What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

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

I think one man lied to hide a murder, and that the other possibly/seemingly (take your pick) lied to big himself up. That means that the implications differ quite a lot, and I react accordingly.

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

Paul only says so in the article. And the article differs from the inquest reports. Both canīt be right. Plus we STILL have that article telling us that Paul went down Hanbuty Street while Lechmere spoke to Mizen. Plus Mizen says that it was "a" man, not "two" men that approached him.
So nothing that can be proven but for one thing: my theory can find support, and the only factual placing of Paul in an article is in support of it.

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"?

Both. Blood coagulates as a result of coming into contact with a protein as it leaves the body. That means that coagulation sets in IMMEDIATELY. But the process as such does not become visible until after three or four minutes, whereas at around seven minutes, it is completed. However, if there is running blood added into a congealing pool, the process will take longer time. That is the reason why people who made food from pigīs blood in the olden days had to whip the blood so it would not coagulate too soon.
Ergo, the blood Mizen saw running from the wound in the neck looked and was fresh. But since five minutes or more had passed since Lechmere left the body, part of the blood would have coagulated (the blood, that is, that leaked out first). It tells us that Lechmere fits the stabdard schedule like a glove. But of course, it is MORE probable that somebody who knew how to prolong that schedule was the killer, somebody who managed to leave the site unnoticed.
Why vote for a likely killer, when we can substitute him with such a fancy character?

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?

Inquests, school documents, marriage license, voting material etcetera. I donīt hold these documents, Edward Stow (who sensibly does not post here any longer) does. None of the documents are police records but for the Polly Nichols errand.

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

That route leads on by way of both Hanbury Street and Old Montague street, Clark. He had to take Bucks Row, but could choose between Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street. Look at a map and you will see what I mean.
And we all know that it is not proven that he ever used the shortest route, the one he would have been more aquainted with after having grown up in close proximity to it.
In the end, one murder only fell on Old Montague Street, that of Tabram, who many people sort out anyway. I think it belongs to the series - and I know that it belongs to the logical street choices for Charles Lechmere when trekking to Broad Street.

How long are you going to press the point that there is no definitive proof, Clark? I have said so myself numerous times, but it seems it is not enough for you as yet?

Goodnight.

Good afternoon.

[Patrick S]

One comment that I feel should be made here. Fisherman stated that Andy Griffiths stated that "Lechmere" would have been required to give THAT name at the inquest, under oath. I think it's important to point out - AGAIN - that there is NO evidence that he gave the name 'Cross' exclusively. As I THINK has been stated on this thread, the records from the actual inquest have not survived. So, all that we have are very cursory synopses of testimony contained in news accounts. So, we have no way of knowing if the man stated his name as Charles Lechmere, also known as Cross (his stepfather's (a former policeman) name). We DO know that the reporters around the inquest had a somewhat difficult time with names. For instance, a name as simple as 'Paul' was reported as 'Baul'. We know that Charles Cross was called "George". There are several other examples from the Nichols inquest alone.

So, if we are to make statements like, "there is no better suspect", etc. Then I think it's important to look intently at a few things that may influence one's understanding why the man becomes a "suspect" in the first place:

1. The police, their behavior, their motivations (for not being truthful about events involving carmen, knocking-up, capes, slaughtemen, etc.
2. The fact that the actual records of the inquest, what was actually said, do not exist.
3. That the reporting we are asked to rely upon is demonstrably and consistently inaccurate.

With the utmost respect,

PDS

[Ben]

Why he would mistrust a carman who on his own account had sought him out, apparently trying to help out, and ask his comrade if he had been lied to sounds very, very odd to me.

Not nearly as odd as the "comrade" mysteriously walking out of earshot for no good reason, which Paul clearly didn't do, or else he was very unlikely to have heard Mizen say "alright". Any story involving the presence of a woman lying alone in the street was guaranteed to invite the possibility that violence or robbery had occurred, such was the reputation of that dodgy district, and Mizen would have been quite the numpty for failing to extract corroboration from Paul.

As Caz explained, if you concede that Mizen may have misinterpreted Crossmere, you're only lending weight to the accepted-for-decades conclusion that he actually did. It's surely very difficult to argue that a "scam" occurred if the alleged scammee was unsure if he heard or understood the alleged scammer correctly.

Finally, Old Montague was not the shortest route, and there is no evidence that Crossmere ever used it to get to Pickfords (and no good reason to assume he ever did either).

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben: Not nearly as odd as the "comrade" mysteriously walking out of earshot for no good reason, which Paul clearly didn't do, or else he was very unlikely to have heard Mizen say "alright".

Oh, you must have missed the post where I wrote that it was Lechmere, not Paul, who said that Mizen had said "Alright". I got it wrong in the former post, so I amended it, quoting the exact passage from the inquest.

Of course, your assertion that Paul was not out of earshot has no anchoring whatsoever.

Any story involving the presence of a woman lying alone in the street was guaranteed to invite the possibility that violence or robbery had occurred, such was the reputation of that dodgy district, and Mizen would have been quite the numpty for failing to extract corroboration from Paul.

I think I am going to need examples of this practice before I start to believe it. Applicable examples, that is. Got any, or are we down to "common sense" again? If so. let me just say that I donīt think you suggestion represents any such thing.

As Caz explained, if you concede that Mizen may have misinterpreted Crossmere, you're only lending weight to the accepted-for-decades conclusion that he actually did. It's surely very difficult to argue that a "scam" occurred if the alleged scammee was unsure if he heard or understood the alleged scammer correctly.

Once again, it was Lechmere, not Mizen, who produced the scam. To what (unknown) degree Mizen came to doubt it (and he may well never have at all - there is no knowing), is in fact uninteresting from a factual point of view. Mizen is recorded as having stated this as a fact, and it stands, therefore.

Finally, Old Montague was not the shortest route, and there is no evidence that Crossmere ever used it to get to Pickfords (and no good reason to assume he ever did either).

Just like in the "alright" issue you got wrong, I have already commented on this too.

You are far too pessimistic some times, Ben. And WAY too optimistic on other occasions.

That is all I wish to say at this remove in time, and unless you have something interesting to add, I will not discuss this further with you.

[Patrick S]

So many twists and turns. So many things must hinge upon one another in order for Charles Cross (Lechmere) to have been Jack the Ripper. Let’s refresh our collective memories with just a few, shall we?

1. Robert Paul was dishonest in his statement to Lloyd’s. He overstated his involvement and downplayed his companion’s (Cross) involvement. He was a marginalized player that night, with the starring roles going to Cross and Mizen. Paul sought the spotlight. He was a publicity seeker. He’s not to be trusted. Paul was ‘out of earshot’ when Cross took Mizen aside and told him that he was wanted by another policeman in Buck’s Row, where a woman – likely NOT dead but drunk – was lying. Paul does not relate this to Lloyd’s or in his testimony. Yet, we must suppose that it (or something like it) occurred in order to fully believe PC Mizen, which we must, since…….

2. PC Mizen was not only a fundamentally honest man. He was honest AND accurate in his retelling of the events surrounding the Nichols murder. He had nothing to hide in that Paul and Cross are being dishonest (for their own reasons) in their descriptions of what they told PC Mizen and with respect to his actions thereafter. He was truthful in his accounting of the events of that evening. Even though we have no evidence that Mizen related his encounter with Paul and Cross to his superiors and we know that Neil testified that he – and he alone – found the body without mention of Mizen, Paul, Cross we must assume an innocent explanation for this. Either Mizen did not mention his encounter in a report, verbally, or otherwise, to anyone because he was completely duped by Cross having told him that a policeman was waiting in Buck’s Row that it didn’t seem worth mentioning, or he did mention it/report it, his superiors deemed the matter irrelevant and chose to – essentially – ignore Paul and Cross altogether. This is possible in that the……

3. Case files have not survived. We don’t know who reported what. We don’t have any details with respect to testimony. We must rely upon newspaper accounts. As we know, names are often misspelled or incorrectly reported. Paul becomes ‘Baul’. Charles becomes ‘George’. Thain becomes ‘Thail’. Mulshaw becomes ‘Malshaw’. Thus, we don’t know what was actually said on the stand. The papers concentrated on information that they felt was important (or interesting). We do not know if Cross gave only that name. We don’t know if he gave the name Cross because his stepfather (also called Cross) was a former policeman. We don’t know if he took the stand and said, “My name is Charles Lechmere!” Only to be asked, “Are you known by any other names, Mr. Lechmere?” To which he replied, “Well. I was known as Charles Cross for a time in that my mother was married to man called Cross.” Hearing this the reporters may have thought, “Well. I can’t get names like Paul, and Thain, and Mulshaw right. What chance do I have with a name like ‘Lechmere’. I'm just calling him Cross.” We still don’t know where ‘George’ came from or the middle name ‘Andrew’ (rather than Allen). But, you get the point. Still it seems neither the reporters nor the police suspected the man in that……

4. Cross came forward of his own volition. He was unnamed by Paul in Lloyd’s. He wasn’t described in any way. He wasn’t called tall, short, fat, thin, old, or young. He wasn’t assumed to have been a carman. He wasn’t mentioned by the police AT ALL. In fact, Charles Cross had many opportunities to remove himself from the ‘hangman’s noose’, if you will. Innumerable times. Yet, each time he chose differently. Paul approaches. He remains. Paul attempts to walk past him and the body, he calls Paul to see the body. He continues on in Paul’s company. He never claims that he must go another way. He goes with Paul, to find a policeman. They find a policeman. The policeman (Mizen) doesn’t take his name. He’s allowed to disappear into the early morning darkness. Unnamed. Unidentified. Unsuspected. Yet, he comes forward. He goes to the police. He testifies at the inquest. Willingly. Now, we are told that many killers want to be involved. They are psychopaths, after all. And Cross, as a psychopath, would play this thing out in just this way. But, if he was a psychopath, and if he continued to kill (as the Ripper, the Torso Killer, et al) until the end of his life why then did he never again seek to be involved again? He demonstrated his superiority once before. He emerged unscathed, with no suspicion attached to him. He lived for another three decades, killing all the while. Yet, never again did he seek to attach himself to an investigation, even though no one knew that Cross and Lechmere were the same man. But, if we look at his life we see that……

5. There is no evidence at all that Cross was a psychopath. We see no evidence of violence. We see no criminal history. We see stable employment (20+ years at Pickfords). We see a long (50 years), fruitful (10 kids) marriage. We see accrued wealth. We see him open a business as an older man. We see him leave his wife a nice inheritance upon his death. We see children who – like their father – grow to be respectable, successful clerks, etc.

Now, there is much more that many of us could add here. I hope that I’ve given some who may be new to the conversation a bit more to consider. Unlike some others, I’m happy to debate the issue in a respectful and – hopefully – friendly way! I’ll also answer any questions at all. This is because I’m actually interested in information that may CHANGE my opinion. After all, wouldn’t that be interesting!

Thank you for your time.

PDS

[Clark]

How long are you going to press the point that there is no definitive proof, Clark? I have said so myself numerous times, but it seems it is not enough for you as yet?

My points of late relate to your statement in post #530:

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.

It's not true that there are no negating factors. Where recorded testimony would act as a negating factor, you dismiss it as a lie or as unreliable. Where circumstances may act as negating factors, you posit workarounds in support of your theory that you then deem more likely to have occurred.

The problem, IMO, is your insistence that the negating factors must be "definitive" in your view, but then you reserve the right on what qualifies as "definitive."

[GUT]

My points of late relate to your statement in post #530:



It's not true that there are no negating factors. Where recorded testimony would act as a negating factor, you dismiss it as a lie or as unreliable. Where circumstances may act as negating factors, you posit workarounds in support of your theory that you then deem more likely to have occurred.

The problem, IMO, is your insistence that the negating factors must be "definitive" in your view, but then you reserve the right on what qualifies as "definitive."

And then doesn't apply the same standard of "definitive" to Cross' "Guilt

[Fisherman]

It's not true that there are no negating factors. Where recorded testimony would act as a negating factor, you dismiss it as a lie or as unreliable. Where circumstances may act as negating factors, you posit workarounds in support of your theory that you then deem more likely to have occurred.

The problem, IMO, is your insistence that the negating factors must be "definitive" in your view, but then you reserve the right on what qualifies as "definitive."

Well, if I was to hand over the right to judge what is definitively negating factors, Iīd be faced with Harrys claim that Lechmereīs assertion that he was only in place outside Browns for a few seconds before Paul arrived is just such a factor. To Harry it was, at any rate. Do you agree?

Anyhow, consequentially I donīt hand over that right. It has to remain something where I reserve the right to differ.

Then again, if there HAD been a definitely negating factor, I would have accepted it. There is not, though. Of course, you can now say "there you go again, you just wonīt accept what others say".

So letīs see then - which IS the defintive factor that negates the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer? I am listening. Do you have any favourite objection that you think is truly a negating factor that means that we can discard the theory?

Or is it just that you feel that you would have wanted a more positive response from me visavi the different suggestions for negating factors that have been put forward?

[Fisherman]

And then doesn't apply the same standard of "definitive" to Cross' "Guilt

I just awarded you part of my post 548, Gut. You are welcome to read it and contribute any suggestion.

And if you are trying to - in a roundabout manner - say that I would have claimed that there is one or more factors that establish a definitive guilt, then you are welcome to post examples of that too.

After that, we should be just fine!

[Michael W Richards]

Geography (or proximity, if you'd rather) does not indicate guilt. Unless you're a carman.

I wish Double Event advocates would remember this.

[Tom_Wescott]

I wish Double Event advocates would remember this.

By Double Event advocates I assume you mean the Metropolitan and City Police forces? I think they knew a thing or two about the geography of their city.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GUT]

I just awarded you part of my post 548, Gut. You are welcome to read it and contribute any suggestion.

And if you are trying to - in a roundabout manner - say that I would have claimed that there is one or more factors that establish a definitive guilt, then you are welcome to post examples of that too.

After that, we should be just fine!

No Fish, not really hard, you want definitive proof of things that point to innocence but you don't want definitive proof in relation to things you think point to guilt being happy with "Well to me he lied" etc etc etc, it's not definitve proof of either, it's applying the same standard to anything that points either way.

[Fisherman]

No Fish, not really hard, you want definitive proof of things that point to innocence but you don't want definitive proof in relation to things you think point to guilt being happy with "Well to me he lied" etc etc etc, it's not definitve proof of either, it's applying the same standard to anything that points either way.

When you do, Gut, the inevitable outcome is always that it could be either way. Which is pretty much the point I am making.

[GUT]

When you do, Gut, the inevitable outcome is always that it could be either way. Which is pretty much the point I am making.

Well if it "could be either way" he's far from the Prime Suspect isn't he.

Let alone having a case to answer.

[Clark]

So letīs see then - which IS the defintive factor that negates the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer? I am listening. Do you have any favourite objection that you think is truly a negating factor that means that we can discard the theory?

Not at all, which is why I still classify it as a possibility. But it seems to me that claiming that 35 factors support your theory, and that any interpretation of the evidence that would tend to discount the significance of those points shouldn't be considered "definitive," is stacking the deck a bit.

Taken individually, each of your 35 factors prove nothing, as you have acknowledged. But add them all together and you still get nothing. 0+0+0+0... = 0.

When you automatically discount any interpretation of the facts that won't support your theory, how can you turn around and find it significant that nobody has established any facts (to your satisfaction) that contradict your theory?

It doesn't really lend any weight to the likelihood that Lechmere dunnit, IMO.