What happened to Lechmere......

[harry]

Fisherman,
James Scobie again.How pitifull.Do you not have knowledge of your own.
Yes I expected you to avoid answering my question.Daft? quite humorous really.What circumstantial evidence allows for Cross to have been at the location longer than to observe the bundle,approach near enough to discover it was the body of a woman,and then wait until Paul arrived,a matter of mere seconds,perhaps less than 30 seconds in total.No kind of evidence puts Cross at the scene longer than I have allowed.You see it is not evidence you are presenting,it is beliefs.You believe Cross lied,you believe he killed Nichols,you believe he was at the scene longer than stipulatd.All beliefs.You cannot bolster those beliefs with evidence.Pity,but that's how it is.
No wonder you do not wish to answer.(but you will).
To the rest of the readers.My conclusions are what I have written.Be free to correct me if you think me wrong.And Scobie,you do the same.
Yes Fisherman you have referred to Cross as the killer,directly and circumstantially,but it seems your memory,like your theory,is getting dim.

[Fisherman]

For many, it simply means "I heard what you said (although I just can't figure it out), but...". LOL

I must say I admire your patience. I wouldn't waste that much time repeating those arguments like you do.

I can understand how Scobie came up with his conclusion. As you have often presented it, facts were submitted to him possibly as direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Obviously he went through it and came to a conclusion. The weight of each piece of evidence and the line of evidence as a whole has always been a judgment call either made by the prosecution or the defense and necessarily represents two opposing views and conclusion.

Who is right, who is wrong? Even after reading final court decisions, we always notice that one side only had a better case than the other one, no one being totally right, including the judge. LOL

In other words, the Lechmere discussion will probably never end.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

To me, the relevant observation to do, is to register how the Lechmere case is enough for an experienced barrister to speak of a trial.

Once the critics of the Lechmere theory sees this, they inevitably switch to defense mode. They claim - on no legal experience at all - that they donīt believe Scobie, that Scobie was probably fed lies and/or irrelevant material etcetera. Nothing is disallowed or left behind, any accusation is fair game.

What nobody wants to do, is to instead try and make a similar case for alternative suspects - which is very wise for the simple reason that Lechmere is by far and away the only applicable suspect in this context.

No other suspect would come even close to a trial, and everybody knows that. They would all be laughed out of any courtroom and by any barrister. So that is something that is never going to happen; the criticism against Lechmere goes on relentlessly, but no contender is presented on a strictly legal basis.

In itself, this firmly anchors Lechmere as not only the best suspect, but also the only truly relevant one in terms of legal applicability.

And my, does that hurt in some cases...!

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
James Scobie again.How pitifull.Do you not have knowledge of your own.

...and here is more confirmation of what I just wrote in my post to Hercule Poirot! Thanks for that, Harry!

Actually, I DO have knowledge of my own of legal matters - but I would not try and pretend that it equals that of Scobie.

The rest of your post conveniently allows me to once again speak of nonsense and leave it unanswered. As for your earthshattering "question", I have already answered it. You may have missed that. Too.

[Varqm]

"To me, the relevant observation to do, is to register how the Lechmere case is enough for an experienced barrister to speak of a trial."

I bet 100% it will fail.

[Fisherman]

"To me, the relevant observation to do, is to register how the Lechmere case is enough for an experienced barrister to speak of a trial."

I bet 100% it will fail.

I agree - to an extent. I never say 100 per cent unless I am certain, you see. In this case, I am not sure that Lechmere would be convicted on the existing evidence; a guess on my behalf would be that he would be let loose by judge and jury. Then again, I donīt think it is a certain thing - just like Scobie said, a jury would not like Lechmeres behaviour, and the blood business pretty much points directly at him.

Anyhow, that is not the point I would make in combination with this - the point I am making is that no other suspect comes even close to warranting a trial.

Once we realize this, we will also realize that even if we are very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very opposed to the idea that Lechmere killed Nichols, he still is the likeliest suspect we have on legal grounds.

[caz]

Have you compleletely taken leave of your sense, Caz? My argument is that Mizen never says that Paul said a iot to him.
It also seems that Paul was headed down Hanbury Street as Lechmere talked to Mizen.
These things are there, in the reports from the press. In no article does it say where Paul was during the conversation, but for this one, pointing Paul out as heading down Hanbury Street.

You seem to believe that Paul MUST have been with Lechmere from the beginning, at the very least. And you say that this should somehow be proven by how Paul knew what Mizen was told. Well, well...!

You are adding to mistakes here to your quickly growing pile of faulty crap:

A/ You are forgetting that Mizen says "A" man passing came up and spoke to him. Not two men. A man.
Try and make out the implications, if you will, Caz.

B/You claim that Paul would have had to be "guessing the entire conversation" in his paper interview if he was not in place to hear it.
Are you not forgetting, Caz, that Lechmere may have informed Paul what was said?

By the way, "the entire conversation" that you speak of, went like this:[/B]
...I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.

[B]So there is ONE specified item to look at in "the entire conversation", and that is the bit about Nichols being dead. Not perhaps dead, not probably dead, but dead. Otherwise, all Paul says is that Mizen was told "what he had seen".

Now, Caz, imagine if you will that Lechmere is devious enough to say to Paul:
Hey, you just walk on if you are late, and I will tell this officer over here that we have found a dead woman in Bucks Row".
Or, for that matter, imagine that Lechmere just said "I will talk to him, you just walk on", and then, when Lechmere caught up with Paul, the latter asked "What did you tell him? and Lechmere answered "Well, I told him that we found a dead woman in Bucks Row".

You may even ponder that Lechmere could have said just "Iīll take care of this", and guess what Paul would think he told Mizen?

Oh, and by the bye, if Mizen was telling the truth, then we can see that paul was NOT on the money about the woman being dead - for Mizen said that he was only informed that the woman was lying in the street.

And to finish off - we know for certain, you and I, that Paul was of the meaning that he felt Nichols stir, and that he therefore will have entertained the belief that she could be alive.
So why would he tell the paper that he had informed Mizen that Nichls was dead?

Maybe - oh, foul suggestion! - because he was reiterating what Lechmere had said to him? And if Lechmere was the clever, lying, devious bastard that I think he was, then he would do well to impress this kind of lie on Paul, considering that Lechmere would have known that there was a risk that Paul would testify later on. And in such a case, if Lechmere had only told Mizen that there was a woman lying in the street, but wanted to hide this fact if he was forced to testify, then telling Paul that he had informed Mizen that the woman was dead would be really, really smart.

Me oh my, Caz - why cannot the world be as simple as we want it to be? Here you were with this beautifully simple idea, and here I go and destroy it all. What a shame!

On a separate note, I do not exclude that Paul could have heard the intital discussion between Lechmere and Mizen, only to then gt out of earshot before Lechmere turned to lying.

So it is even MORE complicated!

It will take some digesting on your behalf, Iīm sure.

Yes, I needed indigestion tablets for that lot, Christer.

With Paul and Mizen so completely under his spell, and contradicting each other at every turn, with misinformation, confusion and outright lies, it's even more of a wonder that a guilty Lechmere would have felt the least compulsion to confirm, clarify and correct the disputable elements of their combined stories. What a dog's dinner! And with Paul claiming to be the one who did all the talking, while the other man had found the woman, the charm was wound up. If and when Mizen realised it was the other man who did all the talking, and Paul had dishonestly taken his role, it would leave this cop hater as the one who had found the woman but sloped off, leaving the other man to engage with the 'filth'.

On a separate note, I do not exclude that Paul could have heard the intital discussion between Lechmere and Mizen, only to then gt out of earshot before Lechmere turned to lying.

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" at or near the start of the conversation, in the hope that he won't then be asked to identify himself, return to the scene with the PC or - heaven forbid - turn out his pockets. The longer he has to wait for Paul to be out of earshot, the odder it will appear that he didn't say so straight away, and all the more suspicious when it turns out to be untrue and he denies saying any such thing at the inquest.

However you try to manipulate Lechmere into manipulating first Paul then Mizen, it stretches credulity that such a devious individual would have made attending the inquest his plan A.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Yes, I needed indigestion tablets for that lot, Christer.

With Paul and Mizen so completely under his spell, and contradicting each other at every turn, with misinformation, confusion and outright lies, it's even more of a wonder that a guilty Lechmere would have felt the least compulsion to confirm, clarify and correct the disputable elements of their combined stories. What a dog's dinner! And with Paul claiming to be the one who did all the talking, while the other man had found the woman, the charm was wound up. If and when Mizen realised it was the other man who did all the talking, and Paul had dishonestly taken his role, it would leave this cop hater as the one who had found the woman but sloped off, leaving the other man to engage with the 'filth'.



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" at or near the start of the conversation, in the hope that he won't then be asked to identify himself, return to the scene with the PC or - heaven forbid - turn out his pockets. The longer he has to wait for Paul to be out of earshot, the odder it will appear that he didn't say so straight away, and all the more suspicious when it turns out to be untrue and he denies saying any such thing at the inquest.

However you try to manipulate Lechmere into manipulating first Paul then Mizen, it stretches credulity that such a devious individual would have made attending the inquest his plan A.

Love,

Caz
X

More of the same "Why didnīt he do it like that instead"-business. The one thing that is new - and misunderstood by you - is the Paul business, where you think that I am saying that Lechmere left it to luck.

I am not saying that. I am saying that Lechmere arguably saw to it that Paul got out of earshot. End of.

As for the rest, hereīs that answer again:

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.

As applicable as ever!

[Clark]

The first word is the one I have been looking for for a week by now: What I am saying about proximity is correct...

There you go, cherry picking again. You left out the fact that proximity means nothing unless we assume Cross is the killer. I, for one, am not making that assumption.

As I have pointed out numerous times, the docu put the question to a barrister whether the case would stand up in a modern day trial. His answer was that we have a prima faciae case that suggests that Lechmere was the killer. He said that that his behaviour was suspicious and that a jury would not like that. He spoke about the geographical and chronological implications as something that was decidedly unhealthy to the carman (although he did not use those exact words).

And as I've mentioned before in another thread, that means less than you seem to think it does. A prosecutor would not bring a case to court without at least knowing more details about Cross's side of the story. All we know about Cross and his activities are what he reported at the inquest. If we accept his word as accurate, the case against him evaporates. A prosecutor would need more than you've given us to refute his story.

As the saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich. That's because a prosecutor tells only his side of the story before a grand jury. In the case of Cross, I'm not sure that you'd have enough even for that.

[caz]

It was pointed out at the "press conference" (I donīt know what the victorian police called it, but that was what it was, apparently) on the 2:nd, that "It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street." He was also put on the stand the day before and professed to be the finder of Nichols. He offered no thoughts about how somebody else could have found the body and left it before he arrived, but he did say that the streets were totally empty, so his guess would have been that he was numero uno.

So presumably PC Mizen knew nothing of this, or he would have surmised there was no time for PC Neil to have seen and sent the two supposed 'messengers' for him, between Neil's arrival on the scene and his own. Neil had seemingly only just flashed his lantern to examine the body when he saw the light from an approaching Mizen - at least according to the above. In any case, Neil says nothing about sending anyone for assistance. When do you believe Mizen finally cottoned on to the fact that the two men must have been alone with the woman and left the scene before the first policeman - Neil - came upon her murdered body? Was it before or after Paul's story was published, in which he claimed there was no policeman to be seen? Was it before or after Mizen gave his own version at the inquest? How do you explain his utter failure to mention that Cross's claim that he was wanted by another PC had in fact turned out not to be the case? Was he just slow on the uptake, or did he not want to draw attention to the fact that a man who had been found alone with the body had lied to him about a policeman being there all the time?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

There you go, cherry picking again. You left out the fact that proximity means nothing unless we assume Cross is the killer. I, for one, am not making that assumption.



And as I've mentioned before in another thread, that means less than you seem to think it does. A prosecutor would not bring a case to court without at least knowing more details about Cross's side of the story. All we know about Cross and his activities are what he reported at the inquest. If we accept his word as accurate, the case against him evaporates. A prosecutor would need more than you've given us to refute his story.

As the saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich. That's because a prosecutor tells only his side of the story before a grand jury. In the case of Cross, I'm not sure that you'd have enough even for that.

Hi Clark
Id certainly like to hear lechs side of the story-IMHO hes got some 'splainen to do- at the very least.

[Fisherman]

Clark: There you go, cherry picking again. You left out the fact that proximity means nothing unless we assume Cross is the killer. I, for one, am not making that assumption.

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.
It has nothing at all to do with assuming anything about Lechmere, it is an isolated factor only that is looked at. Before the police coulc form any idea about the carman, they would need to add knowledge. But he WOULD be where they started looking if they had no other leads, and they WOULD base that decision on proximity.


And as I've mentioned before in another thread, that means less than you seem to think it does. A prosecutor would not bring a case to court without at least knowing more details about Cross's side of the story. All we know about Cross and his activities are what he reported at the inquest. If we accept his word as accurate, the case against him evaporates. A prosecutor would need more than you've given us to refute his story.

As the saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich. That's because a prosecutor tells only his side of the story before a grand jury. In the case of Cross, I'm not sure that you'd have enough even for that.

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.

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!

Lechmere is the only suspect we can advance in this respect.

[Fisherman]

caz: So presumably PC Mizen knew nothing of this, or he would have surmised there was no time for PC Neil to have seen and sent the two supposed 'messengers' for him, between Neil's arrival on the scene and his own.

To Mizen, it fit. End of.

Neil had seemingly only just flashed his lantern to examine the body when he saw the light from an approaching Mizen - at least according to the above.

Nope - Thain came first.

In any case, Neil says nothing about sending anyone for assistance.

As in the carmen? No.

When do you believe Mizen finally cottoned on to the fact that the two men must have been alone with the woman and left the scene before the first policeman - Neil - came upon her murdered body?

After Lechmeres reporting in to the inquest the police understood what had happened and how they had gotten it wrong. Reasonably, they subsequently informed the relevant persons. When THAT happened, though, is open to discussion.

Was it before or after Paul's story was published, in which he claimed there was no policeman to be seen?

After the interview in Lloyds.

Was it before or after Mizen gave his own version at the inquest?

Before - but perhaps only just before. The level of confusion that it may have given rise to is not something that is easy to establish.

How do you explain his utter failure to mention that Cross's claim that he was wanted by another PC had in fact turned out not to be the case?

It is not as if it was not obvious to the inquest, is it? Why would Mizen raise his voice and say "Gentlemen of the jury; your honour! I have come to the conclusion that there was not any PC down in Bucks Row as Mr Cross - who will testify shortly - spoke to me."?
Reasonably, Mizen will have been confused by the developments - he had been told that there was a PC in Bucks Row, there WAS a PC in Bucks Row - and now he was told that this PC was not the finder. Itīs anybodies guess how he resoned about that. Maybe he went to the inquest with some sort of hope to have things cleared up - If, tht is, he was informed before the inquest.
There can be no exact telling WHEN Mizen was told about things or HOW he was told about them - and to what extent the full picture had dawned on him when he took the stand. There is the factor that Lechmere, clad in working gear, can have crashed the party on the inquest day, leaving very little time to straighten things out.

As always, you suggest things to have been the way you want them to have been, but the gist of the matter is that you are woefully underinformed to draw any conclusions at all.

Was he just slow on the uptake, or did he not want to draw attention to the fact that a man who had been found alone with the body had lied to him about a policeman being there all the time?

See the above, ponder the need to allow for another schedule than the one you are suggesting, and dont forget to read THIS passage:

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.

[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

[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.

[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