Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

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

  • Fiver
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    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.



    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
    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.



    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    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.









    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X