What happened to Lechmere......

[John Wheat]

Yes, there is. And none of it is tied to the Ripper murders.

To Fisherman

Bury is a much better suspect than Ripper witness Lechmere.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

There you go, Harry - once again you are wrong.

[harry]

Fisherman,
What of the bloodflow? What evidence is that in determining Cross was the killer? None,circumstancial or otherwise.

What of the disagreement.I am quite prepared to believe that Cross was telling the truth.You believe Mizen was.Belief is not evidence of fact,so what's your point?

Yes I understand what circumstancial evidence is,and either you or Scobie are welcome to outline what circumstancial evidence ties Croos to the murder of Nichols.Standing in the roadway is not circumstancial evidence of Cross killing Nichols,nor is giving the name Cross,and that's all you have.

Of course I am working from the assumption that Cross didn't lie.I thought you would have understood that long before now,but the onus is on you to prove he did,and so far you have only stated belief.

If you look at it that Cross was telling the truth,what does that say about Mizen.

Mizen had every reason,once he knew murder had been committed,to advise seniors that he had been approached by two witnesses who had informationl,Mizen withheld information.A serious breach of discipline.So yes,I am quite ready to believe he lied to cover up that lack.

Look,do not take my word, ask Scobie,and see if he is willing to post and give us poor unknowledgeable souls the wisdom of his experience.You do need someone to guide you.

[Fisherman]

harry:
Some people confuse information with evidence.

Like the bloodflow, you mean?

Or the disagreement with Mizen about what was said?

We have information of Cross in the Nichols murder,but there is no evidence of murder on his part.

Have you heard the term "circumstantial evidence", Harry? No? Well, anyway, that was what James Scobie said there was. And he said that people are convicted on circumstantial evidence many only quite often. But you may of course be the better judge of such matters...?

Fisherman,

Yes...?

I think you may be misquoting what was said.

How very interesting - I was just going to say the same about you!

Generally speaking a lawenforcement officer need not take names,but in a case of a death being reported,as was the case with Paul and Cross,an officer would be lax in his duty if he failed to do so.At the least,they would be important witnesses.

Ah, Harry - but that is working from the assumption that Lechmere did not lie. If you try to read it the way Mizen has it, you will notice that Mizen never says that he was told of any death. Instead, he says at the inquest that the carman spoke of neither murder nor suicide.
What Mizen says, is that he was only told that there was a woman lying in the street down in Bucks Row.

If you look at things that way, and if you try the interesting angle that Mizen may have been telling the truth, then what does that say about Lechmere?

Furthermore it seems that Mizen compounded that mistake,by not entering details in his notebook,and not informing,at an early opportunity,senior officers.

Same answer, Iīm afraid.

Why do I surmise this?.because you say it was not until the Monday that Cross's involvement and his name came to the attention of higher authority.

Eh, to be frank, I am saying that it was probably not until Sunday evening.It may have been Monday too, but my money is on Sunday.
And Mizen had no reason at all to speak to his superiors - as long as he thought that Neil was the first finder of the body. And that predisposed that he had been lied to by Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

Well, except in the case of Cross, of course. But then, they may well have had a reason not to suspect him and we just don't know what it was.

Yes! That is very true - they may have had a reason not to suspect him. And if they did, he could have sat on Nichols body, he could have spat on it, he could have defecated on it, and it would not make him any more guilty of being the killer.

But, Clark, that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether a person found close to a freshly killed murder victim is more likely to be her killer than somebody not found close to the same murder victim. Nothing else.

Well, at least that is what I am doing. You are doing something entirely different by now, it seems.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

To answer your questions there is plenty of evidence for Bury.

Cheers John

Yes, there is. And none of it is tied to the Ripper murders.

[Fisherman]

>>Actually, these skirts were normally quite wide, so I donīt think the suggestion works.<<

You don't need to specdulate, as I can tell you categorically it does work, one of the few advantages of having two clothing experts in the family.

What I can't say for certain is that it was the case with Mrs Nichols as we don't have enough details.

The drawing of poor Mrs Eddowes prone body illustrates the difficulty of pulling down a skirt above akimbo knees, perfectly.


The bunching under the bum seems a reasonable guess too, but it does come with problems;

1: None of the victims were described that way, including Mrs. Nichols.

2: The act would take time and would delay, what presumably would be, the urgent desire to mutilate.

If you think that a wide skirt is as difficult to pull down over parted legs as a narrow one, I will just leave that particular discussion. It is easier for both of us that way.
As for your point 1, Nichols clothes were described as disarranged.
As for your point 2, all things take time. Itīs the amounts that differ. And what I am proposing is that it could have been necessary to be able to get at the abdomen in the first place.

[Fisherman]

Robert St Devil: Hello Fisherman.

Hello there!

I am curious as to why Paul gets a pass in your deductions. This is taken from the pov that the official record doesn't truly begin until PC Thain discovers MAN's corpse lying on Bakers Row. We all know the collaborative story of these two 'strangers' prior to his discovery, but there are minor offsets that should remind us that we could approach them both with an amount of apprehension.

I have looked at this from all angles, Robert, and for many years. I have given the idea of Paul being a possible accomplice much afterthought, and I have arrived at the conclusion that it is a less well working scenario. But letīs look at your points!

1. They arrange her clothes prior to leaving; PC Thain discovers Mary Nicholls body with her clothes disarranged.

The only arranging they collectively admitted to was Pauls pulling her dress down. Lechmere does not say that he fixed her clothing at all, not does paul say he did.
Paul only managed to pull the dress down to the knees. That means that they had to leave her with her clothes disarranged.
My own take is that Lechmere had pulled the clothing down over the abdominal wounds before Paul arrived, to hide them from sight. And he may well have had to tamper a lot with the clothes to gain access to the abdomen before that, all of which would leave the clothes in a less than arranged state.

2. both of their excuses for leaving the body is paltry and insensitive at best. Neither man displays an ounce of humanity considering they suspect she's dead.

That did not surprise Dew; he mentioned it, but meant that was the order of the day in the late victorian East End. I have made the point myself, though, but when I do so, I am always met by claims that they did exactly what could be expected since they were late, and that no carelessness at all can (or may) be read into the behaviour of Charles Lechmere.

3. Paul takes a wide berth around Lechmere out of fear, but Lechmere somehow touches his shoulder to alert him to the murder.

Not sure how that should have us thinking that Paul and Lechmere may have worked in tandem? But I do think it was a strange manner to approach Paul in. To me, it looks like Lechmere makes a very late decision to speak to his colleague.

4. Mary Ann Nichols is lying in a pool of her blood about her neck, but Lechmere somehow avoids her neck or any mutilated body part when seeking her vitals. True, it is so dark she cant be seen, but theres the suspicion that the men left the crime scene unaltered (no footprints in the blood, no account of feeling a warm viscous fluid, blood on the hands, no attempt to revive).

Andy Griffiths pointed out that if Nichols was very recently cut in the neck, and with no underlying blood pressure, and if the larger part of her blood had already leaked into her abdominal cavity, then the pool under her could actually have been in the process of forming as Paul arrived. And that could be the explanation that he could not see it.
Avoiding the pool would not be hard at any rate - it was quite small. To step in it would be nigh on impossible, unless you put your shoe right next to her face.
It was not so dark that Nichols could not be seen. Paul said she was easy enough to spot, Lechmere saw her fro the other side of the road, they saw the hat, they saw the limbs etcetera - they did not feel their way around. Which implies that they should have seen the blood too - if there was blood to be seen.
If the cut to the neck was hidden and the pool was still so small that it did not extend out beyond the area the neck was hiding, it all becomes another thing.

[harry]

John,
Some people confuse information with evidence.We have information of Cross in the Nichols murder,but there is no evidence of murder on his part.
He found a body,he informed the first person on the scene after himself,and he informed the authorities.This is information not evidence of murder,and it is al we have concerning Cross..As you agree no evidence.
Fisherman,
I think you may be misquoting what was said.Generally speaking a lawenforcement officer need not take names,but in a case of a death being reported,as was the case with Paul and Cross,an officer would be lax in his duty if he failed to do so.At the least,they would be important witnesses.
Furthermore it seems that Mizen compounded that mistake,by not entering details in his notebook,and not informing,at an early opportunity,senior officers.Why do I surmise this?.because you say it was not until the Monday that Cross's involvement and his name came to the attention of higher authority.

[drstrange169]

>>Actually, these skirts were normally quite wide, so I donīt think the suggestion works.<<

You don't need to specdulate, as I can tell you categorically it does work, one of the few advantages of having two clothing experts in the family.

What I can't say for certain is that it was the case with Mrs Nichols as we don't have enough details.

The drawing of poor Mrs Eddowes prone body illustrates the difficulty of pulling down a skirt above akimbo knees, perfectly.


The bunching under the bum seems a reasonable guess too, but it does come with problems;

1: None of the victims were described that way, including Mrs. Nichols.

2: The act would take time and would delay, what presumably would be, the urgent desire to mutilate.

[Clark]

I think the time has come to just let you go slílent, so that you donīt get any further tangled up in your own ramblings. I will exemplify just why with one of your reoccurring agreements with me, this time over from your (hopefully) last post:

Well, that sounds rather gratuitously insulting, especially since I mentioned way back in post #203 that I didn't expect you to continue engaging with me on this ("don't stick around on my account," were my exact words).

And I have been consistent throughout. We don't know the location of the vast majority of people in Whitechapel at the time of the killing (note again that I didn't mention "dwelling"). I'm saying, as I have all along, that any one of them (with very few exceptions--where locations have actually been documented) could have been within proximity of the crime. It hardly takes brilliance on your part to observe that whoever killed Nichols must have been near her at the time. I think we've all figured that out, thank you very much.

"...anyone who was within about a 20 minutes' walk from Nichols body at the time Neil came upon it were possible suspects."

In such a case, the police donīt go "well, since it could have been anyone, letīs let this guy walk in the name of democracy". They will instead - the bastards! - go for that person as their first priority. And, Clark - GUESS WHY???

Well, except in the case of Cross, of course. But then, they may well have had a reason not to suspect him and we just don't know what it was.

You are obviously having problems realizing this. Which is why I think the best you can do is to try another thread and another topic.

I think perhaps you misjudge me, but then, you haven't really been conversing with me on this subject. More like proselytizing. But you are correct in one sense, you haven't convinced me, so perhaps it is best that you move on to other potential converts.

Best wishes.

[John Wheat]

Well, I disagree very much - there are heaps of it. Itīs conclusive proof that is lacking.

By the bye - for which suspect IS the evidence "there"? And which suspect has the most evidence going for him, after Lechmere...?

Hi Fisherman

To answer your questions there is plenty of evidence for Bury.

Cheers John

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Fisherman.

I am curious as to why Paul gets a pass in your deductions. This is taken from the pov that the official record doesn't truly begin until PC Thain discovers MAN's corpse lying on Bakers Row. We all know the collaborative story of these two 'strangers' prior to his discovery, but there are minor offsets that should remind us that we could approach them both with an amount of apprehension:

1. They arrange her clothes prior to leaving; PC Thain discovers Mary Nicholls body with her clothes disarranged.
2. both of their excuses for leaving the body is paltry and insensitive at best. Neither man displays an ounce of humanity considering they suspect she's dead.
3. Paul takes a wide berth around Lechmere out of fear, but Lechmere somehow touches his shoulder to alert him to the murder.
4. Mary Ann Nichols is lying in a pool of her blood about her neck, but Lechmere somehow avoids her neck or any mutilated body part when seeking her vitals. True, it is so dark she cant be seen, but theres the suspicion that the men left the crime scene unaltered (no footprints in the blood, no account of feeling a warm viscous fluid, blood on the hands, no attempt to revive).

[Fisherman]

Don't mistake my genuine confusion regarding your argument as agreement. I mentioned those who were known to have been in proximity because they appear to me to qualify as likely suspects under your rules, not because they are of any importance to me.



You left out the bit about "meeting your rather arbitrary criteria." So no, we are not in agreement here. From a solely geographical point of view, anyone who was within about a 20 minutes' walk from Nichols body at the time Neil came upon it were possible suspects. And that's assuming the killer had no access to a carriage or other means of transportation.



You appear to be postulating, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, that Cross (let's face it, "Cross" is easier to type on an iPad than "Lechmere", and we both know who we're talking about) is the most likely suspect on a purely geographical basis. The point of my thought experiment was to suggest that this might have been an important observation if no one else was within 20 minutes' walking distance of Nichols' body, but we know that is not true.



Which brings us back to my observation in post #214:


So what is it exactly that I've misunderstood about the matter?

I don't know if anyone else has suggested this to you, but here's a question that I've yet to see you answer (and remember that I'm a cadet, so I haven't been party to this conversation from the beginning). But if Cross was the Ripper, how is it that he let Paul live?

You have Cross telling a transparent lie to Mizen that would have been refuted if overheard by Paul, and it was only pure luck that Neil had arrived on the scene prior to Mizen turning towards Bucks Row, otherwise Cross's supposed lie would have immediately been exposed.

All of that could have been avoided if Cross had simply stuck his knife into Paul.

If Cross was the Ripper, he had a knife, he knew how to kill someone quickly and quietly, he was alone with Paul in the dark, and Paul was distracted by pulling at Nichols' dress. So why didn't Cross simply stick his knife into Paul, eliminate the only possible witness against him, and walk off calmly into the pre-dawn night?

So why was Paul allowed to live? Perhaps because Cross wasn't the Ripper?

Just a thought.

I think the time has come to just let you go slílent, so that you donīt get any further tangled up in your own ramblings. I will exemplify just why with one of your reoccurring agreements with me, this time over from your (hopefully) last post:

"...anyone who was within about a 20 minutes' walk from Nichols body at the time Neil came upon it were possible suspects."

Apart from this being a gross exaggeration, you are once more confirming that proximity is totally essential to be the likely killer.

What you then do, is to speak of the moment when Neil found the body, and that is of course not relevant at all to the discussion as such. What I have repeatedly said is that any person who is found at a murder site with a very freshly killed victim is more likely to be the killer than any other person who cannot be shown to have had that proximity.

And that involves all the Whitechapel dwellers that were within 20 minutes walk of the murder spot when Neil found the body.

Having POSSIBLY been by the murder spot can never equal having been proven to have been there, in terms of being the likely killer. That is the exact reason why the police never round up all people who have been within a twelve mile radius of a murder site if they have a person who have been found right on the spot, with no explanation for it that can be corroborated.

In such a case, the police donīt go "well, since it could have been anyone, letīs let this guy walk in the name of democracy". They will instead - the bastards! - go for that person as their first priority. And, Clark - GUESS WHY???

You are obviously having problems realizing this. Which is why I think the best you can do is to try another thread and another topic.

PS. Letīs save the "why didnīt Lechmere kill Paul" issue for another thread, shall we? And some other time? Not that I have not discussed it before ...

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish

Well, on the street v enclosed room or yard....I suspect that one or the other might seem safer/more dangerous according to individual psychology.

The trouble is, we don't know that he chose the spots. It's quite possible that the victims did - e.g. Nichols and Eddowes both killed by gates, with both gates locked IIRC.

Mais oui - but that was not the issue here. The issue was that it MAY have been that the killer did not plan the Nichols deed, did it opportunistically and liked it so much that he decided to carry on in public.

Iīm sure your point will fit smack, bang into some other discussion though, so you may want to save it for days to come.