What was Kosminski is now Lechmere: how relevant is Scobie?

[Fiver]

What coincidences? We don't know what route he took to work. We don't know when he visited his mother. Its all absolute nonsense.

From the inquest testimony of Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul, we know that Nichols and Chapman were killed on Lechmere's route to work. Of course, it was also Robert Paul's route to work. Inconveniently for the theory, Chapman was killed after both Lechmere and Paul had started work.

[Elamarna]

From the inquest testimony of Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul, we know that Nichols and Chapman were killed on Lechmere's route to work. Of course, it was also Robert Paul's route to work. Inconveniently for the theory, Chapman was killed after both Lechmere and Paul had started work.

Actually we don't even KNOW that 29 Hanbury street was on Lechmere's normal route to work at all, only that it was on the route he walked, as presumably he conversed with Paul, that particular morning.
There were and are routes, that do not require going as far along Hanbury street as number 29, he could turn off Hanbury before he reached Brick Lane.
This doesn't even take into account the possible alternative enterances to Pickford's other than Eldond St.
All of which I cover in detail in my work.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And Lechmere's walk to work didn't take him anywhere near George Yard. This is another lie by the "documentary".


Dutfield's Yard was not on Lechmere's route home from his mother's house. This is another lie by the "documentary".


And the place [Miller's Court] is blocks away from Lechmere's route to work. This is another lie by the "documentary".

Some more quotes from the documentary:


'Martha Tabram was murdered in a stairwell, just yards from Old Montague Street, [on] one of the most direct routes in Charles Lechmere's walks to work.'

'Chapman was killed in the back yard of a house that also lay on one of Lechmere's routes to work.'

'Three killings occurring on his early morning routes to work.'


How could the documentary-makers know that Lechmere had more than one route to work?


I did raise the same point as yours about Berner Street not being on Lechmere's route home from his mother's house, but someone retorted that she did not live in Cable Street, as previously thought, but in Mary Ann Street, which was immediately south of Berner Street.

My question is: if Lechmere walked northwards upon leaving his mother's house, because he was on his way home, why did he not then walk north-eastwards to Bethnal Green but instead walk a mile westwards to the City of London?

[Fiver]

I did raise the same point as yours about Berner Street not being on Lechmere's route home from his mother's house, but someone retorted that she did not live in Cable Street, as previously thought, but in Mary Ann Street, which was immediately south of Berner Street.

My question is: if Lechmere walked northwards upon leaving his mother's house, because he was on his way home, why did he not then walk north-eastwards to Bethnal Green but instead walk a mile westwards to the City of London?

Cable Street is south of Berner Street, but it is not on Lechmere's route home (Time to plug the JTR map). Berner did not go through to Mary Ann Street.

Lechmere's shortest route would have been east on Mary Ann, north on Stutfield, east on Ellen, north on Christian, etc. Berner was in the wrong direction.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Cable Street is south of Berner Street, but it is not on Lechmere's route home (Time to plug the JTR map). Berner did not go through to Mary Ann Street.

Lechmere's shortest route would have been east on Mary Ann, north on Stutfield, east on Ellen, north on Christian, etc. Berner was in the wrong direction.

Most of Cable Street was actually south-east of Berner Street.

I agree with your route, as there was no easier route from Mary Ann Street to Berner Street, and Bethnal Green was north-east of Mary Ann Street, not north of it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I'd want to ask Scobie a) why he didn't query how Cross himself could have given such an accurate time for leaving home, in an era when clocks were universally known to be less than reliable, and b) why the killer would have told the truth about when he left home, if it left him with a significant gap that he could - and should - have been asked to explain at the time.

I'm no barrister, but if I can see the problem here a mile off, I wonder why Scobie apparently missed it.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Anyone would think that Scobie spent almost no time looking into the actual evidence.

[caz]

If he wasn't the killer, then he was the unluckiest person in the world, because he suddenly developed some sort of habit of always passing by as somebody was killed in those streets.

(CHRISTER HOLMGREN)

That is utterly risible.

Lechmere is only known to have passed by when one of the umpteen murders he is being accused of happened to be committed, and Nichols was found at precisely the right time and place to coincide with the poor sod's legitimate walk to work. He even drew attention to the unlucky woman himself, and did exactly the right thing by raising the alarm with Robert Paul and then PC Mizen.

That wasn't an unfortunate habit, suggesting his habit was killing unfortunates; where else could the carman have possibly been at that hour, that would have been less suspicious? What was he supposed to have been doing, if he was innocent, other than making his way to work on time?

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Caz,

Anyone would think that Scobie spent almost no time looking into the actual evidence.

He could only look at what was provided to him .

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

What I also find baffling is why anyone would want to argue that Lechmere had a habit - after his supposedly very close call in Buck's Row - of continuing to kill in locations that could similarly be linked to his daily routine or known movements. Surely after Buck's Row, he would have avoided like the plague any chance of another victim being found, at a time and place that allowed for him to be a witness.

Finding one body as he went about his normal business would be unfortunate enough; putting himself in the same position twice, or three times, would smack of a death wish.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

He could only look at what was provided to him .

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Exactly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What I also find baffling is why anyone would want to argue that Lechmere had a habit - after his supposedly very close call in Buck's Row - of continuing to kill in locations that could similarly be linked to his daily routine or known movements. Surely after Buck's Row, he would have avoided like the plague any chance of another victim being found, at a time and place that allowed for him to be a witness.

Finding one body as he went about his normal business would be unfortunate enough; putting himself in the same position twice, or three times, would smack of a death wish.

Love,

Caz
X

And we can add the point about him sticking around after killing Nichols in what would have been an act of unbelievable stupidity. If he’d been stopped and questioned near another murder location telling the police “I was just on the way to visit x,” it would have been a coincidence too far even if that officer had a French accent and was called Clouseau.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That is utterly risible.

Lechmere is only known to have passed by when one of the umpteen murders he is being accused of happened to be committed ...

Both Holmgren and Stow have admitted to me that they do not know whether Lechmere was even working on 9 November.

Stow added that we cannot be sure that Lechmere was working on 8 September either.

That's not much of a habit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What I also find baffling is why anyone would want to argue that Lechmere had a habit - after his supposedly very close call in Buck's Row - of continuing to kill in locations that could similarly be linked to his daily routine or known movements. Surely after Buck's Row, he would have avoided like the plague any chance of another victim being found, at a time and place that allowed for him to be a witness.

Finding one body as he went about his normal business would be unfortunate enough; putting himself in the same position twice, or three times, would smack of a death wish.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Apologies for my post #86. I don’t know how I managed to do it but I slightly misread your post which led me to respond by basically re-stating your original point. I’m trying to think of an excuse but I’m coming up dry.

[caz]

Not at all, Herlock. You did add the very relevant point that Lechmere would have been incredibly shortsighted to inject himself into this early murder investigation when there was never any need. He only had to walk swiftly away on hearing or seeing Robert Paul's approach, and he'd have been in the next street before Paul could even grasp what was going on, never mind give chase or raise the alarm, and then he'd have been free as a bird to do the same again the following weekend, without having come to the attention of the police or anyone at the Nichols inquest.

Considering Lechmere wasn't questioned or searched, despite having been at the scene when Paul arrived, I'm not sure what difference it would have made if he'd walked away and risked being stopped on his onward journey to work. By then he could at least have got rid of the knife, leaving nothing to connect him with it, and we know there were no visible or suspiciously fresh bloodstains on his hands or clothes, so not much of a risk at all. Paul might well have walked passed the body himself if Lechmere had not still been there and stopped him in his tracks, in which case Paul could have been seen leaving the scene instead. Lechmere missed a trick because he could have left this newcomer to be found alone at or near the scene, if a copper was due along at any minute.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fiver]

Not at all, Herlock. You did add the very relevant point that Lechmere would have been incredibly shortsighted to inject himself into this early murder investigation when there was never any need. He only had to walk swiftly away on hearing or seeing Robert Paul's approach, and he'd have been in the next street before Paul could even grasp what was going on, never mind give chase or raise the alarm, and then he'd have been free as a bird to do the same again the following weekend, without having come to the attention of the police or anyone at the Nichols inquest.

Considering Lechmere wasn't questioned or searched, despite having been at the scene when Paul arrived, I'm not sure what difference it would have made if he'd walked away and risked being stopped on his onward journey to work. By then he could at least have got rid of the knife, leaving nothing to connect him with it, and we know there were no visible or suspiciously fresh bloodstains on his hands or clothes, so not much of a risk at all. Paul might well have walked passed the body himself if Lechmere had not still been there and stopped him in his tracks, in which case Paul could have been seen leaving the scene instead. Lechmere missed a trick because he could have left this newcomer to be found alone at or near the scene, if a copper was due along at any minute.

Love,

Caz
X

Everything that Charles Lechmere is known to have done is either the act of an innocent man or a stupendously stupid killer.

* He didn't just walk off into the darkness.
* He stopped Robert Paul instead of just letting Paul walk on by.
* He refused to prop up the body, which would have provided an innocent excuse for any blood on his hands or clothes.
* He stayed with Paul when looking for a policeman instead of splitting up and disappearing into the darkness.
* He took the lead in talking to PC Mizen, which would make it easier for the constable to recognize him and to spot blood on his hands or clothing.
* He continued to walk with Robert Paul almost to Spitalfield's Market, which would make it easier for the other carman to recognize him and to spot blood on his hands or clothing.
* He chose to go to the police even though neither PC Mizen nor Robert Paul knew who he was.
* He testified that he hadn't seen anyone else. Even a remotely clever killer would have claimed to have heard footsteps disappearing around the corner as he approached the body.