What happened to Lechmere......

[caz]

In post 451, the quote from the Telegraph disproves Fisherman's point 7, in which Cross/Lechmere supposedly refused to prop up the woman he and Paul were examining.

In the Telegraph article, they are quoting Cross/Lechmere as the "witness", and have him suggesting they prop her up, while "the other man" (presumably Paul) refuses to touch her.

I've been told before that other newspaper accounts have it the other way round. Are the actual inquest documents available or not? If not, the newspaper accounts aren't the best source material to figure out what really happened.

This is the problem, Pcdunn. How can anyone at this remove know which way round everything was, and which witness said and did what? I have seen it argued both ways, depending on whether it was Lechmere or Paul who refused the other man’s suggestion to ‘give her a prop’. If Lechmere refused, it’s argued that he was worried Paul would see too much. Yet he could not have stopped Paul trying to prop her up by himself. If Lechmere made the suggestion, it has been argued he did this so he could later claim any visible blood on his person was the result of propping her up. Yet when Paul refused, Lechmere lamely went along with it instead of achieving his aim by going it alone.

This shows how flimsy the case is – that the likely behavioural arguments can be turned on their head, and indeed have to be turned on their head, if Lechmere is to be kept in the frame no matter which press report might be the more accurate.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

But the scam itself is not a fact, Christer, no matter how many times you express it in that way.

From a factual point of view, Mizen claimed he was told that a policeman wanted him. But from an equally factual point of view the witness Cross went on to deny saying any such thing and was not questioned further on the subject. This is how it stands, therefore. To make his behaviour suspicious, you have to show that Mizen’s claim was accurate, while Lechmere’s denial was a lie which went over everyone’s head at the time, Mizen’s included. If the good PC could have been unsure, as you have previously conceded – or even stone deaf as you have previously argued – then his version of what he thought he was told self-evidently cannot be used to show Lechmere did in fact produce a scam. All you have is the old – and getting older every day - circular argument that ‘if’ he lied it would be suspicious, and ‘if’ he was the killer he must have lied his way out of it. And Mizen becomes utterly redundant.

The blood points to Lechmere. Many say that there is place for another killer too. I agree that such a thing cannot be excluded. It can therefore be either way.

But it is not as LIKELY that it was another killer, since the timings seem to be less allowing for that.

Imagine if Lechmere had skedaddled just before Paul came along. Then imagine if Paul had seen the woman there and gone to examine her, and this was the scene that had greeted PC Neil as he trod his beat. Now this should tell you just how precarious your so-called ‘blood evidence’ is, in your attempts to narrow the field until you get only the killer you want. The street was not exactly deserted, was it? We know of at least three men who passed along it within a very short time of one another while Nichols was lying there. The geography and the timings alone would have allowed any one of those three to have done the deed. Why not allow for a shady, unknown fourth man, sensibly doing his thing and departing before he can be seen or heard by the next person to come that way? Why isn’t it likelier that this killer would choose not to stay and risk the next passer-by being the beat copper, or anyone inquisitive enough to find the knife wounds; not to try and bluff his way out with God knows who, but to continue his day without incident so he could kill again another day without the burden of a known association to a related crime?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But the fact of the matter - obviously - is that he's not the BEST we've got. There are much more plausible suspects. Obviously, THE FIELD is a far better suspect. That is to say, every nameless , faceless lunatic or otherwise that may have wondered the East End in 1888. Then there is a high percentage of names on the 'suspects' list. Few are actually compelling. But many are FAR more compelling than Lechmere.

Absolutely, Patrick.

Everyone else who could have been at the scene and didn't hang around waiting to urge the next stranger to come along and inspect his handiwork would be infinitely more compelling than Lechmere in my book.

I don't believe there has ever been a known killer in the long history of murder who has behaved as Lechmere must have behaved in this single instance if he did indeed go on to be the man called Jack the Ripper. It's nought but a highly imaginative fantasy, created from the flimsiest of evidential building blocks.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

He could also Patrick,have stated he saw a person hurrying away as he approached,there by adding to the police belief that a killer was with Nichols before he(Cross)arrived.
Did the police believe there was another person?Obviously,otherwise there was a reasonable cause to suspect Cross,and arrest him on that suspicion.They treated him as a witness only.By they,I mean all the police,people like Aberline etc, who were searching for her killer.

That’s a fair point, Harry. The police must have been well aware that if Lechmere didn’t have anything to do with it, he must have only just missed seeing or hearing the actual killer taking his leave. By saying he never saw or heard a soul, he was practically inviting the police to look at him and his own movements that much more closely. Yet we are asked to believe that he jumped through several more hoops than he should have needed, drawing extra attention to himself in the process, in order to prevent this kind of unwelcome scrutiny.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

An absolutely brilliant post, Dusty! It´s a pity blood don´t run fresh after 25 minutes and that it takes only seven to coagulate. Otherwise you would have a formidable point.
It´s that damn reality again that screws things up for you.

If you are right, Christer, it rather screws things up for Mizen actually. Dusty has done a brilliant job making sense of all the press reports, and they do have Mizen claiming to have noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter as he assisted in lifting the body onto the ambulance, whenever that was. He also saw a pool of blood on the ground, which was, naturally enough by then, somewhat congealed. Not totally congealed, or the word ‘pool’ would not apply.

If you insist it is a physical impossibility for any more fresh blood to run from a wound this long after death, as a result of the body being lifted, that makes Mizen mistaken about what he saw, and your ‘blood evidence’ vanishes into the ether.

Love,

Caz
X

[Dane_F]

That’s a fair point, Harry. The police must have been well aware that if Lechmere didn’t have anything to do with it, he must have only just missed seeing or hearing the actual killer taking his leave. By saying he never saw or heard a soul, he was practically inviting the police to look at him and his own movements that much more closely. Yet we are asked to believe that he jumped through several more hoops than he should have needed, drawing extra attention to himself in the process, in order to prevent this kind of unwelcome scrutiny.

Love,

Caz
X

This has always been the point that has stood out (and has been made multiple times before) through what feels like years of arguing about Lechmere that cements him as not the ripper to me. We are lead to believe Lechmere was smart enough to scam a cop other witnesses and an entire courtroom, get away with giving a "false" name, kill on his way to work while stashing organs, never have any suspensions ever cast onto him from any of his contemporaries and go on leading a normal life while bettering himself and his family....

But he wasn't smart enough, after just being spotted "with the body" to say, "Oh yeah I totally heard someone running off down that way. I assumed he was late for work just like me until I saw this." which would have cast all doubt off of him and made everything easier.

One of the biggest issue with Lechmere has always been to suspect him we are asked to believe he was the smartest criminal and the stupidest criminal ever at the exact same time.

[caz]

One of the biggest issue with Lechmere has always been to suspect him we are asked to believe he was the smartest criminal and the stupidest criminal ever at the exact same time.

Not only that, Dane, but we are also asked to believe he 'outed' himself partly due to a genuine (if needless) terror of becoming the prime suspect if he stayed well away and let Paul and Mizen do their worst, and partly due to a psychopathic thrill he got from putting himself in the spotlight and behaving with extreme recklessness.

To me the two don't go together.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Not only that, Dane, but we are also asked to believe he 'outed' himself partly due to a genuine (if needless) terror of becoming the prime suspect if he stayed well away and let Paul and Mizen do their worst, and partly due to a psychopathic thrill he got from putting himself in the spotlight and behaving with extreme recklessness.

To me the two don't go together.

Love,

Caz
X

I think answering this post of yours will suffice this time.

You write that Lechmere felt a "genuine terror".

As if I had suggested it, even.

I have not. The idea is stupid.

My guess is that he on intellectual grounds concluded that he would become the prime suspect.

My guess is that he disliked the idea.

My guess is that he decided to act on it, and try to prevent it.

The "genuine terror" is your own suggestion, and so utterly typical of your misleading way of reasoning. Or of your inability to intellectually understand what I am saying.

Could be either.

Neither suggestion is flattering.

[The Good Michael]

Not only that, Dane, but we are also asked to believe he 'outed' himself partly due to a genuine (if needless) terror of becoming the prime suspect if he stayed well away and let Paul and Mizen do their worst, and partly due to a psychopathic thrill he got from putting himself in the spotlight and behaving with extreme recklessness.

This is the same leg Hutch stands on.

Mike

[caz]

My guess is that he on intellectual grounds concluded that he would become the prime suspect.

My guess is that he disliked the idea.

He 'disliked' the idea of becoming the prime suspect?

That's quite possibly the funniest argument I have seen to date on a Crossmere thread.

He had no terror of the hangman's noose, oh no, not at all. He just disliked the idea of it.

Pull the other one, Christer.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Outside 29 Hanbury St, Sept 8th, 1888:

Charlie Cross emerges into the morning light, adrenaline coursing through his veins, and walks smack into the man who found him in Buck's Row with the body of Mary Nichols.

Robert Paul : "Hey, watch where you're goin' mate... blimey, it's you. I read in the papers that you've been giving evidence about finding that poor woman last week. Rather you than me. Anyway, nice meeting you again. It's Mr. Cross from Pickfords, ain't it? I'm a carman too. Small world, eh?"

Now if that wouldn't have been enough to strike terror into Crossmere's soul, in the wake of Annie Chapman's body being found ripped to shreds, I don't know what would.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

He 'disliked' the idea of becoming the prime suspect?

That's quite possibly the funniest argument I have seen to date on a Crossmere thread.

He had no terror of the hangman's noose, oh no, not at all. He just disliked the idea of it.

Pull the other one, Christer.

Love,

Caz
X

No, I am pulling this one - he disliked the idea of getting stopped. If you do not know how such matters work with a psychopath involved, then you should not make a spectacle of yourself by flaunting it out here.

Psychopaths CANNOT panick, Caz - so much for your "funniest argument". It´s dead stupid. Again.

If you want to know how much terror a psychopath feels for the hangmans noose, then you should look at how Carl Panzram died.

Read up. Get smart. It´s anybody´s prerogative.

[Pierre]

No, I am pulling this one - he disliked the idea of getting stopped. If you do not know how such matters work with a psychopath involved, then you should not make a spectacle of yourself by flaunting it out here.

Psychopaths CANNOT panick, Caz - so much for your "funniest argument". It´s dead stupid. Again.

If you want to know how much terror a psychopath feels for the hangmans noose, then you should look at how Carl Panzram died.

Read up. Get smart. It´s anybody´s prerogative.

"Psychopath"?

[Bridewell]

The first duty of a constable is to protect life. That's been the case since the Metropolitan Police was founded The duties were listed, by Joint Commissioner Sir Richard Mayne, in order of priority:

The Protection of Life and Property.
The Maintenance of Order
The Prevention and Detection of Crime
The Prosecution of Offenders Against the Peace.

What does Mizen do when he is told that there is a woman 'dead or drunk' in Bucks Row? He carries on knocking up and makes his way there in time to ensure that a 'J' Division colleague has got there first. You can call this anything you like but what it is is Neglect of Duty, neglect of the most important duty an officer is expected to fulfil - what should be his number one priority.

Cross & Paul's account is of telling Mizen of a woman who is dead or drunk and who needs the officer's help.

Mizen's account is of being told that another police officer needs his help - who is already present.

Anybody who's ever been a policeman has a pretty good idea of who's lying here to save his own skin - and why. It's not Charles Allen Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

Anybody who's ever been a policeman has a pretty good idea of who's lying here to save his own skin - and why. It's not Charles Allen Lechmere.

Anybody who has been a policeman? Like Andy Griffiths, you mean? Who said that Mizen had no reason to lie?

Maybe SOMEBODY who has been a policeman has a pretty BAD idea of who´s lying in this errand, Colin?

As has been pointed out before, the coroner definitely took the police to task when they had neglected their duties. But he never once criticized Mizen. And why? Because, quite simply, Mizen never neglected any duty at all.