What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

el_pombo:

I'm a complete ignorant about Lechmere and I've been reading this thread. From the point of view of a layman like me I would say that someone being found right next to the body right after the murder (the body was most likely found right away) makes that person automatically a subject of interest, but not necessarily a suspect.

... which is where you differ very much from Clark. But I think you are absolutely spot on.

To me, the most important questions are:

- Why did the police rule out Lechmere as a suspect?

My guess is that a couple of matters were involved. Lechmere sought out the police on his own account not once but twice. That would have impressed them.
I also think that the police worked to a prejudiced agenda. 1888 was smack, bang in the middle of the era when the Brits invested in criminal anthropology, and that was probably the deciding factor. Lechmere was probably considered too British, too simple, too much of a family man and a faithful worker etcetera.

- Why did Lechmere stop? (he died many years after the last of the C5).

I do not think that he DID stop - on the contrary, I think there is ample reason to believe that he carried on. And I think he began killing long before 1888.

Fisherman has already explained that, in his opinion, the police did a very bad job and that's the reason he was ruled out.

Ooops; did it again...

Again, from a layman's perspective, one would have to take into account that, at the time, there wasn't yet a "ripper investigation" going on and the police would probably take little interest in the murder of a single prostitute, thus the low quality of the initial investigation - Is this realistic?

I think that we should not expect any police force in the 1880:s to prioritize prostitutes alongside the "better" and "upper" classes. That said, there were not very many murders, so it was a case that would attract much attention from both police and society anyway. And the press ensured that the police could not forget about it.

But after the ripper claimed more victims I think they surely had to re-investigate Lechmere's role in the Nichols murder - Are there any known records of this?

None whatsoever. On the contrary, the fact that he is called Cross in the reports - reaching all the way up to October 19:th, I believe - implicates how he was never looked into.
It is understandable in many a way - we know how the police had to apply for extra resources as the case spiralled away; so much happened and so many people needed to be investigated that the police would have had veryn little resources to backtrack.
Walter Dews memoirs also tell us that the carman was looked upon as a coarse, simple man who behaved like the ordinary coarse, simple Eastender, so that seems to point to how he was let go, no questions asked. Plus he is not mentioned at all in other memoirs.

The remaining question is, for me, the hardest! Why did he stop killing and led an apparent normal life until is death?

Once again, I am anything but certain that he did stop. On the contrary.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

But what If Mizen himself kept the possibility open that he had misheard or misinterpreted the carman, Ben?

I suspect that more than just keeping the possibility open, he ultimately accepted that he had "misinterpreted the carman". Indeed, the majority verdict is that he did precisely that.

Oh, and I still want to know if you are really saying that Mizen would - no doubt whatsoever - have asked Paul if Lechmere was telling the truth about that extra PC!!

Yes, I'm really saying that, and thinking it too - albeit with an amendment from "no doubt whatsoever" to "no reasonable doubt".

[Fisherman]

Clark: Not what he said, no. What he said was that he believed from the evidence before him that there was a prima facie case. From a prosecutor's standpoint, I'd agree that what has been presented would possibly be sufficient to get an indictment--at least under US law, I can't speak to UK law.

But as I stated before, that doesn't mean a hell of a lot, because only the prosecutor's case is presented to a grand jury, and the prosecutor can spin the evidence any way he wants. Once a defendant is indicted, you proceed to the criminal trial. The case against Cross wouldn't stand a chance in a criminal trial if the defense had reasonable answers in response to the allegations, and none of us, including Scobie, knows what kind of a case the defense could produce.

True enough - that is impossible to try and assess. And of course, it goes for every case, that if the defense has the answers, the defendant walks.

I have no opinion on the validity of the various suspects, other than to observe, as in the case of Cross, that none of them have been convincingly demonstrated to have committed the crime.

No suspect has been conclusively shown to be the killer. Lechmere makes the best case, but it is up to each and every person to judge how good a suspect he is.

Haven't I made it clear that I'm of the opinion that the proximity issue carries no weight on it's own?

Yes, you have. And I hope that I have made it equally clear that you are wrong in that respect.

You may take that as a given if you'd like our discussions to continue. If you'd rather that our discussions cease, then simply stop responding to my posts.

These are public boards. Basically, that means that you can wish but you cannot rule. I post as I see fit.

[el_pombo]

Hi, all!

I'm a complete ignorant about Lechmere and I've been reading this thread. From the point of view of a layman like me I would say that someone being found right next to the body right after the murder (the body was most likely found right away) makes that person automatically a subject of interest, but not necessarily a suspect.

To me, the most important questions are:

- Why did the police rule out Lechmere as a suspect?
- Why did Lechmere stop? (he died many years after the last of the C5).

Fisherman has already explained that, in his opinion, the police did a very bad job and that's the reason he was ruled out.

Again, from a layman's perspective, one would have to take into account that, at the time, there wasn't yet a "ripper investigation" going on and the police would probably take little interest in the murder of a single prostitute, thus the low quality of the initial investigation - Is this realistic?

But after the ripper claimed more victims I think they surely had to re-investigate Lechmere's role in the Nichols murder - Are there any known records of this?

The remaining question is, for me, the hardest! Why did he stop killing and led an apparent normal life until is death?

All the best!

[Clark]

Clark: I'm not debating what Scobie said. I'm merely observing that it doesn't carry the weight that you apparently want to give it. I'm sure that he'd agree if the question was put to him.

So you are not debating what he said, you are merely...debating it? Or?

Not what he said, no. What he said was that he believed from the evidence before him that there was a prima facie case. From a prosecutor's standpoint, I'd agree that what has been presented would possibly be sufficient to get an indictment--at least under US law, I can't speak to UK law.

But as I stated before, that doesn't mean a hell of a lot, because only the prosecutor's case is presented to a grand jury, and the prosecutor can spin the evidence any way he wants. Once a defendant is indicted, you proceed to the criminal trial. The case against Cross wouldn't stand a chance in a criminal trial if the defense had reasonable answers in response to the allegations, and none of us, including Scobie, knows what kind of a case the defense could produce.

Unless you noticed, these boards are very much about establishing the value of different suspects. As such, that will mean that comparisons will occur.
If you have problems with that, you may want to find somewhere else to play.

I have no opinion on the validity of the various suspects, other than to observe, as in the case of Cross, that none of them have been convincingly demonstrated to have committed the crime.

Plus I could ask you what all the things you incessantly bring up about the carman has to do with the geographical proximity issue...

Haven't I made it clear that I'm of the opinion that the proximity issue carries no weight on it's own? You may take that as a given if you'd like our discussions to continue. If you'd rather that our discussions cease, then simply stop responding to my posts.

[Fisherman]

Clark: And yet, you yourself admit that it's highly unlikely that the discoverer of a body is the same person who committed the crime. So we can't go on geography alone, can we?

Not when we make the overall weighing, no - but then again, that is another discipline. And we can certainly discuss geography as an isolated factor, to establish that part.
Well, I know that I can, anyway.

I am not a lawyer.

Chill, Clark - neither am I. I once set out to be, but was genuinely bored in two months flat.

However, I've been drafting criminal statutes for a state agency and at the request of state legislators and various agencies and groups, such as the state judges' association, for nearly 30 years. I preside at administrative rule hearings and have written administrative code during that same period. I was an expert witness for the defense in a criminal case (a trivial affair, but my testimony exonerated the defendant).

I've prepared evidence for criminal trials, thousands of people are convicted in court every year for criminal offenses based on statutes that I have drafted and evidence that my agency provides, and I've seen where evidence falls short and people walk.

Given past experience, I'm pretty sure that you stopped reading after my initial admission that I am not a lawyer, but the point is that I am very familiar with both criminal law and criminal proceedings, as well as administrative law and proceedings.

Good on you, Clark. And no, I did not stop reading when you wrote that you are no lawyer.

I'm not debating what Scobie said. I'm merely observing that it doesn't carry the weight that you apparently want to give it. I'm sure that he'd agree if the question was put to him.

So you are not debating what he said, you are merely...debating it? Or?

And you are observing that it carries less weight than I ascribe to it? Really? Amazing.
And all this you learnt to do by dabbling in the legal disciplines?

Are you sure you're getting enough sleep?

I am sure I am getting too little sleep, actually.

This sounds suspiciously like a rant.

And yet it is all very true.

What on earth does the viability of the cases against the other suspects have to do with Cross?

Unless you noticed, these boards are very much about establishing the value of different suspects. As such, that will mean that comparisons will occur.
If you have problems with that, you may want to find somewhere else to play. Plus I could ask you what all the things you incessantly bring up about the carman has to do with the geographical proximity issue...

[Fisherman]

Ben: You're addressing a different point to the one I'm making, Fisherman.

Well, sometimes the "points" made out here are not all that easy to understand.

You're saying that IF Crossmere was the killer and behaved as you suggest, he got away with it (in the same way that my auntie would be my uncle IF she had bollocks), whereas I'm saying that he couldn't possibly have escaped detection if he behaved as you suggest.

Aha! So you are just wrong, then, is that what you are saying...?

The moment Mizen knew he had been lied to - which he must have done at some point, had your "scam" truly occurred - he would have regarded Crossmere with great suspicion and alerted the police accordingly. No "if"s about it.

But what If Mizen himself kept the possibility open that he had misheard or misinterpreted the carman, Ben? Can you apply your "almost certainly"-approach to that?

Oh, and I still want to know if you are really saying that Mizen would - no doubt whatsoever - have asked Paul if Lechmere was telling the truth about that extra PC!!

[Clark]

You donīt have to. All you have to do is to realize that Nichols is dead and that Lechmere is the only person we know of who was alone with her close in time to death, and then he becomes the most likely person to have killed her, based on geography only.

And yet, you yourself admit that it's highly unlikely that the discoverer of a body is the same person who committed the crime. So we can't go on geography alone, can we?

That is for a barrister to decide, and not for you and me. We do not have the necessary insights to make the call, neither of us. It is instead sound to predispose that James Scobie knew what he was talking about.

I am not a lawyer. However, I've been drafting criminal statutes for a state agency and at the request of state legislators and various agencies and groups, such as the state judges' association, for nearly 30 years. I preside at administrative rule hearings and have written administrative code during that same period. I was an expert witness for the defense in a criminal case (a trivial affair, but my testimony exonerated the defendant).

I've prepared evidence for criminal trials, thousands of people are convicted in court every year for criminal offenses based on statutes that I have drafted and evidence that my agency provides, and I've seen where evidence falls short and people walk.

Given past experience, I'm pretty sure that you stopped reading after my initial admission that I am not a lawyer, but the point is that I am very familiar with both criminal law and criminal proceedings, as well as administrative law and proceedings.

I'm not debating what Scobie said. I'm merely observing that it doesn't carry the weight that you apparently want to give it. I'm sure that he'd agree if the question was put to him.

Plus, once again, we donīt have to theorize about the outcome. Itīs enough to see that Lechmere is the one and only person who would warrant a trial, based on the legal implications.
Kos? Allow me to laugh.
Bury? Please...
Tumblety? No, Sir.
These men are not even a ham sandwich, legally speaking. Nor is anybody else. And everybody who was there or close by is more probable than anyone we cannot place there or close by. Proximity, hoorayyyy!

Are you sure you're getting enough sleep? This sounds suspiciously like a rant. What on earth does the viability of the cases against the other suspects have to do with Cross? Absolutely nothing, that's what.

[Ben]

You're addressing a different point to the one I'm making, Fisherman.

You're saying that IF Crossmere was the killer and behaved as you suggest, he got away with it (in the same way that my auntie would be my uncle IF she had bollocks), whereas I'm saying that he couldn't possibly have escaped detection if he behaved as you suggest. The moment Mizen knew he had been lied to - which he must have done at some point, had your "scam" truly occurred - he would have regarded Crossmere with great suspicion and alerted the police accordingly. No "if"s about it.

[Fisherman]

Absolutely Caz, and even more lucky that Mizen didn't approach Paul to verify Crossmere's "wanted by another PC" story, which he certainly would have done if there had been any question of Paul not being party to the conversation. The idea that Mizen was incompetent enough to allow Paul to wander off into the shadows, and out of earshot, is one of many major weaknesses of the proposed "scam" theory. Also, unless Crossmere the Ripper was beyond stupid, he must have fully anticipated that his actions would result in national attention and an inquest, after which Mizen was bound to have realised that he had been lied to. Yet we're expected to believe the hapless copper never pointed this out to his colleagues and superiors.

All the best,
Ben

Hereīs that useful text for you too, Ben;

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.

By the way, are you really saying that Mizen would - no doubt whatsoever - have asked Paul if Lechmere was telling the truth about the extra PC..? That is fab; if you are right, then you have just exonerated Lechmere!

Caz just did that too, by the way.

[Fisherman]

Objection! He was alone with a woman whose fate had yet to be determined. How hard can it be, Christer? Was she dead or dying? In a faint or drunken stupor? You tell me. Nobody at that point knew if she had been murdered, and the only witness who examined her found no signs of the violence found later by PC Neil.

Love,

Caz
X

I see you took my advice to follow this line of enquiry, Caz. Good luck to you!

PS. The bloodflow tells us that Lechmere was alone with the sprightly miss N at a remove in time that is consistent with being the killer, so yo are making less progress and more of a fool of yourself. But so be it!

PPS. You may want to contact the publishing houses that have all sold books that speak about Nichols as "the body" when Lechmere and Paul arrived.

PPPS. Or you may want to save yourself the trouble.

[caz]

- he was there, alone with the body, at a remove in time that is consistent with being the killer.

Objection! He was alone with a woman whose fate had yet to be determined. How hard can it be, Christer? Was she dead or dying? In a faint or drunken stupor? You tell me. Nobody at that point knew if she had been murdered, and the only witness who examined her found no signs of the violence found later by PC Neil.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

And we get there at last. Lechmere has no control over whether Paul stays or goes, so it's a matter of luck if he gets Mizen alone to say the magic words: "You are wanted by another PC

Absolutely Caz, and even more lucky that Mizen didn't approach Paul to verify Crossmere's "wanted by another PC" story, which he certainly would have done if there had been any question of Paul not being party to the conversation. The idea that Mizen was incompetent enough to allow Paul to wander off into the shadows, and out of earshot, is one of many major weaknesses of the proposed "scam" theory. Also, unless Crossmere the Ripper was beyond stupid, he must have fully anticipated that his actions would result in national attention and an inquest, after which Mizen was bound to have realised that he had been lied to. Yet we're expected to believe the hapless copper never pointed this out to his colleagues and superiors.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

caz: Effectively, yes it does, Christer.

Well, then we are done here. Super work, you detective, you!

Once again, when Lechmere was at the scene with his only witness, Robert Paul, the latter saw no signs of the woman having met a violent end.

Eh - she was on the ground and possibly dead. That does not exclude violence. But Paul did not express that he thought that she had been killed - he did not see the wounds, by the looks of things.

Her hands may have felt cold to him, and he may actually have believed his newspaper claim that she had been dead for some time, but as you yourself acknowledge, the living can have colder hands than the recently deceased.

So I am correct on that score? You sure about that...?

There was no hint of a murder having been committed (and Mizen was told nothing of the sort by either carman) until PC Neil arrived and found her all alone and fatally wounded.

Well, the hints were there to an extent - but the carmen did not see any signs of the violence that had put her to death. For all they knew, she could be alive, or have suffered a heart attack.

If there is no reliable witness to testify that they saw Lechmere at the scene either shortly before, during or shortly after the actual murder, how do you propose he could ever have been prosecuted in a court of law, whether he came forward immediately to put his side of the story, or had only done so as a result of being tracked down, like Paul had to be?

There is Paul, Caz. You may have forgotten about him? And Lechmere admitted to have been first at the site. And the blood evidence is in line with him having been the killer.
You may be trying too hard. Anyways, you are failing miserably.

He walks, Christer. Every time. Reasonable doubt. You may have heard of it?

I have heard of many convictions on useful circumstantial evidence. And so has Scobie, apparently.

A bugger if he did actually wield the knife, but that's how it works.

That is how YOU work. How the jury would have worked, you are not qualified to know.

Itīs quite a disappointment, this post. "Effectively yes it does" my behind, Caz.

[caz]

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?

Effectively, yes it does, Christer. Once again, when Lechmere was at the scene with his only witness, Robert Paul, the latter saw no signs of the woman having met a violent end. Her hands may have felt cold to him, and he may actually have believed his newspaper claim that she had been dead for some time, but as you yourself acknowledge, the living can have colder hands than the recently deceased. There was no hint of a murder having been committed (and Mizen was told nothing of the sort by either carman) until PC Neil arrived and found her all alone and fatally wounded.

If there is no reliable witness to testify that they saw Lechmere at the scene either shortly before, during or shortly after the actual murder, how do you propose he could ever have been prosecuted in a court of law, whether he came forward immediately to put his side of the story, or had only done so as a result of being tracked down, like Paul had to be?

He walks, Christer. Every time. Reasonable doubt. You may have heard of it?

A bugger if he did actually wield the knife, but that's how it works.

Love,

Caz
X