The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Simon Owen]

Just a throw away thought really but it occurred to me that if I stumbled across a dead body in the dark and then heard footsteps headed towards me I think I'd be very, very worried that the killer was headed back my way, yet Lechmere stood lingering in the middle of the road waiting for him.

Cross didn't know that Polly was dead until Robert Paul came along and checked the body with him.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ed,

PC Mizen was late to the party.

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"?

Regards,

Simon

[Colin Roberts]

Derek Osborne (Ripperana No. 37, July 2001) discovered a Charles Lechmere in residence at 22 Doveton Street, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, as recorded in the Census of England & Wales, 1891. But he merely surmised that Lechmere and Charles 'Cross' might have been one and the same. His discovery and supposition regarding Lechmere then faded into obscurity.

Michael Connor (Ripperologist No. 87, January 2008) - in the absence of any knowledge of Osborne's work - made the same discovery, but delved more deeply into the background and post-1891 life of Charles Lechmere. He concluded quite rightly that Lechmere and 'Cross' most probably were one and the same.

Chris Scott then put the icing on the cake.

Having steered Mr. Connor away from Bethnal Green and toward Mile End Old Town, in his quest for Doveton Street in various census enumerations, I felt as if I had played a small part in the discovery of the true identity of Charles 'Cross'. Naturally, I was most intrigued by the possibility that his use of 'Cross' as a means of identity during the course of the Nichols inquest was intended to be a subterfuge. I still am!

I am also intrigued by the possibility that he intentionally mislead PC Mizen during their initial encounter at the eastern end of Hanbury Street; as well as the possibility that he intentionally came forward on the eve of the Nichols inquest, so as to cover his tracks.

I might add that I am intrigued by the fact that he traversed the major axes of any meaningful elliptical interpretations of the killing field of 'Jack the Ripper', as a matter of daily routine.

But that is the extent of my intrigue.

The suggestions that Lechmere was "found" standing or kneeling over Nichols's body, - which actually emanated from Michael Connor ("standing") - have helped take the 'interest' out of this previously most intriguing person of interest.

Of course if Lechmere did kill Mary Ann Nichols, then he was - at various points - both standing and kneeling over her body. But that is not what he was doing when initially encountered by Robert Paul.

The suggestions regarding Lechmere's chosen routes to work and his supposed disposition to kill whilst travelling those routes; along with the supposition that Pickford's Depot was somehow used as a sort of half-assed pathology depository, are derived from a fantasy that was borne of some ill-conceived need to theorize.

In the absence of any knowledge pertaining to Lechmere's sense of direction or his weekly/daily/hourly schedule, baseless theories need never have applied. Countless scenarios provide the opportunity for him to have committed these murders; but we have no way of knowing which ones - if any - coincide with reality.

I would direct similar criticism toward the suggestions regarding Lechmere's childhood/adulthood familial relationships, but I've had enough.

Christer an Ed have taken the 'interest' out of a most intriguing person of interest.

I hope that no one ever does the same to John Simmonds.

[Lechmere]

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.

[David Orsam]

Hi Simon,

In saying "Cross had no reason to lie" doesn't that suppose he was not the murderer in the first place? If he had just murdered Nichols then I can see that he might have had a reason.

That aside, I don't quite follow the logic of your point. Wouldn't him saying that when he arrived in Buck's Row he saw PC Neil there have been sufficient? Why invent a statement by Cross when (a) Neil, who had already given evidence at the inquest, never claimed to have seen or spoken to Cross and (b) it would have been obvious to Mizen that Cross was about to give evidence which would contradict his account?

[Lechmere]

Thane had already been and gone by the time Mizen got there.

Lechmere had every reason to lie if he did it.
This is a man who had moments before been found standing very close to a dead body. A dead body that must have only just have been killed. A body whose abdominal wounds were covered indicating an attempt at concealment. This man gave a name at the inquest which is different from that that he gave at any time in his well recorded life - including four times in 1888.
Is it worthwhile being a little sceptical about his version of the conversation?

Look at Mizen's indisputable actions.

He didn't take either Lechmere's or Paul's names or addresses.
He didn't search them.
He carried on knocking up at least one door.
He didn't mention seeing the two men when he met Neil.
His report must have said that he saw no one leave that end of the street to attract attention.

His actions are entirely consistent with someone who thought he had merely been passed a message from a policeman by a couple of bystanders that a woman was lying in the street. An uneventful matter that lacked importance or urgency. Even after it became apparent that there was in fact a murder he had no reason to doubt what he said he had been told, as he found a policeman there.

If we look at Mizen's character we find a policeman with an exemplary record who's private life was that of a religious do-gooder.

But no! Mizen was wrong and Lechmere was right.

Was Mizen punished (or should he have been) for the minor oversight in not getting the names and addresses of Lechmere and Paul - minor in the circumstances of his version of events?
Well, at the inquest there were plenty of other instances of errors or minor misdemeanours that came out of the woodwork.
We have the business of Thane getting his cape from the Horse Butcher yard.
We have the body being left unattended at the mortuary and stripped unsupervised.
We have the failure to interrogate most of the residents in Bucks Row.
The blame for the last two errors could only be laid at the door of the higher ups - who were accordingly hardly in a position to castigate Mizen.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I have never believed PC Mizen.

Cross had no reason to lie. PC Mizen did.

PC Neil wasn't where he should have been at 3.45, so PC Mizen put him there with a simple lie—

He was informed "that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

Esprit de corps.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Actually, what Scobie says is that it is "a case good enough to put before a jury that suggests that he was the killer".

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.

[Rob Clack]

Especially as there were no lamps between Brady Street and Great Eastern Square. ;-)

Monty

Yes, thank god Ed confirmed it for me

[pinkmoon]

Most theories about who our killer was collapse quite quickly on some very basic points this is no exception to me the vast majority of suspects do not stand up when we are given no reason why they stopped killing.That photo of Mary Kelly's remains is absolutely appalling who ever did that was light years away from normal and to have to accept the fact that they just stopped killing and some cases live on for decades is just to far fetched.

[Bitsie]

Just a throw away thought really but it occurred to me that if I stumbled across a dead body in the dark and then heard footsteps headed towards me I think I'd be very, very worried that the killer was headed back my way, yet Lechmere stood lingering in the middle of the road waiting for him.

[GUT]

This really is a kind of candy floss case. The minute you bite into any part of it, it dissolves.

You don't even need to bite it just take a lick and it all dissolves.

[Rob Clack]

This really is a kind of candy floss case. The minute you bite into any part of it, it dissolves.

As is the whole theory.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Rob ,

No, I haven't been converted. I looked upon the documentary as a depiction of Ed and Christer's theory, and in that context a graphic of JTR kneeling at Nichols' body did not strike me as a dastardly deception.

Obviously the narrative was going to be a combination of documented fact and conjecture, how could it be otherwise?

That said, there were lots of niggles that irritated me. But they didn't detract from my enjoyment of the film as entertainment, and it was also useful to see the boys' theory laid out in a coherent way.

MrB

Hi Mr B,

I have been interested so long that I tend to be a bit more critical then most.

I would see it as a dastardly deception because that is not how it happened. A lot of what was said about Lechmere didn't happen and was greatly exaggerated. To me, if you do that with a suspect then you are getting desperate. Perhaps it's just me.

Rob

[Chris]

As I said earlier, if Paul was in a hurry then it is logical to assume he was walking at a faster pace then Lechmere.
So it is then logical to assume Lechmere was further than 40 yards away from Paul when Paul left home. So Lechmere had already passed the junction of Foster and Bath Street. He may just have missed him when he crossed Bath Street into Brady Street so it perfectly reasonable and likely to assume the first time Paul would have seen Lechmere would have been in Bucks Row anyway.

This really is a kind of candy floss case. The minute you bite into any part of it, it dissolves.