Scenarios for other murders with Lechmere as culprit

[niko]

carmen.

Hi everyone, I find this thread very interesting. Talking about carmen and horses, if I remember rightly pc Drage said somthing like " he helped a caman get his horse up which had fallen along the Whitechapel Road and in this time the kinfe could of been placed on the doorstep of the laundry" correct me if I'm wrong !! another thing was'nt Demistch the Berner Club steward also the propitor of a horse and cart !! that makes him a carman too !! All the best, agur.

Sally I too think this smells of a cover - up

Niko.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Just a tiny quote of slight connection..

EVENING STANDARD 12TH SEPTEMBER 1888

A woman named Durrell, who minds carts on market morning in Spitalfields market, stated yesterday that, about half past five o'clock on Saturday morning, she was passing the front door of No. 29 Hanbury street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say, "Will you?" and the woman replied, "Yes." They then disappeared. Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple.

my emphasis

best wishes

Phil

[Abby Normal]

I started this new thread at poster Lechmeres request after I had posed my questions on the other thread. So far five pages in and still no explanation on the specifics that would tie Lech to the other murders. Even prosecutors will give there scenarios of how they think a murder occurred and by tying it to there suspect. Since Fish and Lech are claiming Lech as the culprit for the ripper murders this is the perfect opportunity for them to do so and to give there specific scenarios for each victim including when Lech left his home, where he encountered his victim, and when each murder occurred.
I would love to see them list each victim they think can be attributed to Lech and then lay out the scenario for each using the questions I posed above.

If not, then I would suggest the moderator delete this thread. We do not need another general thread on Lech.

[Monty]

I started this new thread at poster Lechmeres request after I had posed my questions on the other thread. So far five pages in and still no explanation on the specifics that would tie Lech to the other murders. Even prosecutors will give there scenarios of how they think a murder occurred and by tying it to there suspect. Since Fish and Lech are claiming Lech as the culprit for the ripper murders this is the perfect opportunity for them to do so and to give there specific scenarios for each victim including when Lech left his home, where he encountered his victim, and when each murder occurred.
I would love to see them list each victim they think can be attributed to Lech and then lay out the scenario for each using the questions I posed above.

If not, then I would suggest the moderator delete this thread. We do not need another general thread on Lech.

Complete agreement.

I have also asked. Instead I just get preachings.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Edward has stated that he will post on the thread if I am not misremembering things. I have said myself what I have to say.

I think most people will realize that it borders on the impossible to ascribe any specific detail from the evidence to Lechmere in the cases of Tabram, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly - other that that if he was the killer of Nichols, then the methodology in the other cases is very close to the Buckīs Row ditto.

Why anybody would want to write that Lechmere would have arrived in at George Yard at approximately so and so, he would have used a knife etcetera is beyond me. It is all very apparent that somebody did, and we know that Lechmere would have been close by if he followed a logical choice of route etcetera. What is there to add?

We all know the approximate time at which he left his home, the routes that were open to him to reach his work quickly and where his mother and daughter lived. This has been gone over in other threads, and if somebody has more to say on it, these other threads would suffice and be appropriate enough.

And then I can preach to Monty there. Iīll probably convert him in no time I canīt see it happening the other way – your religion is too taliban to me, Monty...

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Edward has stated that he will post on the thread if I am not misremembering things. I have said myself what I have to say.

I think most people will realize that it borders on the impossible to ascribe any specific detail from the evidence to Lechmere in the cases of Tabram, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly - other that that if he was the killer of Nichols, then the methodology in the other cases is very close to the Buckīs Row ditto.

Why anybody would want to write that Lechmere would have arrived in at George Yard at approximately so and so, he would have used a knife etcetera is beyond me. It is all very apparent that somebody did, and we know that Lechmere would have been close by if he followed a logical choice of route etcetera. What is there to add?

We all know the approximate time at which he left his home, the routes that were open to him to reach his work quickly and where his mother and daughter lived. This has been gone over in other threads, and if somebody has more to say on it, these other threads would suffice and be appropriate enough.

And then I can preach to Monty there. Iīll probably convert him in no time I canīt see it happening the other way – your religion is too taliban to me, Monty...

The best,
Fisherman

Edward has stated that he will post on the thread if I am not misremembering things. I have said myself what I have to say.

OK. Great. Then if you wont do it I eagerly await Lechs response.

This has been gone over in other threads, and if somebody has more to say on it, these other threads would suffice and be appropriate enough.

Actually it has not. Not to the extent that I have asked. And per poster Lech requested I started a new thread just for this purpose.

I dont get it Fish. its really not that big a deal and i thought you would jump at the opportunity to lay out your case specifically for each murder. For example:

Martha Tabram: lech leaves house at 3:00. Encounters Tabram on such and such street at approx 3:15 and goes with her to George yard building where he murders her at 3:20. he leaves the scene by 3:25 and continues to work.
Alfred crow sees body at approx 3:30.
Etc, Etc, for the rest of the murder victims.

As you know Fish, I am not one of the vehement anti-lechmereians and am not asking for you and Lech to provide your scenarios just to give you a bunch of crap. I am really sympathetic to your plight and am glad you and lech for the work you have done on this. Its interesting and worthy and as Tom Wescott said-you could do much much worse for a suspect. I am genuinly interested and think this exercise could help in going a good way towards perhaps convincing more people in the validity of your theory. I know i keep an open mind.

I hope you reconsider and I hope Lech responds.

[DVV]

Hello all,
Just a tiny quote of slight connection..
EVENING STANDARD 12TH SEPTEMBER 1888

A woman named Durrell, who minds carts on market morning in Spitalfields market, stated yesterday that, about half past five o'clock on Saturday morning, she was passing the front door of No. 29 Hanbury street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say, "Will you?" and the woman replied, "Yes." They then disappeared. Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple.
my emphasis
Phil

Hi Phil
well-spotted. Lechmere-the-Ripper resembled an English carman on 31 August, but...only on 31 August.

[DVV]

David:
"don't think you're the only guy that laughs at the Mizen scam theory"

Youīre mistaking all of this, David. It was not the theory as such I was laughing about...
The best,
Fisherman

Er... how can I say, Fish...? Are you sure you're not "mistaking all this"... I know you're not ready yet to laugh at the Mizen scam. It may come, though.
Would you explain the reason why you chose to believe Mizen, whereas Paul, who had no reason to lie, never alluded to a policeman already waiting in Bucks Row ?

[Sally]

Edward has stated that he will post on the thread if I am not misremembering things. I have said myself what I have to say.

I think most people will realize that it borders on the impossible to ascribe any specific detail from the evidence to Lechmere in the cases of Tabram, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly - other that that if he was the killer of Nichols, then the methodology in the other cases is very close to the Buckīs Row ditto.

Why anybody would want to write that Lechmere would have arrived in at George Yard at approximately so and so, he would have used a knife etcetera is beyond me. It is all very apparent that somebody did, and we know that Lechmere would have been close by if he followed a logical choice of route etcetera. What is there to add?

We all know the approximate time at which he left his home, the routes that were open to him to reach his work quickly and where his mother and daughter lived. This has been gone over in other threads, and if somebody has more to say on it, these other threads would suffice and be appropriate enough.

And then I can preach to Monty there. Iīll probably convert him in no time I canīt see it happening the other way – your religion is too taliban to me, Monty...

The best,
Fisherman

I agree with you here Fisherman, generally speaking. I think to 'ascribe specific detail' is bordering on fantasy. You might as well write a novel.

However, having said that, you and Ed have both been keen to stress the ease with which Crossmere could have (or should that be cudda?) killed on his way to work etc - so perhaps an annotated street plan demonstrating his purported routes would be useful to see. Maybe one of you can provide such.

Also useful would be your time estimates from his house to his workplace via the murder sites assuming he took said routes.

[Lechmere]

Abbey
I will go through each murder with maps as soon as I can but I am a bit busy at the moment and it isn't a task that can just be rattled off.
I am a bit surprsied the thread got so long so quickly when it is on a specific theme that has barely been addressed by anyone - but I guess some are very keen for Charles Lechmere to be dropped as a potential suspect and put in their derail attempts early!

One thing has been touched upon and that is the reports of carmen and carts around many murder scenes - particularly the ones that occured slightly later in the morning.
It is also interesting that the Torso murders have been introduced.
There was also a report of three men with a big parcel on a wheelbarrow (rather than cart) by the fencing around the Scotland Yard site but the matter seems to have been dropped soon after.
The issue of how the body parts were dropped off and conveyed is worth pondering.

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"I hope you reconsider and I hope Lech responds."

To reconsider, Abby, I would have to have something to offer that I was of the meaning that other posters generally could not see for themselves. But I donīt have that. Your suggested take on Tabram, for example - what could I add? That he arrived a minute later because he steeped in dog-poop on his way? I just donīt know, Abby. We have the result, but how it was achieved in we donīt have, and I think itīs best left that way for the time being.
Nichols, thatīs another affair - that strike has a lot to offer in terms of deep-studying the material and suggesting different scenarios, based on the details. Otherwise, Iīm sorry to disappoint you - but I rather do that than disappoint myself, if you take my meaning.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

" an annotated street plan demonstrating his purported routes would be useful to see. Maybe one of you can provide such.
Also useful would be your time estimates from his house to his workplace via the murder sites assuming he took said routes."

It seems Edward is up to the task - and sure enough, a rough outline can be produced. Iīm not sure what value it would be of, though, so I hope Edward surprises me and convinces you all!

The best,
Fisherman
__________________

[Fisherman]

David:

"Would you explain the reason why you chose to believe Mizen, whereas Paul, who had no reason to lie, never alluded to a policeman already waiting in Bucks Row ?"

Is there a conflict inbetween the two? Paul only said that "they" contacted a PC and that "they" informed him. No comments on how.

If you still want to use the Lloyds article, then you must choose - Lloyds or the inquest. Paul painted different pictures on them two occasions, and only one - at best - can be correct.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David:

"Would you explain the reason why you chose to believe Mizen, whereas Paul, who had no reason to lie, never alluded to a policeman already waiting in Bucks Row ?"

Is there a conflict inbetween the two? Paul only said that "they" contacted a PC and that "they" informed him. No comments on how.

If you still want to use the Lloyds article, then you must choose - Lloyds or the inquest. Paul painted different pictures on them two occasions, and only one - at best - can be correct.

The best,
Fisherman

Dear Fish, how can a man like you resort to such quibbles ?
And no, no difference between the Lloyds and the inquest (have I have to add : in this respect ?) : neither in the Lloyds nor at the inquest did Paul alluded to Cross having said that a policeman was waiting for a constable in Buck's Row.
So what ?
Why on earth would Paul have lied or forgotten this ? Twice ?
Be real, Fish.
You may have other evidences pointing to Lech-the-Ripper, but not that one.
It simply doesn't work and you know it.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Dear Fish, how can a man like you..."

And precisely what is a man like me...?

"... resort to such quibbles ?"

This may come as a surprisae to you, but from where Iīm standing, I think you are the one doing all the quibbling. Different takes there, Iīm afraid!

"no difference between the Lloyds and the inquest (have I have to add : in this respect ?) : neither in the Lloyds nor at the inquest did Paul alluded to Cross having said that a policeman was waiting for a constable in Buck's Row."

Ah! Well, THAT is correct. There is in fact only one man who claims this - guess who? And after that, guess why?
My own guess is that you will score one out of two - and quibble.

"Why on earth would Paul have lied or forgotten this ? Twice ?"

Brilliant argumentation technique, David: Leave only two alternatives for answers, as if others did not exist. Any old sheep would step into that trap!

Unfortunately, I am not any old sheep. Which is why I swiftly point out that what one cannot hear, one cannot remember. You see, that is the alternative you conveniently left out. "The other man, who went down Hanbury Street...", remember? No?

"Be real, Fish."

But you donīt WANT me to be real, David! You want me to cheerfully tag along with your proposition that alternative three never existed, although it is a very obvious possibility. So you in fact need me to be false, not real.

"It simply doesn't work and you know it."

There are other alternatives to that one too, David. But to bring them up, I need to be real. And they will nullify your proposition, so you really donīt want me to do that...

The best,
Fisherman