Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

[Fisherman]

>>The Sadok Schneider and Sons Cap factory was about 100 feet further down Durward Street. It can't have provided much light. PC Neil said "it was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row" and he had to examine "the body by the aid of my lamp".<<

Absolutely correct, but you must remember, like a moth, Christer is fixated with lights.

Ironically, the ONLY bright light in the area was in Brady Street, which means Paul and anybody else would have been highly visible as they turned into Bucks Row. Which is probably why the killer ran off when they saw Lechmere turn into Bucks.

Just a remark on this post of yours, Dusty:
I donīt know if you read the old exchange, some years ago, involving Rob Clack? It ended up in an agreement that there was actually no light shining down at Brady Street at all, and that when Neil said that there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row, he actually meant the one outside Schneiders - which was at the end of the Row, from Brady Street. I do not recall the exchange in detail (I tried to find it but failed, but I will try again), but I seem to remember that there were street lighting maps presented that clearly showed that no lamp down at Brady Street could be seen when walking down Bucks Row - the lamp there was in Brady Street (and we do not know if it was ín function, some of the lamps in these street were not), was placed not in the outlet of Bucks Row into Brady Street but instead a fair stretch from that outlet down (or up, I cannot remember) Brady Street. Both Edward Stow and I were taking part in the debate, and both of us inititally thought it obvious that Neil must have spoken about Brady Street as "the end of the row", but then Edward found maps that implicated that Rob was correct, and so the only lamp we are aware of that would have shone in Bucks Row on the murder night, is the one outside Schneiders cap factory.
As an aside, I would not say that I am fixated with lights, but I tend to take an interest in anything that has a bearing on the case. Furthermore, even if there had been a street light up at the Bucks Row outlet into Brady Street, I would not say that it was a "bright" one - the street lamps typically gave off a limited amount of light only.

[drstrange169]

Thanks, I seem to remember those posts, I think they were on the other site, I'll have a look.

[caz]

Surely for is the wrong word here, Caz ? It should be against, presumably.

I was only quoting Fisherman's words, Dickere. Take it up with the main man.

[caz]

Mrs Logic,

You might care to re-read what you have written here. I think you may have used "for' when you meant "against". Your mistake makes your post look like nonsense and your tone supercilious, which I feel sure was not your intention.

Cheers, George

Weird. You are the second Fisherman fan to read my post and find fault, without bothering to read his. I was quoting directly from Fish, so if he meant 'against', he should not have written 'for'.

[drstrange169]

Here you go Christer,

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-victims/mary-ann-polly-nichols/17278-polly-by-gaslight-street-lighting-in-bucks-row

[caz]

My question still stands, regardless of whether you like it or not: can you produce a single piece of genuine evidence for the carmans guilt? It is a relevant question since you wrote that I ommitted to mention such evidence. You see, once you make that claim, you lead on that this kind of evidence exists. So let’ s hear it once and for all: does it? Examples, please. Not ”alternative innocent explanatios though”, like ”Maybe he was In Scotland”.

You really, REALLY don’ t want to answer that one, do you?

And we all understand why that is.

Here it is again, for those of you who didn't bother reading Fisherman's post carefully the first time.

What else are you skipping over?

[caz]

Ah, my mistake. Apologies to Caz.

Thinking back it was probably Christer. I've done some research since and while I didn't find any corroborating statements, the historical map shows a large open area on the corner of Bath and Brady which I thought might be a loading area and therefore well lit. Just speculation which noone seems to think is relevant. My other goal was to try to determine whether the clock tower at the brewery was multi-faced or chimed. No joy for information in that regard either.

Cheers, George

Apology accepted, George.

I never thought I would be guilty of reading Fisherman's posts more thoroughly than his fellow Lechmere theorists.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Weird. You are the second Fisherman fan to read my post and find fault, without bothering to read his. I was quoting directly from Fish, so if he meant 'against', he should not have written 'for'.

Because writing for is against what he said be-fore.

[Fisherman]

Here you go Christer,

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...g-in-bucks-row

Thanks a bunch, Dusty - however, I cannot find how it was ultimately agreed that the Schneiders Cap factory was the lamp Neil probably alluded to, whilst it could be shown that there was no street lamp at the outlet of Bucks Row into Bradys Street. And as far as I recall, that was where it all ended up.

And of course, if there was a lamp outside Schneiders that did shine, it would be odd in the extreme if Neil only spoke of a Bucks Row/Brady Street lamp more than a 100 yards away whilst ommitting to mentionthe Schneiders lamp.

[Fiver]

Off topic here, (sorry Wolf), but how come Doyle gets quoted as the pinnacle of rational thought and reason? The guy believed in paper fairies and all manner of other nonsense. He could write a good reason, but he sure didn't practice it. There's an enigma.

Doyle certainly was not the pinnacle of rational thought and reason, but what he said about theorizing was correct. This board is full people trying to adjust the facts to fit their theories instead of adjusting their theories to fit the facts.

[Fiver]

I donīt think that any of the PCs revealed the source of their time estimates. I think Paul is the best source we have, since he said that it was "exactly" 3.45 as he came into Bucks Row. He was late and so he had reason to keep close track of the time. He also said at the inquest that "on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four." (Morning Advertiser), meaning that there is a consistency in his testimony. Add to this the fact that coroner Baxter ended up at a view of how the carmen would have found the body at 3.45 since that tallied with the testimony given by various independent sources, and that the latest police report we know of, from October, has Swanson telling us that the carmen found the body at 3.45.

Every newspaper account I can find has Paul saying he left home "just before a quarter to four". I am unable to find any account where Paul gave a time that he entered Buck's row, let alone said "exactly."

Paul's timing disagrees with those of the various police officers.
* PC Neil said he found Nichols body about about 3:45am.
* PC Mizen said he met Paul and Lechmere at 3:45am.
* PC Thain said he was signaled by PC Neil at 3:45am.

So either all three police officers were wrong about the time and those events happened around 3:50am or Robert Paul was wrong and he and Lechmere found Nichols body around 3:40am. Lechmere estimated he left home around 3:30am, which would have had him reach Nichol's body around 3:40am, so his timing agrees with the 3 police officers and disagrees with Paul's timing.

Baxter said "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data." That acknowledges that all five accounts are close, but is not a certification that Paul was right about the time and the police officers were wrong.

[Columbo]

Every newspaper account I can find has Paul saying he left home "just before a quarter to four". I am unable to find any account where Paul gave a time that he entered Buck's row, let alone said "exactly."

Paul's timing disagrees with those of the various police officers.
* PC Neil said he found Nichols body about about 3:45am.
* PC Mizen said he met Paul and Lechmere at 3:45am.
* PC Thain said he was signaled by PC Neil at 3:45am.

So either all three police officers were wrong about the time and those events happened around 3:50am or Robert Paul was wrong and he and Lechmere found Nichols body around 3:40am. Lechmere estimated he left home around 3:30am, which would have had him reach Nichol's body around 3:40am, so his timing agrees with the 3 police officers and disagrees with Paul's timing.

Baxter said "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data." That acknowledges that all five accounts are close, but is not a certification that Paul was right about the time and the police officers were wrong.

I would trust Paul. he had a job to get to, so I would think he would be more attuned to the time.

[drstrange169]

The "exactly" quote comes from The Lloyds Weekly newspaper 2/9/88. It features an interview with Paul who makes some very strange claims in it, which later recants under oath.

[Fiver]

Moving on, nobody involved in the case picked up that Lechmere left for work at 03.20, and is found next to a freshly killed body at 03.45. Bucks Row is at most 7 minutes away from Lechmere’s home at 22 Doveton Street so Lechmere should have been there around 03.27. What exactly has be being doing for 18 minutes until Paul turns up at 03.45 ?

It took the Ripper a lot less than 18 minutes to mutilate Catherine Eddowes. If there really was an 18 minute gap Lechmere would have had enough time to kill Nichols, mutilate the body, and leave the scene 10 minutes before Robert Paul. If there really was an 18 minute gap, there is no chance Lechmere still would have been standing over the body when Robert Paul arrives.

There was no 18 minute gap. Lechmere said he left for work at 3:30am, not 3:20am. The walk from 22 Doveton Street to where Stride's body was found takes about 10 minutes, not the 7 or less that you claim. That puts Lechmere there at 3:40am, not 3:27am.

Robert Paul said he left home "just before a quarter to four".

Paul's timing disagrees with those of the various police officers.
* PC Neil said he found Nichols body about about 3:45am.
* PC Mizen said he met Paul and Lechmere at 3:45am.
* PC Thain said he was signaled by PC Neil at 3:45am.

So either all three police officers were wrong about the time and those events happened around 3:50am or Robert Paul was wrong and he and Lechmere found Nichols body around 3:40am, which matches the time Lechmere gave. Lechmere might have had a minute or two alone, at most, which might be barely enough time to inflict the wounds done to Nichols.

[Fiver]

The opinion of Dr Andy Griffiths former head of Sussex Murder Squad.

‘If the Polly Nichols murder was being handled today Charles Lechmere would come under intense scrutiny.’

“From a police point of view the person who finds a body in circumstances like this is always going to be significant to an enquiry”

“Certainly in the modern age you couldn’t prosecute anyone else without eliminating him (Lechmere) first...because obviously you’ve got somebody who’s been with the body very close to the point of death, and possibly is the person who causes the death, so he is definitely a very significant person in terms of the investigation”

Lechmere had an alibi for Chapman's murder.