Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

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

  • Elamarna
    replied
    Just when I was going to go.

    Not far off 3.45 is NOT 3.45.

    Not far off could be anytime between 3.40 to 3.50.
    Baxter was I suggest aware that timings were not exact, and could not be taken as set in stone, and so he allowed for such.

    You don't accept the police as the independent data, because it does not fit your theory.
    There was no other data given by anyone at the inquest which Baxter could be refering to, unless you count Purkiss.


    Swanson, did not write the 1st report, he merely signed it off. Abberline was the author of the 1st report.

    So now we have to use your favourite terms, phantom independent reports.

    Those are not facts, merely your intrrpretation of them

    Sadly your manipulation of facts never changes.

    Bye


    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

    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. "

    And that is what you call "very naughty"...? Baxter says that the time could have not been far off 3.45, and I suggest that he spoke for a timing of 3.45.

    Naughty? I would not think so. I would say correct, not naughty.


    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.

    How could the independent data have come from the PC:s? Neil said that he found the body at 3.45, but we know that the carmen must have preceded him by many a minute. Therefore, if Neil was correct and part of the data Baxter used, he should have said that the body was found at around 3.40. Mizen and Thain also speak of 3.45, making your suggestion completely wrong. Plus I am always wary when you tell me that X "could have been nothing but". We do not know which data Baxter speaks of, and we must allow for other sources. I am generally opposed to let you decide what must be and what cannot be, and I am so for a reason.

    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
    Swanson said 3.40 in his first report. He found reason to alter that to 3.45 in his later report. The first report was written BEFORE Baxter spoke of the independent sources fixing the time to 345ish, the second was written AFTER that fact.

    You do not have to like it, but facts are facts.

    Thatīs all from me for now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    At this point I will get back to research , writing and running FB Groups.
    I only poped in because the book was mentioned.

    Til next time

    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
    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
    Itīs not four months, George. Lechmere moved to Doveton Street in mid June by the looks of things, and so we are talking about some ten weeks or so. We are dealing with two men who likely started their working treks at fixed hours. Say that Lechmere normally started at 3.20, taking him to Browns Stable Yard at around 3.27, as described in the docu. If so, he had passed the outlet from Foster Street into Bath Street at around 3.25. And Paul said that he was late when leaving bome at just before 3.45. Maybe he normally left home at 3.30. If so, Lechmere would - if our timings are correct - have passed a full five minutes before, meaning that they would not meet. And they walked in the same direction, so they would not run into each other at any stage. For them to have met, it would take that their fixed starting times would correspond very closely, and if they did, they would meet on just about every morning.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    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?

    I mention the various arguments, including the use of an alias, the possibility that he wished to protect the family name and other possible reason, I just do not debate them in any detail.
    All one needs to know is included.


    I suppose it depends on how significant or not the name issue is.

    Steve
    Last edited by Elamarna; 07-07-2021, 03:20 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    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.
    Itīs 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 breweryīs lamps are a point in favur of Lechmere being the Ripper. They are not, other than in a strictly secondary way.

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post


    Nothing changes.

    Steve


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

    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…

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    My head, Iīm afraid. I didnīt 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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Then you do not have "all thatīs 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



    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

    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, Iīm afraid. I didnīt go back to check things out, but I have seen them in the past when looking at this matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

    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. Thatīs either very, very unlucky or a telltale sign of guilt.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 07-07-2021, 02:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X