Tweet
Barnaby:
"I'm more interested in the contemporary police's handling of Cross/Lechmere. As you have stated, we have a person of interest placed at the scene of the murder for an undetermined amount of time. Additonal murders then occur on this person's route to work. Finally, this person lied about his identity.
It doesn't take modern forensics to conclude that this guy is suspicious. So the contemporary police were either completely incompetent or he provided them with information that exonerated himself."
To be fair, the police seemingly did not know that he lied about his identity. I donīt think the police incompetence involved knowing about the nameswop and the potential coupling of the murder sites and his way to work. Nor would they have known about where his mother and daughter lived, so they would not have seen the potential coupling to the Stride case either.
So itīs not that kind of gross incompetence we are looking at, at any rate. But we may well be looking at a failure to check out the identity of a man who was alone with a murder victim, and that per se is a very flagrant mistake. And, of course, if they HAD checked his name and found out about the nameswop, that would probably have set the ball in motion, and more research into Lechmere would arguably have provided them with the work route, his momīs address etcetera.
So itīs a case of making one important slip-up, the way I think it went down.
You second suggestion, that he perhaps gave them information that exonerated himself, yes, this may have happened. But if it did, the material has gone lost, and was never touched upon in any memoirs or such.
My own contention is that the police thought that contacting a PC on the murder morning and reporting in to a police station on the following Sunday were things that clinched his innocence for them. Taken together with his twenty steady years of work at Pickfordīs and his status as a family man, they would have felt very safe that he didnīt tick any of the boxes they believed to be at hand.
Where they would have missed out - if I am correct - is in relation to Robert Paul and the implications his arrival at the murder scene brought to the drama. One key to underrstanding this is given to us when Swanson in an October report writes that Nichols was found by two carmen on their way to work - that goes to show that the critical thinking needed was not in place visavi Lechmere.
Great post anyhow, Barnaby - it does not take modern forensics to conclude that suspicion must attach to Lechmere, just like you say. It is a very obvious thing. And very, very controversial - for one reason or another.
All the best,
Fisherman
"I'm more interested in the contemporary police's handling of Cross/Lechmere. As you have stated, we have a person of interest placed at the scene of the murder for an undetermined amount of time. Additonal murders then occur on this person's route to work. Finally, this person lied about his identity.
It doesn't take modern forensics to conclude that this guy is suspicious. So the contemporary police were either completely incompetent or he provided them with information that exonerated himself."
To be fair, the police seemingly did not know that he lied about his identity. I donīt think the police incompetence involved knowing about the nameswop and the potential coupling of the murder sites and his way to work. Nor would they have known about where his mother and daughter lived, so they would not have seen the potential coupling to the Stride case either.
So itīs not that kind of gross incompetence we are looking at, at any rate. But we may well be looking at a failure to check out the identity of a man who was alone with a murder victim, and that per se is a very flagrant mistake. And, of course, if they HAD checked his name and found out about the nameswop, that would probably have set the ball in motion, and more research into Lechmere would arguably have provided them with the work route, his momīs address etcetera.
So itīs a case of making one important slip-up, the way I think it went down.
You second suggestion, that he perhaps gave them information that exonerated himself, yes, this may have happened. But if it did, the material has gone lost, and was never touched upon in any memoirs or such.
My own contention is that the police thought that contacting a PC on the murder morning and reporting in to a police station on the following Sunday were things that clinched his innocence for them. Taken together with his twenty steady years of work at Pickfordīs and his status as a family man, they would have felt very safe that he didnīt tick any of the boxes they believed to be at hand.
Where they would have missed out - if I am correct - is in relation to Robert Paul and the implications his arrival at the murder scene brought to the drama. One key to underrstanding this is given to us when Swanson in an October report writes that Nichols was found by two carmen on their way to work - that goes to show that the critical thinking needed was not in place visavi Lechmere.
Great post anyhow, Barnaby - it does not take modern forensics to conclude that suspicion must attach to Lechmere, just like you say. It is a very obvious thing. And very, very controversial - for one reason or another.
All the best,
Fisherman
Comment