Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

[MrBarnett]

You might find this interesting, Trevor.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9v_XkreYZ-c

[AlanG]

You might find this interesting, Trevor.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9v_XkreYZ-c

Thanks

[MrBarnett]

Thanks

You’re welcome, Alan. I posted the link to counter Trevor’s claim that Ed Stow has abandoned his theory that Charles Lechmere was JTR. Far from it.

Presumably Trevor is out of touch with what’s going on.

Gary

[harry]

Here is another of my odd observations,as fisherman would term it,that might inspire some some thought. Neither Cross nor Paul found Nichols body,the beat policeman did.How come? well Cross was her killer,and he never left the scene to return and find her.Paul didn't find her,he was stopped by Cross and informed she was there.That leaves Neil,the first to find her. Theories can be so perplexing at times.better to accept what the evidence shows,and the evidence shows Cross found her.

[Trevor Marriott]

You’re welcome, Alan. I posted the link to counter Trevor’s claim that Ed Stow has abandoned his theory that Charles Lechmere was JTR. Far from it.

Presumably Trevor is out of touch with what’s going on.

Gary

I never said he had abandoned his theory what I suggested was that he had taken a step back and was allowing Christer to take all the flak

I am not out of touch, but he brings nothing new to the table, its still square pegs into round holes, in the videos he has merely duplicated much of what was in the TV documentary, which highlights the obsession both he and Lechmeres relative, and Christer still have despite what they have been told many times, and none of them still wont accept the reality of their misguided beliefs.

They all keep suggesting Lechmere is a prime suspect for the WM and the Torsos they clearly dont know the meaning of the term prime suspect

"A prime suspect or key suspect is a person who is considered by the law enforcement agency investigating a crime to be the most likely suspect"

This is why we see all the flaws in the list of prime suspects who people have suggestedover the years

How many more times do they have to be told that there is no evidence against Lechmere to suggest he is, or was a prime suspect not then, not now.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

I note that we cover a lot of common ground here, Frank, which I of course welcome. The first issue I have with your post is when you write, in answer to my question:

To me, there are two things that are not in line with this scenario. The first thing is that Paul was not at the inquest on the 3rd. If the police hauled Lechmere in, then why did they not do so with Paul?

...that:

We can’t possibly know, but it seems that Paul was “fetched up in the middle of the night”. This seems to mean at his home, not in Buck’s Row on his way to work.

It seems you believe that Paul was fetched up in the middle of the night before the second day of the inquest, but I think this cannot have been so. If the police were that eager to lay their hands on him, then he would certainly have been put on the stand by the coroner on the 3rd. Let´s keep in mind that the true version of the events was still very fresh to the police and coroner, and so every little bit that could be gleaned in order to put things right would have been absolutely essential.
Furthermore, we know from Walter Dews memoirs that Paul was sought after for quite some time. True, Dew does not remember that Paul was eventually found, but his words about how the police "made repeated appeals for him to come forward" is in perfect line with how Paul only appeared on the 17th - meaning, of course, that the coroner DID want him heard.

There is also the matter of the identification of Charles Lechmere, where you suggest that the coroner could have ordered it. But why would he? The ID would have been made if Mizen had been posted in Bucks Row on the night leading up to the second inquest day, finding Lechmere. The identification would have been certified at that stage. The coroner would have no business at all repeating it, he would know that Lechmere had been found and ID:d.
What the identification of course puts beyond doubt is that Lechmere was not the ordinary witness, who had been looked into and asked numerous questions by the police, mulled over by the coroner and presented at the inquest as a result of these exhaustive processes. He was a last minute addition by the looks of things.

I agree with you that Lechmere was very likely a last minute addition, Christer. Whether the police had hauled him in that morning on his way to work or he himself came forward are both possible. To me, the fact that he wore his apron seems to point to whichever of the two to have happened that morning.

Although it seems very logical that Mizen would have been present at the police’s picking up of Lechmere – if this is what happened – it would, by no means, be a given. The identification does support that he wasn't, but it could very well, and perhaps, admitted, a little better, mean what you suggest. The same goes, at least for me, for the notion that they would have hauled in Paul if they did haul in Lechmere by posting in Buck’s Row between, say, 3 and 4 in the morning. It does seem logical that they would get Paul too then, but it's not a given.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Nope.Not biting ,Trevor. Obviously no teeth to bite with.

Oh, I´ve got really good teeth, Harry. It´s the foul taste and low nutrition value I object about.

[Fisherman]

Here is another of my odd observations,as fisherman would term it,that might inspire some some thought. Neither Cross nor Paul found Nichols body,the beat policeman did.How come? well Cross was her killer,and he never left the scene to return and find her.Paul didn't find her,he was stopped by Cross and informed she was there.That leaves Neil,the first to find her. Theories can be so perplexing at times.better to accept what the evidence shows,and the evidence shows Cross found her.

Not biting, Harry.

[Fisherman]

I agree with you that Lechmere was very likely a last minute addition, Christer. Whether the police had hauled him in that morning on his way to work or he himself came forward are both possible. To me, the fact that he wore his apron seems to point to whichever of the two to have happened that morning.

Yes, the apron fits both perspectives. But the identification business implicates to me that he came forward on his own account.

Although it seems very logical that Mizen would have been present at the police’s picking up of Lechmere – if this is what happened – it would, by no means, be a given.

Few things ARE given. It would be odd, though, don´t you think, if they wanted to haul Mizen in and knew they had a man who could ID him - and then didn´t use him?

The identification does support that he wasn't, but it could very well, and perhaps, admitted, a little better, mean what you suggest.

I do think I´ve got that edge, yes.

The same goes, at least for me, for the notion that they would have hauled in Paul if they did haul in Lechmere by posting in Buck’s Row between, say, 3 and 4 in the morning. It does seem logical that they would get Paul too then, but it's not a given.

All the best,
Frank

Yes, IF they hauled Lechmere in, it seems a given that they´d try to get Paul too. Of course, if Paul was sick or anything like that on the day, they could have missed him for that reason. There are always counter bids if one looks long enough! What I do not believe, however, is that Paul was present at the second day of the inquest. I think he was looked for by the police for quite some time (as per Dew), subsequently fpund and hauled out of bed in the middle of night and summoned to the last two inquest days. If he had been in place on the second day of the inquest, it would be bordering on derelction of duty not to put him on the stand. There were disagreements inbetween that Lechmere and Mizen said, and these could potentially have been cleared up by Paul.
The really odd thing is of course that no effort was made to clear them up once Paul did take the stand. To me, that implies that the police and the inquest had swallowed Lechmere´s story, hook, line and sinker.

One last thing. I said that few things are given. I would, however say, that if there are as many anomalies, coincidences and flukes attaching to a man who was found with the victim at a remove in time that is consistent with being the killer as there are in Lechmere´s case, then it IS a given that he was the killer. It is only when we take these matters one by one that we may present alternative innocent solutions to them. When we look at them all taken together, it defies logic to supply them all with such explanations. That´s how I see it, and that is why I also think I am right about Lechmere calling in to the inquest himself at a late remove in time; it fits the rest of the evidence.

The best, Frank!

[AlanG]

You’re welcome, Alan. I posted the link to counter Trevor’s claim that Ed Stow has abandoned his theory that Charles Lechmere was JTR. Far from it.

Presumably Trevor is out of touch with what’s going on.

Gary

A few thoughts of mine I often wonder regarding Lechmere. Firstly, if there were any suspicion that he was the murderer, the Police would've made sure to find his whereabouts at the time of the killings. Secondly, such a central figure to the Bucks row murder, surely Police who knew him by sight would've at least recognised his description for other murders? Thirdly, he had many colleagues. If they knew he found a body, I can't for one second believe the other murders weren't discussed, yet no suspicion and this is all of course total speculation on my part, finally, I cannot believe the Police wouldn't of checked his rota schedule at the time for the rest of the murders. Like I said to Fisherman, its a real shame we don't have his schedule records to either exonerate him or otherwise. I am sure Trevor would agree as an ex lawman that he would've left no stone unturned in a murder case.

[Fisherman]

A few thoughts of mine I often wonder regarding Lechmere. Firstly, if there were any suspicion that he was the murderer, the Police would've made sure to find his whereabouts at the time of the killings. Secondly, such a central figure to the Bucks row murder, surely Police who knew him by sight would've at least recognised his description for other murders? Thirdly, he had many colleagues. If they knew he found a body, I can't for one second believe the other murders weren't discussed, yet no suspicion and this is all of course total speculation on my part, finally, I cannot believe the Police wouldn't of checked his rota schedule at the time for the rest of the murders. Like I said to Fisherman, its a real shame we don't have his schedule records to either exonerate him or otherwise. I am sure Trevor would agree as an ex lawman that he would've left no stone unturned in a murder case.

Although you addressed this to Gary, I´d like to take the liberty to tell you about Stig Engström if I may. He was, by the Swedish state prosecutor, named the killer of prime minister Olof Palme in the summer of 2020, 34 years after the murder. He was first looked into as the possible culprit in 2016, by a journalist.

He was at the murder site, that was always on record, but he was nevertheless not looked into in depth by the Swedish police. They decided to drop him as a busybody early on in the investigation, an investigation that cost astronomical sums of money and engaged hundreds and thousands of policemen, trying to find the killer. Alongside the police, myriads of amateur detectives and all sorts of people discussed and tried to solve the case too.

For all of those years, it never occurred to anybody that the police had perhaps not researched a man who was actually on the murder site at the time Palme was shot. This was nevertheless so. Once it was looked into, it turned out that Engströms claims from the murder night were not in sync with what all the other witnesses had said. Engström claimed to have tended to the prime minister and spoken to his wife, as her husband lay shot in the street, but not a single witness remembered that he was there. Nor was he of any of the photos taken at the site. Engström also claimed that the man seen running from the spot had been described in a fashion that tallied extremely well with himself, and he said that he had also run along the street, but with the object to inform the police about what he knew.

Nobody recognised these things until 2016. This summer, the investigation into Palmes death was brought to a close, naming Engström as the killer. He died in 2000, and could thus not be prosecuted.

The moral of this story is easy enough to see; regardless of how countless people and tremendous resources are spent in a murder hunt, if those who were really at the murder site are not researched in depth, the killer may well evade capture.

This is but one example of how the police have missed out on extremely clear clues and how they have failed to perform to a standard that should be self-evident. Keeping in mind how many cases the police have to deal with, it is understandable that mistakes will be made and procedure will sometimes fail to be put into practice. All in all, much as we all can see what the police SHOULD have done in a case, there can never be any certainty that they actually did do it. The policemen who questioned Christie failed to notice that the fence in his garden was supported by a femur. And so they hanged Timothy Evans instead. And so on.

If we claim that since we think that the police would never have failed to look into Lechmere, the case for him as the killer must be discarded, then we have statistics on our side.

But so did all those who said that prime minister Palmes killer would never be found.

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Pretty viable interruption Fish. The parallels between the cases are very relevant. It's a fascinating story, though not so well known outside Sweden. Engstrom was a known character in the case, but no one had him down as a likely suspect. Until till some busybody newspaper hack got involved...

[AlanG]

Hi Fish, don't worry buddy, you're an expert on this subject. Perhaps, they didn't suspect for him because of the position he held? To quote "An educated man, how preposterous" In all seriousness, its a fascinating example.

[harry]

Glad to hear you have good teeth fisherman.False of course.

[harry]

Alan G,
A little aside here.A few posts back you remarked you had never found a body,so would not know what to do.
I have found two,and was first at the scene at both. Does that mean I was involved in their deaths?
My instinct in both cases was to alert the authorities,identify myself,and make a statement.just as Cross did.
There are cases of course where the first at the scene have come under suspicion,but there is an overwhelming number who were first on the scene and have been shown to be innocent.The difference of course,was in the evidence provided.