What happened to Lechmere......

[caz]

If-he-was-the-killer-then-he-KNEW-that-Nichols-was-very-freshly-slain-and-he-would-realize-that-the-police-would-have-been-aware-of-that-too.

There. Do I make mysef clear?

It's clear you still don't get it. The police couldn't put Lechmere first at the scene with a freshly slain woman without any witnesses. Paul was the only eye witness to place this unidentified other man in Buck's Row until Lechmere kindly identified himself and confirmed it, and Paul didn't see that Nichols had been slain, freshly or otherwise, so could not have testified to it. Moreover, Paul claimed in the newspaper that she was so cold she must have been dead for some time, making his evidence unreliable, but also unfit for purpose. On Paul's evidence alone, the woman could have fainted or been unconscious from drink, and only appeared dead, and then knifed to death by an opportunistic killer in the interval between the two men going to find the nearest policeman, and Neil arriving to find her, not merely dead to the world, but 'freshly slain' and nearly decapitated.

Is it clearer to you now how witness testimony actually works - or doesn't?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I would just note that being "cold to the touch" is no indication of time of death. As Dr Biggs points out, "Being 'cold to the touch' really isn't helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn't start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or 'lag' phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead a couple of hours but still have an essentially 'normal' body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold." (Marriott, 2015)

Good observations, John.

There is no way the police could have used Paul's account to establish that either of them had knowingly been with a 'freshly slain' corpse, since he had examined the woman with Cross and didn't appear to know she had even been subjected to any violence, let alone murdered. He complained that she was cold to the touch and should have been found by the beat bobby sooner if he'd been doing his job properly.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And Charles Lechmere was found alone with her body very, very close to the time when she died.
Therefore, his presence on the murder spot belongs to the circumstantial evidence telling us that he may be the killer.
Also, the fact that nobody was seen or heard leaving the spot at this approximate time, also belongs to the circumstantial evidence pointing to Lechmere.

So Lechmere is not only motivated forward to identify himself as the man Paul saw alone with a woman he had seconds before been slaughtering to the point of decapitation. He is also compelled to admit seeing and hearing nobody else around who could possibly have done this, to prevent PC Mizen catching him out in a lie - the same PC Mizen who will inevitably catch him out in a lie about another PC wanting him, when PC Neil and Robert Paul both deny it, and Lechmere denies saying it.

The reasoning we are being given to swallow has more twists and turns than a twisty-turny thing. I submit that the reasoning is uniquely yours, Christer, and not that entertained by any killer who has ever wanted to remain in the shadows to kill again.

If and when asked if he had seen or heard anyone leaving the spot, Lechmere could have replied: "The only man I saw and heard in Buck's Row was Robert Paul, who did his best to avoid me until I detained him. I might have missed him if he was hanging around on the street before I came along as it was so dark. As it is, I only noticed him when he tried to pass me and leave the spot."

Sorted.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

It's clear you still don't get it. The police couldn't put Lechmere first at the scene with a freshly slain woman without any witnesses. Paul was the only eye witness to place this unidentified other man in Buck's Row until Lechmere kindly identified himself and confirmed it, and Paul didn't see that Nichols had been slain, freshly or otherwise, so could not have testified to it. Moreover, Paul claimed in the newspaper that she was so cold she must have been dead for some time, making his evidence unreliable, but also unfit for purpose. On Paul's evidence alone, the woman could have fainted or been unconscious from drink, and only appeared dead, and then knifed to death by an opportunistic killer in the interval between the two men going to find the nearest policeman, and Neil arriving to find her, not merely dead to the world, but 'freshly slain' and nearly decapitated.

Is it clearer to you now how witness testimony actually works - or doesn't?

Love,

Caz
X

I know perfectly well how witness testimony works, thank you very much. Should any deficiencies arise in that department, Iīm afraid I will not turn to you to brush up on it.

Once again, you are suggesting alternative actions for Lechmere. Once again, I can only post my take on it:

Overall, I find that many people (read: Caz) suggest alternative things the carman could have done, things they judge would have been a better suggestion on Lechmereīs behalf. He neednīt have contacted Paul, he could have run, he could have claimed that Paul was there before him, he could have walked the other way, he didnīt have to examine the woman with Paul etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

In the end, what he did is consistent with the possibility that he was the killer, and we are all very much aware that IF he was, then he pulled through. So maybe we should not try to decide that he could not have been the killer on account of him not having done what we - after having given the matter hours, days, weeks, months and years of afterthought - identify as a possibly smarter solution.
He had seconds only to decide what to do as Paul drew nearer, letīs not forget that. If he was the killer, I am very much inclined to think that he performed miracles in minutes, taking him out of harmīs way and conning Paul and Mizen big time.

[Abby Normal]

I know perfectly well how witness testimony works, thank you very much. Should any deficiencies arise in that department, Iīm afraid I will not turn to you to brush up on it.

Once again, you are suggesting alternative actions for Lechmere. Once again, I can only post my take on it:

Overall, I find that many people (read: Caz) suggest alternative things the carman could have done, things they judge would have been a better suggestion on Lechmereīs behalf. He neednīt have contacted Paul, he could have run, he could have claimed that Paul was there before him, he could have walked the other way, he didnīt have to examine the woman with Paul etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

In the end, what he did is consistent with the possibility that he was the killer, and we are all very much aware that IF he was, then he pulled through. So maybe we should not try to decide that he could not have been the killer on account of him not having done what we - after having given the matter hours, days, weeks, months and years of afterthought - identify as a possibly smarter solution.
He had seconds only to decide what to do as Paul drew nearer, letīs not forget that. If he was the killer, I am very much inclined to think that he performed miracles in minutes, taking him out of harmīs way and conning Paul and Mizen big time.

you know your probably going to be accused of circular reasoning. LOL!

But I do know what your trying to get across. I find it rather frustrating myself when people try to say what the killer would or wouldn't do, ignoring all the evidence in the process.

the worst example is the killer wouldn't have come back out and written the GSG and therefore Long missed the apron argument. grrrr..

[caz]

Robert Paul said this:"It was dark and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality, I tried to give him a wide berth."

Therefore, as Paul is clearly making no attempt to investigate, and is obviously trying to avoid Lechmere, was there any need for Lechemere to approach him at all, assuming he was the killer?

No John, no need whatsoever. He need only have walked smartly away in the darkness without giving any eye contact to reassure this newcomer that he meant him no harm. If Paul then noticed the woman and chose to investigate further, and spent long enough to learn more about her fate than he did with Lechmere present, the latter would have been long gone, with virtually no chance of Paul seeing enough of the man to know him again. Lechmere could have been doing exactly the same as Paul had tried to do - which was to hurry along that dangerous street avoiding all human contact, in whatever form.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

The evidence clearly supports that the Mizen scam happened. If it did not, why did Mizens superiors not use his report to establish that two carmen had claimed to have found the body? And why did Mizen not correct Neil when the latter said that HE was the finder?

I've probably been out of the Lech-loop for a while, but why would the failure of Mizen's superiors to "use" his report in the way you suggest amount to evidence that a "scam" occurred? Obviously it must emerged in the fullness of time that "two carmen had claimed to have found the body", and yet nobody cried "scam!" following that revelation.

And why did Mizen not correct Neil when the latter said that HE was the finder?

He was "the finder", one of them at least; he just happened to have made his find independently of Crossmere and Paul. Or are you suggesting that Neil persisted in the assumption that he was the original "finder"? In which case, where's the evidence for this, and in what sense does it indicate a "scam" of any kind?

Today, Charles Lechmere is one of the hottest and most debated suspects in the Ripper saga, whereas others - no names mentioned...

Yes, he just falls short of being the hottest and the most debated, though, doesn't he? Again, no names mentioned...

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Nice try, Caz. But all witnesses referring back to the incident would be justified to speak of "the body" if they in retrospect had found out that she was dead.

Nope, because according to your wonderful PC Mizen, he was only told that a woman was lying in the street. There were no witnesses to say that the knife wounds were inflicted shortly before Paul's arrival, and not just as shortly after his departure. He hadn't seen any! All he could swear to was that Nichols was lying there insensible, apparently lifeless. PC Neil first established that she had recently been knifed to death, but there was nobody to establish in a court of law that this had already happened when Paul examined her.

Who knows if the killer didn't sometimes trawl the district for likely places where he might find a destitute, drunk, or sick and exhausted prostitute taking a much needed nap, who could quickly be overpowered and killed in situ without the preamble of showing his face to a prospective victim and being taken to a location of her choosing? If this could have happened in theory with a sleeping Martha Tabram, Annie Chapman or Mary Kelly, for example, it could have happened with Polly Nichols, insensible from drink in Buck's Row and left alone with her killer when Paul and Lechmere departed.

An example is how Neil FIRST says "I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway", only to then describe how he AFTER having found Nichols went on to examine her. So initially, he knew not that she was dead: would you then have him say, sworn in as he was, I found a woman, examined the woman and then I stayed at the body while my colleague fetched the doctor?

Reality check needed, Caz!

I agree - for you! Since it was PC Neil who established the woman was deceased when he found her, and that she had been violently killed, he was fully entitled to refer to her as 'the deceased' throughout his testimony. Paul only found that out later, so while he could also refer to her as the deceased, (just as Mizen could refer to the witness as Cross, despite not taking his name on the night), he couldn't testify to her already being dead and/or murdered when he saw her (just as Mizen couldn't testify to knowing the witness as Cross when he spoke to him).

To be continued...

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

you know your probably going to be accused of circular reasoning. LOL!

But I do know what your trying to get across. I find it rather frustrating myself when people try to say what the killer would or wouldn't do, ignoring all the evidence in the process.

the worst example is the killer wouldn't have come back out and written the GSG and therefore Long missed the apron argument. grrrr..

Indeed, Abby! It is all quite frustrating, and a somewhat reckless usage of boards space, since I have decided not to answer these kinds of suggestions. Just like you say, the apron business is a totally irresponsible approach, since it goes 180 degrees against the evidence.
If there were two competing views, it would have been different, but as it stands, we are pretty damn obliged to accept Longs words over our own preferences.

[Fisherman]

Ben: Hi Fisherman,

I've probably been out of the Lech-loop for a while, but why would the failure of Mizen's superiors to "use" his report in the way you suggest amount to evidence that a "scam" occurred? Obviously it must emerged in the fullness of time that "two carmen had claimed to have found the body", and yet nobody cried "scam!" following that revelation.

There is only one type of wording that would dovetail with Neils words and that would not have anybody crying "scam" - and that is if Mizen wrote something along the lines of "was summoned to Bucks Row at cirka 3.45 by PC Neil of the J division".

Such a wording would not make anybody raise an eyebrow, reasonably. But it is only possible in conjunction with Lechmere having been lied to.

If he was not lied to, and left the carmen out of his report, I fail to see how he could have worded himself in a manner that did not create quite a stir afterwards.


He was "the finder", one of them at least; he just happened to have made his find independently of Crossmere and Paul. Or are you suggesting that Neil persisted in the assumption that he was the original "finder"? In which case, where's the evidence for this, and in what sense does it indicate a "scam" of any kind?

It was pointed out at the "press conference" (I donīt know what the victorian police called it, but that was what it was, apparently) on the 2:nd, that "It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street." He was also put on the stand the day before and professed to be the finder of Nichols. He offered no thoughts about how somebody else could have found the body and left it before he arrived, but he did say that the streets were totally empty, so his guess would have been that he was numero uno.

Yes, he just falls short of being the hottest and the most debated, though, doesn't he? Again, no names mentioned...

You rascal you. Now I shall never know.

[Fisherman]

caz: Nope, because according to your wonderful PC Mizen, he was only told that a woman was lying in the street. There were no witnesses to say that the knife wounds were inflicted shortly before Paul's arrival, and not just as shortly after his departure. He hadn't seen any! All he could swear to was that Nichols was lying there insensible, apparently lifeless. PC Neil first established that she had recently been knifed to death, but there was nobody to establish in a court of law that this had already happened when Paul examined her.

Who knows if the killer didn't sometimes trawl the district for likely places where he might find a destitute, drunk, or sick and exhausted prostitute taking a much needed nap, who could quickly be overpowered and killed in situ without the preamble of showing his face to a prospective victim and being taken to a location of her choosing? If this could have happened in theory with a sleeping Martha Tabram, Annie Chapman or Mary Kelly, for example, it could have happened with Polly Nichols, insensible from drink in Buck's Row and left alone with her killer when Paul and Lechmere departed.

Iīll leave you to research that promising angle, Caz! I will prepare you for some little trouble concerning the timings and possible escape routes and so on. I am sure you can cope with it, though, given the level of fantasy you are showing off here.
The best of luck, and letīs return to the topic when the docu has aired!


I agree - for you! Since it was PC Neil who established the woman was deceased when he found her, and that she had been violently killed, he was fully entitled to refer to her as 'the deceased' throughout his testimony. Paul only found that out later, so while he could also refer to her as the deceased, (just as Mizen could refer to the witness as Cross, despite not taking his name on the night), he couldn't testify to her already being dead and/or murdered when he saw her (just as Mizen couldn't testify to knowing the witness as Cross when he spoke to him).

I really canīt see what point you are trying to make, Caz. Can you? That Paul did not know for sure that she was dead when he first saw her...? If so, what does that point to in your world? Does it totally clear Lechmere? Or what?

To be continued...

Please God, no...!!!!

[Abby Normal]

Indeed, Abby! It is all quite frustrating, and a somewhat reckless usage of boards space, since I have decided not to answer these kinds of suggestions. Just like you say, the apron business is a totally irresponsible approach, since it goes 180 degrees against the evidence.
If there were two competing views, it would have been different, but as it stands, we are pretty damn obliged to accept Longs words over our own preferences.

Bottom line-just as with longs testimony under oath, I think people should reconsider the FACT that Mizen testified to something different than what lech said.It should have weight-and Its there in stone.
And, God Forbid!, Mizen was not misremembering and not lying, then Lech is lying or incorrect and the onus is on Lech not Mizen.

[Fisherman]

Bottom line-just as with longs testimony under oath, I think people should reconsider the FACT that Mizen testified to something different than what lech said.It should have weight-and Its there in stone.
And, God Forbid!, Mizen was not misremembering and not lying, then Lech is lying or incorrect and the onus is on Lech not Mizen.

It has great weight, Abby - there is a world outside these boards!

[Hercule Poirot]

It would be quite interesting if a simulated trial with preliminary hearings could be done here on the forum with 'designated' defenders, prosecutors and someone presiding it all. The challenge would be finding 'neutral' members of the jury. The procedures would have to be those prevailing at the time of the murders.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Clark]

Therefore, when we look at the factor of physical proximity, the one and only person we know was alone with and in close physical proximity to Nichols before Paul arrived, is Charles Lechmere. Therefore, he is the likeliest killer, going on this factor only.

Yes, but there is absolutely no reason to go on this factor alone. It appears to me that you are trying to add credence to your theory based on a faulty premise and cherry picking the relative factors. You yourself have admitted that statistically, it is highly improbable that a person finding a body was the killer. Does that probability change if the discoverer is unaccompanied at the time of the discovery? You've given us no reason to think so.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm merely stating how your argument on this issue appears to me so far. When I boil the pages and pages down in this thread, along with a number of the posts you've made in other threads in this folder, and your statements during your TV appearance, here's what your contention that Cross was the most likely suspect sounds like to me:

"IF we assume that Cross was the killer AND he was the only one near the body when it was found by someone else (such as Paul), THEN his mere proximity to the body makes him the most likely suspect. Given that conclusion, the police were fools for not suspecting him in the first place."

However, without the "IF we assume that Cross was the killer" part of the equation, the observation regarding his proximity to the body is meaningless BECAUSE there's nothing intrinsically interesting about Cross. He only becomes interesting if he is the killer, and there is no evidence that he was.