Proving that Charles Lechmere is a very good suspect

[Gary Barnett]

Hold the front page!

The Daily News (C1) also speaks of a tarpaulin sheet.
As do the Eastern Argus (C4) and the IPN (C3), reporter C being one individual. (FMP let down.) So the question becomes why is the Lloyds report so distinct from the various C reports that it must have been written by a different reporter.

[R. J. Palmer]

A while back it was a party line. Now it’s tenets of a faith.

Insulting either way.

My apologies if you were offended, Gary. You don't seem to realize that I was using your own metaphor.

I fondly recall that you once remarked to someone on a Lechmere thread --in response to a rather crazy suggestion by one of Christer's acolytes--that "the church of Lechmere is big."

In other words, that someone can entertain suspicions against Lechmere without agreeing with the more fanatical members of the congregation.

I thought it was a rather apt and humous way of putting it. If you are now insulted by your own metaphor, I'm at a loss.

Is it not fair to say that blood copiously trickling out of Polly Nichols' throat is one of the major "tenets" of the Lechmere theory?

If Christer is wrong about the value of this blood evidence, the case against Lechmere all but collapses. Nichols could have been murdered ten minutes earlier, or fifteen, or more.

All that is left is a man who used his dead stepfather's name and happened to have connections to SGE.

That's not much.

[Gary Barnett]

My apologies if you were offended, Gary. You don't seem to realize that I was using your own metaphor.

I fondly recall that you once remarked to someone on a Lechmere thread --in response to a rather crazy suggestion by one of Christer's acolytes--that "the church of Lechmere is big."

In other words, that someone can entertain suspicions against Lechmere without agreeing with the more fanatical members of the congregation.

I thought it was a rather apt and humous way of putting it. If you are now insulted by your own metaphor, I'm at a loss.

Is it not fair to say that blood copiously trickling out of Polly Nichols throat is one of the major "tenants" of the Lechmere theory?

If Christer is wrong about the value of this blood evidence, the case against Lechmere all but collapses. Nichols could have been murdered ten minutes earlier, or fifteen, or more.

All that is then left is a man who used his dead stepfather's name and happened to have connections to SGE.

That's not much.

I wasn’t really offended. I have a fairly thick skin.

Did I say a big church or a broad one?

[Kattrup]

I gather that the East London Observer (inter alia) has the following in Lechmere's Inquest Testimony...

The Coroner:- "Did the other man tell you who he was?"

The Witness "No Sir. He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, but he was behind time. I was behind time myself."

M.

Thank you Mark. Yes, that exchange is known, I’m asking about the reverse, which Christer Holmgren has mentioned om his book.

[R. J. Palmer]

Here's one that may or may not irritate (or encourage) those who point the finger at horse-slaughterers or those in the cat's meat trade.

There is an American academic that has studied crime rates and insists that the data shows that where there are large slaughter-houses, the rate of violent crime increases.

I was initially very skeptical of this study, but her data seems to tentatively support this thesis.

She also checked the data against other industries. It only applies to slaughter-houses, with the theory that murdering animals has a demoralizing influence on the community.

However, she was quick to point out that there was no evidence that it was those who worked in the slaughterhouses who were responsible for the increased crime rate. She wrote that she was going study this possibility next.

[Gary Barnett]

Here's one that may or may not irritate (or encourage) those who point the finger at horse-slaughterers or those in the cat's meat trade.

There is an American academic that has studied crime rates and insists that the data shows that where there are large slaughter-houses, the rate of violent crime increases.

I was initially very skeptical of this study, but her data seems to tentatively support this thesis.

She also checked the data against other industries. It only applies to slaughter-houses, with the theory that murdering animals has a demoralizing influence on the community.

However, she was quick to point out that there was no evidence that it was those who worked in the slaughterhouses who were responsible for the increased crime rate. She wrote that she was going study this possibility next.

I think I’ve heard of this or something similar. The one thing that occurs to me is that there would have been slaughterhouses in most communities of any size back in the day. And unless you’re living next door to a slaughterhouse or close enough to be aware of it and allow its presence to prey on your mind, how can it have an impact on your behaviour?

[Michael Banks]

From David O.

https://www.orsam.co.uk/specialstatementlordo.htm

[Christer Holmgren]

If Christer is wrong about the value of this blood evidence, the case against Lechmere all but collapses. Nichols could have been murdered ten minutes earlier, or fifteen, or more.

All that is left is a man who used his dead stepfather's name and happened to have connections to SGE.

That's not much.

As always, major point against Lechmere is skipped over in favor of a suggestion that the case rests on a single matter only, more or less.

It does not, and it never did.

When Osborne and Connor made their cases, it was not originally know that the carman used an alias, and the blood evidence I refer to was not used. And a case was nevertheless made!

What you seem to forget here, R J, are, for example:

-The disagreement with the police.

-The refusal to help prop Nichols up.

-The geographical correlations.

-The covered up wounds.

-Tha lacking information that either man noticed the other before meeting outside Browns.

Since you and I alike seem to like the word "tedious", this is a very good opportunity to make use of it.

And of course, the foreshadowed demise and collapse that you are linking to a future revelation about how the blood evidence does not hold up, is nothing more than that: An "if...so" moment, that has never arrived. What HAS arrived is two renowned and very experienced forensic pathologists who agree that Nichols should have bled out in three to five minutes, if she followed what they consider to be the expected development.Unwelcome though that may be to you, that does not weaken the blood evidence factor. It strengthens it.

[Christer Holmgren]

Here's one that may or may not irritate (or encourage) those who point the finger at horse-slaughterers or those in the cat's meat trade.

There is an American academic that has studied crime rates and insists that the data shows that where there are large slaughter-houses, the rate of violent crime increases.

I was initially very skeptical of this study, but her data seems to tentatively support this thesis.

She also checked the data against other industries. It only applies to slaughter-houses, with the theory that murdering animals has a demoralizing influence on the community.

However, she was quick to point out that there was no evidence that it was those who worked in the slaughterhouses who were responsible for the increased crime rate. She wrote that she was going study this possibility next.

There are many studies confirming the desensitizing effect the establishment of slaughterhouses has in a society. Of course, anybody who is exposed to slaughtering and cutting up animals, regardless of they themselves are doing the job, are at risk.

[Christer Holmgren]

Thank you Mark. Yes, that exchange is known, I’m asking about the reverse, which Christer Holmgren has mentioned om his book.

You are correct, Kattrup, there is no word by word mentioning of Lechmere telling Paul about he himself being late in any of the reports. What there is in many papers, is the sentences Mark mentioned:

"He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, but he was behind time. I was behind time myself."

... meaning that Paul, according to Lechmere, indicated that if it was not for how he was late, he would have fetched a policeman and brought him to the spot. He thereby of course transferred any such responsibility to Lechmere, and what followed was that, according to the Daily News:

"He (Paul, my remark) and the man discussed what was best to be done, and they decided that they ought to acquaint the first policeman they met with what they had discovered."

So, short of any of the men being willing to on their own seek out a PC and bring him to the spot, the two decided between them to leave Nichols lying and head for work, in the hope of finding a PC en route who they could direct to the spot. So they swopped making sure that one or both of them fetched a PC for the uncertain hope of running into one along the way.

To me, that clearly indicates that Lechmere, on hearing about how Pauls being late stopped him from fetching a PC, informed Paul that he too was unable to fetch that PC on accord of being late himself - but as I said, it is not spelt out as "I told the other man that I too was late", it is only inferred, so I could have been clearer on the matter. That probably goes for other matters too, although one does ones best, more can always be done.

[Christer Holmgren]

From David O.

https://www.orsam.co.uk/specialstatementlordo.htm

I never bother to read what David Orsam has to say, so if you want any sort of response from me, you need to have points of your own to present.

If you do not feel up to it, I think there is no need to reiterate anything further by now. It has been established that we cannot know whether or not Lechmere actually said "about" 3.30, and it has been established that far from not mentioning in Cutting Point that Lechmere MAY have used the word "about", I have actually quoted Lechmeres testimony from the Daily News, including the passage where he is quoted (correctly or incorrectly) as saying that he left home "about" 3.30!

I have freely admitted that I would have expanded on the potential problems linked to him perhaps having used the word "about" if I had at the time of writing realized that it could be experienced as something that needed to be expanded on - but I didn´t.

I have also pointed out that the whole matter is - in my view - a storm in a teacup, because even if he DID use the word "about", all that happens is that instead of my saying that "IF he started out at 3.30, then that opens up a gap of eight minutes", I would instead have said "IF he started out at around 3,30, then that opens up a gap of around eight minutes". The if remains in either case, and I have never suggested otherwise.

And of course, "about" 3.30 does not infer that he was speaking of a time space of 3.30 and some time after. It infers a time space of 3.30 and some time before or after. Meaning that if he started out at 3.28, a gap of ten minutes is opened up.

This is the long and the short of things as far as I´m concerned, and you are going to have to produce something more than untrue claims that Cutting Point does not present how Lechmere may have used the word "about" to make me feel that there is anything further to discuss by now. And your disliking where in the "Making a Ripper Case against Charles Lechmere" section the quotation is printed is not that something more. The material is there, contrary to what you claimed.

Others will have to make their own minds up about it now.

[Kattrup]

You are correct, Kattrup, there is no word by word mentioning of Lechmere telling Paul about he himself being late in any of the reports. What there is in many papers, is the sentences Mark mentioned:

"He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, but he was behind time. I was behind time myself."

... meaning that Paul, according to Lechmere, indicated that if it was not for how he was late, he would have fetched a policeman and brought him to the spot. He thereby of course transferred any such responsibility to Lechmere, and what followed was that, according to the Daily News:

"He (Paul, my remark) and the man discussed what was best to be done, and they decided that they ought to acquaint the first policeman they met with what they had discovered."

So, short of any of the men being willing to on their own seek out a PC and bring him to the spot, the two decided between them to leave Nichols lying and head for work, in the hope of finding a PC en route who they could direct to the spot. So they swopped making sure that one or both of them fetched a PC for the uncertain hope of running into one along the way.

To me, that clearly indicates that Lechmere, on hearing about how Pauls being late stopped him from fetching a PC, informed Paul that he too was unable to fetch that PC on accord of being late himself - but as I said, it is not spelt out as "I told the other man that I too was late", it is only inferred, so I could have been clearer on the matter. That probably goes for other matters too, although one does ones best, more can always be done.

ok, thanks

[Edward Stow]

The blood flows as argued over here are only one aspect of the case against Lechmere based on the time of death.
In other words suggestions (that the jury would not like) that Polly was murdered very close in time to when Lechmere was seen (or found) by Paul standing very close to the body are not just based on the rate at which the blood flows, runs or ouzes out of a dead body.

Firstly, Paul noticed a tremor of some sort. Perhaps the last death gasp of the victim. The coroner noted that when 'Cross' and Paul were with the body, life may not have been totally extinct.
Secondly Dr Llewellyn estimated that the victim had been killed around half an hour before his inspection, which would have been more or less when Paul met Lechmere. We can argue the pros and cons of the value of this estimation... but in terms of evidence it is better to have it than not to have it... and the jury would not like it.
Thirdly, and this is related to the blood evidence, neither Paul nor Lechmere reported seeing blood (they blamed it on the darkness) despite being very close to the body - literally in touching distance. A lot of touching went on - indeed I know of no other victim in the Whitechapel Murder sequence where such touching and prodding went on. Neither did they step in the blood that seems to have pooled around her, nor got blood transfers on their hands or clothes - unless (which is hugely unlikely) they both decided to keep quiet about it. Whereas the blood became a matter of discussion for subsequent witnesses. This suggests the blood hadn't formed then.
Fourthly, a tangential point perhaps, Polly's abdominal wounds were covered and the victim was not left 'on display' unlike other victims in the series with abdominal wounds. This suggests the culprit was disturbed - by 'Cross' or Paul. They are the only known possible 'disturbers' - and given that the possible culprit who might have been disturbed by 'Cross' is an unknown, it is reasonable to take a good long hard look at 'Cross' as a suspect...

...and we find he is actually called Lechmere and we have the Mizen scam and the geography and that delay in presenting himself and the coarse apron at the inquest etc etc etc.
And the jury would not like it.

[Michael Banks]

I never bother to read what David Orsam has to say, so if you want any sort of response from me, you need to have points of your own to present.

Hardly surprising considering how he so meticulously and thoroughly pulled apart your arguments.

If you do not feel up to it,

Ah, the usual, well-rehearsed condescension.

I think there is no need to reiterate anything further by now. It has been established that we cannot know whether or not Lechmere actually said "about" 3.30, and it has been established that far from not mentioning in Cutting Point that Lechmere MAY have used the word "about", I have actually quoted Lechmeres testimony from the Daily News, including the passage where he is quoted (correctly or incorrectly) as saying that he left home "about" 3.30!

Or, using reality, we can see that only 2 out of 9 reports said ‘3.30,’ whereas 5 said ‘about 3.30.’ This is beyond debate.

The fact that you used the Daily News quote is pretty desperate stuff considering that it was in a different section of the book. Are you seriously suggesting that a casual reader would say, when reading the actual section on the ‘gap’ - “hold on, didn’t it say ‘about’ in the quote in the previous paragraph?” And even if the reader had thought that what’s to say that he wouldn’t have thought that it was simply a one off. “After all, the author is telling me that the majority of newspaper reports said that Lechmere had told them that he’d left the house at 3.30.” How would that reader know that it wasn’t true.

I have freely admitted that I would have expanded on the potential problems linked to him perhaps having used the word "about" if I had at the time of writing realized that it could be experienced as something that needed to be expanded on - but I didn´t.

So you didn’t realise that by telling your readers, in the chapter on the gap, that Lechmere left the house at 3.30, that your readers wouldn’t have come to the conclusion that he’d left the house at 3.30?

I have also pointed out that the whole matter is - in my view - a storm in a teacup, because even if he DID use the word "about", all that happens is that instead of my saying that "IF he started out at 3.30, then that opens up a gap of eight minutes", I would instead have said "IF he started out at around 3,30, then that opens up a gap of around eight minutes". The if remains in either case, and I have never suggested otherwise.

By correctly adding the word ‘about’ we add the very real possibility that he’d left the house at 3.34 or 3.35 and the gap disappears (unless of course you try to suggest that it was proven that the body was discovered at 3.44 - oh, you do.) The gap is a manipulation of the facts.

And of course, "about" 3.30 does not infer that he was speaking of a time space of 3.30 and some time after. It infers a time space of 3.30 and some time before or after. Meaning that if he started out at 3.28, a gap of ten minutes is opened up.

As I’ve said many times. He could have left the house at 3.25 of course but equally he could have left at 3.35. The point is that we cannot know exactly what time he left te house and we cannot know exactly what time he found the body. Therefore reason and logic tell us that we cannot postulate a gap of time. The very best we can say is that there might have been a gap or there might not have been.

This is the long and the short of things as far as I´m concerned, and you are going to have to produce something more than untrue claims that Cutting Point does not present how Lechmere may have used the word "about" to make me feel that there is anything further to discuss by now. And your disliking where in the "Making a Ripper Case against Charles Lechmere" section the quotation is printed is not that something more. The material is there, contrary to what you claimed.

Everything that I’ve said is 100% true and proven…with no wriggling involved.

Others will have to make their own minds up about it now.

Ok, a simple question

Do you now accept that most papers did not speak of Lechmere saying that he left home ‘at 3.30?’ If however you still maintain that most papers did indeed say this, could you identify them for us please?

[Christer Holmgren]

.
..etc etc etc.
And the jury would not like it.

That is very true. The case against Lechmere is in many ways a very complete case, the reason being the many facets there are to it, where there seems to be reason to suspect the carman. In that respect, and in combination with the timing issue, I would once again press the point about how Lechmere´s timing fits well with what was indicated by the police timing, indicating that Lechmere found the body at around 3.40. This timing was clearly suggested by how the PC:s spoke of having been inserted into the case around 3.45. And that time was given by PC Neil not only at the inquest but also in the interviews preceding it.

It can therefore be suggested by the prosecution that a guilty Charles Lechmere read up on what was written, and realized that the police timings indicated that he should have been in Bucks Row outside Browns at an approximate time of 3.40. It can be further be suggested that if he was the killer and wanted to look innocent, then he needed to claim that he only left home at around 3.30 or somewhat later.
There would be nothing about that timing that a jury would not like - it would be in an approximate sync with a 3.40 finding of the body.

But once Baxter altered the carmans finding time to 3.45ish, the likelihood of a time gap is opened up on account of Lechmere that suggests that he was in Bucks Row way before Robert Paul arrived. And that means that Lechmere´s timing suddenly becomes something that reeks of possible guilt, and that is decidedly something the prosecution would positively love but a jury would dislike, not least in combination with the many other pills they would need to swallow to accept innocence. In fact, once the suggested time gap is coupled with how Paul and Lechmere never admitted to having noticed the other man, it all looks like fitting pieces of a guilty jigsaw puzzle. And no, a jury would not like that at all, not one bit of it.