Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Being aware that murder is a capital offence is reason for everybody never to kill. And what happens?
    Congratulations on completely missing my point. Criminals do not want to get caught. Killing someone when there are three beat cops in the area greatly increases the killer's chance of getting caught. Being well aware that there were three beat cops in this area is a good reason for Lechmere not to be the murderer. There were plenty of places along or near his route that had less beat cops to dodge. Lechmere, or anyone else using that route to work would have been taking a stupid and pointless risk to kill close to where 3 beat cops patrolled.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      He didnīt have a work uniform. He had clothing that made Mizen reason that he was probaly a carman, not a uniform that said "Pickfors carman".
      Congratulations on completely missing my point. Again.

      Lechmere was definitely wearing his work uniform. He had on the "rough sack apron" of a carman. His hat might not have said "Pickfords", but it was the distinctive hat worn by carmen. When wearing it, even people that did not know Lechmere (Mizen, Paul, the reporter at the Inquest) instantly recognized him as a carman. Lechmere was on his way to work in his work uniform, which would make him easier to identify. If anyone had seen him committing a crime, he almost certainly would have been identified as a carman. That would have greatly reduced the suspect list. Which is another reason why Lechmere is unlikely to have killed Nichols. He would have been taking a much larger and pointless risk of being caught if he had tried to commit a crime while wearing his work uniform.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        They were 30-40 yards apart, according to Lechmere.
        Good to see you agreeing with me. The other poster was wrong when they said "According to Lechmere, Paul was right behind him when he discovered the body, but Paul didn't see or hear Lechmere."

        According to Lechmere - "He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from."

        According to Paul - "...as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road."

        We know Paul saw Lechmere in front of him - Paul said so. We don't know how far that distance was - nobody asked Paul.

        We don't know if Paul heard Lechmere before he saw him. Nobody asked Paul about that, either.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          Lechmere and Paul walked on the same very narrow pavement (or so they said), and there was a lamp down at Schneiders that would have been behind Lechmere from Pauls point of view. You may try that with a candle and it would make the carman visible. Iīd say that it was only if Paul did not look ahead that he could have missed Lechmere visually.
          There was not much moonlight that night - it was a waning crescent moon. Victorian street lamps were not especially powerful. PC Neil testified "It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row."

          We know Pail saw Lechmere in front of him - Paul testified that he saw Lechmere. We don't know how far away Lechmere was when Paul saw him - nobody asked Paul.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            As for Fivers, Kattrups and John Wheats efforts, I can only say that I am genuinely sad to have made them so bitter.
            I can't speak for the others, but I am not bitter. This board is full of theorists who mistake opinions for facts and ignore or downplay anything that doesn't fit their theory.

            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Last, but not least: There is no example of anything that functions as genuine evidence that the carman was innocent.
            That is the root of your problem - you are assuming guilty until proven innocent.

            But even under guilty until proven innocent, there is evidence Lechmere was innocent. He had an alibi for the Chapman murder, so he cannot be the Ripper.

            Lechmere also has an alibi for the Pinchin Street Torso, so he cannot be the Torso Killer.

            And the Torso Killer and the Ripper were clearly not the same killer.



            Comment


            • Originally posted by Columbo View Post
              I would trust Paul. he had a job to get to, so I would think he would be more attuned to the time.
              Lechmere also had a job to get to. Why do you assume that Paul was more attuned to the time than Lechmere?

              Comment


              • It is now the modernity era of ripperology, those who have weak and funny theories will always use this tactic against you:

                Give us one damn definite proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that our suspect is innocent

                Diary defenders, Lechmerians, Druitties.. They use it on daily basis here.


                The Baron

                Comment


                • Look at Fisherman, He insists that the blood was running, not ozzing, running out of the woman's neck, ignoring completely that Paul who examined her and touched her didn't notice any blood.

                  Because that doesnt set right with his theory, you will find him saying anything to let it pass.

                  If there is anything called the blood evidence in this case, then Neil is the likeliest suspect, Fish won't ever admit this.

                  The same with Mizen, Lechmere talked to him in company with Paul, Lechmere didn't told Mizen there is a policeman in Buck's Row, yet, if you hear what Fisherman has to say here you will be cracked laughing.

                  They don't admit it, its realy difficult for them.


                  The Baron

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                    Lechmere also had a job to get to. Why do you assume that Paul was more attuned to the time than Lechmere?
                    Under the assumption that everyone is calling the police or Cross a liar, I would defer to Paul instead of the two of them. I'm sure Cross was just as aware of the time as well.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                      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.

                      Actually your wrong about the time. Dr Andy Griffiths and Christer Holmgren walked the route with a stopwatch in their documentary. And in Steven Blomers book ‘Inside Bucks Row’ be has a detailed analysis of just about every route Lechmere could have taken. Bucks Row is 7 minutes away from Doveton Street.
                      Moving on, the main point is that Lechmere was alone with the body for a period of time. In my view the whole thing happened quickly. He would have needed a few minutes at most. Which of course he had.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                        Lechmere had an alibi for Chapman's murder.


                        That’s completely untrue. It depends on the time of death. The Dr and Swanson put the time in Lechmere territory around 4am. Witness Richardson, if he’s accurate and we believe him, put the time back to when Lechmere was at work. Lechmere was a delivery driver so he could easily have killed at the later time too.
                        Just to double underline. Lechmere doesn’t have an alibi.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                          Look at Fisherman, He insists that the blood was running, not ozzing, running out of the woman's neck, ignoring completely that Paul who examined her and touched her didn't notice any blood.

                          Because that doesnt set right with his theory, you will find him saying anything to let it pass.

                          If there is anything called the blood evidence in this case, then Neil is the likeliest suspect, Fish won't ever admit this.

                          The same with Mizen, Lechmere talked to him in company with Paul, Lechmere didn't told Mizen there is a policeman in Buck's Row, yet, if you hear what Fisherman has to say here you will be cracked laughing.

                          They don't admit it, its realy difficult for them.


                          The Baron
                          Paul didn’t see any blood, or get any on him because when he examined Nichols she had just been killed. By the time PC Neil gets there there is blood pooled under her neck.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
                            Paul didn’t see any blood, or get any on him because when he examined Nichols she had just been killed. By the time PC Neil gets there there is blood pooled under her neck.


                            We are tallking here about the blood that Fisherman claims was RUNNING as flowing, if it was flowing then the flow when Paul was there must have been stronger than when Neil later came to the scene.



                            The Baron

                            Comment


                            • Blood may pool or saturate before it runs.There is evidence of this,so the running to the gutter,after pooling or saturating,could extend the time Nichols was lying there before being found by Cross?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post


                                Actually your wrong about the time. Dr Andy Griffiths and Christer Holmgren walked the route with a stopwatch in their documentary. And in Steven Blomers book ‘Inside Bucks Row’ be has a detailed analysis of just about every route Lechmere could have taken. Bucks Row is 7 minutes away from Doveton Street.
                                Moving on, the main point is that Lechmere was alone with the body for a period of time. In my view the whole thing happened quickly. He would have needed a few minutes at most. Which of course he had.


                                So you are pushing a new theory, that the murderer killed the victims at the spot where he found them!

                                No search for a prostitute, no talking , no promising, no going to a safe place.....

                                So in the case of Nichols at least, you are suggesting that she was standing there alone, rubbing her hands, waiting for a client, in that dark and narrow and dangerous street, suddenly came Lechmere out of the shadows with his sharp long knife and his firm determination, took his knife out, slashed her, throat rose he skirit, cut her abdomen deeply, came Paul, called him, examined the body with him, no blood whatsoever, put his knife back on himself, and went looking for a cop!


                                Some people believe in such things.. do you believe in ghosts by the way?!



                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X