Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

[Fisherman]

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.

[Elamarna]

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

[Fisherman]

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

It´s 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.

[Elamarna]

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

[Fisherman]

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.

That´s all from me for now.

[Elamarna]

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

[SuperShodan]

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 ?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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 ?

[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.

[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]

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.