Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Patrick S]

It is up to me to decide who I engage in debate with and who I will not touch with a pair of pliers, Harry. But don´t let that worry you: pick up the points made that has me "running scared" and put them to me yourself, Harry. It should be easy enough. And then we will see who schools who.

It´s easy enough for a jester like you to try and use my refusal to debate with some posters as a sign of how I dare not do so. Here´s your chance to prove yourself correct - or not.

Let´s hear it, Harry. Now, please.

So let us get this straight? Harry should cut and paste what I write, you respond, I respond, Harry cuts and pastes again, and you're schooling us in debate? Brilliant. Mature. What can I say? It's wonderful. I'll save Harry some time....

You have respond with the same nonsense, again, again, again, and again. You're "Mizen Scam", that convoluted invention of 'what ifs', cannot be defended. A simple statement of what we actually KNOW relegates it to the rubbish bin. Lechmere's behavior in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, at the inquest, must be assigned far-fetched, counter intuitive intentions....and it's still laughable. You're 'blood evidence' does not exist. It's based upon adjectives printed in newspapers 100+ years ago. Lechmere was never arrested, never seen again near a crime scene, stable employment, 50 year marriage, 10 kids, on and on and on it goes.

But, I'm wasting keystrokes. My posts are not for you. They are for anyone who has the misfortune of taking your "theory" seriously. Thus, I'll continue to follow you about these boards - when the mood strikes - posting "theories" that don't require invention, supposition, and logical leaps of Olympian proportions to even enter the realm of the fantastic. Of course, we can arrange an IN PERSON debate at a conference - on my dime - and you send me scurrying with my tail between my legs. I'll then disappear, hat in hand. Until then, I'll continue to post what is most likely the TRUTH.......without contradiction.

[Patrick S]

Nothing yet, Harry? Thinking, are we? PM:ing? Go on, let´s get it overwith.

Leave it, Harry. He either responds to me like an adult (or someone who can actually defend his "theory") or my points stand without response (as they will because there can be no reasonable response).

[Harry D]

Nothing yet, Harry? Thinking, are we? PM:ing? Go on, let´s get it overwith.

Keep in mind that if you produce nothing, I may resort to your own awfully clever and respectful tactics and call yourself too scared to even try. If you can do it, then so can I.

You can call me what you like, Fish. I'm not egotistical enough to take the bait.

You're right, it's your prerogative whom you chose to engage with or not, but Patrick has thrown down the gauntlet with a reasoned argument. If you wish to defend your theory, you would follow up with a rebuttal, otherwise the assumption will be that you don't have one.

[Patrick S]

Nothing yet, Harry? Thinking, are we? PM:ing? Go on, let´s get it overwith.

Keep in mind that if you produce nothing, I may resort to your own awfully clever and respectful tactics and call yourself too scared to even try. If you can do it, then so can I.

Let's get this straight? You're saying that HARRY is 'too scared' to go through these threads, cut and paste points I've made refuting your 'theory', wait for me to respond, cut and paste my response, and so on....all because you won't respond directly to me. And now you're taunting HIM? And you think this behavior is......normal?

[Fisherman]

You can call me what you like, Fish. I'm not egotistical enough to take the bait.

You're right, it's your prerogative whom you chose to engage with or not, but Patrick has thrown down the gauntlet with a reasoned argument. If you wish to defend your theory, you would follow up with a rebuttal, otherwise the assumption will be that you don't have one.

Oh-oh! The worst thing that could happen - you had nothing to back up your claim that I am "running scared" with.

As expected.

I don´t exchange with Patrick S since he has proven himself unable to conduct a civil debate. In fact, he has moved further away from such a debate than any other poster I have ever met. In his latest post he is leading on that I am not normal, for instance.
I stay away from him for this reason. Whether others think that I have a part in the bad atmosphere myself or not is immaterial to me.

But I will not have it stated that I am scared of anything or anybody out here. I just want to be able to debate without feeling a pressing urge to head for the shower afterwards.

Thanks for verifying my hunch (ha!) that you could not produce a single argument I could not answer - not even by quoting Patrick S. It´s good to have that over and done with.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S!

Since you are the true source of the idea that I cannot answer your points, I will allow you ten questions, no more, no less. Ask any caserelated question you like to, and I will answer. Ten of them.

The same applies for you as for Harry D - if you do not take me up on my offer, I will consider that as proof that you never had anything more than hot air to offer.

I will not engage in any conversation as such with you, and I will not discuss anything but matters related to the case. If any personal insults are garnishing your questions, there will be no answers from me. Nor will there be any future opportunity for you to ask me any questions.

The offer stands this day only.

[Harry D]

Oh-oh! The worst thing that could happen - you had nothing to back up your claim that I am "running scared" with.

I'm not taking part in some debate-by-proxy because you have a weird hang-up with Patrick. Take his name out of the quotes if he offends you so much, that way you can still make your points and prove to us what an unassailable suspect Lechmere is.

I don´t exchange with Patrick S since he has proven himself unable to conduct a civil debate.

Wouldn't that make you two perfect for each other?

[Patrick S]

Oh-oh! The worst thing that could happen - you had nothing to back up your claim that I am "running scared" with.

As expected.

I don´t exchange with Patrick S since he has proven himself unable to conduct a civil debate. In fact, he has moved further away from such a debate than any other poster I have ever met. In his latest post he is leading on that I am not normal, for instance.
I stay away from him for this reason. Whether others think that I have a part in the bad atmosphere myself or not is immaterial to me.

But I will not have it stated that I am scared of anything or anybody out here. I just want to be able to debate without feeling a pressing urge to head for the shower afterwards.

Thanks for verifying my hunch (ha!) that you could not produce a single argument I could not answer - not even by quoting Patrick S. It´s good to have that over and done with.

I'd love to see a collection of all these uncivil posts I've made. You cite my having written, "And you think this behavior is normal?" as an example of some awful, uncivil insult. Anyone can see that you use mild barbs like this (while you frequently intimate that anyone who challenges you is lacking in intelligence, insight, good looks, or a fine wardrobe) as a crutch. You are, in fact, unable to defend your position against serious scrutiny by someone who's taken the time to do their own research. So, let's leave it there then.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S!

Since you are the true source of the idea that I cannot answer your points, I will allow you ten questions, no more, no less. Ask any caserelated question you like to, and I will answer. Ten of them.

The same applies for you as for Harry D - if you do not take me up on my offer, I will consider that as proof that you never had anything more than hot air to offer.

I will not engage in any conversation as such with you, and I will not discuss anything but matters related to the case. If any personal insults are garnishing your questions, there will be no answers from me. Nor will there be any future opportunity for you to ask me any questions.

The offer stands this day only.

First off, YOU are the "true source" of the idea that you cannot answer my points because you DO NOT answer my points.

Second, I don't have QUESTIONS. I have no questions whatever to which I don't know your answers. I could write ten questions and your asnwers to them, as well. You have your ideas. I have others. I consider your ideas rather unbelievable. Yet, I'm not looking to "nail you" or "stump you" or "expose you". That's not my goal. My goal is to ensure that those who come to these boards get - what I think is - an accurate picture, not colored by the supposition and invention required to believe in Lechmere as the Ripper (and the Torso Killer, et al).

Third, I'm not interested in "this day only" offers.

But....if I think I have something interesting that people would like to see you address, I'll post it by the end of the day. AND...since you replied to me, I'll remove that quote from my posts.

[Fisherman]

I'd love to see a collection of all these uncivil posts I've made. You cite my having written, "And you think this behavior is normal?" as an example of some awful, uncivil insult. Anyone can see that you use mild barbs like this (while you frequently intimate that anyone who challenges you is lacking in intelligence, insight, good looks, or a fine wardrobe) as a crutch. You are, in fact, unable to defend your position against
serious scrutiny by someone who's taken the time to do their own research. So, let's leave it there then.

If I am unable to defend my position against "serious scrutiny by someone who's taken the time to do their own research", you should easily be able to reveal that by asking me whatever caserelated question you like to.

You say I do not answer your points. State them and I will answer. Ten questions, Patrick. If you must state them as points, then do so. No insults added. This is the chance you have been asking for and mourning how it would never happen. The day is finally here, Patrick, the day when you get to expose me in front of everybody - and you are going to pass on your chance? Really?

Ah - you will have something for me at the end of the day! Good. My day ends in eight or nine hours, and if I have not seen anything by then, I will take a look in the morning and give my answer/s then to any caserelated point or question you may pose.

You are of course free to pooh-pooh whatever I say afterwards. I am not primarily trying to make you change your mind - what I am doing is to show anybody else that it is sheer folly to say that I cannot answer any caserelated point or question you may think of. I once more ask you not to overstep the line I have drawn when it comes to insults - it would be truly sad if you missed this opportunity on account of any such matter.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: I'm not taking part in some debate-by-proxy because you have a weird hang-up with Patrick. Take his name out of the quotes if he offends you so much, that way you can still make your points and prove to us what an unassailable suspect Lechmere is.

It´s easy. Put up or shut up. If you cannot prove your point that I am running scared, then be silent. It´s bad enough to make the suggestion, but a lot worse to be unable to substantiate it.
PS. To claim that I cannot prove that Lechmere is unassailable is a classic straw-man argument since I have never said so. I have said that he is the best suspect there is, and that I am personally convinced that he is the killer we are looking for.

[Patrick S]

I'll ask this question and you respond. We'll let our fellow posters decided how reasonable your scenario sounds.

In “The Missing Evidence” it’s stated that Lehmere was compelled to appear the inquest due to this ‘bombshell’, a statement by Robert Paul, which appeared in Lloyd’s on Sunday, September 2:

It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

Let’s deal ONLY with what Lechmere would have learned in reading Paul’s statement. He learned that Paul found him (Lechmere) – described only as “a man” - in Buck’s Row. (“I saw a man standing where the woman was.”)

A reminder here that Lechmere did not attempt to run, walk, or even just stand there, hoping Paul would pass. (“The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman.") Paul describes no suspicious behavior by “the man”. He doesn’t tell us he was nervous. He doesn’t catch him trying to walk off. In fact, Paul describes trying to move past him. “The man” chose to go TOWARD Paul, not letting him pass.

Paul omits the other man (Lechmere) with respect to inspecting the body. (“I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her.”) He mentions the “man” one final time. (“I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.”) Based on this the reader might reasonably assume that Paul went on alone, leaving the other man behind.

Paul then finds a PC, seemingly alone. (“I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up…”) And with that, the “other man” is disappears from Paul’s account. Paul goes on to condemn the PC and the police in general. (“…but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.”) Again, “the man” is not mentioned. He doesn’t share Paul’s outrage. He’s given no lines in Baker’s Row.

Lechmere is not named. He’s not described. He’s nearly completely removed from Paul’s account. Yet this statement drove him appear at the inquest the following day (Monday)? If he were the killer, he stayed put when Paul approached. He went with Paul and found a PC. Yet, he managed to get through it all, unnamed, no description. And he decides to appear voluntarily at the inquest some 72 hours after the murder? Because of the above “bombshell”? Why?

[Fisherman]

I'll ask this question and you respond. We'll let our fellow posters decided how reasonable your scenario sounds.

In “The Missing Evidence” it’s stated that Lehmere was compelled to appear the inquest due to this ‘bombshell’, a statement by Robert Paul, which appeared in Lloyd’s on Sunday, September 2:

It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

Let’s deal ONLY with what Lechmere would have learned in reading Paul’s statement. He learned that Paul found him (Lechmere) – described only as “a man” - in Buck’s Row. (“I saw a man standing where the woman was.”)

A reminder here that Lechmere did not attempt to run, walk, or even just stand there, hoping Paul would pass. (“The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman.") Paul describes no suspicious behavior by “the man”. He doesn’t tell us he was nervous. He doesn’t catch him trying to walk off. In fact, Paul describes trying to move past him. “The man” chose to go TOWARD Paul, not letting him pass.

Paul omits the other man (Lechmere) with respect to inspecting the body. (“I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her.”) He mentions the “man” one final time. (“I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.”) Based on this the reader might reasonably assume that Paul went on alone, leaving the other man behind.

Paul then finds a PC, seemingly alone. (“I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up…”) And with that, the “other man” is disappears from Paul’s account. Paul goes on to condemn the PC and the police in general. (“…but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.”) Again, “the man” is not mentioned. He doesn’t share Paul’s outrage. He’s given no lines in Baker’s Row.

Lechmere is not named. He’s not described. He’s nearly completely removed from Paul’s account. Yet this statement drove him appear at the inquest the following day (Monday)? If he were the killer, he stayed put when Paul approached. He went with Paul and found a PC. Yet, he managed to get through it all, unnamed, no description. And he decides to appear voluntarily at the inquest some 72 hours after the murder? Because of the above “bombshell”? Why?

Alright, Patrick - a clear and concise question, no insults added. Exactly what I asked for. Well, to be fair, I asked for ten questions, but if you feel that just the one is enough, then so be it.

Although just the one question is asked - why did Lechmere come forward, when he was not named or described in the interview Paul gave - there are passages involved in your post that I will lift out and comment on.

To begin with, however, I would like to make a distinction between the two elements you mention as some sort of guarantee that Lechmere could have stayed away from the inquest:
1. He was not named.
2. He was not described.

Lechmere said that he had never seen Robert Paul before - the two men were strangers to each other. So it stands to reason that they did not know each other´s names. Certainly, since they walked from Bucks Row to Corbetts Court, there would have been ample time to exchange names, but if this had been done, one would have expected Paul to name his fellow carman in the interview. So I agree that in all likelihood, Charles Lechmere was not named and could not be named by Robert Paul. Therefore, he could not be traced that way.

When it comes to how he was not described, that is another matter altogether. We do not know to what extent Robert Paul could provide the police with a description, but we do know that he must have been able to furnish some sort of it. It was not pitch dark, the couple passed under a number of street lights on their way to Corbetts Court, and they spent many minutes in each other´s company.
So here we must realize that much as no description was given in the article, such a description would neverthless be obtainable from Robert Paul.
Furthermore, Robert Paul was not the only person who would be able to describe Lechmere - Jonas Mizen also saw him and spoke to him, and was able to say that he recognized him on the day of the inquest. So he had apparently gotten a good look at the carman.

So there is a different outcome on th parameters you mention:
He could NOT be named, but he COULD be described - and recognized. And since he passed Bucks Row every morning, walking west, he would always run the risk of being found and recognized by either man in the future.

Would that necessarily be a bad thing? Could he not just say that he hadn´t realized the importance of his testimony, IF he was found? Yes, he could. But how was he to know that he would not become the prime suspect and sought for as a result of the Paul interview? I am suggesting that he wanted to be proactive when he read that interview and decided that blowing out a match is much easier than blowing out a bonfire.

Much also hinges on how bold a man he was. If he was very scared and easily panicked, he would probably not dare to approach the police.
But if he was not easily scared, it would be a clever thing to do to approach them and serve a story that gave him some sort of an alibi.

We know that he did approach Mizen on the murder night, and Jonas Mizen says that Lechmere was the carman doing the talking, so I think we may rule out that he was squeamish if he was the killer.

You are correct that Lechmere did not attempt to run or to avoid Robert Paul. He made no effort in that department whatsoever - he actively sought out Paul and brought him over to the body.

At that time, the wounds to the abomen were covered. If anybody else than Lechmere was the killer, then that somebody would either have left the body before he heard Lechmere approach, or he would have left the body as a result of Lechmere appearing.

In the first case, there would have been no reason at all to hide the wounds, since there was nobody in place to see them. And it would be inconsistent with the other Ripper deeds, since these were "display" deeds, where the victims are left in shocking positions, clearly revealing what had happened.

In the second case, why would the killer take the time to cover the wounds with a person drawing nearer along the street? Why would he not prioritize getting out of the street instead?

In fact, the only truly reasonable scenario in which a covering of the wounds apply as something useful, is a scenario where the killer is still in place at the murder spot, but wants the murder to stay undetected. And if Lechmere was the killer, then he did the covering. And if he did the covering, he did so because he had decided to bluff Paul. And in such a case, why would he not approach Paul, why would he not take him to the body, why would he not go through the moves, feeling for warmth, for breath? It would make himself look innocent and it would give him an alibi for whatever blood he may have had on himself.
And as long as the clothes were not pulled up or the body moved dramatically, he would stand a fair chance of conning Paul. In that context, it is of course very interesting to note that Lechmere refused bluntly to help prop the body up. Such a thing would of course have given away that the head had been almost severed from the body. So everyting is consistent with the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer.

Last: You seem surprised that Lechmere did not turn up until after 72 hours. Why is that? He had no reason to go to day one of the inquest, since the interview with Paul had not been published at that stage. It was not until the 2:nd, two days after the murder that LLoyds Weekly published. Meaning that Lechmere appeared at the inquest on the first possible day AFTER the interview.
At what exact stage he had come forward is impossible to say, but a fair guess would be on Sunday evening - the day of the publication and perhaps 72 hours after the murder. It therefore dovetails perfectly with when he should have surfaced if the interview was what flushed him out.

I suggest that we leave this as it is now. You have had your answer, and I am resuming my earlier stance not to debate with you. It deprives me of many opportunities to elaborate on the theory and how it works, but that is a price I prefer to pay as it stands.
If you could muster the courage not to claim that I am afraid of debating with you, or that I have no answers to give, and if you could refrain from insults about me, I would be very grateful. Maybe that could in time help pave the way to a reopened discussion between us. Whether you genuinely want that or not is not for me to say, but that is what it would take, regardless.

[Trevor Marriott]

Would that necessarily be a bad thing? Could he not just say that he hadn´t realized the importance of his testimony,

Or, perhaps he thought his public spirited duty ended when he found the policeman and told him about finding the body.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Or, perhaps he thought his public spirited duty ended when he found the policeman and told him about finding the body.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Very possible Trevor, especially if he believed there was nothing on any use he could add. That is assuming he was not the killer, and saw nothing other than Nichols laying in the road.


Steve