Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

[Dickere]

>>I for one never believed that a thick book is always going to be better thatrn a less thick one.<<

As I've told women all my life, size does not matter.

Steve's book presents all the evidence and whist he draws conclusions the reader has the ability to choice because all the evidence pro and con is there. Your book, in common with 90% of suspects books, naturally, because that's what you genuinely believe, presents evidence biased in favour of Lechmere being guilty and avoids evidence that suggests his innocence.

I'd prefer a book that has analysis and a conclusion to a simple regurgitation of existing known facts.

[drstrange169]

>>‘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”<<

And why would Victorian police think any differently?


>>... we can place Lechmere at the scene right at the time of death.<<

No we can't. I'd place Deimshitz as being closer to a victim at the time of death.


>>why is he in Bucks Row at 03.45 anyway <<

He wasn't, according to three different policemen, are you claiming the policemen lied?


>> It’s taken Lechmere 25 minutes to get to Bucks Row and then be found next to a freshly killed body<<

If we take the real times not the invented ones, He was where he should have been at the time he should have been.
He wasn't found "next" to Mrs Nichols.

And so the myths go on.

[drstrange169]

>>They were mounted on the facade after 1884, when a storm brought down the old facade.<<

The article specifically says Bath Street? A facade is the front of a building, Bath Street was a brick wall at the back.

I'd be very interested to know. As I and Steve have already pointed out, it makes no difference to the who could see who debate, I'd just be interested too know out of curiosity. Could you cite where it says the lights shone on Bath Street?

[drstrange169]

>>I for one never believed that a thick book is always going to be better thatrn a less thick one.<<

As I've told women all my life, size does not matter.

Steve's book presents all the evidence and whist he draws conclusions the reader has the ability to choice because all the evidence pro and con is there. Your book, in common with 90% of suspects books, naturally, because that's what you genuinely believe, presents evidence biased in favour of Lechmere being guilty and avoids evidence that suggests his innocence.

[SuperShodan]

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”

Anyone who finds a body within moments of death is the main suspect. No exceptions. This isn’t somebody walking a dog who finds a decomposed body, we can place Lechmere at the scene right at the time of death. And of course why is he in Bucks Row at 03.45 anyway ? He left home at 03.20 for the 35 minute walk to Pickfords in Broad Street for his 04.00 start. Bucks Row is 6 or 7 minutes walk from his home. It’s taken Lechmere 25 minutes to get to Bucks Row and then be found next to a freshly killed body. I can’t think of any murder I’ve ever read about where a body is discovered like this. Lechmere is our number one suspect, there’s nobody even comes close.

[John Wheat]

I think others here would disagree, there is circumstancal evidence at least.

You mean Lechmere finding a body?

[Fiver]

I have read that it was brightl lit all night. Surely they would have seen each other then?

There was not much moonlight that night - it was a waning crescent moon. And Victorian street lamps were not especially powerful.

[Fiver]

Would Letchmere on his way to work be wearing identifying clothing/ uniform , which would identify his place or company where he worked .
if he was maybe he realized that he had to do something rather than let Paul pass by and risk a later identification of his work place.

Lechmere was on his way to work in his work uniform, which would make him easier to identify. This is another reason he is unlikely to have killed Nichols.

[Fiver]

According to Lechmere, Paul was right behind him when he discovered the body, but Paul didn't see or hear Lechmere.

This is incorrect about what both Lechmere and Paul said.

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."

[Fiver]

Suppose he was the murderer. He had been walking down this street to work for four months. He would have been well aware that there were 3 beat cops in this area.

Being well aware that there were 3 beat cops in this area is a good reason for Lechmere not to be the murderer.

[Dickere]

I would once again like to press an earlier point about the lamps outside the brewery in Bath Street - they cannot be used to make the case that Paul must have seen Lechmere there. In that respect, these lamps need no further discussion at all; if Lechmere was further ahead of Paul than 40 meters as he passed under them, then there was no way that Paul was going to notice him, since he would not be out in the street himself until Lechmere had already passed.
As I say, the one note we can make is that IF Paul had seen Lechmere under the lamps, or
-if Paul has seen or heard Lechmere in frong of himself in Bucks Row or Brady Street
-if Nichols had not bled as Lechmere "found" her,
then we would be able to exonerate the carman.
But he is ever unlucky.
It´s the same with the geographical distribution of the murders. If the women had not been killed in the smallish area he traversed, or
- if Tabram, Nichols, Chapman or Kelly had been killed on a Saturday night, or
-if Stride or Eddowes had been killed at around 3.45 in the morning on a weekday,
then we would be wise to say that Lechmere seems not to have been our man.
The same applies with the correlation between the Ripper murders and the torso murders.
-If both men had not cut out both hearts and uteri, or
-if one of the series had had no inclusion of a cut away abdominal wall, or
-if the rings had not been taken from Jacksons and Chapmans fingers, or
-if one of these killers had had the good sense NOT to cut from pubes to ribs,
then we would have had a better case when we speak of different mindsets on behalf of the killers.

It is always like this. There COULD have been a good case to make against, but the case for is always supported by odd and specific inclusions. That, however, should not tell us that the Bath Street brewery´s lamps are a point in favur of Lechmere being the Ripper. They are not, other than in a strictly secondary way.

I'm not sure if you're claiming that JtR is the same person as the torso killer. But assuming you are, and therefore that meaning Lechmere is the man, the torso killer had transport. Is the suggestion that he used his company car ? If so, why would he risk the JtR approach when the torso transportation method seems so much more successful and safer ?

[Dickere]

I for one never believed that a thick book is always going to be better thatrn a less thick one. Strictly speaking, "thick" was never a judgement I considered flattering. I will quote myself from Cutting Point:
"my aim is to be as short and succinct as possible"

You see, Dusty, I never wanted to write a thick book. I wanted to write a book that was as short as possible, while still including all the important aspects of my theory.

As an aside, I find that books that aim to establish something that can actually not be established since it has no true ground to stand on will more often than not pile on as much material as possible in an effort to veil their shortcomimgs in fog. That, of course is a general assessment only, and it does not relate to Steves book. It could never do so for the simple reason that I have not read it. You are welcome, though, to pick any one detail where Steve published information that I omitted to mention - and poiunt put how his choice makes the book a better source than mine. Perhaps it instead simply makes a different choice than mine, by naming details that he thinks point to innocence on Lechmere´s behalf whereas I don´t agree? You see, if I write that Lechmere gave a name he otherwise never used with the authorities becasue he wanted to conceal his true identity, others out here can write that he perhaps did so because:

-He wanted to honour his ded stepfather
-He actually called himself Cross at Pickfords
-He had been given the go ahead by the inquest, who wanted to protect him
-He wished not to sully the family name of Lechmere
-He liked the sound of Cross better than that of Lechmere
-He didn´t want to look as if he tried to sound posh
-He had forgotten what his real name was
-He had been adviced by a friend to try and stay out of the whole affair
...and so on and so on. This is the character of providing innocent alternative explanations - they can be produced in very large numbers.

For me, though, the one explanation that is in line with my theory is that he wanted to conceal his name. And that is what I suggest in my book. I don´t go into extreme detail about how the alternative innocent explanations would work, the way I beleive Steve may have done (although I have not read the book, as I said).

If you take this into account, you may understand how and why some books become thick, while others go in the other direction. It is never about the possibilities of much detail, therefore - it is about the relevance of the detail provided.

I wonder whether the use of his police officer stepfather's name was intentional, to increase his credibility and avoid suspicion due to the relationship.

[Dickere]

Ridiculous. There is no evidence whatsoever Lechmere was responsible for any murders.

I think others here would disagree, there is circumstancal evidence at least.

[SuperShodan]

Hi Abby, I agree, I find Lechmeres behaviour very odd, I think he’s manufacturing an alibi. I’ve wondered too why in finding a body he hasn’t raised the alarm before Paul arrived. He waits for Paul, probably sizing him up, and then has this bizarre interaction where he fully blocks his path. I think he was checking what Paul had seen. It’s worth noting there was nobody else there, if it wasn’t Lechmere then who was it ? There’s nobody else there.

hi super
ive always found it odd that paul comes upon lech just at that point where hes hovering alone around a freshly killed victim, before trying to raise any kind of alarm. just at that instant-what are the chances? Ive studied alot of true crime and i dont think ive ever come across a case where an innocent witness is seen in this type of situation. its suspicious to me in itself.

[Abby Normal]

I think Lechmere was caught in the act and had to think quickly. By stopping Paul and making him witness his innocent ‘discovery’ of Polly Nichols he is giving himself an alibi, Paul becomes a witness to his finding the body. It’s all a pantomime, it’s smoke and mirrors, and it worked a treat. I think blocking Paul’s path and practically forcing him to witness his discovery is very incriminating.
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 ?

hi super
ive always found it odd that paul comes upon lech just at that point where hes hovering alone around a freshly killed victim, before trying to raise any kind of alarm. just at that instant-what are the chances? Ive studied alot of true crime and i dont think ive ever come across a case where an innocent witness is seen in this type of situation. its suspicious to me in itself.