Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

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

  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    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?


    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    Here you go Christer,

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

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    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'.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Dickere View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    Thanks, I seem to remember those posts, I think they were on the other site, I'll have a look.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    >>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 don´t 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    I said as much scattered over the pages of this site over the years, But he probably says it more succinctly than I.

    https://www.orsam.co.uk/breakingpoint.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Come to think of it, we should of course try to get to the bottom of the question about clearing evidence on Charles Lechmere´s behalf. It would not be fair to deny those who are sitting on that evidence a space to publish it on, and to that end, I am starting a new thread called "Evidence of innocence" on the Lechmere space under "Suspects".
    My personal guess is that among the more proinent contributions, we may see "Chapman was killed at 5.30!", "No serial killer will kill en route to work!" and "He would never have stayed put in Bucks Row when Paul arrived, he would have run!", those three suggestions having dominated the thinking on the naysayer side for many a year by now. But we shall see.

    Did I leave out important evidence of innocence on Lechmere´s behalf in my book, or did I simply abstain from listing the many thousand alternative innocent explanations that one may think up on a summer´s day?

    Let´s see.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    Definitely not there in 1888, my picture is only contemporary one I could find.

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Click image for larger version  Name:	Albion1.jpg Views:	0 Size:	65.6 KB ID:	762054
    From the cars I'd estimate 1960's so maybe post 1888 tower?

    Edit: More likely this tower added in the extensions 1894-1902.

    Cheers, George
    Last edited by GBinOz; 07-09-2021, 06:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    The picture I have, 1889, shows the clock on the front of the building. Only visible from Whitechapel Road. It's inset into the building, so doubt it chimed.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Screen Shot 2021-07-09 at 4.05.31 pm.png Views:	0 Size:	35.4 KB ID:	762052

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    Ha! George, I'm afraid it's you that might care too read Caz's post again. The mistake was Christer's, Caz was just pointing out his mistake.

    Post #109 Christer wrote, "... can you produce a single piece of genuine evidence for the carmans guilt? " (my emphasis).

    Whilst I've got you attention, can i ask where you heard that Bath Street was brightly lit?
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    So, I popped in here today, suspecting that the one response I would have gotten from Dusty would be composed out of wriggling, slithering, accusations of all sorts about me - but not a single example of anything that would constitute a genuine implication of innocence on the carmans behalf, and that I had ommitted to write in my book.

    And lo and behold! What I find from Dustys side is wriggling, slithering and accusations of all sorts about me - but not a single example of anything that would constitute a genuine implication of innocence on the carmans behalf, and that I had ommitted to write in my book.

    Which is why I consider this "debate" at a (sad) end, and why I will not write any further posts addressed to Dusty in this errand. I have had my answer. I may well discuss some other topic with Dusty on other threads, where he can wriggle, slither and accuse me of all sorts of other things (or the same things as here, for that matter).

    As for Fivers, Kattrups and John Wheats efforts, I can only say that I am genuinely sad to have made them so bitter. To Caz: Yes, I misformulated myself (well spotted!), and that also tells me one thing; when I cannot bring myself to keep up any real interest, it is time to leave the thread.

    Last, but not least: There is no example of anything that functions as genuine evidence that the carman was innocent. But there are those who wish to uphold a false picture of how there is such evidence. They are all welcome to step forward and produce it.

    So far, though, and it´s been more than a decade now, nobody has.

    A very good morning to you all.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 07-09-2021, 05:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    Ha! George, I'm afraid it's you that might care too read Caz's post again. The mistake was Christer's, Caz was just pointing out his mistake.

    Post #109 Christer wrote, "... can you produce a single piece of genuine evidence for the carmans guilt? " (my emphasis).

    Whilst I've got you attention, can i ask where you heard that Bath Street was brightly lit?

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    I'm confused, Fishikins.

    Not having read your book, I was expecting you to say it is full to overflowing with 'evidence for the carmans guilt'. Yet here you are, apparently very cross with Dusty for not providing you with a 'single piece' of 'genuine' evidence for Lechmere's guilt, implying there is none in your book and you are getting desperate for examples - for the sequel perhaps?

    Have I accidentally landed on a different planet?

    Love,

    Mrs Logic
    X
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X