Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Congratulations, Fisherman,

You seem to have learned how to phrase things better than you did earlier and therefore your pounding is more with a rubber sledge hammer than a metal one.

Moderating your responses, being more reasonable, makes your posts less maddening.

So, congratulations on your progress.

I still don't buy Lechmere as the killer for reasons that I believe far outweigh the soft evidence you present.

But, you've come a long way, baby!"

Call me pigheaded - no, wait a minut, donīt do that - but I have actually always admitted that every detail I use in my accusation act against Lechmere can have one or more alternative explanations of an unsinister character.

If I have become easier to understand, then thatīs good. But I am not in any other place now than the one Iīve been at for the longest. And much as I keep saying that the alternative explanations may apply, I actually believe that the risk that they donīt do so is larger. To my mind, significantly more speaks of guilt than of innocence.

Oh, and thanks, curious!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Is it at all possible that because the time was so short between Polly's murder and the beginning of the inquest, that authorities "grabbed" Lechmere for the inquest -- presented the summons to him, if that is the correct procedure -- while he was on his way to work?

That would explain his clothing, wouldn't it?"

I donīt think that he was grabbed by the authoritites - they would not chance to get hold of him that way, I believe. And just like Lechmere (the poster) says, they would only have the scarcest of information on him to go by. Besides, the inquest date was set, and they would have decided to do without him.

At any rate, I believe the best option is that he reported in himself on Sunday - as soon as he had realized the implications of Paulīs interview. Best blow out the fire before it catches ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Curious
A Jack the Ripper stopry would tend not to be forgotten - it is a little more interesting than 'my old man's a carman, he were's a carman's hat etc'.

By the way the placing of Paul by Polly's head was done by Charles Lechmere and Paul was not there to contradict him. If you read further it is clear that Paul repositioned himself futher down Polly's body, when he touched her hands, brushed her chest and yanked her clothes down a bit over her legs.

I don't think it is possible that the Police grabbed Lechmere off the street on the morning of the inquest. They would not have known his name and so the summons would not have been in his name. The only logical explanation is that he appeared at a police station after the inquest session on the Saturday - when unknown men who had called a policeman were known about - but before the end of play on Sunday. The most likely time would seem to be after the publication of Robert Paul's interview on Sunday late afternoon.

Also, the authorities would have had every witnesses address before hand - not just Charles Lechmere's. And he doesn't list every street that he would have gone down. Far from it. Just Bucks Row and Brady Street. Oh and Parson Street, wherever that was supposed to be.

[curious]

Caz:

"There's no point in debating with someone who is determined to see everything Cross is known to have said or done in the context of him being a killer who was trying to get away with it so he could kill again and again."

Equally, Caz, there seems to be little use in urging you to realize that when there are heaps of material pointing in the exact same direction regarding Charles Lechmere, then this calls for a realization that he may have been guilty. You seem very decided to defend the man against any accusation - lying to Mizen is OK, changing his name is OK, omitting to state his address at the inquest is "normal" and unsuspicious, having the slayings happen along his routes and at the times he would have been there is nothing out of the ordinary, etcetera, etcetera.

Maybe, Caz, I am not the taliban here ...?

"No innocent explanations for his behaviour can hope to break through a barrier constructed in this way, can they? "

Have I at any stage denied that all we have on him can have natural explanations? Have I ever said that it is a stance that is untenable, that he was innocent? I think not.

I have said that I think he was the killer. That is not a position from which you vehemently argue his innocence, Iīm afraid. Itīs a position from which you take on all criticism that comes along and check whether your theory holds fast against whatever can be thrown at it. So far, it works eminently, apparently so much so as to discourage you from battling on.

That may well be the best call youīve made all along.

The best,
Fisherman

Congratulations, Fisherman,

You seem to have learned how to phrase things better than you did earlier and therefore your pounding is more with a rubber sledge hammer than a metal one.

Moderating your responses, being more reasonable, makes your posts less maddening.

So, congratulations on your progress.

I still don't buy Lechmere as the killer for reasons that I believe far outweigh the soft evidence you present.

But, you've come a long way, baby!

curious

[curious]

Why would Mrs Lechmere neglect to tell her Family that her husband had been an 'innocent'
witness ? What sort of shame or shyness could she possibly have about that ? How could it have 'slipped her mind' ?

If she never told them, the most logical explanation is that Lechmere/Cross never told her that he was a witness.

Perhaps the minds the mention slipped was that of the listeners.

Is there anyone here on the boards who recall every story and every word their parents and grandparents told them about their lives?

I sure don't. Why would Mrs. Lechmere's children and grandchildren have been any different?

curious

[curious]

This would seem to be under contention, but if you are correct, then the possibility is that Charles Lechmere only reported in to the inquest on Monday.

Is it at all possible that because the time was so short between Polly's murder and the beginning of the inquest, that authorities "grabbed" Lechmere for the inquest -- presented the summons to him, if that is the correct procedure -- while he was on his way to work?

That would explain his clothing, wouldn't it?

curious

[curious]

Just as an example of how different the same testimony reported across different newspapers can be, the following are three randomly selected reports of the Inquest.

Eastern Argus - 8th September 1888

I took hold of the hands of the woman, and the other man stooped over her head to look at her.


Daily News - 4th September 1888

They both went across to the body, and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stopped over her head to look at her.

I notice that 2 of the 3 newspapers have Paul at the head.

Does it make sense that Lechmere would have allowed Paul to get into that position IF he had just slit the throat?

It doesn't to me.

It seems to me that only an innocent Lechmere, not knowing that the head was nearly severed from the body, would have allowed Paul to stand over the head.

curious

[curious]

It is interesting how when he makes the following statements during his deposition and questioning, not once does the Coroner or jury actually ask his address, which is relevant to the deposition being given. He names every street but his own!

Perhaps because he knew the authorities already had his address? So why bother telling them again?

guessing, of course.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Caz, if Fisherman thinks it is likely that Charles Lechmere was the killer then naturally his statements and actions will be seen and interpreted by Fisherman through such lenses. Keep your hair on. I don't see Fisherman making any ludicrous suggestions."

I should hope not.

In fact, I am at a loss to understand what it is Caz wants me to do or say to please her. It cannot be that she wants me to admit that all the details I think point to guilt on behalf of Lechmere may have alternative, unsinister explanations. I have already done that on numerous occasions.

So what should I do? Admit that I have a weaker case than Caz?

But I donīt think so. I think Iīve got a much BETTER case, since I donīt have to change or add anything to make my scenario run like clockwork. Others need to entertain the possibility that Lechmeree stated his address publically at the inquest, in spite of all papers but one pointing in the other direction.
Others need to reason that Mizen misheard, while I think what he witnessed about, syllable by syllable, fits my theroy like a glove.
Others need to throw forward that he used two names, one officially and one colloquially - not me, though. Otherīs have to suppose that Paul wore worn-down shoes - not me. Others must look away from the Stars claim on Mizenīs behalf that Paul walked down Hanbury Street as Lechmere spoke to the PC - not me. Others have to reason that the dress could have been pulled over her by a gush of wind, or that the killer deviated from his other killings in this respect - not me. It fits me. Und so weiter.

Maybe I am just expected not to voice my conviction? Could that be it?Maybe it is considered rude to do so, when others donīt share your beliefs? But that would flie in the face of how Caz herself voices beliefs that OTHERS donīt share every now and then, would it not?

So I am a little bewildered about what it is that nags her so much. Am I too confident? But I FEEL confident that he was the killer, so why lie about that? Others are welcome to challenge it any day in the week.

Maybe Caz will some fine day tell me what it is she seems unfit to think and say on my behalf. Up til then, however, I am apparently kept in the dark on that score...

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Fish, Lechmere, Moonbegger.

The phrase "cherry picking.......dangerous & foolhardy" was NOT aimed at any one of you guys..it was in general.

Apologies if you thought this was the case.

Hello CX

Firstly i don't pick cherries ! i pick apples off my tree, in my garden

secondly i am not part of TL ..in fact i am closer to the other side of the fence ..

You may find this surprising , but i am not actually on here to vilify or vindicate anyone , my only concern is that every reasonable alternative is looked into before guilt or innocence can be laid at the door of any suspect .The unbiased truth is the goal . Now if find something suspicious i will do my best to question it ( in the words of a Druid high priest , Let the stones lay where they fall) the rest is open to interpretation !

cheers

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Caz, if Fisherman thinks it is likely that Charles Lechmere was the killer then naturally his statements and actions will be seen and interpreted by Fisherman through such lenses. Keep your hair on. I don't see Fisherman making any ludicrous suggestions.

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"There's no point in debating with someone who is determined to see everything Cross is known to have said or done in the context of him being a killer who was trying to get away with it so he could kill again and again."

Equally, Caz, there seems to be little use in urging you to realize that when there are heaps of material pointing in the exact same direction regarding Charles Lechmere, then this calls for a realization that he may have been guilty. You seem very decided to defend the man against any accusation - lying to Mizen is OK, changing his name is OK, omitting to state his address at the inquest is "normal" and unsuspicious, having the slayings happen along his routes and at the times he would have been there is nothing out of the ordinary, etcetera, etcetera.

Maybe, Caz, I am not the taliban here ...?

"No innocent explanations for his behaviour can hope to break through a barrier constructed in this way, can they? "

Have I at any stage denied that all we have on him can have natural explanations? Have I ever said that it is a stance that is untenable, that he was innocent? I think not.

I have said that I think he was the killer. That is not a position from which you vehemently argue his innocence, Iīm afraid. Itīs a position from which you take on all criticism that comes along and check whether your theory holds fast against whatever can be thrown at it. So far, it works eminently, apparently so much so as to discourage you from battling on.

That may well be the best call youīve made all along.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Caz:

"Equally, my dear Fishmonger, when a witness states no more than he is obliged to state, and has already given the police two locations - home and work - where he can be found if needed again, that is NORMAL behaviour."

It is in fact normal behaviour for a serial killer too, Caz, just like I have told you already. Ridgway, remember?

In fact, it is extremely hard to judge serial killers by their propensity to state their addresses at inquests. The two parameters are not dependant of each other to any measurable degree, or - if you wish for me to make it even clearer - it is extremely silly to think that there IS a connection.

"We have been given examples to prove it."

Eh, no - as I said there is no connection inbetween these two parameters, and therefore you cannot prove that it is "normal" behaviour not to state your address at an inquest, at least not in the respect that you, if you were a serial killer, would necessarily abscond from the "norm" and actually state your name even if you not were asked. Once again, it is beyond silly to even suggest a connection, so donīt do that.

"It is NOT suspicious behaviour"

Ah! But THAT is another thing, Caz, and it all hinges on the context. If we have the knowledge that out of ten men at an inquest after a sexual murder, nine come from the Anglican church choir in Nebraska, whereas one comes from a psychiatric ward, tending sexual deviators, then it WILL be suspicious if the first four people giving their testimony all say that they come from the Anglican church in Nebraska, whereas the fifth guy ommitts to say where HE comes from.
This would be fairly basic and easy to grasp, would it not? If there can be some sort of suspicion tied to a man not giving his address, if it perspires that he could have a reason not to give it, then it IS suspicious if he does not do so. And in the case at hand, it has for the longest time been proposed that Charles Lechmere DID want to hide as much as possible about his person from being spread publically. So you see, Caz, against that background and in that context, there IS suspicion adhering to his ommission. It fits in exactly with the picture that the Lechmereians, if you will, have painted of the man.

It is another thing altogether that taken on itīs own, a circumstance such as this would not have to point to any foul play. And indeed, it does not HAVE to do so in Lechmereīs case either. But the suspicion must be allowed for.

".. it is certainly NOT evidence for him being a killer. !"

It certainly IS evidence, and it DOES belong to the pile of things that potentially points him out as the killer, but on itīs own, it has no legal bearing as some sort of proof, if that is what youīre after. But surely you realize that nobody is awarding it any value as proof, Caz? I would not like to have it said about me that I do so. So donīt do it.

"I expect you could find me a serial killer who had cornflakes for breakfast every day."

Not sure I could, Caz - canīt remember any such creature.

" It would not make Cross look any more suspicious if he did the same, or any less suspicious if he had Weetabix."

Start, perhaps? No?

"And according to you, Cross DID think that since he was a killer, 'he'd better lie' about his name - which still makes no sense, since he didn't feel the same need to lie about where he lived or worked."

Apples and pears, Caz. He gave the police all that information freely, knowing that there was a risk heīd be checked out, but at the inquest he minimized the damage by saying that he was named Cross and he ommitted to state his address. He was playing to different audiences, thus. But surely I have proposed this before...?

He also said that he worked for Pickfordīs. And he said he had been working there for more than twenty years. But to be completely honest, he could have been lying about that too - we have him listed as a carman in the 1871 census, but that is only seventeen years back in time, plus it says not WHERE he worked as a carman, does it? What if he worked for somebody else at that stage? How easy would it be for his wife and aquaintances to make him then?

Maybe it is proven that he was always a Pickfordīs carman, I donīt know. And itīs a viable suggestion, at any rate. It just hit me that we sometimes take his word for granted in a very casual manner, and that may be risky.

Anyway, Caz, there you are. The identity given to the police was much fuller than the one given in his testimony. Guess whose theory THAT supports?

The best,
Fisherman

That's it for me. There's no point in debating with someone who is determined to see everything Cross is known to have said or done in the context of him being a killer who was trying to get away with it so he could kill again and again. Therefore even his choice of breakfast will have been dictated by how much time he could spare before shooting off out of the house to find a prossie to kill on the way to work and still arrive on time.

No innocent explanations for his behaviour can hope to break through a barrier constructed in this way, can they? No evidence of guilt, just thick layers of suspicion created out of pure speculation and piled one on top of the other like sandbags, protecting nothing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Cog - I always give logical reasoning and supplementary evidence to back up by conjecture - as I did in the bit you so strongly objected to.
I am quite happy that my conjecture about Charles Lechmere is totally logical and likely and I am sure any disinterested reasonable observer would say the same

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"Mishearing of Barnsley Street perhaps?"

Donīt think so. Barnsley Street was too far north to be useful. And if you read what he said: "I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row", you will notice that he apparently crossed Brady Street instead of walking along it, and he crossed it into Buckīs Row. That points to Bath Street being the street from which he traversed Brady Street. And no "Parson Street" in sight. It was way up in Hendon.

The best,
Fisherman