Favorite suspect/s?

[caz]

But Caz, you don´t know that Lechmere was a killer in my mind only. What a disastrous thing to say. I am supposed to be the biased one, but here you are, one by one, professing to much worse bias yourself! Steve goes on about how it is proven that Paul was within earshot, Herlock says that the geographical ties Lechmere had to St Georges are irrelevant, Gareth says that disagreeing with the police over what was said in combination with a murder is not a red flag and now you present a theory that Lechmere cannot have been the killer other than in my mind...?

It is a pretty ugly exhibition of bias in my eyes!

You then, somewhat mysteriously, move on to claim that I would have said that Lechmere could go on killing after Bucks Row, relying on having an innocent reason to give for his presence at the murder sites...?

Just where did you get THAT from? I never said anything remotely like it. I instead say that he burnt that option in Bucks Row. Have you not read that? Seen that? Heard me saying that?
So why accuse me of having said something I have never even hinted at?

You go on by suggesting that since he burnt his innocense ship down to the ground(or surface...?) in Bucks Row, he should have taken his business elsewhere afterwards, instead of killing in places he was associated with.

Caz, if only!

If only the world was a pretty place! If only people behaved the way we expect them to!

But you know, neither applies.

Have a look at how many killers who have been caught, where it has been subsequently shown that they have killed along paths they were associated with.

Guess how the phrase "comfort zone" was invented?

Lechmere was not under suspicion. Nobody was interested in his paths, or compared them to the murder sites. He was just as free to murder away as any other serial killer has been over the years, and he took the same kind of advantage of it as they have done: he killed within his comfort zone.

Have you noticed how killers tend to get nicknames that are geographically based? The East Area rapist, for example. Or even worse, the Visalia ransacker! The Green River killer. The Sacramento Vampire. The Boston Strangler.

That is because they - in spite of how smart it would be to change hunting grounds - stick with a confined territory.

In Lechmeres case, it also applies that he would not have had all the time in the world to go to Leith, Banbury, Cropredy and Anchorage to confuse the police. But sine they had no clue who the killer was, they had nobody to pin the geography on, and Berner Street and Mitre Square would have helped immensely to erase the tracks leading to Lechmere.

So basically, if you are asking "would he not be smarter if he spread his venues more?", you get a wholehearted YES from me.

But if you instead ask "Should we not expect that he would have spread his venues more?", I´m afraid it is a no.

I apologise, Fish [don't faint!], for misunderstanding your geography argument. I genuinely believed you were trying to argue that Lechmere chose his murder locations according to where he'd always have an innocent explanation ready for being there, as you appear to believe he did when he was happy to kill in Buck's Row, on his way to work.

My argument has been that a guilty Lechmere would have been only too well aware of the fact that it had been a close call on that occasion, and unless he was a total fvckwit he would do everything to avoid being seen with a future victim anywhere, but if he had any sense he would also avoid killing in locations which provided an association with him after the event with reference to his known movements and whereabouts in time and place. I believe you argued that by calling himself Cross, he could prevent people who only knew him as Lechmere making those kind of connections and becoming suspicious. That would imply his awareness of the risk of killing in locations that could be associated with the name Lechmere.

If your theory is that he killed in such locations, despite that close call in Buck's Row and regardless of the risk of setting up another geographical association with each new murder, or perhaps because he simply couldn't see this was a risk, it might work if you are willing to concede that he would have taken the greatest care never to be seen with another victim, in which case you would need to argue that he was not the man seen with Chapman, nor one of the men seen with Stride, nor the man seen with Eddowes, nor any of the men seen with Kelly, and therefore none of these men was the ripper.

Is that what you have always believed? Or is it something you will now believe because it doesn't make sense that Lechmere would have engaged with any of his subsequent victims in front of witnesses?

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

Following on, when Neil said that he was the finder of the body and that it was not true that two men had found it before him, Mizen had a reaffirmation of the carmans story.

Everything added up AS LONG AS NEIL STUCK TO HIS STORY.

Not quite, Christer. Neil’s statements make it clear that he hadn’t sent 2 men to get assistance, so that goes against the carman’s story.

Mizen must have been flummoxed, to say the least, by the developments that ensued. I think there is every chance that he will have asked himself where things did not add up, and that he may have weighed in the possibility that he himself could have in some way misheard or misunderstood the carmans words.

If Mizen actually did ask himself where things did not add up, he certainly missed the discrepancy between what Lechmere told him about the woman’s condition (just “There’s a woman lying in the street”) and seeing that her throat was severely cut. He certainly doesn't seem to have wondered about that one.

The best,
Frank

[caz]

Says you. I know. And I disagree. I would have considered it reckless and stupid to run.

It is called a disagreement.

The alternative to Lechmere being the killer and hanging around for the next man to arrive at the scene, was someone who didn't hang around for Lechmere to get there, but ran - or even walked - away. Lechmere could have turned out to be a copper, just like Paul could have been. And PC Neil was not long behind either of them.

This 'reckless and stupid' behaviour served anyone other than Lechmere well enough, and it would also have allowed anyone other than Lechmere the luxury of being seen subsequently with one or more of his victims without the Buck's Row association to worry about. Not so Lechmere, who really would have been reckless and stupid ever to let himself be seen again, either in the company of a future victim, or even somewhere frequented by prostitutes.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

on your last point-I think the reasoning is, once Paulhad mentioned him in the press, Lech felt like he needed to come forward.

Hi Abby,

Would Lechmere not have presumed that PC Mizen had dutifully reported his encounter with two men, before Paul went to the papers?

That would surely have been more reason for Lechmere to come forward with his account, not knowing what Mizen may already have said about him to his superiors, rather than because of anything Paul said in the paper, which included no description and nothing to suggest the 'other man' had said or done anything that put him in a bad light.

It's Mizen who had the real need to come forward once Paul had mentioned - and condemned him in the press. He was the one whose behaviour was under the spotlight because of Paul. A guilty Lechmere only had Mizen to fear, and coming forward made it a certainty that he would have to stand his ground if the PC accused him outright of lying, either on the night or at the inquest - or on both occasions.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

It’s reasonable to say that Paul would have heard CL walking away but that in itself wouldn’t have made him suspicious of course. By the time that he reached the site CL could have been 30-40 yards away in the dark. In the dark Paul would have seen the shape on the ground on the other side of the road. He might not have gone over but if he hid, then had a closer look, then perhaps given her a shake to see if she responded, then perhaps checked for a pulse (this might have taken up another 30 seconds to a minute, by which time CL would have been say 100 yards away in the dark. Then if he does start shouting “police, murder” is it likely that a policeman would detain someone that he saw walking along a street 150 yards away from that distant voice?

Hi HS,

In that scenario, Paul would have been the prime suspect if he'd got any blood on him from touching CL's victim, because raising the alarm doesn't prove innocence. He would arguably have had to shout "police, murder" if he heard the heavy tread of the beat copper's boots approaching while he was checking the woman's pulse.

So in fact, the killer had to be better off leaving the innocent finder alone, having to explain himself.

This option for a guilty CL surely would be preferable to calling someone over who would undoubtedly suggest that they find a constable with CL in possession of the murder weapon and ‘possibly’ with Nichols blood on him (in the dark he couldn’t be certain of being completely blood-free.) Added to that CL immediately announces himself as being alone with the body and with no one else around to suspect.

Ah but HS, you forget - CL wouldn't necessarily have had much, if any blood on him. Expert opinion. Now, whether CL knew that or not doesn't really matter because a psychopath - and he'd have been one if he was the killer - would have taken that risk anyway, believing he could control any situation or any pesky witness.

The evidence for this is the fact that everyone did dance to CL's tune and he did get away, without any blood or weapon found on him!

QED

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

In your world, any person in the copper-hating East End would "undoubtedly suggest" that they go searching for a constable, in spite of how they did not even know that there was a crime involved.

Says all.

And these kinds of grounds and insights are what you build your picture of Andy Griffiths being "idiotic" on.

Brrrrr!!!!!

You were addressing Herlock above, Fish, but were you seriously suggesting Lechmere was psychic, and could rely on the next man to arrive on the scene not only not being a copper, but being a cop hater, who would, on assessing the woman's condition, not even suspect foul play, despite her head nearly being off?

The fact remains that whatever this cop-hating Eastender thought the matter was with this woman, he did suggest that they go in search of a cop, and Lechmere meekly went along with it. For a man supposedly so in control of the situation, why did he need to let that happen? What could Paul have said or done if Lechmere said he was already late for work because he'd stopped to look at the woman, and would get the sack if he stopped again to tell a copper about it, so it was up to Paul if he thought the matter serious enough to do so himself? So much the better that Paul was his witness that neither of them knew that a crime was involved at that stage. If Lechmere was ever tracked down, that would be his explanation: couldn't afford to get the sack; no more idea than Paul that the woman was a murder victim; Paul had agreed to do the reporting.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

As the original comment was an answer to a question of if the lack of change was an oversight, my answer is perfect clear,
While it could be, it is more likely not to be, but the reason for it need not suspecious.

The alternative answer is pure fantasy, like much of the case against Lechmere.

The posts are becoming increasing surreal in nature, in keeping with my suggestions yesterday.


Steve

I understood what you meant, Steve. I put it down to English not being Fisherman's mother tongue. But maybe that was being too generous.

You were saying it was more likely that some reason other than an oversight was behind only Cross appearing on the record, but that reason [whatever it was] need not have been suspicious.

You were not saying anything at all about whether the reason itself was more or less likely to be suspicious. How could you, without knowing what that reason might have been?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The "oops" was, I think, in response to Fisherman's statement that "we should treat people as being truthful and honest until it can be proven that they are not"... which doesn't quite tally with Fisherman's approach to Cross's testimony.

Quite so, Gareth. Thank you for explaining it to Abby for me. He apparently thought that the 'discrepancy' with the cop, and using the name Cross - which may or may not have been the one he commonly used at work, for example - was enough to prove that Lechmere was not being truthful and honest.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

seems to me like he was using cross at work and lech more commonly.

Tell that to Fish, Abby. His argument appears to be that nobody at Pickfords would have connected the Buck's Row witness, calling himself Charles Allen Cross, with their employee and carman, Charles Allen Lechmere.

The alternative would be to concede that if his suspect had always been known as Cross at work, he'd naturally have gone by that name when needing time off work to attend the inquest.

That would make far too much sense and be far too simple. And it wouldn't even make Lechmere innocent! On the contrary, it would have been safer for the killer to use a name that would check out if the police wanted to confirm what business he had being in Buck's Row at that hour.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Lechmere's Day Off

If the police stopped someone for questioning in the immediate wake of a grisly murder at say 3.00am would they be particularly impressed with the explaination “I’m just on my way to paying my mum a visit?”

Not if the same man had said "I was just on my way to work" when the grisly murder of Nichols took place.

If Lechmere killed even one victim on his day off, when he had the freedom and excuse to come and go as he pleased, and at his leisure, one wonders why on earth he'd have chosen to kill on the way to work at all. If most men had the same day off, a Sunday, he couldn't be suspected or accused on the basis of all the murders being committed on "Lechmere's Day Off".

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

Quite right Gary, but so would Backchurch Lane, Batty and Christian Street, Berner beung the middle option.
Not the most obvious route to either Doveton Street or Broad Street, but certainly possible.

Steve

A question for you, Steve. Have you ever used an OS map and a map measurer when walking around an area you have been familiar with for decades to make sure your route wasn't a few yards longer than necessary?

I know I haven't.

[Elamarna]

A question for you, Steve. Have you ever used an OS map and a map measurer when walking around an area you have been familiar with for decades to make sure your route wasn't a few yards longer than necessary?

I know I haven't.

Of course not Gary, and why i said "certainly possible.". Not Ruling out at all.

However, i sense a change in the argument from Fish, if not going to his mothers, meeting his Mates for a drink. Not convinced such is a strong argument.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Tell that to Fish, Abby. His argument appears to be that nobody at Pickfords would have connected the Buck's Row witness, calling himself Charles Allen Cross, with their employee and carman, Charles Allen Lechmere.

The alternative would be to concede that if his suspect had always been known as Cross at work, he'd naturally have gone by that name when needing time off work to attend the inquest.

That would make far too much sense and be far too simple. And it wouldn't even make Lechmere innocent! On the contrary, it would have been safer for the killer to use a name that would check out if the police wanted to confirm what business he had being in Buck's Row at that hour.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

But why didn't he even mention that his 'real' name was Lechmere? Is it likely that it didn't even occur to him to mention that he normally identified himself to the authorities by that name?

'I'm known at work as Charlie Cross - Cross was my stepdad's name - but my real name is Charles allen Lechmere', sort of thing?

Gary

[MrBarnett]

Of course not Gary, and why i said "certainly possible.". Not Ruling out at all.

However, i sense a change in the argument from Fish, if not going to his mothers, meeting his Mates for a drink. Not convinced such is a strong argument.


Steve

Do we really need to pin people down to the precise wording of their theories? Charles Lechmere had a long-standing connection to the area where Liz Stride was killed. His mother and daughter were living a short walk away in 1888. He probably still had schoolmates, drinking buddies etc in the area. However, his strongest ties would presumably have been the family ones.

Is that a 'strong' argument for his guilt.? Of course not. No proof, or even strong evidence in my opinion, but as a narrative the theory works for me.

[Elamarna]

Do we really need to pin people down to the precise wording of their theories? Charles Lechmere had a long-standing connection to the area where Liz Stride was killed. His mother and daughter were living a short walk away in 1888. He probably still had schoolmates, drinking buddies etc in the area. However, his strongest ties would presumably have been the family ones.

Is that a 'strong' argument for his guilt.? Of course not. No proof, or even strong evidence in my opinion, but as a narrative the theory works for me.

Hi Gary

Yes of course it works as a narrative, however has i have said several times, in connection to Stride, what applies to Lechmere, also applies to Kosminski. Possible but thats as far as we can go I think.

Do we need to tie people down to pricise wordings of theories, well i think that depends entirely on how the theory is presented, if its "this could have happened", then no.


If however we are suggesting something is not just possible, but almost certain then yes the wording is important in my opinion and needs to be much more pricise with supporting evidence.


Steve