Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Columbo]

Family men have been serial killers.

Men with steady jobs have been serial killers.

Do we know much more about Charles Lechmere than so? Is this what you work from, or a preconceived notion that he was a law-abiding, good man?

I only answered Rainbows post. Other then allegedly lying about his name is there evidence to the contrary that he was nothing more then a law abiding citizen? None has been put forth yet. He is innocent until proven guilty and he can never be proven guilty at this point in time.

Columbo

[Rainbow]

One of the biggest signs of weakness, is to attack the authors instead of the ideas..

They want us to swim in a pool of fantasy, where people have wings to fly, and supernatural powers..

fairy tails about some sailors behind the oceans travelling between continents and looking for their victims to eat their organs ... or some mad and fearsom persons that escape all the guardians to be then locked in far asylums and die there slowly... or a man that wears his cap to hide and becomes a shadow or even athletics that kill their victims between matches then go throwing themselves in the deep water... of their fantasy...

[Elamarna]

Same answer: That depends on where Lechmere was at the time of Chapmans death.

No its not the same answer, I asked if you knew his normal working hours?

[Fisherman]

No its not the same answer, I asked if you knew his normal working hours?

You signed off with this:

"Am I right in thinking the TOD by Phillips is far more in keeping with Lechmere performing the attack?"

And that was what I responded to: Same answer, it depends on where Lechmere was when Chapman was killed.

There are no records of Lechmere´s working hours. We know that he claimed to start work at 4 AM, and so it seems that he worked six days a week, Sundays excepted, starting out at 4 AM.

Of course, that is saying that he more likely than not followed the normal pattern, I admit that.

If he started working at 4 Am on the Chapman murder morning, then it dovetails well with Phillips´ suggested TOD. If Lechmere was in Hanbury Street a couple of hours later, then THAT dovetails well with the suggested TOD relating to the triade of Richardson/Long/Cadosh.

So it all hinges on where he was and when.

[Elamarna]

You signed off with this:

"Am I right in thinking the TOD by Phillips is far more in keeping with Lechmere performing the attack?"

And that was what I responded to: Same answer, it depends on where Lechmere was when Chapman was killed.

There are no records of Lechmere´s working hours. We know that he claimed to start work at 4 AM, and so it seems that he worked six days a week, Sundays excepted, starting out at 4 AM.

Of course, that is saying that he more likely than not followed the normal pattern, I admit that.

yes i know I finished with the second question, but you did not answer the first .

No Problem you have now, many thanks for that information.


As a matter of interest, anyone looking at the posts or you and Rainbow can tell in a second or two, you are not the same.

Your command of English, rarely reveals you are not a native English speaker, Rainbow appears very much not to be.



Steve

[Fisherman]

I only answered Rainbows post. Other then allegedly lying about his name is there evidence to the contrary that he was nothing more then a law abiding citizen? None has been put forth yet. He is innocent until proven guilty and he can never be proven guilty at this point in time.

Columbo

Yes, of course he is innocent until proven guilty, I agree very much with that. What I was wondering was what you built your idea on when you said that Lechmere does not fit the serial killing frame. There is a dearth of information about him, and I personally find it impossible to tell what kind of a man he was - plus we know that a very common reaction to revealed serialists is total surprise, since so many of them seem to be very normal, kind of grey men, on the surface of things living commendable lives. It´s a very clever camouflage.

[Columbo]

Yes, of course he is innocent until proven guilty, I agree very much with that. What I was wondering was what you built your idea on when you said that Lechmere does not fit the serial killing frame. There is a dearth of information about him, and I personally find it impossible to tell what kind of a man he was - plus we know that a very common reaction to revealed serialists is total surprise, since so many of them seem to be very normal, kind of grey men, on the surface of things living commendable lives. It´s a very clever camouflage.

Very true. My comments were supposition. What I was offering was a counter point to his actions that were described by Rainbow as that of a cool and calculated killer.

1. He read the newspaper and came forth because it was confirmed Nichols was killed and he felt the necessity to come forth to provide information.

2. He was never shown at this point to have been violent towards animals, his family or anyone else.

3. No criminal record has come forth as a drunk etc.


Doesn't mean a thing of course. Many examples of model citizen serial killers.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Columbo: Very true. My comments were supposition. What I was offering was a counter point to his actions that were described by Rainbow as that of a cool and calculated killer.

We cannot say that either thing applies. All we can say is that he may have been good and he may have been bad - and that if he was the killer, then he was cool and calculating.

1. He read the newspaper and came forth because it was confirmed Nichols was killed and he felt the necessity to come forth to provide information.

Or he read the newspaper and decided that Paul had put him at risk to be revealed as the killer, and so he decided to try and dissolve that picture. And he did not come forward immediately.
It works both ways.

2. He was never shown at this point to have been violent towards animals, his family or anyone else.

He was never shown at this point not to have been violent towards animals, his family or anyone else. So both ways again. And we can´t tell what applies.

3. No criminal record has come forth as a drunk etc.

A serial killer must not have previous convictions. Many have, but not all. And many crimes go undetected.
Once again, we are at a loss to know.

Doesn't mean a thing of course. Many examples of model citizen serial killers.

Exactly. I can totally see how what we know about Lechmere lends itself to a guess of a straight and nice life. But Armstrong was known as a great guy, Ridgways wife said he was the best man she had met, Gacy was seen as something of a pillar of society and Bundy was much liked.

So we cannot try and weigh these matters and think that we will reach some sort of truth about Lechmere. We are stuck with what we know from the Nichols case.

[Trevor Marriott]

So we cannot try and weigh these matters and think that we will reach some sort of truth about Lechmere. We are stuck with what we know from the Nichols case.

And much of that is inconclusive, and conflicting.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

And much of that is inconclusive, and conflicting.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If it was not, Trevor, we would not discuss it out here.

[Trevor Marriott]

If it was not, Trevor, we would not discuss it out here.

Well I am glad to see you now finally accept that by reason of this Lechmere is not such a viable suspect after all

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Well I am glad to see you now finally accept that by reason of this Lechmere is not such a viable suspect after all

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are you now? And when did we even start to discuss the viability of Lechmere as the killer? I must have missed that. All I saw was you saing that much of the evidence was inconclusive and conflicting.

That does not mean that all of it is, does it?

Maybe you should bring out those wooden blocks with letters on their sides and start practicing again, Trevor.

[John Wheat]

Well I am glad to see you now finally accept that by reason of this Lechmere is not such a viable suspect after all

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If only he would.

[drstrange169]

>> It is not a fact that the wound in the neck was uncovered when Paul arrived. Paul pulled the clothing down, and that may well have uncivered the neck wound.<<


(Paul) “did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face ... While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast”

No mention of touching the neck area.


>>… it would be wrong to say that it is a fact that the wound was uncovered all along.<<

Which is why I said, “I guess that's as near as facts get in this case.”


>>As for the cherrypicked quote that the clothing was raised almost up to the stomach ...<<

If it’s “cherrypicking” to quote the most detailed available article about Robert Paul’s testimony … guilty as charged.

If it’s “cherrypicking” to quote the only first-person account of the incident by Paul … guilty as charged.

If it’s “cherrypicking” to not be able to find an article about Paul’s testimony that contradicts the stomach quote … guilty as charged.


>> … there are other quotes putting the dress lower. But you avoided them, for some reason?<<

Here’s what I wrote, “If the above quote is accurate (accounts do vary) it is not necessarily a fact that her wounds were covered.”

Do you understand what “accounts do vary” mean?

The only other quotes come from Xmere and you claim he lied at the inquest. Are you now claiming Xmere is a more reliable witness than Paul? Seems there is some “cherrypicking” going on after all and it’s not mine.


>>Anyhow, ALMOST up to the stomach is BELOW the stomach, and the cuts were IN the stomach. I trust you can see how this works too?<<

I do indeed, but, embarrassingly for you, it appears you don’t.

There was no recorded evidence, that I have come across, that says there was any let alone all the wounds to the stomach.

Below is a diagram of the wounds as recorded by various witnesses.

A. is (approximately) the where the stomach is.

B. is were Paul (and apparently you) might have thought incorrectly where the stomach is.

C. is the general area below which Paul could have described as, "almost up to the stomach."

D. is the cut as described by Inspector Spratling.


>>We´ve been through it all before, and it ends up the same way each time.<<

We have indeed and you are still not managing not to grasp the actual facts of the case.

To use your own criteria, “I trust you can see how that works, and how it would be wrong to say that it is a fact that” the wounds were covered.

[drstrange169]

Actually, thinking about what you wrote Fisherman, you put yourself in a Catch 22 situation.

If you accept that Paul touched the neck area, uncovering the wound, then it is possible that he caused settled blood to leak out of the neck. It then becomes possible that that is what Neil then saw when he arrived moments later.

If your new theory were true, it changes the notion that Mrs. Nichols could only have been killed close to the time Xmere encountered Paul. Your, so called, "Blood Evidence" goes out the window.

Conversely, if you reject your new found theory, it cannot be claimed that all the wounds were covered when the two men approached the body.