What happened to Lechmere......

[caz]

Caz: Aren't you forgetting something, Christer? Mizen wasn't told that the woman was certainly dead; there was no suggestion of murder or suicide; at most the carmen 'thought' she was probably dead. All Mizen saw fit to say at the inquest was that he was told 'a woman had been found' - not a corpse. In short, Neil was the first to find a 'body', as far as Mizen, or Neil, or anyone but the killer could have sworn to.

That may be the worst argument I have suffered hearing so far. They all knew in retrospect that Nichols was killed. Get a grip.

But the first witness on the scene to determine they were dealing with a dead body [not drunk, outraged, dying or possibly dead, but stone dead], let alone a murder by person or persons unknown, was PC Neil. If you can't see why that makes a difference in terms of sworn eye witness testimony from the scene of crime, I can't help you. What does it matter that the whole world soon found out she had been knifed to death? The two witnesses at the scene before PC Neil didn't know that at the time, or if Lechmere knew it because it was his knife, he wasn't saying.

Goodness me, Christer, this is basic stuff.

Indeed. But then why would he have said this to Mizen as an afterthought, as you suggest? Wouldn't Mizen have asked himself why Cross had waited for Paul to be out of earshot before delivering the crucial part of the message, that he was to leave his post on the orders of a fellow officer? You make Mizen come across like a gullible buffoon.

No, that was never my department - it is yours. I have no idea what you mean by afterthought here, by the way. Do you have any idea what you are on about?

I thought your argument was that Paul didn't hear Lechmere telling Mizen that a PC wanted him, because he went off part way through the conversation, giving Lechmere the chance to lie. Or do you seriously believe Lechmere wasn't accompanied by Paul [as Mizen testified] when he first spoke to Mizen, but had already taken his leave and didn't hear a word of it, and was therefore guessing the entire conversation when giving his press interview?

You seem to be struggling with your own suggested scenarios now, which is refreshing since many of us have been struggling with them for the longest time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

This line in post 321:

And once again, no other person has been established to have been in place at the Nichols murder site!!!

...should of course read:

And once again, no other person has been established to have been in place at the Nichols murder site between Neils visit there at 3.15 and Lechmeres arrival!!!

[Fisherman]

Robert Paul said this:"It was dark and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality, I tried to give him a wide berth."

Therefore, as Paul is clearly making no attempt to investigate, and is obviously trying to avoid Lechmere, was there any need for Lechemere to approach him at all, assuming he was the killer?

If Paul got a good look at him, then yes. It would subsequently be found out that the woman had been killed, and there was every risk that Paul would approach the police and say "I saw a man standing there at 3.45 this morning - here is a detailed description of him".

Overall, I find that many people (read: Caz) suggests 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.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=harry;369633]Fisherman,
The line you quoted is still correct.None of the four examples you cite contains evidence indicating Cross killed Nicholls,and was in her company prior to her being killed.

All of them actually contain CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that Lechmere was her slayer.

What you supply is information,and though it is informative of certain conditions applying at that time,none individually,nor all four taken as a whole,is evidence proving Cross murdered Nicholls.

Was there ever any evidence that was not a piece of information? What is evidence, but a carrier of information? A bullet is examined, and shown to belong to a certain gun, owned by person X - ergo, we have information that this bullet was fired from his gun. Information. Evidence.

Certainly there was someone with her in those last moments of her life,but no one,then or now knows who that person was.

That is correct, and I have never questioned it.

There is no evidence to indicate who that person was.

You are as wrong as you could be - Lechmere being found on the spot is clearly indicative of how he seemingly had opportunity to be the killer, and that belongs VERY much to the evidence. It is in evidence that he had this opportunity or seeming opportunity, and for nobody else is there similar evidence of having had that.

Certainly none that implicates Cross.

Lechmere is not indicated as being the killer by standing close to Nichols, but there is undisputable evidence that he seems to have had the opportunity.

Yes Cross was observed near her body,but Cross did not run away.

What he did AFTER having been in company with the corpse of Nichols does not in any way change the fact that he seemingly had the opportunity to kill.

He gave an account of his movements under oath,and his account was accepted.

That changes just as little, unless you believe that an accepted account is a true one. Do you?

No one was seen running away...

And that too belongs to the circumstantial evidence pointing to Lechmere.

...your example is wortless.

You are no qualified judge of that.

...and do not presume to know what my presumption as to evidence would be in such a situation as you describe.

Eh - you are flaunting it pubically, so itīs not exactly invisible, Harry.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Oh, yes - I could be a LOT more wrong. You should not despair on that point.

[harry]

Fisherman,
The line you quoted is still correct.None of the four examples you cite contains evidence indicating Cross killed Nicholls,and was in her company prior to her being killed. You have not answered my question.
What you supply is information,and though it is informative of certain conditions applying at that time,none individually,nor all four taken as a whole,is evidence proving Cross murdered Nicholls.
Certainly there was someone with her in those last moments of her life,but no one,then or now knows who that person was.There is no evidence to indicate who that person was.certainly none that implicates Cross.
Yes Cross was observed near her body,but Cross did not run away.He gave an account of his movements under oath,and his account was accepted.
No one was seen running away,your example is wortless,and do not presume to know what my presumption as to evidence would be in such a situation as you describe.You couldn't be more wrong.

[John G]

Robert Paul said this:"It was dark and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality, I tried to give him a wide berth."

Therefore, as Paul is clearly making no attempt to investigate, and is obviously trying to avoid Lechmere, was there any need for Lechemere to approach him at all, assuming he was the killer?

[Fisherman]

I think the problem here is that Fisherman is basically saying that IF the murderer was still near the body at the time it was discovered, then Cross, being the only person known to have been near the body at the time it was discovered, is more likely to be the murderer.

For the rest of us who are not already convinced that Cross was guilty, that "IF" at the beginning is an insurmountable hurdle, in that we see no reason to think that the murderer remained near the body after having committed the crime.

So, if you see any value in Fisherman's premise that the murderer stayed near the body after the crime, you might agree with him that Cross is the most likely suspect.

For me, however, I see no compelling reason to accept this premise. But again, I am only a cadet at this.

I knew the distinctions BEFORE I even became a cadet, Clark.

I have not - and I never will, unless new information is added - said that another man could not have killed Nichols.

I have not - and I never will, unless new information is added - denied that such a man could have left the stage before Lechmere entered it.

But the crux of the matter is that NO SUCH MAN IS IN EVIDENCE! We can therefore not treat him as an established fact who competes with Lechmere about having been closer to Nichols.

The one and only person we know for sure was alone with Polly Nichols at the relevant passage in time is Charles Lechmere. There is nobody else. No competition at all. Nada, none, zilch.

Therefore, when we look at the factor of physical proximity, the one and only person we know was alone with and in close physical proximity to Nichols before Paul arrived, is Charles Lechmere. Therefore, he is the likeliest killer, going on this factor only.

Letīs assume, Clark, for theoriesī sake, that the killer was a man called Benny Badgerbottom, a sinister character who cut and killed Nichols, only to then leave unseen and unheard via Queen Anne Street, seconds only before Lechmere entered Bucks Row. Letīs assume that he confessed at a later stage, after the police had jailed Lechmere on suspicion that HE was the killer.

To close the case forensically, the police would be compelled to establish that Badgerbottom was telling the truth; many, many people confessed to the Ripper killings without being the real killer, and one can therefore not readily accept what people say in these kinds of errands.
So they would need to check things out.

Maybe Benny would be able to feed them something that only the killer would know, maybe not. If he could not, and if nothing else could be done to establish his guilt, he should walk free, no matter if he insisted that he was the killer.

But even if he WAS established to be the killer, tried, convicted an hanged, Charles Lechmere would STILL have been the likelier killer during the investigation, GOING ON THE FACTOR OF PHYSICAL PROXIMITY ONLY. Unless it could be establihed, that is, that Benny had been in place. And once again, no other person has been established to have been in place at the Nichols murder site!!!

But as I said, ask others. Ask the police. Ask other posters out here what they think. Ask your neighbour. Ask you mom. Ask anyone.

Turn the errand the other way around. Ask the question: Is there anybody who answers up to the demand of opportunity in this murder? If so, who is that anybody?

Do something, anything. Get a grip. Wise up. Itīs high time, Clark.

[Fisherman]

>>If you think that a wide skirt is as difficult to pull down over parted legs as a narrow one, I will just leave that particular discussion. It is easier for both of us that way.<<



Nobody but you has talked about the destitute prostitutes of 1888 wearing tight skirts and with good reason, the idea is ludicrous.

To keep bringing the notion up is disingenuous at best.

I agree, it's better for Ripperolgy as a whole that you do leave the discussion alone if you are going to stoop that kind of tactic.

Actually, I have never talked about destitute prostitutes of 1888 wearing tight skirts. I said that these skirts were around, BUT BELONGED TO THE UPPER CLASSES.

I was being thorough. You are being wrong.

I prefer to be thorough.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
You say I am wrong.About what,regarding evidence? Nowhere have I tried to define it ,as you have.

Hereīs a nice example, quoted from a post of yours on this thread:

Cross is no more a suspect today,than he was in 1888,The evidence is just not there.

What has been added since 1888 is, for example:
-The name swop
-The Mizen scam
-The knowledge about his logical working routes
-The blood evidence

So very, very obviously, Lechmere is much more of a suspect today than he has ever been before. You donīt like it one little bit, but that has no bearing on the matter. And evidently, you mistake evidence for conclusive evidence.

So let me ask you a question regarding evidence relating to Nichols murder.

Ask away.

The murderer had to be in Nichol's company before she was murdered.What evidence places Cross in her company while she was alive?

What evidence places ANY person in her company before she was murdered? How about the wounds and bruises to her body? Evidently, since she did not do it to herself, SOMEBODY was with her and caused the damage.
And Charles Lechmere was found alone with her body very, very close to the time when she died.
Therefore, his presence on the murder spot belongs to the circumstantial evidence telling us that he may be the killer.
Also, the fact that nobody was seen or heard leaving the spot at this approximate time, also belongs to the circumstantial evidence pointing to Lechmere.
Looking at things the way you do, once a killer leaves a murder site, it becomes impossible to convict him of the murder since it cannot be proven that he was with the victim when the victim died. That is of course ludicrous - in such cases, circumstantial evidence will be what convicts the killer in many instances. Say, for example, that somebody sees Mr X running in a direction from the murder site, twenty seconds after the murder. To you, such a thing would not in any way constitute evidence. To me, it would. It would not be enough to convict on, it would have to be combned with more, but it is nevertheless strong and compelling evidence.

[drstrange169]

>>If you think that a wide skirt is as difficult to pull down over parted legs as a narrow one, I will just leave that particular discussion. It is easier for both of us that way.<<



Nobody but you has talked about the destitute prostitutes of 1888 wearing tight skirts and with good reason, the idea is ludicrous.

To keep bringing the notion up is disingenuous at best.

I agree, it's better for Ripperolgy as a whole that you do leave the discussion alone if you are going to stoop that kind of tactic.

[Clark]

I think the problem here is that Fisherman is basically saying that IF the murderer was still near the body at the time it was discovered, then Cross, being the only person known to have been near the body at the time it was discovered, is more likely to be the murderer.

For the rest of us who are not already convinced that Cross was guilty, that "IF" at the beginning is an insurmountable hurdle, in that we see no reason to think that the murderer remained near the body after having committed the crime.

So, if you see any value in Fisherman's premise that the murderer stayed near the body after the crime, you might agree with him that Cross is the most likely suspect.

For me, however, I see no compelling reason to accept this premise. But again, I am only a cadet at this.

[harry]

Fisherman,
You say I am wrong.About what,regarding evidence? Nowhere have I tried to define it ,as you have.
So let me ask you a question regarding evidence relating to Nichols murder.
The murderer had to be in Nichol's company before she was murdered.What evidence places Cross in her company while she was alive?
What in your definition is relative?

[Clark]

You are correct in saying that Lechmere was more likely than not to be innocent, since statistcally, most people found on crime scenes are not the criminals.

Nevertheless, in spite of being more likely to be innocent than guilty (all other matters unconsidered), he is NEVERTHELESS more likely to be the killer than those who were NOT found at the murder site.

So statistically unlikely to be the killer, but based on his presence on the murder site nevertheless MORE likely than the rest of the population.

This last effort empties out not only my knowledge about these things, but also a little bit of my will to live. I will therefore not go into it anymore.

Fine with me. If you can't see the contradictions within your second paragraph (as I've quoted it above), then I doubt that I can explain it to you.

Best wishes.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, I agree that Nichols had been killed very close to the time Lechemere "discovered" the body. Dr Biggs' also pointed out, "In terms of time, there would be an initial rush of blood, but the victims blood pressure would rapidly subside...so the rate of flow would become considerably less relatively soon after injury." (Marriott, 2015)

After the circulation as stopped, it's then down to gravity to continue blood loss, and that can go on for some time.

According to Jason Payne-James, who DID comment on the specific case with itīs specific wounds, that bleeding would likely be overwith within five minutes. He said that the time could be longer than that, but it was less likely. As far as I can tell, that is the qualitatively best and most detailed estimation we have.

[John G]

Ehrm - yes. But as I keep saying, the "cold to the touch" business we are discussing here is the coldness that is often there on the skin of the hands, face and so on.
In the Ripper cases, the doctors could actually establish what warmth there was INSIDE the victims in all cases but one. And in the Nichols case, under discussion here, we also know that blood was flowing for at the very least five minutes after Lechmere left the body. And that puts it beyond reasonable doubt that Nichols was quite freshly slain when Lechmere was there.

I would also recommend caution whenever you see the name "Marriott" attaching to something - what he has failed to see, is that dr Biggs never commented on the Ripper cases per se, instead opting for speaking in general terms only. And that is all good and well, as long as we know what we are dealing with. However, once Biggs ī comments were served up as relating specifically to the different Ripper cases, it all went terribly wrong.

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, I agree that Nichols had been killed very close to the time Lechemere "discovered" the body. Dr Biggs' also pointed out, "In terms of time, there would be an initial rush of blood, but the victims blood pressure would rapidly subside...so the rate of flow would become considerably less relatively soon after injury." (Marriott, 2015)

After the circulation as stopped, it's then down to gravity to continue blood loss, and that can go on for some time.