Lechmere Triple Event

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;423212]

Hi Steve,

Very good.

What is your estimation for the minimum and the maximum time that he would have needed to do what you describe above?

Pierre

Pierre

Between 60 to 75 minutes.

However having thought about this I see no obvious reason for the location of the apron. It is not on a straight route between home and Mitre square , therefore a detour is required which may extend this by a few minutes.
I would suggest that practically 70 - 75 is the most likely.

We know the Apron is not recorded as being seen at 2.20, and is seen at 2.55.
I see no way in this hypothesis that the GSG could be done before 2.45 earliest

Has I said not impossible but very tight with a great chance of being caught while writing the GSG, given that the alarm was out by that stage, and we know people were stopped and questioned nearby.
If Lechmere were heading West he could say he was on his way home, but if going West it would be more difficult.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;423219]

Pierre

Between 60 to 75 minutes.

However having thought about this I see no obvious reason for the location of the apron. It is not on a straight route between home and Mitre square , therefore a detour is required which may extend this by a few minutes.
I would suggest that practically 70 - 75 is the most likely.

We know the Apron is not recorded as being seen at 2.20, and is seen at 2.55.
I see no way in this hypothesis that the GSG could be done before 2.45 earliest

Has I said not impossible but very tight with a great chance of being caught while writing the GSG, given that the alarm was out by that stage, and we know people were stopped and questioned nearby.
If Lechmere were heading West he could say he was on his way home, but if going West it would be more difficult.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Why would a straight route have mattered do you think?

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;423220]

Hi Steve,

Why would a straight route have mattered do you think?

Pierre

It is of course faster to go by the most direct route. But one may chose a less direct one if one is seeking to avoid attention, however that will certainly add time to the walk.
Of course on the way to home he may indeed go via Goulston street to get to the quickest route;
And while such may be used to explain the location, if the Apron is left on the way out of the area, that is not the suggestion.

I see no reason for it on way back unless the location itself as some particular relevance to the case. Other than just being the location it is left.

Any location where he could write the message would do, there was no need to leave it only a few minutes from the murder site. Yet of course under a different jurisdiction to the murder site itself.
Given the distribution of the murder sites the location chosen seems an odd one, if it is not on ones way out of the area or close to a secure location where the killer could stay.
In this hypothesis of course that is not the case at all.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;423199]

I think the same applies however be it wife or mother. I am aware of no sources which say his mother was domineering are you?

It's just another of those suggestions made over the Years which is possible but not backed by anything tangible.

Steve

No, there are no sources for Lechmere´s mother being domineering but Fisherman has constructed that hypothesis.

And the hypothesis about his domineering mother explains the choice of evidence placed in Goulston Street the 30th September 1888.

I don´t know why Fisherman has not been using it.

L cut the piece of apron from the rest of the apron. He symbolically cut the apron strings.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;423227]

No, there are no sources for Lechmere´s mother being domineering but Fisherman has constructed that hypothesis.

And the hypothesis about his domineering mother explains the choice of evidence placed in Goulston Street the 30th September 1888.

I don´t know why Fisherman has not been using it.

L cut the piece of apron from the rest of the apron. He symbolically cut the apron strings.

Pierre

I like that Pierre.. Apron strings!

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;423228]

I like that Pierre.. Apron strings!

Steve

Why?

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;423230]

Why?

Pierre

Because it is an obvious link to the Lechmere theory; but as you say not used.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;423235]

Because it is an obvious link to the Lechmere theory; but as you say not used.

Steve

OK. Well, I have never heard Fisherman speak about it.

So it is rather funny to hear you say it is "obvious".

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;423240]

OK. Well, I have never heard Fisherman speak about it.

So it is rather funny to hear you say it is "obvious".

Pierre

It's one of those which becomes obvious once you think about it.

Yes it made me smile.

To be honest not sure what his position on the GSG is ?
Does he think it's from the killer, or not related as I still believe.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;423245][QUOTE=Pierre;423240]

It's one of those which becomes obvious once you think about it.

Yes it made me smile.

Thank you, Steve.

Pierre

[ohrocky]

Pierre

On what basis do you conclude that CL's mother was "domineering" because "she had married more than once".

By extension of that argument you would have to conclude that ALL women who married more than once would have to be domineering, and that doesn't seem to be a particularly sensible line of reasoning.

[Pierre]

Pierre

On what basis do you conclude that CL's mother was "domineering" because "she had married more than once".

By extension of that argument you would have to conclude that ALL women who married more than once would have to be domineering, and that doesn't seem to be a particularly sensible line of reasoning.

Hi,

I do not conclude that at all.

It is an idea of Fisherman.

Here it is (he is talking about himself in third person here):

What Fisherman says is that many serialists have a background involving an absent father and a domineering mother.

Then Fisherman points to how Charles Lechmere had a lacking father figure, who left the family when Charles was but an infant - or perhaps even before he was born.

After that, Fisherman notices how Maria Louisa, Lechmeres mother changed jobs a number of times and married on three occasions, two of them seemingly bigamously, and how she somehow worked out a solution with Charles where she had one of his daughters staying with her. At that stage, Fisherman thought "Wow, that seems to be one resourceful woman"!

Fisherman then thought about how nobody got killed as long as Lechmere was living in close geographical proximity to his mother, whereas the murders started once he moved away from her.

Now, being the seasoned crusader that Fisherman is, he would NOT say that it iss a proven thing that Charles must have been swayed by his fathers absense to become a killer. Nor would he say that it is a proven thing that Lechmere´s mother WAS domineering.
He would only say: Absent father figure. SEEMINGLY resourceful mother, possibly domineering. On the surface a good fit for the sort of background many serialists have. End of.

Motive(s) of Lechmere-Cross, #5.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9162