The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Simon Owen]

The program made a big deal about Lechmere being interrupted by Paul at 3:46. So I don't think the Lechmere brigade will deny that if Paul hadn't come along Lechmere would still carry on with the mutilations. So do you seriously expect Lechmere to get to Broad Street for 4:00 a.m.?

No. Me neither it is too stupid. That's another nail in his coffin.

Excellent point.

And presuming Lechmere hadn't been interrupted by Robert Paul , he would have been interrupted by PC Neil who , even if he wasn't in Buck's Row at exactily 3.45am , would have been there a minute or two later.

[Rob Clack]

The program made a big deal about Lechmere being interrupted by Paul at 3:46. So I don't think the Lechmere brigade will deny that if Paul hadn't come along Lechmere would still carry on with the mutilations. So do you seriously expect Lechmere to get to Broad Street for 4:00 a.m.?

No. Me neither it is too stupid. That's another nail in his coffin.

[Chris]

Now Lechmere hesitates for five seconds - whereas his narrative flows with not the slightest suggestion of a wait or hesitation ...

He said in court that he walked into the middle of the road.

Claiming that Paul didn't in essence make it clear that he was unaware of Lechmere being in front of him until he saw him either where the body was or in the middle of the roadis also disingenuous.

If you claim Paul made it clear he hadn't seen Cross/Lechmere, then please quote the relevant statement for us.

Mere assertion is of no value.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Fisherman - just for the record, and I don't make any point on it, what Scobie said in full was: "What we would say is he's got a prima facie case to answer which means it's a case good enough to put before a jury that suggests that he was the killer".

Regarding the rest of your post, I don't disagree with you that if PC Mizen's evidence was truthful then Lechmere has to at least be a person of interest (which to my mind equates to him being a suspect) and, perhaps like you, I don't fully understand the enormous resistance to this on the forum. I'm sure we've all read books about "suspects" who seem to have had no relationship to Whitechapel or the murders - and at least Lechmere lived in the area and can be placed at the scene of one of the crimes.

However, I would be interested to know if you would accept that the case against him collapses entirely if, for the cogent reasons put forward on this forum by Stewart P. Evans, PC Mizen's evidence (about being told by him that there was already a policeman in Buck's Row) was false.

But that's the same old chestnut used over and over again that the killer must have lived and worked in the area. No one knows that.

That comes from profilers who have been used many times in these documentaries, and used as you have done to prop up a theory on a suspect by saying that they lived and worked in the area.

Criminals rarely commit crimes on their own door step !

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

[Lechmere]

Tr... I mean Robert - I have explained how the standing over thing comes about - it isn't an expression I use. You seem more than a little obsessed with it. I suggest you move on before or takes over your life.

I read a few posts back desperate attempts to stretch the distance between Lechmere and Paul to 80 yards on the basis that Paul was late while ignoring Lechmere's claim to be late. Now Lechmere hesitates for five seconds - whereas his narrative flows with not the slightest suggestion of a wait or hesitation - and five seconds is quite a long time in such a scenario.
If a genuine attempt was being made to understand what happened or what was said in the film we wouldn't be seeing these disingenuous attempts to massage the known data.
Claiming that Paul didn't in essence make it clear that he was unaware of Lechmere being in front of him until he saw him either where the body was or in the middle of the roadis also disingenuous.

[Rob Clack]

Oh
Paul said he was late for work so he must have been hurrying and walking quicker than Lechmere... who also said he was late for work and so must have been hurrying and walking quicker than Paul...
Or over that quite short distance is it not just safest to assume they were more or less walking at the same speed? And that stretching their gap to more than 50 yards is disingenuous.

And saying standing over/leaning over isn't?

[Chris]

Paul said he was late for work so he must have been hurrying and walking quicker than Lechmere... who also said he was late for work and so must have been hurrying and walking quicker than Paul...
Or over that quite short distance is it not just safest to assume they were more or less walking at the same speed? And that stretching their gap to more than 50 yards is disingenuous.

Obviously we can't know which of them was walking faster. It's yet another assumption that they were walking at the same speed. But suppose they were.

But I wish for once you and Fisherman would put yourselves in our position. We're trying to understand your theory, but every time we ask you to explain, we're just greeted with more sarcasm (like that quoted just above).

So please explain how it works. Maybe there's another source I haven't seen, but it seems to me that the distance of 40 yards between them is based on the statement by Cross/Lechmere that Paul was about that distance away when he first became aware of him in Buck's Row. Obviously that will be an approximate figure. But more importantly, on his own account at that point he had stopped walking and was looking at the body.

If Paul was walking at 3.5 miles an hour, the distance between them would decrease by 10 yards every 5.5 seconds while Cross/Lechmere was standing still. In saying that (before Cross/Lechmere stopped) the gap can't have been more than 50 yards, you're really saying you can't believe he had stopped for more than 5 seconds when he heard Paul coming.

On top of that, as far as I've seen, Paul didn't say he hadn't seen Cross/Lechmere walking ahead of him (if they were between about 40 and 80 yards apart he might have seen him in Bath Street if the lighting was good enough). But maybe there's a source we haven't seen.

Why not help us to make sense of it, if you think it makes sense?

[Lechmere]

Simon
I know there is no line of sight yet nevertheless Neil said he signalled Mizen to come to him.

Colin
You are quite right that many factors about Lechmere will never be known - the sorts of detail about his personal life that many ask about but which it is obvious at this time will never be discovered.
Does this mean that speculation based on what is known is wrong? Every ripper suspect case without exception is based on speculation founded on the known record. This is the bling you refer to.
I would contend, and still would contend very strongly that the known record for Lechmere makes him the best suspect - but people demand explanations for how that record relates specifically to guilt. That is where speculation and conjecture come in. Hey this is 'Ripperology'. But I personally always try to make it clear by my use of probablies and maybes where I use conjecture.

Also have i commandeered the only Lechmere Mercedes and vulgarised it? Mr Lucky has his own Mercedes with a different colour scheme. There is nothing to stop you maintaining your vanilla version. But you will be set upon by a pack of dogs so carry a stout stick.

[Colin Roberts]

Colin
I am sorry you feel that way.
You seem to want to have left it hanging with you feeling a bit intrigued about a few things and that the matter should not have been pursued.

You have decorated a Mercedes, Ed, with golden-glittered purple paint, golden trim and golden wheels.

Your discovery of countless references to Lechmere in the historical record has been nothing less than remarkable.

But you will NEVER find documentation pertaining to his routes to work, his daily/hourly schedule, the quality of his familial relationships, etc.

Knowing as much, you have opted for all the 'bling'.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Steady on, old chap. Mizen did not name the PC as Neil.

Rather than argue ourselves blue in the face, let's just agree that in the final analysis their contradictory stories went unchallenged.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

PC Neil, inquest testimony—"The first to arrive on the scene after I had discovered the body were two men who work at a slaughterhouse opposite."

Had they, too, gone by the time PC Mizen arrived, at a time when "nobody but Neil was with the body"?

As I read it, Neil must mean that these two men were the first civilians on the scene. Presumably the two men he was referring to were Henry Tomkins and James Mumford. Tomkins' evidence was that he was told (at the slaughterhouse) by a constable of the murder at "about a quarter past 4". He also said that when he and Mumford arrived at the scene "three or four constables were there" (and a doctor too, so not even the first civilians really).

[David Orsam]

And you can bet your last Snickers bar that Mizen and Neil got their stories as straight as they could before attending the inquest.

Hi Simon,

If that's the case, then why were their stories different?

Mizen: Cross told me that a policeman [Neil] said I was wanted in Buck's Row.

Neil: I never saw or spoke to Cross.

Different stories, no?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ed,

Neil could not have signalled Mizen with his bullseye lamp.

There was no line of sight between the murder scene and Bakers Row.

Regards,

Simon

[Lechmere]

Simon
Neil describes Thane coming to him first and then Mizen - who Neil thought he had signalled with his lamp, indicating that so far as Neil was concerned he had signalled Mizen to come, not that Mizen was coming anyway. This is another indicator that Mizen did not mention the two men to Neil.
To suggest Mizen was covering up for failing to take their names implies he was guilty of an act of gross misconduct in derailing a murder investigation.

Colin
I am sorry you feel that way.
You seem to want to have left it hanging with you feeling a bit intrigued about a few things and that the matter should not have been pursued.
I don't know why you can't stay intrigued nor why what anyone else may suggest about this person should have nay bearing on you personal levels of intriguement.
You should note that the references to standing over the body (or representations of kneeling) have in all instances been made by 'lay' observers who translate being 'where the body was' or in the 'middle of that narrow road by the body', as being 'over the body'. In my opinion it is no big deal.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Absolutely.

Cross no more murdered Polly Nichols than did my Aunt Dorothy.

There is no reason for Cross to have said he saw a PC in Bucks Row when he had not. That the was telling the truth is backed up by PC Neil who told the inquest, "There was not a soul about."

Cross didn't see Neil. Neil didn't see Cross. Because Neil wasn't where he should have been at the time - somewhere in Great Eastern Square.

Mizen lied to cover Neil's arse.

And you can bet your last Snickers bar that Mizen and Neil got their stories as straight as they could before attending the inquest.

Regards,

Simon