The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[David Orsam]

Did Lechmere tell a lie?

posted in wrong thread

[Trevor Marriott]

Funny that you should now say that the blood evidence is the backbone of my theory. A few days ago, you thought it was the name issue. plus I keep telling you that it is not just one bone we are speaking of - it is a whole skeleton.

Mizen was no medico, but he was a PC with an excellent serving record. He volunteered the congealing part, so it would seem he realized the forensic relevance of it.

I don´t think for a second that he would be torn to shreds in the witness box. If he stated that the blood was partly congealed, how could he be torn to shreds?

By a lawyer who shrieked "How would you know"?

"Because I checked, and I am certain" would be a good answer to that.

In order to nullify the impact of such evidence, the defence would need to be able to prove that Mizen either could not have seen what he said he saw, or that he was unaware about how "somewhat congealed" blood looked like.

The shredding only exists in your dreams, I´m afraid.

Its a reality, and the sooner you accept it the better. Mizen may have be a fine officer but that cuts no ice when it comes to the assessment and evaluation of his evidence. Your blood evidence is flawed and unreliable.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Dear Fisherman,
Thank you for the points of clarification. I certainly do agree about Martha Tabram.
Regarding your response to question 4-I made an error in nomenclature. Corrected that question should be...In your film the modern forensic pathologist estimated the time for the murder at approximately 2 minutes, did he take into account the clothing, specifically, the amount of time and effort the killer would have needed to deliver the abdominal wounds? My apologies for the confusion. What makes me ask that question is that in the program, the pathologist uses a naked body to position the wounds, this might have led to my confusion about how he determined the time required. Yes, I am aware of the "usual" disarray of the victims clothing. Usual, in terms of clothing being pulled up.
As stated previously, I thought the documentary was well done and, in my opinion, better represents the socio-economic position of JtR. I will be interested to find out if your forthcoming book has more information about Lechmere and his upbringing, family relationships, work history and post 1888 lodgings.
Thank you also for sharing the details about the blood evidence.

You are most welcome! Jason-Payne James certainly was aware about the clothing on Nichols. The choice to present the cuts agains naked skin was made to facilitate an understanding of how they were distributed, with no disturbing clothes to hinder the view.

You may want to know that I am not alone in researching Lechmere. I do much work together with Edward Stow - who does not post here - who in fact was the person who convinced me of the carmans´ viability as the prime suspect in the Nichols murder - and consequentially also in the whole Ripper case.

[Fisherman]

Your whole blood evidence which is the backbone of your theory stands or falls on these two issues. Evidence from a man who is not a medical expert does it not?

If you put Mizen in a witness box his evidence would be torn to shreds.

Of course modern day experts can tell you how long a body will bleed for or how long coagulation with take.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Funny that you should now say that the blood evidence is the backbone of my theory. A few days ago, you thought it was the name issue. plus I keep telling you that it is not just one bone we are speaking of - it is a whole skeleton.

Mizen was no medico, but he was a PC with an excellent serving record. He volunteered the congealing part, so it would seem he realized the forensic relevance of it.

I don´t think for a second that he would be torn to shreds in the witness box. If he stated that the blood was partly congealed, how could he be torn to shreds?

By a lawyer who shrieked "How would you know"?

"Because I checked, and I am certain" would be a good answer to that.

In order to nullify the impact of such evidence, the defence would need to be able to prove that Mizen either could not have seen what he said he saw, or that he was unaware about how "somewhat congealed" blood looked like.

The shredding only exists in your dreams, I´m afraid.

[crberger]

Dear Fisherman,
Thank you for the points of clarification. I certainly do agree about Martha Tabram.
Regarding your response to question 4-I made an error in nomenclature. Corrected that question should be...In your film the modern forensic pathologist estimated the time for the murder at approximately 2 minutes, did he take into account the clothing, specifically, the amount of time and effort the killer would have needed to deliver the abdominal wounds? My apologies for the confusion. What makes me ask that question is that in the program, the pathologist uses a naked body to position the wounds, this might have led to my confusion about how he determined the time required. Yes, I am aware of the "usual" disarray of the victims clothing. Usual, in terms of clothing being pulled up.
As stated previously, I thought the documentary was well done and, in my opinion, better represents the socio-economic position of JtR. I will be interested to find out if your forthcoming book has more information about Lechmere and his upbringing, family relationships, work history and post 1888 lodgings.
Thank you also for sharing the details about the blood evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

1. Nichols still bled from the neck as Mizen first saw her, after having walked down to Bucks Row. Mizen would reasonably not have been in place at the site in under five minutes. A fair estimation points to around six minutes. A pathologist has assured me that Nichols was less likely to bleed for seven minutes than for three, or perhaps five. The point is that if we are to cram another killer than Lechmere in, we will be less and less realistic with every minute we add to the bleeding time.

This issue you seek to rely on is reliant on Mizens perception of still bleeding. Nichols had been cut to the throat and as such that blood would have flowed downward from the wound. Now taking it literally bleeding in this case would have meant that blood was still flowing albeit perhaps to a slight trickle. But the brain can be misled by what a person sees. So if Mizen looks at the wound and I would suggest that from his perspective it was nothing more than a cursory glance then he would have seen evidence from the neck where the blood had flowed downwards which could have given the appearance to the uneducated that wound was still bleeding.

2. Mizen said that the blood was "somewhat congealed" in the pool under Nichols´ neck. So it was not uncongealed and it was not fully congealed. And congealing generally starts to be visible after three to four minutes, whereas the congealing is full after seven minutes. Deviations can exist, of course, but if the blood congealed the way blood normally does, then very little time - if any - is left to allow for an alternative killer.[/B]

Again we get back to a witness who is not a medical expert who again must have had no more than a cursory glance at the blood. So his term "somewhat congealed" could mean almost anything within the coagulation process and certainly cannot be relied upon to pinpoint the time of death to within the small time window you have.

Your whole blood evidence which is the backbone of your theory stands or falls on these two issues. Evidence from a man who is not a medical expert does it not?

One other point, Dr Llewellyn attended the crime scene but in his evidence he mentions nothing about the blood from the wound or the congealing blood to support the estimated time of death. So the burning question is can Mizens evidence on its own be relied upon in the absence of any other corroborating evidence to support your theory?

If you put Mizen in a witness box his evidence would be torn to shreds.

Of course modern day experts can tell you how long a body will bleed for or how long coagulation with take. But these experts were not around in 1888. They were not at the crime scene, they did not see the body, they did not see any pics of the body or the wounds, so what they have said is really nothing more than a guideline, and as you know even those guidelines can be inaccurate, based on many factors with regards to a body found at a crime scene with knife wounds.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

crberger: A few questions:

1. Why was Martha Tabram included, granted I believe that she was a victim, however, she is not usually listed as a canonical victim?

She is included since she represents a strike that could very well have been a Ripper killing. The victimology is in line, there is a grotesque overkill and there is a cout to the lower abdomen. The deed was a very silent one, in spite of all the violence and all the wounds inflicted. And she dies a few weeks only before Nichols.
The canonical listing is not something that cannot be questioned. It hails from Melville MacNaghtens thoughts, and he had a few other thoughts that I absolutely not agree with.

2. Did the researchers who discovered the link between Charles Allen Cross and Charles Allen Lechmere have him in mind as a suspect?

I could not say, to be perfectly honest.

3. If he is listed as both Cross and Lechmere, is there a certainty that he lied about his name?

The only certainty is that he did not use the name he was registered by at the inquest. He had had a stepfather when he was a boy, who was called Thomas Cross, and many will say that he was free to use whicever name he pleased. Be that as it may, since there is a wealth of signatures by his hand or by the hands of those who were in contact with him when he dealt with different authoritites, we can see that he regularly used the name Lechmere in these contexts. Obviously, the police are also an authority, and so one would have expected him to use the name Lechmere.
As for the name Criss, there is absolutely no evidence that he ever used that name, apart from the one instance when he was involved in the investiagion of the Nichols murder.

4. Did the coroner take into account the type of clothing worn when he estimated the time it took to murder a victim?

That would have been a matter for the police, first and foremost. Further, it would not have been something an inquest would have taken any great interest in unless there was some obvious anomaly built into it. An inquest has the ultimate goal to establish what had happened to a dead person, not who the killer was (if dealing with a case of murder).

5. It seems that the evidence against Lechmere/Cross is circumstantial, the only physical link is that he discovered a body. Yes, I do understand that: A. a book is forthcoming that may answer this particular question, and B. after this amount of time there is almost certainly NO physical evidence.
My opinion overall...I liked the video, it does bring up some rather interesting points, but still not enough information on Lechmere was provided.

One point that has surfaced after the docu concerns itself with the blood evidence, and it is of great interest in this case.

In short, this evidence examines two points:

1. Nichols still bled from the neck as Mizen first saw her, after having walked down to Bucks Row. Mizen would reasonably not have been in place at the site in under five minutes. A fair estimation points to around six minutes. A pathologist has assured me that Nichols was less likely to bleed for seven minutes than for three, or perhaps five. The point is that if we are to cram another killer than Lechmere in, we will be less and less realistic with every minute we add to the bleeding time.

2. Mizen said that the blood was "somewhat congealed" in the pool under Nichols´ neck. So it was not uncongealed and it was not fully congealed. And congealing generally starts to be visible after three to four minutes, whereas the congealing is full after seven minutes. Deviations can exist, of course, but if the blood congealed the way blood normally does, then very little time - if any - is left to allow for an alternative killer.

[crberger]

Just saw the video...

A few questions:
1. Why was Martha Tabram included, granted I believe that she was a victim, however, she is not usually listed as a canonical victim?
2. Did the researchers who discovered the link between Charles Allen Cross and Charles Allen Lechmere have him in mind as a suspect?
3. If he is listed as both Cross and Lechmere, is there a certainty that he lied about his name?
4. Did the coroner take into account the type of clothing worn when he estimated the time it took to murder a victim?
5. It seems that the evidence against Lechmere/Cross is circumstantial, the only physical link is that he discovered a body. Yes, I do understand that: A. a book is forthcoming that may answer this particular question, and B. after this amount of time there is almost certainly NO physical evidence.
My opinion overall...I liked the video, it does bring up some rather interesting points, but still not enough information on Lechmere was provided.

[GUT]

Well, the program did air, and I've seen it. Mr. Holgrun seems very sincere that he has solved the mystery of Jack's identity, but I think some doubt still remains, as we really have nothing to tie Lechmere to all of the other murders. As my friend who watched this with me stated, "So this is just a guy's theory? He hasn't convinced me."

Alas, I am also unconvinced. The information presented in the program differs in several respects from what I've read here at Casebook, particularly about where Cross was standing, and the fact that both he and Paul are said to have walked away in the same direction after speaking to Constable Mizen.
It's too bad more information from Pickford couldn't be located, regarding Lechmere's work schedules.

Just an aide Dunny that's Fiherman on Casebook in case you weren't aware.

[Pcdunn]

Well, the program did air, and I've seen it. Mr. Holgrun seems very sincere that he has solved the mystery of Jack's identity, but I think some doubt still remains, as we really have nothing to tie Lechmere to all of the other murders. As my friend who watched this with me stated, "So this is just a guy's theory? He hasn't convinced me."

Alas, I am also unconvinced. The information presented in the program differs in several respects from what I've read here at Casebook, particularly about where Cross was standing, and the fact that both he and Paul are said to have walked away in the same direction after speaking to Constable Mizen.
It's too bad more information from Pickford couldn't be located, regarding Lechmere's work schedules.

[Pcdunn]

Alert for American cable viewers:
I have just seen an ad for "The Missing Evidence" series which is set to premiere tonight (Sunday, August 30, 2015) on The Smithsonian Channel with the Jack the Ripper film. Should be interesting to see this at last, after reading this whole thread.

[Fisherman]

If Cross saw (or heard) Neil approach the murder scene, and succeeded in avoided him, he would assume he had been sent by Paul, and further more assume Paul had headed off to work. Cross would then believe he was free to leave the area unhindered – which he did, only to interrupt Paul and Mizen having their little discussion. Cross was “a man passing” (literal)

I realize that you don´t wish to discuss your theory in depth here, Mr Lucky, but I nevertheless wanted to pick an example of why I think you are very wrong. It´s in the quotation above. If Mizen was approached by Robert Paul significantly before Lechmere arrived at the Hanbury Street/Baker´s Row crossing - and if your scenario was to be correct, one must assume a gap of a couple of minutes - then why would the PC go on the stand at the inquest and say that "a man passing" told him about the woman in Bucks Row, thereafter pointing Lechmere out as that man?

Had he simply forgotten that Paul had arrived earlier and chatted him up? Or did he decide not to mention Paul for some reason?

It does not stand up to scrutiny in my book, I´m afraid. And Paul refutes the suggestion in his inquest testimony: "The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."

[Mr Lucky]

Hello Caz,

Firstly, I was just replying to a fresh poster (1 post) who appears to have a similar view to that I had held previously, this isn't the thread to discuss this however to briefly answer your points.

Hi Mr Lucky,

I'm afraid I just don't see why Lechmere would have felt any need to hang around and get involved at all if he had successfully got rid of Paul (by sending him off to find a copper) and only then killed Nichols.

That's right and I heartily agree. He clearly hadn't felt the need to hang around, indeed that's why Cross had left the scene and Neil found the dead woman alone.

As I mentioned earlier , there are strong indications that Neil may have, at least on previous occasions during the week Mulshawe was on duty , have been missing from his beat at times. This leaves us with the possibility that the killer was not expecting a policeman on the beat on Buck's-row at 3.45, if he had placed the location under any sort of observation. Therefore in my scenario, after Cross sent Paul away and the killed Nichols, it would be vital that Cross was not discovered leaving the scene by the Policeman sent by Paul – he would have to be cautious leaving the area as he would have no idea in which direction the man sent by Paul would come from.

If Cross saw (or heard) Neil approach the murder scene, and succeeded in avoided him, he would assume he had been sent by Paul, and further more assume Paul had headed off to work. Cross would then believe he was free to leave the area unhindered – which he did, only to interrupt Paul and Mizen having their little discussion. Cross was “a man passing” (literal)

The problem for Cross from that point on was the fact that both Mizen and Paul had now seen him, Paul had corroboration.

By the time Paul had found Mizen and brought or sent him back to what was now a murder scene, Lechmere could have been well away from Buck's Row, leaving Paul with no proof there was ever a second man there.

Yes, that's what he would have intended.

If, by some remote chance, Paul saw him again and recognised him, what could he have done if Lechmere had simply denied it and claimed mistaken identity?

No Lechmere could say Paul must have seen him there before – they use the same route to work , he would just deny seeing him on the actual day of the murder. Don't forget he had to be at Broad street by four, he would claim to have been long gone by the time the murder happened (“minutes” before Llewellyn arrived)

Having been seen by Mizen as well as Paul was the crux of the problem for Cross

Paul would have been the one facing all the tough questions, from that day to this, and we not even know the name of Cross or Lechmere today.

Paul was the one facing all the tough questions, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police and missed a days work because of it.

And btw, we (Osbourn) only found Lechmere's name in 2001.

[caz]

...If Cross was Nichols murderer then the explanation would be found in difference between Paul remarkable statement to the press and Cross's testimony to the inquest, and it should enable us to create a coherent explanation of the events

I believe my explanation just does that, Cross killed Nichols after he sent Paul to find a policeman. It also provides an explanation for everything else – including why the killer behaved like he did (the narrative driven killer), and why the 'Jack the Ripper' mystery isn't a mystery at all...

Hi Mr Lucky,

I'm afraid I just don't see why Lechmere would have felt any need to hang around and get involved at all if he had successfully got rid of Paul (by sending him off to find a copper) and only then killed Nichols.

By the time Paul had found Mizen and brought or sent him back to what was now a murder scene, Lechmere could have been well away from Buck's Row, leaving Paul with no proof there was ever a second man there. If, by some remote chance, Paul saw him again and recognised him, what could he have done if Lechmere had simply denied it and claimed mistaken identity? Paul would have been the one facing all the tough questions, from that day to this, and we not even know the name of Cross or Lechmere today.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr Lucky]

Hello Hermithead

I thought would intercede for a moment, as I feel some of the points you have raised are of a great deal of significance, particually regarding the interaction between Mizen, Paul and Cross.

As a bit of background, while I was willing to consider that Cross was the murderer for the simple but rational reasons that he was found at the crime scene and he's given a false name, I had by around 2010 had to give up on the standard version of events with Cross just dropping into the role of the killer and nothing else changing , similar to that proposed by Fish, as this still an gave the same incoherent version of events and the same series of problems -, trying to make sense of whats happened on Buck's-row.

However the main problem with Cross playing the role of the killer in the standard 1970's version of the murder is that the 70's interpretation is based on Cross's testimony. If he got away with the Nichols murder then he's done it by lying, not by turning up and correcting the authorities regarding Robert Paul'a radically different version presented in his remarkable statement published in Lloyd’s Weekly News 2 Sept 1888. If Cross was Nichols murderer then the explanation would be found in difference between Paul remarkable statement to the press and Cross's testimony to the inquest, and it should enable us to create a coherent explanation of the events

I believe my explanation just does that, Cross killed Nichols after he sent Paul to find a policeman. It also provides an explanation for everything else – including why the killer behaved like he did (the narrative driven killer), and why the 'Jack the Ripper' mystery isn't a mystery at all.

If the two co-witnesses Robert Paul and Charles Letchmere crossed paths at similar times on their way to work every morning then why would Letchmere risk carrying out the murder at this time and place?

Robert Paul was late that day, though Cross/Lechmere claimed he was, too. Also, after Neil had found the body he stated that the first members of the public he saw was a man passing through the street at the same time as the doctor was performing the examination (past 4.00 O'clock), if that was usual , quite a gap.

On the day of the murder Sgt Kirby was in the area, the local residents had complained about the lack of police protection, he was likely checking up on Neil who may not always have been as diligent as he was on the day of the murder. Watchman Mulshawe, stationed on nearby Winthrop street claim he only saw a policeman every two hours or so.

So, really the killer may have surveyed the area and was caught out by this change in routine, the two men (or just Paul, if Cross was the murderer) being late, and Neil going back on his regular beat knowing Sgt Kirby was on the prowl.

Or possibly the killer was just an opportunist

Either an opportunity presented itself in the form of victim prostitute Mary Ann (Polly) Nichols that he couldn’t refuse or he wasn’t the intelligent criminal we perceive the Ripper to be – which conflicts with his behaviour post-murder where it is believed that he crafted such a skilful lie that arouses no suspicion with PC Jonas Mizen.

Mizen knows nothing about the business, he cannot become suspicious about anything Cross says at all. Cross is lying for the benefit of Robert Paul (who does know something of the matter), Cross had to give Paul a reason for leaving the woman.

When Letchmere informs PC Jonas Mizen that “…a woman was lying on Buck’s Row and that another policeman requested his presence there” why does Robert Paul keep quiet and not refute this?

See above. Cross was informing Paul not Mizen

And If Paul had spoken up PC Mizen would be hearing two conflicting reports from two eye witnesses providing enough suspicion for PC MIzen to detain both men for further questioning.

Paul had told Mizen the woman was alive and there was a man with her , Mizen isn't interested.

Cross (a man passing) says the woman was dead and he was wanted by a policeman, Mizen leaves to investigate.

This is often how information arrives , initially we hear from someone with only a vague reference to the event in question who is then followed by the next person who has more details/exactitude. The Idea that Mizen should react with suspicion because the two men have slightly different information is simply something the ripperologist believe, neither of the men are being evasive – on the contrary they are both being helpful, so why should Mizen be suspicious of anything either of them said?

Upon coming across PC Mizen Charles Letchmere informs him that a woman is lying in the street “… and that another policeman requested his presence there”. This is believed to be a ruse by Letchmere in order to escape further questioning by PC Mizen however this does not appear to be officially confirmed by PC Neil other than he reports to have seen two slaughterhouse workman in the area around the same time. Are these men Letchmere and Paul? PC Neil doesn’t confirm this. Could these two unknown men who are at the scene at the time of the murder in slaughterhouse work wear that can easily explain away blood stains be the Ripper(s) instead?

There is enormous confusion caused by the 'two men' who were believed to be at the scene with Neil. This factor was central to the killer evading justice, if the killer was either Paul or Cross (or both)

Has there been any research into Robert Paul to the extent that it has been for Letchmere? Do we know if these men were known to each other prior to this event?

I have had no contact with any of his descendant, if they exist – and I have no idea if they do – for the very good reason that if they did have any lore or evidence that supported my claims then it would be in the best interests of both parties that there had been no contact between us.