Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

[Fisherman]

If the pair would have seen each other depends not so much on the light from the Brewery, but the exact location of the two as Paul left his house and Lechmere passed the bottom of Foster Street.

Steve

That is true - if Lechmere was further ahead of Paul than the distance from Pauls lodgings down to Bath Street, it matters not a lot how strong the lights down there was. If this was so, it simply becomes another of the many points of call where Lechmere COULD have gotten lucky, but never did. An incredibly unfortunate carman, he was, unable to get a single break. For whatever reason.
By the way, the lights were bright ones, shining outside the brewery, not inside it. They were mounted on the facade after 1884, when a storm brought down the old facade.

[Elamarna]

Guessed wrong on point 2 Christer.
On point 1, to be fair I do mention he MAY have used Cross in an earlier RTA, so that relates to point 1.
However , the next edition also includes the counter arguments to the use of Cross in that incident, by yourself and others.

Steve,

[Elamarna]

The time will depend on the accuracy of the clock. Seen or heard makes no difference.
Even today, public clocks are not syncronizied, as I will demonstrate in my work.

While Liverpool may have lead the way, it's unlikely to put it mildly that all public clocks would be synchronised. Trains, Ports and Police, probably.

[Elamarna]

A pity that article costs £35, the summary is interesting. I will need to put it on my list.

[Elamarna]

That is true - if Lechmere was further ahead of Paul than the distance from Pauls lodgings down to Bath Street, it matters not a lot how strong the lights down there was. If this was so, it simply becomes another of the many points of call where Lechmere COULD have gotten lucky, but never did. An incredibly unfortunate carman, he was, unable to get a single break. For whatever reason.
By the way, the lights were bright ones, shining outside the brewery, not inside it. They were mounted on the facade after 1884, when a storm brought down the old facade.

Thats the issue, he doesn't to get luck or get a break, such assumes he needs a break.

thank you for the info on the lights, i may add that to next edition.
whats the source btw?

steve

[Fisherman]

Guessed wrong on point 2 Christer.
On point 1, to be fair I do mention he MAY have used Cross in an earlier RTA, so that relates to point 1.
However , the next edition also includes the counter arguments to the use of Cross in that incident, by yourself and others.

Steve,

Then you do not have "all that´s needed", Steve. You will have excluded a point that may be all-important. But of course, it WILL have made your book less thick, so ...

[Fisherman]

Thats the issue, he doesn't to get luck or get a break, such assumes he needs a break.

thank you for the info on the lights, i may add that to next edition.
whats the source btw?

steve

In retrospect, he very much needs a break. That owes to how he is a suspect in the case. And although there were numerous instances where he could have been exonerated, none of these instances went his way. That´s either very, very unlucky or a telltale sign of guilt.

[Fisherman]

Thats the issue, he doesn't to get luck or get a break, such assumes he needs a break.

thank you for the info on the lights, i may add that to next edition.
whats the source btw?

steve

My head, I´m afraid. I didn´t go back to check things out, but I have seen them in the past when looking at this matter.

[Elamarna]

Then you do not have "all that´s needed", Steve. You will have excluded a point that may be all-important. But of course, it WILL have made your book less thick, so ...

Given you have not read the book, so do not know what those two paragraphs say , you are in no position to say if it includes all that is needed or not.

Nothing changes.

Steve

[Elamarna]

My head, I´m afraid. I didn´t go back to check things out, but I have seen them in the past when looking at this matter.

what a shame, because despite extensive searches on the brewery 3 years ago, i never came across that.

[Fisherman]

Given you have not read the book, so do not know what those two paragraphs say , you are in no position to say if it includes all that is needed or not.

Nothing changes.

Steve

Given that you said that you did not mention my point 2, I think it is immaterial that I never read the book. It is your own info, and I take it, it’ s true?

[Fisherman]

what a shame, because despite extensive searches on the brewery 3 years ago, i never came across that.

If at first you don’ t succeed, try, try again…

[Fisherman]

Nothing changes.

Steve

Ever the pessimist. Lechmeres arrival has changed everything. Apart from some mindsets.

[Elamarna]

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,

That is very naughty, Baxter did not say they found the body at 3.45.
He 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. "

The independent data can be nothing other than the statements of the 3 police officers, all of whom gave sworn evidence contrary that of Paul. Under oath Paul of course changed his exactly 3.45 to about 3.45 or just before a quarter to four.

and that the latest police report we know of, from October, has Swanson telling us that the carmen found the body at 3.45.

Which may simply have been Swanson rounding up, if not, we need some new evidence to support the Change from the sworn testimony of 3 officers, and Abberlines earlier report.

Steve

[GBinOz]

Whoa, are you guys stealing this thread with book discussions?

Christer, one of the things that has intigued me is the relationship between Lechmere and Paul. They claimed to have not known each other but with Lechmere walking his route to work for four months it seems curious that they should not have noticed each other....and perhaps formed an alliance to negotiate the rough area they were passing through. In one of his youtube videos Edward Stow quoted a book - Jack the Ripper - 100 years of Mystery by Peter Underwood where the author claims that Lechmere knew paul and jumped out of the shadows to greet him. I did some research on Underwood and formed the opinion, perhaps unjustly, that he was the writer of what I call Yippees. Then I watched another Youtube by Richard Jones where he said that Lechmere and Paul came back with Thain and the five men stood over the body together. Further to this, at the inquest Henry Tomkins said that when he arrived at the murder scene there were tree police officers and two men he didn't know. My understanding is that after Lechmere and Paul passed Mizen they walked together up Hanbury Rd to Paul's work place. I would love to be privy to the conversation that took place on that journey.

Just wondering if you may have any comment on my ramblings?

Cheers, George