What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

Yes, it is easy to see which version applies to your theory, Fisherman.

I think the contradictory reports merely underline the difficulty in using non-official documents to establish the facts of a historical mystery. A historian, as much as a scientist, must be careful of his source material's accuracy. Why should the use of quotation marks make The Morning Advertiser's article more accurate than that of The Telegraph? As a journalist, you must know both the verbatim and summary methods of reporting are valid.

Well, the fact that the DT is the ONLY paper having it the other way around should perhaps count? And when we ask ourselves what applies, and a paper wites" the witness said, and the other man did", looking at the ad verbatim versions is helpful to establish the truth.

If you are seriously suggesting that the DT should be afforded the same weight as all the other sources taken together, then itīs not me who should be given lessons in source evaluation, I can say that much...

[Fisherman]

harry: All the better Cross did not go as far as the body,

Well, not for you, since it shown how poor a grasp you have of such a vital detail. And it still applies that the fewest courts have - so far - taken to accepting what a person who is a suspect in a murder trial states with no corroboration at all.

And that is the question you have been avoiding.Where is your evidence?

I have never avoided that question. I have even given you the number f the post where I stated clearly that if I could place Lechmere on the spot with Nichols, proving conclusively that that he was with Nichks as she was killed, we would not be having the kind of daft discussion we are having now. Read, Harry, read!

Cross does not necessarily require corroboration,as he gave evidence under oath.

And murderers who fact the gallows will never lie under oath? Sjall I start listing examples, Harry? Have we come to that?

As such,unless he was guilty of perjury,or other factors negated his testimony,his evidence stands.

As does the very real possibility that he lied.

One important thing to understand in English law.When an accusation is made against a person,evidence must be produced to prove that accusation.

I have listed 31 items on this thread, and I have spent years digging it up. And James Scobie, your favourite barrister, said that it makes for a prima faciae case that suggests that Lechmere was the killer. He sais that the timings really have him, he said that there was a geographical area to which he was tied that pointed to him, he said thaqt when the coincidences mount up - "and they do in his case" - it becomes one coincidence too many.

He said a number of other things too that were edited out on account of time issues, mainly about who he thought it was completely silly how some criminals thought that a court would accept ridiculous amounts of coincidences. I saw a number of minutes of the material that was cut away. He did not think things looked bright for Lechmere, to be moderate.

So to me, it is either Scobie the barrister or Harry the Hutchinson-biased web poster.

I am still mulling over which way to go on that one.

[Fisherman]

>>In my post 230, I wrote that there were tight skirts, but "they were worn by the upper classes", and the murder site was not indoors, ergo the dwellers of Bucks Row were not at it.<<

Difficult to see that reply as anything other than rather gutlessness and hypocritical on you part, still nevermind continuing on …


>>...explain to me who is a better suspect or as good a suspect - and why<<

No need most suspect theories, Xmere, Gull, Maybrick, Kos. etc. pick out one or two sound facts and concoct a whole case of carefully crafted “coincidences” that prove their suspect is the real one. It's almost a template.


>>Innuendo and a priori fallacy. It only has meaning if we assume Cross was the killer.<<

Bingo! Clark. Good to hear some analytical thinking in the debate.


Back to Fisherman's circles,
>> … feel free to argue that the film team lied to or mislead Scobie.<<

I can’t say whether they lied or not but, it is a fact they tried to misled their audience, so their rep. is not great. Do you want me to repeat the list?


>>What I am after here is what it was that made an alternative name legitimate ... These are questions that have remained unanswered, for some reason.<<


I’ve already answered the above too, elsewhere but, hey ho ..

A false name was one used to intentionally deceive a court/inquest. A legitimate name is one that the person would be reasonably be recognized by.

In this case, if Xmere were known as Cross at his work place, Cross was a legitimate name for inquest purposes, but none of this has changed since I last explained it. I believe I cited the source back then, do you want it again?

Time to move on.

Hi Dusty.

One thing only - how is it "gutless" to prove you wrong? I mean, seeing how very clever and analytically sharp you are, I would have thought such a thing dangerous?

[Clark]

Do you agree that an errand with a probably drunk woman in the care of a fellow PC would have looked less pressing that an errand with a woman who was likely dead or dying, and with nobody to help her? If you were to administrate help to these two scenarios, and only had one PC to spare, where would you send him? I would choose the dead or dying woman with nobody helping her a hundred times out of a hundred, but how would YOU go about it?

Either scenario would outweigh acting as an alarm clock. But that's probably just my opinion.

Do you agree that a killer - any killer - who had taken the trouble to hide the wounds to the abdomen would also take an interest in hiding the wound to the neck too? Do you agree that it was said that the last thing Paul did before they left the body was to pull the dress down? Do you agree that he could therefore afterwards have left the body without checking it any further?

Pulls her dress down as far as he could, then doesn't look up to see what effect it had? Possible, yes. Likely, probably not.

Do you agree that we cannot believe BOTH Pauls Lloyds interview and what was said at the inquest - that these sources are mutually excluding each other to an extent?

To an extent, yes. But where collaborated by Cross, why assume a total lie on Paul's part? He obviously overstated his involvement, but he was involved. Where Cross and Paul agree, it's two to one.

It would be nice if people took some little time for afterthought before they posted, and looked at the alternatives. Once they do, it would be equally nice if they asked themselves if ALL of the pointers to Lechmere really must be a trick of fate.

Did and done.

Have the best of birthdays, Clark!

I sincerely appreciate it.

[Fisherman]

Clark:
Either scenario would outweigh acting as an alarm clock. But that's probably just my opinion.

Yes, that may well be. But the important matter to note is how drunk women in the care of a PC are rarely in as much need of help as abandoned women dying in the street. You failed to comment on that.

Pulls her dress down as far as he could, then doesn't look up to see what effect it had? Possible, yes. Likely, probably not.

The effect he sought would - at least to my mind - have been concentrating on her bared legs. Most people who try to pull a dress down over bared legs will not check the effect at the neck afterwards. Would Paul try to avoid to expose her neck, for moral reasons...?

To an extent, yes. But where collaborated by Cross, why assume a total lie on Paul's part? He obviously overstated his involvement, but he was involved. Where Cross and Paul agree, it's two to one.

A total lie? Are you suggesting that a logical outcome of how Paul stated that he was the only one talking to Mizen in Lloyds, whereas Mizen said that Lechmere was the one who spoke to him, would be that we should deduct that Paul did part of the talking? Like a sort of mathematical exercise?

What I am doing, Clark, is to look into the POSSIBILITY that Charles Lechmere was the killer. That is sometimes forgotten about, in favour of accusing me of saying that it is a proven thing.
In this particular case, I point to how Lechmere could well have lied about Pauls participation, and I note how Mizen corroborates this suggestion. And I note how Paul, who was portrayed as a very talkative man in Lloyds, does not confirm this at the inquest, instead opting for simply saying that "they" informed Mizen - meaning that the possibility that Lechmere only did the talking remains open.
I know full well that one can argue the case from the other side to, but to me, the primary interest lies in checking whether I CAN be correct, or whether the evidence effectively excludes that possibility.

In this work of mine, I far too often meet arguments like the one Harry just presented: Lechmere is in the clear since he testified that Paul arrived seconds only after he himself did. It is of course an argument that lacks any form of anchoring in the real world, but these things surface nevertheless. And they do so in heaps!

The true validator for the Lechmere theory lies to an extent in how there are never any definitely negating factors around, in spite of how there ought to have been.
Mizen never says that Paul spoke to him.
At the inquest, Pauls wording does not negate Lechmere as the killer either. And so on.

The exact same thing is around when it comes to, for example, how neither man heard the other in Bucks Row. If Paul had only said "I heard that there was a man walking in front of me", "this man stepped out into the street" or anything like that - but these things are never there!

Any of the men involved could have said that Paul stood next to Mizen during the conversation - but it does not happen. Instead, the only source saying something, claims that Paul walked down Hanbury Street.

On each and every occassion where there could - or should - have been lifesavers for Lechmere to reach for, they are not there. Never. Not one single time. And of all the weird coincidences surrounding the Lechmere case, that is perhaps the weirdest. Why do these things never surface? Why did not Paul say that there was a man passing down at Bath Street as he stepped out of his door that morning? Why does he instead say that he met nobody? Why did not Mizen say that the blood had stopped running and that it had coagulated? Why could Lechmere not get that break? Why did he have to place Lechmere right in the eye of the storm? Why did Llewellyn not choose to say that Nichols had died within the hour, instead of within the half hour? Why was it that nobody said that there had been a man leaving Bucks Row at 3.35 or at the very least that a man had been observed running down Whitechapel Road at that time? Why is Mizens behavior after the murder consistent with him being of the meaning that Neil was first in place? Why donīt we have any mentioning of his report having spoken of two men who had alerted him to the murder site?

How is it that the Lechmere theory can be built at all? There are so many small bits and pieces, an we know so very much about what was said and done that night. Where are the bits that should logically have been there, exonerating the carman?

Did and done.

Then can I ask you to try again?

I sincerely appreciate it.

Great - there is absolutely no shame in being 58. The fewest know that better than I do.

[Clark]

Yes, that may well be. But the important matter to note is how drunk women in the care of a PC are rarely in as much need of help as abandoned women dying in the street. You failed to comment on that.

That's because if Cross did lie to Mizen, the important point isn't the woman in the street, the important point is that he was wanted by another PC.

The effect he sought would - at least to my mind - have been concentrating on her bared legs. Most people who try to pull a dress down over bared legs will not check the effect at the neck afterwards. Would Paul try to avoid to expose her neck, for moral reasons...?

He didn't need to check the neck. He was close to the body, he need only have glanced at the neck as he turned away IF there was enough light to have also seen the small pool of blood.

A total lie? Are you suggesting that a logical outcome of how Paul stated that he was the only one talking to Mizen in Lloyds, whereas Mizen said that Lechmere was the one who spoke to him, would be that we should deduct that Paul did part of the talking? Like a sort of mathematical exercise?

Paul reported the substance of the conversation in Lloyd's, which means he must have overheard Cross's conversation with Mizen, which blows up the Mizen scam.

But there's a simpler possibility for why Lloyd's attributed everything that was said to Paul, without the need for a lie on his part: It makes for a better story in the newspaper.

Even if Paul had been completely truthful, the reporter may not have wanted the headline to read "Remarkable statement by guy who talked to another guy who reported murder to police." I realize that's a bit extreme, as Paul talked about a number of things that he had actually done, but it gives us an idea why the reporter may have deliberately misquoted Paul a bit on this point.

What I am doing, Clark, is to look into the POSSIBILITY that Charles Lechmere was the killer. That is sometimes forgotten about, in favour of accusing me of saying that it is a proven thing.

You may recall that I conceded the possibility long ago. In fact, it was the possibility that recently brought me back to this board (where I've lurked a bit in the past).

However, what I'm arguing is the likelihood. I'm looking for something to make me think that it is actually likely that Cross was the killer. Your statement was that it is something of a near certainty for you, but I'm not seeing anything yet that makes me think that it is even likely.

How is it that the Lechmere theory can be built at all? There are so many small bits and pieces, an we know so very much about what was said and done that night. Where are the bits that should logically have been there, exonerating the carman?

The case for Cross/Lechmere can be built because so little is known about him, IMO. Apparently no one at the time thought it remarkable that he discovered the body on his way to work one morning, so they felt no need to record details that would refute your theory at this remove. That's unfortunate, but I can live with it.

I honestly am not trying to be offensive here, but there are bits that would logically exonerate the carman, you've just found reasons for doubting them. As mentioned above, Paul's knowledge in Lloyd's of what was said to Mizen, regardless of who said it, most likely means that he overheard the conversation. But with special pleading, we can imagine that Cross reported the conversation to him as they walked away from Mizen and before they parted.

Every time you are saying something "could have happened," you are making a choice to discount exonerating evidence. It's called "confirmation bias," and we're all subject to it from time to time.

I truly am not trying to dash your enthusiasm for your case. It remains a possibility. But I don't think anyone can prove it by making inferences from the lack of evidence concerning Lechmere and spinning what could have happened.

[Fisherman]

Clark: That's because if Cross did lie to Mizen, the important point isn't the woman in the street, the important point is that he was wanted by another PC.

...which does not answer my question either.

He didn't need to check the neck. He was close to the body, he need only have glanced at the neck as he turned away IF there was enough light to have also seen the small pool of blood.

But since he was down by her feet, looking at her skirt, why would he take an interest in the neck? He had been at the neck earlier, without seeing anything out of the ordinary, so why would he check again? In darkness? From much further away?
But the way, the take "he need not have checked the neck, he could just have checked the neck" is an interesting one...

Paul reported the substance of the conversation in Lloyd's, which means he must have overheard Cross's conversation with Mizen, which blows up the Mizen scam.

Thatīs a good one! It boils down to "I told him what I had seen" - not exactly fleshing things out in detail, and "I told him she was dead" - which is in total contrast to what Mizen said he was told.
Plus, of course, Lechmere may have TOLD PAUL what he had said to the PC - or to be more exact, he may have told Paul something he did NOT tell Mizen.
So much for blowing up the Mizen scam - I think something else is overinflated and blown up!

But there's a simpler possibility for why Lloyd's attributed everything that was said to Paul, without the need for a lie on his part: It makes for a better story in the newspaper.

Yes! THAT can well be true. Either Paul exagerrated, or the paper did, it is that simple.

Even if Paul had been completely truthful, the reporter may not have wanted the headline to read "Remarkable statement by guy who talked to another guy who reported murder to police." I realize that's a bit extreme, as Paul talked about a number of things that he had actually done, but it gives us an idea why the reporter may have deliberately misquoted Paul a bit on this point.

I agree - it is perfectly plausible that the story was spiced up.

You may recall that I conceded the possibility long ago. In fact, it was the possibility that recently brought me back to this board (where I've lurked a bit in the past).

However, what I'm arguing is the likelihood. I'm looking for something to make me think that it is actually likely that Cross was the killer. Your statement was that it is something of a near certainty for you, but I'm not seeing anything yet that makes me think that it is even likely.

The eyesight of a 58 year old is not always in itīs prime.

The case for Cross/Lechmere can be built because so little is known about him, IMO.

And because so much is known about him.

Apparently no one at the time thought it remarkable that he discovered the body on his way to work one morning, so they felt no need to record details that would refute your theory at this remove. That's unfortunate, but I can live with it.

So they sorted those details away, while leaving the damning ones? Interesting.

I honestly am not trying to be offensive here, but there are bits that would logically exonerate the carman, you've just found reasons for doubting them. As mentioned above, Paul's knowledge in Lloyd's of what was said to Mizen, regardless of who said it, most likely means that he overheard the conversation. But with special pleading, we can imagine that Cross reported the conversation to him as they walked away from Mizen and before they parted.

Or that Paul was allowed to hear the first part of the conversation, while he was excluded from the rest. And special pleading is only necessary to allow for Paul to have been at the spot - since the one and only report we have on the positions of the participants, has Paul walking down Hanbury Street as Lechmere spoke to Mizen. It will take some "special pleading" to change that...!

Every time you are saying something "could have happened," you are making a choice to discount exonerating evidence. It's called "confirmation bias," and we're all subject to it from time to time.

Itīs called looking into a suspect and trying to see IF he could have done it.

I truly am not trying to dash your enthusiasm for your case. It remains a possibility. But I don't think anyone can prove it by making inferences from the lack of evidence concerning Lechmere and spinning what could have happened.

Like the running blood and the coagulation? Yeah, I did spin that, didnīt I? And the changed name I invented! And the false geography I made up. And, and ...

[Clark]

Thatīs a good one! It boils down to "I told him what I had seen" - not exactly fleshing things out in detail, and "I told him she was dead" - which is in total contrast to what Mizen said he was told.

But which is supported by Cross. Which is why I said that their stories collaborated each other.

The eyesight of a 58 year old is not always in itīs prime.

Hmmm. Probably shouldn't have mentioned that.

Or that Paul was allowed to hear the first part of the conversation, while he was excluded from the rest.

More "could have happened" necessary to discount exonerating evidence for Cross.

And special pleading is only necessary to allow for Paul to have been at the spot - since the one and only report we have on the positions of the participants, has Paul walking down Hanbury Street as Lechmere spoke to Mizen. It will take some "special pleading" to change that...!

Not following you here. Both Cross and Paul say that Paul was near Mizen. How is that special pleading? The special pleading is discounting the inconvenient statements of Cross and Paul.

Like the running blood and the coagulation? Yeah, I did spin that, didnīt I? And the changed name I invented! And the false geography I made up. And, and ...

The "spinning" is favorably choosing what Neil meant by "somewhat congealed." Tacky to the touch? Not actively running? Rock solid? Squishy, but not solid?

The "spinning" is preferring a sinister interpretation of the changed name, when we have no way of knowing how Lechmere was commonly known to family, employer, neighbors, etc. You say he normally used "Lechmere" in dealing with authorities (though I haven't seen you mention which authorities or under what circumstances), but at the inquest he would have been required to identify himself by name and either employer or address (despite the newspaper not reporting the latter). Which name was he best known for at home and at work? We don't know.

And I'm not seeing any false geography. I see you questioning travel habits that we cannot answer from the available evidence. That is "spin."

[Fisherman]

Clark: But which is supported by Cross. Which is why I said that their stories collaborated each other.

Pssst - I think Lechmere LIED...!

More "could have happened" necessary to discount exonerating evidence for Cross.

No - it is in line with the article stating that Paul went down Hanbury Street.

Not following you here. Both Cross and Paul say that Paul was near Mizen.

Nope. Neither man does that. No other source places Paul anywhere but for the article telling us that he went down Hanbury Street. The "in company" thing could mean anything from an inch to twenty yards. We are in company out here, but we live in different countries. And realitites, for that matter.

How is that special pleading? The special pleading is discounting the inconvenient statements of Cross and Paul.

As Iīve shown , no. Plus I am not discounting anything, I am pointing to how an unbroken chain can be formed to point to the carmans guilt.


The "spinning" is favorably choosing what Neil meant by "somewhat congealed."

Tīwasnīt Neil, it was Mizen.

Tacky to the touch? Not actively running? Rock solid? Squishy, but not solid?

Somewhat congealed.

The "spinning" is preferring a sinister interpretation of the changed name, when we have no way of knowing how Lechmere was commonly known to family, employer, neighbors, etc. You say he normally used "Lechmere" in dealing with authorities (though I haven't seen you mention which authorities or under what circumstances), but at the inquest he would have been required to identify himself by name and either employer or address (despite the newspaper not reporting the latter). Which name was he best known for at home and at work? We don't know.

No we donīt. But we DO know that A/ He used the name Lechmere in contacts with authorities, and B/ Most people who use a name with the authoritites use the same name otherwise too. So to deny that the name thing is an anomaly is ... eh, spinning.

And I'm not seeing any false geography. I see you questioning travel habits that we cannot answer from the available evidence. That is "spin."

It would be spin if I said that I knew that he used the routes I suggest. It is n ot spin to point out that the logical two routes to his job were the ones where the killings occured. E una differenzia.

Iīm tired now, so Iīm off to bed. After all, Iīve reached the ripe old age of 58...

[Clark]

Clark: But which is supported by Cross. Which is why I said that their stories collaborated each other.

Pssst - I think Lechmere LIED...!

And Paul, though you don't make much of a big deal about that.

Nope. Neither man does that....

Both say they talked to Mizen. I take that to mean that Paul was close enough to Mizen to talk to him.

The "spinning" is favorably choosing what Neil meant by "somewhat congealed."

Tīwasnīt Neil, it was Mizen.

My mistake, but in The Evening Standard Mizen is quoted as saying, "The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman." So which is it, "fresh" or "somewhat congealed"?

No we donīt. But we DO know that A/ He used the name Lechmere in contacts with authorities, and B/ Most people who use a name with the authoritites use the same name otherwise too. So to deny that the name thing is an anomaly is ... eh, spinning.

Again, which authorities and what context. Most people today do not identify themselves at an inquest by place of employment, and if they did, US law, at any rate, requires that they identify themselves to their employer by their legal name. Was this the law in UK at in 1888?

It would be spin if I said that I knew that he used the routes I suggest. It is n ot spin to point out that the logical two routes to his job were the ones where the killings occured. E una differenzia.

And I'm merely pointing out that the only route that we KNEW he took was the one through Buck's Row.

Iīm tired now, so Iīm off to bed. After all, Iīve reached the ripe old age of 58...

Goodnight.

[harry]

Yes Fisheran,you may refer to as many murderers as you like,and you may itemise their lies,and you may prove those lies.When it comes to Cross you have shown no evidence at all that he lied. Where is the comparision?

You have placed Cross in the centre of the road.You have placed Cross,in company of Paul,at the side of the body.At no time have you placed Cross alone at the body.So what is the relevance that I do not understand? That he killed her by remote control perhaps?

Scobie again.No he is not my favourite person.It is you that trundles his name whenever you flounder.

I cannot see how favouring Hutchinson,is remotely comparable with accepting Cross told the truth.You ARE getting desperate.

[drstrange169]

Hello Clark,

>>... The Evening Standard Mizen is quoted as saying, "The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman." So which is it, "fresh" or "somewhat congealed"?<<

It was probably both, if you read the previous sentence in the Standard article quoted. As the Standard and various other newspapers reported, Mizen was recounting the scene when he returned with the ambulance.

The blood that had been sitting outside the body had congealed and the blood that had been sitting in the neck area would have leaked out as the body was lifted on to the ambulance.

"... he (Mizen) went for the ambulance, and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck."
Morning Post.


"He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed."
Star

The Standard, Morning Addy and the Morning News reported Mizen in the first person,

"... I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman."

A similar story was related by Thain in his testimony about the removal of the body.

[drstrange169]

>>One thing only - how is it "gutless" to prove you wrong? I mean, seeing how very clever and analytically sharp you are, I would have thought such a thing dangerous?<<

Since the posts are there for anyone to read, I'll say more on that particular the subject. I'm happy to let your integrity be by judged by your answer.

[Fisherman]

>>One thing only - how is it "gutless" to prove you wrong? I mean, seeing how very clever and analytically sharp you are, I would have thought such a thing dangerous?<<

Since the posts are there for anyone to read, I'll say more on that particular the subject. I'm happy to let your integrity be by judged by your answer.

You are not suited to judge my integrity, Iīm afraid - far from it. I wrote from the outset that narrow skirts were for the upper classes only, you said that wide skirts were as tough to pull down over legs akimbo as narrow ones, I remarked that this is not so, and you went from there to speak of gutlessness on my behalf.

So much for integrity, intelligence and reading ability.

[Fisherman]

harry: Yes Fisheran,you may refer to as many murderers as you like,and you may itemise their lies,and you may prove those lies.When it comes to Cross you have shown no evidence at all that he lied. Where is the comparision?

WHAT comparison...?

You have placed Cross in the centre of the road.You have placed Cross,in company of Paul,at the side of the body.At no time have you placed Cross alone at the body.So what is the relevance that I do not understand? That he killed her by remote control perhaps?

Lechmere placed himself alone with the body - I had no role in it.

Scobie again.No he is not my favourite person.It is you that trundles his name whenever you flounder.

How would you know? It hasnīt happened yet.

I cannot see how favouring Hutchinson,is remotely comparable with accepting Cross told the truth.You ARE getting desperate.

You are right - Hutchinson should never be compared to Lechmere. I donīt know what got into me. Maybe I floundered?