Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Exactly !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick S]

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 otherīs 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 otherīs 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 hadnīt 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.

The question was simple. And you didn't answer it. Look at the information Lechmere had access to and tell me what drove him to submit himself to the police for questioning at the inquest. What caused him to be "flushed out", exactly? I'd suggest further that you and Eddie get on the same page.

HE wrote:

Paul’s newspaper story compelled Charles Lechmere to come forward. That was the least dangerous option for him once the story appeared. He could just deny saying to Mizen that he was wanted – as he did and he got away with it didn’t he as it wasn’t followed up, no matter how much you might huff and puff about it.

And I wrote:

So you are saying that Lechmere's LEAST DANGEROUS option was to come forward and testify at the inquest in that he could "just deny saying to Mizen that he was wanted – as he did and he got away with it didn’t he as it wasn’t followed up". Yet, Mizen had not testified yet. He testified at the inquest the day AFTER Paul's story appeared in Lloyd's. Monday. The same day that Lechmere testified. Why would he show up to refute testimony that hadn't been given yet? Further, what is contained in Paul's comments that could possibly be "dangerous" to Lechmere, a "bombshell" that forced him to testify at the inquest? Lechmere is described twice in Paul's comments. I'll list them here:

1. A man.
2. The man.

So. Beyond identifying Lechmere's sex, Paul gives no description at all. Further, Lechmere was aware of the fact that Mizen didn't ask his name. He said, "Alright" and let the two men go about their business. So, you see the problem I'm having. You have Lechmere rushing to the inquest to refute testimony that had yet to be given, compelled to do so further by the description of him as a "man" given in Lloyd's by Paul.

So, you didn't answer. Rather than deal with - as I'd asked - the information that was published in Lloyd's that your internationally send documentary proclaimed A BOMBSHELL you go into massive supposition and invention, as is required for anyone willing to subscribe to this "theory".

I don't see any point in your answering as it will be more of the same. I ask a question. You give an absurd answer - like this one - then declare, "Game over! I've won again!". That's why I wanted a LIVE debate. So that you could see the audience howling with laughter at your fantastical answers to what should be simple questions.

I'd rather others weigh-in here. Was this a BOMBSHELL that FLUSHED Lechmere the Ripper OUT? What do you make of Fisherman's response? I find it silly. But I may be in minority. One and all, your thoughts.

[Pierre]

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 otherīs 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 otherīs 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 hadnīt 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.

How interesting. I will comment on this soon.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Patrick S!

This is the only question you asked:

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?

I did answer that question in great detail. Whether you like the answer or not is immaterial.

You also try to make the point that Edward would have said that Lechmere went to the inquest to deny Mizens statement that he had been told that another policeman was in place in Bucks Row. You try to present this as a fact by quoting Edwards words:

Paul’s newspaper story compelled Charles Lechmere to come forward. That was the least dangerous option for him once the story appeared. He could just deny saying to Mizen that he was wanted – as he did and he got away with it didn’t he as it wasn’t followed up, no matter how much you might huff and puff about it.

What Edward says here is not that Lechmere KNEW in advance what Mizen would say. He instead points to how Lechmere, if he was the killer and had lied to Mizen about an extra PC - could confidently go to the inquest knowing that IF the issue came up, he would be able to deny it. And I fully agree with that, so we are saying the exact same thing.

It is a rather simple thing, and should not result in any confusion.

However, since you have once again resorted to your old ways, these corrections of your misunderstandings or misleadings (you must choose yourself what applies) are all I have to offer.

If you are able to restrain yourself in the future, I may reopen a discussion with you, but since this example made it very clear that you immediately start scorning and insulting again, I can only work from the assumption that you prefer to spread your thoughts - including a belittling of me and Edward - undisturbed.

[Fisherman]

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

If Mizen was told that a woman had been found by Lechmere in Bucks Row, a woman who could well be dead or dying, just how great a chance do you think there is that Mizen would NOT have taken the carmans name and detained him?

If Mizen was told that a woman had been found lying on her back in Bucks Row, and that there was another PC there in place who had the situation in hand, but who would like to get some help, just how great a chance do you think there is that Mizen would have taken the carmans name and detained him?

How do you reason here? Where does your logic lead you?

[Patrick S]

Patrick S!

This is the only question you asked:


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?

I did answer that question in great detail. Whether you like the answer or not is immaterial.

You also try to make the point that Edward would have said that Lechmere went to the inquest to deny Mizens statement that he had been told that another policeman was in place in Bucks Row. You try to present this as a fact by quoting Edwards words:

Paul’s newspaper story compelled Charles Lechmere to come forward. That was the least dangerous option for him once the story appeared. He could just deny saying to Mizen that he was wanted – as he did and he got away with it didn’t he as it wasn’t followed up, no matter how much you might huff and puff about it.

What Edward says here is not that Lechmere KNEW in advance what Mizen would say. He instead points to how Lechmere, if he was the killer and had lied to Mizen about an extra PC - could confidently go to the inquest knowing that IF the issue came up, he would be able to deny it.

It is a rather simple thing, and should not result in any confusion.

However, since you have once again resorted to your old ways, these corrections of your misunderstandings or misleadings (you must choose yourself what applies) are all I have to offer.

If you are able to restrain yourself in the future, I may reopen a discussion with you, but since this example made it very clear that you immediately start scorning and insulting again, I can only work from the assumption that you prefer to spread your thoughts - including a belittling of me and Edward - undisturbed.

WHERE IS THE SCORN AND INSULTS? I give it as I get it. If you can't take it, then respond without sarcasm. Don't condescend. Don't take shots. And that's what you'll get in return. Get a thicker skin. We're not friends. We're not going to be. The only thing we have in common is our interest in this case. Stop making everything personal and recoiling in horror whenever anyone dares take issue with your theories. Enough with this stuff. It's childish.

And I know what Eddie meant. And you both miss my point: There is nothing in Paul's statement (not "IF he had misled"...not "Paul COULD have given a description"...none of that) that makes it s a BOMBSHELL. No only that, it's cause for Lechmere - had he killed Nichols - to breath a sigh of relief, not RUN to the inquest the next day! Paul relegates him to the background. He leaves him in Buck's Row while he goes to find a PC.

My overarching point was again proven through your approach to this one question: Nothing works unless you proceed with the (to quote you) "the thought that Lechmere is guilty"....and even then it just doesn't work. I asked you to look at Paul's statement and tell me what made it a bombshell that drove Lechmere out of the shadows. You told me how Paul COULD have recognized him. But his statement doesn't say that. You assume that. You and Eddie contend that Lechmere rushed to the inquest to head Mizen off at the pass, because he knew he lied. But YOU don't know he lied. Paul says nothing about another PC in Buck's Row. Lechmere denies it. Paul says he told Mizen she was dead. Lechmere says he told Mizen she was dead. Mizen says they didn't. But YOU say Lechmere lied to Mizen and he MUST have done so out of Paul's earshot. Completely invented. NOT in the news report. So. AGAIN. We must infer, invent, construct, MAKE UP scenarios that make this a BOMBSHELL, that 'flushes Lechmere' out.

[Patrick S]

If Mizen was told that a woman had been found by Lechmere in Bucks Row, a woman who could well be dead or dying, just how great a chance do you think there is that Mizen would NOT have taken the carmans name and detained him?

Why did Paul lie? "He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

If Mizen was told that a woman had been found lying on her back in Bucks Row, and that there was another PC there in place who had the situation in hand, but who would like to get some help, just how great a chance do you think there is that Mizen would have taken the carmans name and detained him?

So you contend that Lechmere pulled Mizen aside so Paul could not hear and, what? Whispered that another PC was waiting in Buck's Row? And Mizen didn't think that was odd? Paul was preoccupied doing what, taking a call on his cell phone? How did Lechmere manage to get Mizen all to himself, inconspicuously, and whisper this vital piece of misinformation that led to his getting away with (many, many) murder(s)?

How do you reason here? Where does your logic lead you?

It leads ME to ask the above bold.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S WHERE IS THE SCORN AND INSULTS? I give it as I get it.

Here it is:
"That's why I wanted a LIVE debate. So that you could see the audience howling with laughter at your fantastical answers to what should be simple questions."

I was - and am - not scorning or being sarcastic in any way. So you do not give it as you get it. If you have any example to the different, please post it.

As for the "bombshell" issue, I donīt think I have ever used the expression. I said in the documentary that something exploded in the face of the police. And that explosion was the information that Neil was quite possibly not the finder of the body.

I have explained how and why I think Lechmere was flushed out - by having been pointed out as having stood alone where the body was. That was a wording that carried serious implications, and my suggestion - after all, suggestions are all we can produce, more or less based on the facts - is that Lechmere wanted to quench that match before it grew into a bonfire.

I really do not see how that is not answering your question. It was the only question you asked.

If you still dont think it has been answered, then formulate it as stringently as you can, and I will answer.

[Elamarna]

If Mizen was told that a woman had been found by Lechmere in Bucks Row, a woman who could well be dead or dying, just how great a chance do you think there is that Mizen would NOT have taken the carmans name and detained him?

If Mizen was told that a woman had been found lying on her back in Bucks Row, and that there was another PC there in place who had the situation in hand, but who would like to get some help, just how great a chance do you think there is that Mizen would NOT have taken the carmans name and detained him?

How do you reason here? Where does your logic lead you?

It is not often I agree with Trevor, but this time I do.

Fisherman, your premise is logical;, however it is based on accepting that Mizen was told there was another Policeman on the site.

And the truth is that despite the inquest testimony, where there are several statements all given under oath that do not agree, we do not know which version, if any, is true!

Some choose to believe Mizen, others Paul and Lechmere, and I that there was an initial misunderstanding about what was said to Mizen and its actual meaning.


No doubt You will disagree, and give the arguments about Mizen and the inquest testimony, which have not convinced me.( of course that does not mean it is not true, just that the arguments are not conclusive to me).



Steve

[Fisherman]

It leads ME to ask the above bold.

Iīm sorry, but until the issue of the original question has been resolved, I will not go into any further discussion with you.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: It is not often I agree with Trevor, but this time I do.

Fisherman, your premise is logical;, however it is based on accepting that Mizen was told there was another Policeman on the site of a dead woman.

There is no premise. I am asking two simple questions. Once we answer them, we can start to try and conclude from it.

If you think it is unfair that there can only be one really rational answer in each case, just say so.

[Patrick S]

Iīm sorry, but until the issue of the original question has been resolved, I will not go into any further discussion with you.

Then resolve the question. Answer it without inventing actions and prescribing motives. It's simple. Base your answer on Paul's Lloyd's statement. Tell us what made it a 'bombshell' and why it "flushed (Lechmere) out". Now, if you want to be technical you wanted ten questions. I only gave one (and you taunted me on that point). So consider this question number two:

Why did Robert Paul LIE in his statement in Lloyd's. Paul stated, "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."

You contend that Mizen was NOT told the woman was dead. If that's true, why does Paul say that he told Mizen that she WAS dead - in no uncertain terms - two days after the event?

[Fisherman]

Then resolve the question. Answer it without inventing actions and prescribing motives. It's simple. Base your answer on Paul's Lloyd's statement. Tell us what made it a 'bombshell' and why it "flushed (Lechmere) out".

You may have missed it, but I donīt think it appropriate to use quotation marks around bombshell, since I do not recognize having used the exact expression.

As I said, I used the expression that "something exploded in the face of the police" in the docu, and I did that to describe how the police were suddenly faced with information claiming that Neil was not the finder of the body.

I can therefore only answer why I think Lechmere was flushed out based on what was said in the Paul interview: Because of how it carried information about how Paul had found a man standing where the body was when he arrived at Browns. I believe that Lechmere came forward on account of how he feared that he would otherwise become the lead suspect in the case. The papers had carried information that the body was bleeding profusely as Neil found the body, and that would tell the police that the cutting was close in time to his presence at the site. Plus Mizen was able to recognize him at the inquest, and this would be something Lechmere probably recognized too - that he had been seen close up in good enough lighting conditions to allow for an identification.

If you want a shorter answer: Because Paul had stated in his interview that another man had been standing where the body was as he arrived at Browns.

[Patrick S]

You may have missed it, but I donīt think it appropriate to use quotation marks around bombshell, since I do not recognize having used the exact expression.

As I said, I used the expression that "something exploded in the face of the police" in the docu, and I did that to describe how the police were suddenly faced with information claiming that Neil was not the finder of the body.

I can therefore only answer why I think Lechmere was flushed out based on what was said in the Paul interview: Because of how it carried information about how Paul had found a man standing where the body was when he arrived at Browns. I believe that Lechmere came forward on account of how he feared that he would otherwise become the lead suspect in the case. The papers had carried information that the body was bleeding profusely as Neil found the body, and that would tell the police that the cutting was close in time to his presence at the site. Plus Mizen was able to recognize him at the inquest, and this would be something Lechmere probably recognized too - that he had been seen close up in good enough lighting conditions to allow for an indentification.

If you want a shorter answer: Because Paul had stated in his interview that another man had been standing where the body was as he arrived at Browns.

The narrator of the documentary said, "...and then, a BOMBSHELL!"

Asked and answered then. You feel that because Robert Paul stated that he found "a man" standing where the body was that this "flushed (Lechmere) out" and compelled him to appear at the inquest. Fair enough. It's not for me to decide if you are right or wrong. No one can know that. It's now for others to decided how they feel about the answer. Thanks.

Now, the second question (you wanted ten) that added in edit to a previous response. Why did Robert Paul lie (in his Lloyd's statement) about telling Mizen that the woman in Buck's Row was dead?

[Robert St Devil]

Since Paul was also in the eye of the storm, Fisherman, should he be considered too? Was Buck,s Row his fastest route, or a shortcut for men running late to work?

It,s been a curiosity lately when considering Lechmere as a suspect, and how far his lie could have run. That, and the idea of two men kneeling on either side of Polly Nicholls taking more than just her vitals.