fit eminently with the carman lying his way past Mizen.

All it takes is some afterhought.

[Fisherman]

His stepfather was a serving policeman and he may have said his name was Cross to stay sweet when speaking with the police. He had no convictions before or after 1888.

I think we have to put ourselves in his place on that early Friday morning. If Lechmere is innocent, and I believe he is, he is going to work in the dim early light when he sees what appears to be a piece of tarp. Instead it is a woman, lying insensible in the gateway to a property. He approaches Paul about the woman.

He and Paul can't see much in the dim light but probably wonder whether she's been attacked, raped, fallen down from sheer want or drunkenness, has had a heart attack, has cut her throat, or something else.

Lechmere and Paul walk along and Constable Mizen is informed when they come across him. These two men may well have gone on to work thinking they will never see or hear about this woman again, certainly not that they would have to give evidence at an inquest if they knew nothing of the law.

They didn't know, IMO, that Polly was an early victim of arguably the most notorious serial killer who ever lived.

People in the East End went under various names consistently for all sorts of reasons. Consider Mrs Long er Durrell/ Darrell, and she almost certainly was no murderer!

Hi Rosella!

Here are the same questions I always ask in this situation:

Why did he use the name Cross on this occasion only, when using Lechmere otherwise when in contact with authoritites?

Thomas Cross had been dead for nineteen years - who was supposed to remember him?

Even if Lechmere DID decide that the men in the cop shop needed to be informed about his long dead stepfather, why would Lechmere NOT use his real name too?
Why would he step in there and say "Hi, my name is Cross, and that is because nineteen years ago, I had a stepfather named T<homas cross who actually was a police constable, just like you men!"

Why would he NOT say : Hi, my name is Charles Lechmere! Itīs nice to see you men. It reminds me of my old stepfather, who was a PC just like you. He was named Thomas Cross - anybody here who remembers him? No?"

Giving JUST the name Cross would potentially be a dangerous thing to do. He was the witness who had found the boy all alone. The police could get ideas if he kept his real name back.

And he did, apparently.

We must think a step longer when looking at all of this. Loftily saying "Ah, he probably thought of his dear old stepdad" carries a lot of problems with itself. He could easily get all the advantages of having had a police stepfather WITHOUT masquerading - so why would he go to those lenghts? What would he gain?