Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"whenever I get more than 5 yards from my wife I count it an enormous victory! Sadly she counts it as an enormous relief (which is probably nearer the truth)..."

Isnīt that a bit like the Lechmere saga - could be anyway - although we all have our hunches...?

"So what did you expect to prove with this earth-shattering statement? Certainly nothing to do with Cross/Lechmere..."

Actually yes. I expected to prove that the phrasing "accompanied by" does not necessarily mean "in very close physical contact with", as proposed by other posters. Back up a bit and read the posts and you will see what I mean.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank!

I see you are still defending the undefendable - that Lechmere and Paul would have been close together throughout. Unfortunately, you do so by writing:

"The context here is that these men were late for work, found a woman who was quite possibly dead, after which the men agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met, that they walked on until they met a PC at the corner of Old Montague Street, that they briefly spoke to Mizen and that afterwards they walked on together.

This holds much water - but leaks at one of the seams: the most important one. You claim that "they briefly spoke to Mizen", but that would not be true. Letīs trawl through the press, hearing how Mizen saw it:

"... he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him ..." (Daily Telegraph)

How many men informed him? One or two? Correct: just the one.

"... he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." (Times)

Same thing here - and it was just the one man passing, apparently. Of course, we know they were two, but it was just one of the two men passing that spoke to Mizen - thatīs what we can see here.

"...he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."..." (Daily News)

More of the same medicine. A man passes by. He speaks to Mizen. The other guy says nothing. They arrive together, but we do not know what the other man does as Lechmere speaks to Mizen. Nor do we know whether he stops or not.

"he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row ... There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness." (The Echo)

A man who looked like a carman spoke to Mizen. Not two men that looked like carmen. One. Lechmere. He had another man in company. Yes. They arrived in the street together, they would have spoken together, and when Lechmere had delivered his message, he once again struck up with Paul - "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street" as Lechmere talked to Mizen.

" I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when some one who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman." (Evening Standard)

Whereīs Paul? Why does not Mizen say that two men passing told him something? Because, I would suggest, two men did NOT speak to him. ONE did.

"A man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross ... Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man." (the Star)

Once again, just the one man spoke.

It is very, very clear what Mizen said on this affair. And once again, accompanied by is not a phrasing that lends itself to any estimation of distances. It is one thing and one thing only: a verification that Mizen was of the meaning that the two men were in each otherīs company. If Paul had walked ahead fifty yards, stopped, and shouted back to Lechmere "Come along, pal! We havenīt got all day", Mizen would STILL be able to say that they were in company. And they would still have been so.
There is absolutely no way that we can establish a single thing about how close that company was physically, but the Echo wording about "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street" gives us a clear pointer that they were not very close. It is in fact the only paper that makes any sort of call in the distance department, whereas the others just speak of "in company" or "accompanied by" that can mean anything inbetween an inch and many, many yards.

In this context, there is a much better question to ask, a much more interesting one. This is Lechmere, from the Times, where he claims that he:

"... told him there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead."

Wait a sec. Didnīt we just find out that Mizen is very adamant on the point that just the one guy - Lechmere - spoke to him? Yes, we did. Then what business has Lechmere telling us that Paul ALSO spoke to Mizen? You tell me, Frank. My guess is that this is just one more pointer to how Lechmere performed his scam. If he could place Paul next to him, speaking to Mizen, then we would not see through his bluff, hopefully. He would conceal that Paul was NOT there and that he did NOT talk to Mizen. Good work, Lechmere - and totally, totally in line with the rest of his scheming.
What about Paul, does HE say that he spoke to Mizen? He would if he did, one would think. But no, he only says that they found themselves a PC and informed him - which is true, even if he said not a iota himself.

Donīt you ever think that these things are strange, Frank? Is it not very, very odd that there are all these pointers to foul play on behalf of Lechmere? Why could it not have been a simple unanimous affair, where Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, where Paul said the exact same, and where Mizen said that" two men passing came up to me and the first man said, whereas the other man said..."

If this had been present, we would not be able to entertain these suspicions against Lechmere. But EACH and EVERY time the sinister interpretation possibility is there on offer, telling us that he could have been the villain of the play.
Why is this?
What is your very best guess, Frank?

"Brady Street offered some 130 yards. To the corner of the board school was about 40 yards."

Iīve heard a few differing suggestions about this, but knowing you are a meticulous man, I thank you for establishing this more exactly, Frank!

"How could he be sure that nobody would emerge from one of the houses, or from Brown & Eagle?"

He couldnīt.

"Since he couldn’t, the best thing to do would be to keep an eye but certainly an ear out for that side, especially when he was facing the board school. I trust you can see that, Fish."

In technicolor. It is totally clear that this would be the best thing to do, just as you say.
Then again, I have never disputed this. I have instead said that chances are that he did NOT do the best thing. And for a reason.

I spoke of sexuality the last time I posted to you. I will do so again, not because it has been established that there was an element of sexuality in the Ripperīs deeds, but because there is good reason to think that this was so.

Now, I need you to think of two criminals, both in a dark, silent street, both perpetrating a crime.

The first guy is a burglar. He stands in the empty street, trying to pry open the window of a house in which he believes a nice sum of money is to be found.
It is a difficult window to pry open, and it is very dark. It takes a lot of time, much more than he had expected. Every now and then he has to concentrate very much on how to use the screwdriver he handles to open that window. All the while, he is observant on anything that can give away that somebody is coming.
I would say that this sort of perpetrator does a job that is very much orientated towards financial gain. He does not do it because he feels an urge to pry windows open. He is not sexually aroused by doing so. But just the same, he sometimes has to divide his focus between the scannning of the street and the hardships offered by the reluctant window. Such a thing will decrease his capacity to stay on the alert for approaching danger.

Now take a rapist. He attacks a woman, forces her down on the ground, puts a hand over her mouth, tells her that if she so much as squeals, he will turn her face to mincemeat. He then pulls her dress up, lowers his own trousers and throws himself at her.

Do you really thing that this rapist will have just as good control of the surrounding environment as the burglar - who still had difficulties taking it all in?
Which of the two do you think are more likely to hear somebody from 130 yards away, and which is more likely not to hear that until he is in deep ****?
Which of the two do you think are more likely to focus very much on his own, internal driving forces and urges?
Which of the two is more likely to be doing what he does in a "bubble"?

To me, these questions answer themselves.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Good morning, Fisherman ! (good post, by the way)

[Fisherman]

Morninī, Ruby. And thanks! Had your tea?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

One more thing, Frank, about Lechmere not hearing Paul until the latter was 30-40 yards away. You think that is strange, just like I do.

Have you given any thought to the fact that if Paul had 130 yards from the Brady Street corner, then he would have about a minutes walk down to Brownīs Stable Yard? So why did he not hear Lechmere walking in front of him? Surely he would have if this was so?

Or did Lechmere stand still in the middle of Buckīs Row for a full minute, doing not a iota? Was he already in place as Paul turned the corner up at Brady Street, standing there, looking at the woman - for a full minute? And doing absolutely nothing?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Morninī, Ruby. And thanks! Had your tea?

Fisherman

Nope -got up late and am being very unhealthy drinking coffee and scoffing the kids' sugary synthetic cake (but it is Sunday !). At least I am saving them from all that bad sugar rush. very noble of Me.

[Fisherman]

Yes, Ruby, parenthood demands sacrifices. You should be proud of yourself!

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

"whenever I get more than 5 yards from my wife I count it an enormous victory! Sadly she counts it as an enormous relief (which is probably nearer the truth)..."

Isnīt that a bit like the Lechmere saga - could be anyway - although we all have our hunches...?

"So what did you expect to prove with this earth-shattering statement? Certainly nothing to do with Cross/Lechmere..."

Actually yes. I expected to prove that the phrasing "accompanied by" does not necessarily mean "in very close physical contact with", as proposed by other posters.

Hi Christer

How unfortunate for you to pick up on my facetious comment...My Missus (unlike the witness you seem to propound) always keeps me within earshot...she makes damn sure she always hears everything I say...I shouldn't be at all surprised (in this instance) if Paul were the same...

As regards "accompanied by" I think the Times at least (18th September 1888), reporting Pauls testimony, uses the phrase "walked on together"...which suggests a somewhat closer relationship than 20 yards, 10 yards, five yards or whatever apart does it not?

You really do plumb the depths of the unlikely sometimes Christer!

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"As regards "accompanied by" I think the Times at least (18th September 1888), reporting Pauls testimony, uses the phrase "walked on together"...which suggests a somewhat closer relationship than 20 yards, 10 yards, five yards or whatever apart does it not? "

This is quite funny, Dave! Letīs take a look at the WHOLE context, and you will see what I mean!

"Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street"

Aha! They walked on together between Buckīs Row and the corner of Bakerīs Row and Old Montague (should probably be Hanbury) Street. THAT was where they walked together, and I donīt see myself challenging that at any stage.

Then look at what is says, once again. They walked on together UNTIL they met the PC. Does that not sound to you as if they did NOT do so afterwards...? "We stayed until the light was put out", sort of. That iplies that we left afterwards, does it not?

I am not saying that this MUST imply that they were not together as they met Mizen - the interpretation can go either way - but I am VERY certain that this Times passage says absolutely nothing about the issue at hand: whether Paul accompanied Lechmere closely as he spoke to Mizen.

"You really do plumb the depths of the unlikely sometimes Christer!"

Do I? In this case, I find that I stay on topic and have a good case, whereas you try to challenge it by offering a quotation that does not belong to the issue at hand.

Anyway ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Funny? What I find is funny, looking at the first post in the thread, is how far we've all drifted off-topic...but nonetheless:

Leaving that aside you feel that the fact the two men walked on together "until they met a policeman" means they didn't necessarily talk to him together...and because of that I'm somehow off-topic...That's not worthy of you, and I'm sorry...there's only one word for it..."pathetic"

Dave

[Lechmere]

Cog
It is rather more 'pathetic' to raise a criticism which is shown to be in slid and then failing to have the grace to admit it.

Frank
Fisherman beat me to the punch but I will reiterate.
A criminal engaging in crime for financial gain will, if sensible look left right, north south east and west and check while doing his bad deeds.
A psychopathic serial killer in the midst of his perverse passion is rather less likely to. This is credible isn't it?
I would suggest that Paul was actually 60 yards or more from Charles Lechmere when he really became aware.
But if Charles Lechmere woz innocent - he was rather unaware to let Paul get so close and Paul was also unaware to get so close (40 yards) both unaware of their surroundings on a still quiet night.

[Fisherman]

In this context, it also needs to be said that the anomaly of none of the two men hearing each otherīs footsteps is reinforced by Lechmere being eager to point out that he had only just walked out into the middle of the street as he heard Paul. The Daily News:
"... walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's row ..."
So it was "at the same time" - which, if Lechmere was guilty, is exactly what he would say. He would have been very eager to impress upon the inquest that he had only just arrived to the murder spot as Paul surfaced. No time, thus, to have done any cutting!

Problem is, if this was true, then Lechmere had Paul walking right behind him, perhaps thirty to fifty yards away, all the way down Buckīs Row, without noticing him. As Paul turned into Buckīs Row, Lechmere would have walked about one third of the way from the Brady Street corner down to Browns Stable Yard. And still he did not hear the hurrying Paul, a short distance behind him, until he walked out into the middle of Buckīs Row! And apparently, Paul did not hear Lechmere clippety-clopping right in front of him either.

And it gets stranger! For Paul lived in Foster Street, leaving us very little doubt as to which way he chose to Buckīs Row - it would have been Bath Street. And therefore, he would have turned into Buckīs Row from the north, which is precisely the same route as Lechmere would have used In fact, much speaks for him having come by way of Bath Street too).
And when the two gentlemen rounded the corner of Brady Street and went into Buckīs Row, presumably having no more than some forty, fifty yards inbetween them, they did so under a lit gas lamp. And still, Paul did not see or hear Lechmere in front of him...?

Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Maybe Bucks row was not as dark as we think ?

This morning, at one o'clock, two reporters commenced a watch in Buck's-row, which terminated at eleven o'clock, It has been stated that the street is a dark one, but this is altogether wrong, for it is well lighted at all hours of the night by the great lamps outside the brewery of Messrs. Mann and Crossman, in addition to the ordinary street lamps, and it seems inconceivable that such a well-lighted street would be selected for the crime.

Buck's-row is a decently wide thoroughfare, running at right angles from Baker's-row to Brady-street. Buck's-row is in every sense thoroughly respectable, every tenant being an old inhabitant, and of good class. In addition to well-to-do artisans, the row contains a mission hall, the factor of Messrs. Schneider and Sons, and the factories and warehouses of Messrs. Torr, and Browne and Eagle, together with the private residence of the Rev. Henry North Hall, the curate of St. Mary, Whitechapel. There are watchmen at night at these factories, and many of the private residents were awake at the time the deceased was murdered, but none heard any cries for help on Friday morning.

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Oh, it was, Moonbegger. This article does no relate to the murder night, when Neill witnessed that there was just the one source of light functioning - a single gas lamp up at the corner of Brady Street.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Here you go, Moonbegger, from the inquest, Neil speaking: " It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row."

The best,
Fisherman