Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Pcdunn]

Thank you, Doctor S. I appreciate that. It seemed like common sense to me, even as a newcomer, and I have to admit I'm (what do I say? "surprised", "puzzled?" no, not now...) resigned to the continuing debate on this one point.

[Harry D]

Could Lechmere have theoretically committed the crime? Yes.

Aside from that, is there any other reason to suspect him of committing the crime? The answer, by and large, would have to be NO.

[Columbo]

Could Lechmere have theoretically committed the crime? Yes.

Aside from that, is there any other reason to suspect him of committing the crime? The answer, by and large, would have to be NO.

You are correct. Knowing what we know there is no definitive reason to suspect him. As I and many others have also posted, there is no real reason to suspect any of the current suspects.

But the theory Edward and Fisherman put forth is very interesting and I don't wholly discount it, just some of their more complicated ideas concerning names and minutia on blood etc.

They might be on to something given the aggressive responses this theory has been getting for years.

Columbo

[Pierre]

Could Lechmere have theoretically committed the crime? Yes.

Aside from that, is there any other reason to suspect him of committing the crime? The answer, by and large, would have to be NO.

Hi,

It would probably be easy to construct "suspects" from the data concerning other finders of bodies as well. So the level of difficulty in the case of the Lechmere hypothesis is low.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Aside from that, is there any other reason to suspect him of committing the crime? The answer, by and large, would have to be NO.

On the face of it, he did lie to a police officer when leaving the scene of the crime, having found the body.

If you were a competent police officer in 1888 Lechmere would have to be a suspect.

But that is a million miles away from saying that he did it (or that he probably did it).

[Columbo]

On the face of it, he did lie to a police officer when leaving the scene of the crime, having found the body.

If you were a competent police officer in 1888 Lechmere would have to be a suspect.

But that is a million miles away from saying that he did it (or that he probably did it).

Very true, and it's these little inconsistencies that make him very suspicious, but not a killer. Not yet anyways.

Columbo

[Harry D]

On the face of it, he did lie to a police officer when leaving the scene of the crime, having found the body.

How did he lie?

[David Orsam]

How did he lie?

Do you genuinely not know?

Evidence of P.C. Mizen at inquest (from the Daily Telegraph): "Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row..."

Other reports make clear that the carman in question was identified by Mizen as Cross.

If Cross/Lechmere said this, as Mizen recalled him doing, it was a lie (and Cross/Lechmere denied saying it).

[Mr Lucky]

How does blood flowing from a throat wound indicate that someone is dead?

It doesn't indicate “someone is dead” as the Inquest isn't for “someone” but for Mary Ann Nichols.

[Mr Lucky]

If the inquest's only concern is with the death of Nichols (by which you appear to mean time of death)

You've inserted the word “only” into my quote. And clearly I haven't given any reason for you to assume that I “appear to mean time of death” - Misquoting ?

why was Mizen bothering to give evidence about moving the body onto the ambulance?

The Jury can inquire into anything – there are no boundaries to their investigation. There had been claims in the East London Observer that some scavengers had helped move the body.

[David Orsam]

It doesn't indicate “someone is dead” as the Inquest isn't for “someone” but for Mary Ann Nichols.

Is this an attempt at sophistry?

You said: "the women was dead when Mizen arrived on the scene – when Neil was alone, which Mizen demonstrates by referencing the blood flowing from the wound in her throat".

So I was wondering how Mizen demonstrated that "the women" (by which you presumably meant "the woman", i.e. Nichols) was dead by referencing the blood flowing from the wound in her throat.

I think you knew this.

[Mr Lucky]

Mr Lucky,
What is a suspect? Do you not know? Under what English law? Do you not know?

No I don't know, and no one else does either, because the whole concept of “a suspect under English law” is a crock of nonsense that doesn't exist anywhere outside your imagination.

Cross was never a suspect.Fact.

Nichols murderer was never tried . Fact

Only the police of that time could nominate Cross as a suspect in the Nichol's murder.They never did,unless you have knowledge to the contrary.Neither did the press,and neither Fisherman or you can change that.

Nominate? - this isn't celebrity dancing on ice, and the rest is totally irrelevant , there were around twenty “suspects” for the Bucks-row murder and what did they have all in commen – absolutely nothing. So what value does the concept of a Buck's -row "suspect" actually have – absolutely nothing.

So where is the utter nonsense.Seems to be on your side of the fence.

You're still the one who is making stuff up.

[Mr Lucky]

Is this an attempt at sophistry?

You said: "the women was dead when Mizen arrived on the scene – when Neil was alone, which Mizen demonstrates by referencing the blood flowing from the wound in her throat".

So I was wondering how Mizen demonstrated that "the women" (by which you presumably meant "the woman", i.e. Nichols) was dead by referencing the blood flowing from the wound in her throat.

I think you knew this.

Now you've gone back to talking about Nichols specifically rather than throats in general, read the Doctors evidence from Saturday.

[David Orsam]

You've inserted the word “only” into my quote. And clearly I haven't given any reason for you to assume that I “appear to mean time of death” - Misquoting ?

I didn't insert anything into your quote. I quoted you 100% accurately using the quote function.

What you said in full was:

"The inquests concern is with the death of Nichols and so in this case what the inquest is trying to establish here is that the women was dead when Mizen arrived on the scene – when Neil was alone, which Mizen demonstrates by referencing the blood flowing from the wound in her throat. In this way Mizen corroborates what Neil had said on the first day and additionally refutes what Robert Paul had said in his remarkable statement published in Lloyds (Sunday 2/9/88) about the 'woman must have been there for some time'

"There would be no reason to ask Mizen whether she was dead when putting her on the ambulance as the doctor had already declared her dead by that point."

The part that I have highlighted in bold, with the use of the word "so", indicated to me that what you meant by the "inquests concern" being with the death of Nichols was that it was "trying to establish here that the women (sic) was dead when Mizen arrived on the scene". This is why I said you appear to mean "time of death" when you refer to the inquest's concern. That at least seems to be what your post means in plain English.

The problem I found with your post is that it seems to be based on the assumption that in asking Mizen about the blood, the person asking the question was trying to establish Mizen whether Nichols was already dead when he first saw her. But I would suggest that there might have been another reason for asking Mizen about the blood.

I do hope that is clear.

[David Orsam]

Now you've gone back to talking about Nichols specifically rather than throats in general, read the Doctors evidence from Saturday.

I have never been talking about throats in general. I have been asking you to explain how Mizen demonstrated that Nichols was dead by referencing the blood flowing from the wound in her throat. I was doing so because you said: "the women was dead when Mizen arrived on the scene – when Neil was alone, which Mizen demonstrates by referencing the blood flowing from the wound in her throat". There is no need, therefore, for me to read the doctor's evidence from Saturday.