Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

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

  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
    Actually your wrong about the time. Dr Andy Griffiths and Christer Holmgren walked the route with a stopwatch in their documentary. And in Steven Blomer's book "Inside Bucks Row" be has a detailed analysis of just about every route Lechmere could have taken. Bucks Row is 7 minutes away from Doveton Street.
    Care to explain how they could have walked a route that doesn't exist any more?

    Bath Street between Collingswood and Brady would have been an essential part of Lechmere's walk to work. It 's been underneath a Sainsbury's for nearly three decades.

    Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
    oving on, the main point is that Lechmere was alone with the body for a period of time. In my view the whole thing happened quickly. He would have needed a few minutes at most. Which of course he had.
    Everyone agrees Lechmere was alone with Nichol's body. So was PC Neil. If bodies bleed out as fast as Fisherman claims then Neil is the most likely person to have killed Nichols.

    The question is how long Lechmere was alone with the body. Based on the timing given by witnesses, it was somewhere between moments and about 5 minutes. The Ripper might have been able to inflict that much damage in 5 minutes.

    An 18 minute gap requires falsifying when Lechmere said he left for work, overestimating how fast he would have walked, and ignoring the timing given by 4 witnesses to go with the lone witness that fits the theory.

    An 18 minute gap also contradicts the theory that Lechmere was the Ripper. With 18 minutes the Ripper would have finished his mutilations and been 10 minutes walk down the road by the time Robert Paul arrived.



    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
    That's completely untrue. It depends on the time of death. The Dr and Swanson put the time in Lechmere territory around 4am. Witness Richardson, if he's accurate and we believe him, put the time back to when Lechmere was at work. Lechmere was a delivery driver so he could easily have killed at the later time too.
    Just to double underline. Lechmere doesn't have an alibi.
    Lechmere had an alibi for Chapman's murder.

    * John Richardson testified that Chapman was killed after 4:45am

    * Elizabeth Long stated that Chapman was still alive around 5:30am.

    * Dr Philips testified that Chapman was killed where she was found. He gave a qualified estimate of 4:30am or earlier for when Chapman was killed.

    * The coroner summed things up by saying "There is some conflict in the evidence about the time at which the deceased was despatched. It is not unusual to find inaccuracy in such details, but this variation is not very great or very important. She was found dead about six o'clock. She was not in the yard when Richardson was there at 4.50 a.m. She was talking outside the house at half-past five when Mrs. Long passed them. Cadosh says it was about 5.20 when he was in the backyard of the adjoining house, and heard a voice say "No," and three or four minutes afterwards a fall against the fence; but if he is out of his reckoning but a quarter of an hour, the discrepancy in the evidence of fact vanishes, and he may be mistaken, for he admits that he did not get up till a quarter past five, and that it was after the half-hour when he passed Spitalfields clock. It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces."

    * Charles Lechmere started work at 4am. All the evidence points to Chapman being killed after Lechmere started work.

    To break Lechmere's alibi, you need to show Richardson, Long, and Cadosh are mistaken or lying. You would also need to show that Lechmere's delivery route for that day took him near 29 Hanbury Street and prove there was no van boy on Lechmere's cart (even though that was normal practice) and show there was enough slack in Lechmere's schedule (probably 20 or more minutes) for him to have committed the murder. Even then, that would merely show Lechmere could have committed the murder, not that he actually did. There is zero evidence that ties Lechmere to the killing - no bloodstains on his clothing, no footprints near crime scene, no witnesses of someone matching his description seen near the victim.

    Leave a comment:


  • SuperShodan
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    .. But killing and cutting and mutilating somebody on his route to work, keeping the Murder's Knife on himself, calling people out to watch the victim, going with them searching for a policeman, contradicting a policeman at the inquest in front of jury, allllllllllll that is not risky!!!!!





    Double standards, twisted logic, contradictions, inconsistencis... thats what you get from a typical Lechmerian.



    That post has made my day, you don't have to tell if you believe in ghosts or not, I've already got my answer.



    The Baron

    Wrong on so many levels. Lechmere killed quickly in secluded places. Nobody heard or saw anything. Walking around Whitechapel with his victim, getting seen by numerous people, is very risky. It’s not the JTR MO.
    In Bucks Row he was caught unawares, he was carried along by circumstances not of his choosing. He wouldn’t have wanted to fetch a policeman (Paul’s idea) and he wasn’t searched so we don’t know if he had the knife. He could have easily thrown it over the wall onto the railway track or into the Wood’s buildings.
    The point is this though. Bucks Row and the drama that unfolded were not of Lechmere’s choosing. After Paul’s unexpected arrival, catching him in the act, he lost control of the situation and had to make the best of it. He had little say in his it unfolded, except to do his best to avoid capture.
    It worked, his pantomime of finding the body was superb improvisation, and he stayed cool and calm. He averted disaster and walked away a free man.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

    He wouldn't walk around with somebody he was going to kill - too risky.

    .. But killing and cutting and mutilating somebody on his route to work, keeping the Murder's Knife on himself, calling people out to watch the victim, going with them searching for a policeman, contradicting a policeman at the inquest in front of jury, allllllllllll that is not risky!!!!!





    Double standards, twisted logic, contradictions, inconsistencis... thats what you get from a typical Lechmerian.



    That post has made my day, you don't have to tell if you believe in ghosts or not, I've already got my answer.



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • SuperShodan
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post



    So you are pushing a new theory, that the murderer killed the victims at the spot where he found them!

    No search for a prostitute, no talking , no promising, no going to a safe place.....

    So in the case of Nichols at least, you are suggesting that she was standing there alone, rubbing her hands, waiting for a client, in that dark and narrow and dangerous street, suddenly came Lechmere out of the shadows with his sharp long knife and his firm determination, took his knife out, slashed her, throat rose he skirit, cut her abdomen deeply, came Paul, called him, examined the body with him, no blood whatsoever, put his knife back on himself, and went looking for a cop!


    Some people believe in such things.. do you believe in ghosts by the way?!



    The Baron


    I don’t think Nichols already being in Bucks Row is a new theory. It was known for prostitution. I think Nichols is in Bucks Row looking for business. She propositions Lechmere and they walk to the dark gateway. Lechmere strikes and kills her there. I don’t think he would spend much time talking to his victims, he’s too careful for that. He walk the streets every night looking for stragglers and easy kills. He wouldn’t walk around with somebody he was going to kill - too risky.
    In Nichols case she would have been close to where she would die when she met him. Other murders take place just yards off one the routes he takes to work. I think all the victims would be killed very near where he met them.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Blood may pool or saturate before it runs.There is evidence of this,so the running to the gutter,after pooling or saturating,could extend the time Nichols was lying there before being found by Cross?


    Bingo, a great observation Harry!



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post


    Actually your wrong about the time. Dr Andy Griffiths and Christer Holmgren walked the route with a stopwatch in their documentary. And in Steven Blomers book ‘Inside Bucks Row’ be has a detailed analysis of just about every route Lechmere could have taken. Bucks Row is 7 minutes away from Doveton Street.
    Moving on, the main point is that Lechmere was alone with the body for a period of time. In my view the whole thing happened quickly. He would have needed a few minutes at most. Which of course he had.


    So you are pushing a new theory, that the murderer killed the victims at the spot where he found them!

    No search for a prostitute, no talking , no promising, no going to a safe place.....

    So in the case of Nichols at least, you are suggesting that she was standing there alone, rubbing her hands, waiting for a client, in that dark and narrow and dangerous street, suddenly came Lechmere out of the shadows with his sharp long knife and his firm determination, took his knife out, slashed her, throat rose he skirit, cut her abdomen deeply, came Paul, called him, examined the body with him, no blood whatsoever, put his knife back on himself, and went looking for a cop!


    Some people believe in such things.. do you believe in ghosts by the way?!



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    Blood may pool or saturate before it runs.There is evidence of this,so the running to the gutter,after pooling or saturating,could extend the time Nichols was lying there before being found by Cross?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
    Paul didn’t see any blood, or get any on him because when he examined Nichols she had just been killed. By the time PC Neil gets there there is blood pooled under her neck.


    We are tallking here about the blood that Fisherman claims was RUNNING as flowing, if it was flowing then the flow when Paul was there must have been stronger than when Neil later came to the scene.



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • SuperShodan
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    Look at Fisherman, He insists that the blood was running, not ozzing, running out of the woman's neck, ignoring completely that Paul who examined her and touched her didn't notice any blood.

    Because that doesnt set right with his theory, you will find him saying anything to let it pass.

    If there is anything called the blood evidence in this case, then Neil is the likeliest suspect, Fish won't ever admit this.

    The same with Mizen, Lechmere talked to him in company with Paul, Lechmere didn't told Mizen there is a policeman in Buck's Row, yet, if you hear what Fisherman has to say here you will be cracked laughing.

    They don't admit it, its realy difficult for them.


    The Baron
    Paul didn’t see any blood, or get any on him because when he examined Nichols she had just been killed. By the time PC Neil gets there there is blood pooled under her neck.

    Leave a comment:


  • SuperShodan
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    Lechmere had an alibi for Chapman's murder.


    That’s completely untrue. It depends on the time of death. The Dr and Swanson put the time in Lechmere territory around 4am. Witness Richardson, if he’s accurate and we believe him, put the time back to when Lechmere was at work. Lechmere was a delivery driver so he could easily have killed at the later time too.
    Just to double underline. Lechmere doesn’t have an alibi.

    Leave a comment:


  • SuperShodan
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    It took the Ripper a lot less than 18 minutes to mutilate Catherine Eddowes. If there really was an 18 minute gap Lechmere would have had enough time to kill Nichols, mutilate the body, and leave the scene 10 minutes before Robert Paul. If there really was an 18 minute gap, there is no chance Lechmere still would have been standing over the body when Robert Paul arrives.

    There was no 18 minute gap. Lechmere said he left for work at 3:30am, not 3:20am. The walk from 22 Doveton Street to where Stride's body was found takes about 10 minutes, not the 7 or less that you claim. That puts Lechmere there at 3:40am, not 3:27am.

    Robert Paul said he left home "just before a quarter to four".

    Paul's timing disagrees with those of the various police officers.
    * PC Neil said he found Nichols body about about 3:45am.
    * PC Mizen said he met Paul and Lechmere at 3:45am.
    * PC Thain said he was signaled by PC Neil at 3:45am.

    So either all three police officers were wrong about the time and those events happened around 3:50am or Robert Paul was wrong and he and Lechmere found Nichols body around 3:40am, which matches the time Lechmere gave. Lechmere might have had a minute or two alone, at most, which might be barely enough time to inflict the wounds done to Nichols.

    Actually your wrong about the time. Dr Andy Griffiths and Christer Holmgren walked the route with a stopwatch in their documentary. And in Steven Blomers book ‘Inside Bucks Row’ be has a detailed analysis of just about every route Lechmere could have taken. Bucks Row is 7 minutes away from Doveton Street.
    Moving on, the main point is that Lechmere was alone with the body for a period of time. In my view the whole thing happened quickly. He would have needed a few minutes at most. Which of course he had.

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    Lechmere also had a job to get to. Why do you assume that Paul was more attuned to the time than Lechmere?
    Under the assumption that everyone is calling the police or Cross a liar, I would defer to Paul instead of the two of them. I'm sure Cross was just as aware of the time as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Look at Fisherman, He insists that the blood was running, not ozzing, running out of the woman's neck, ignoring completely that Paul who examined her and touched her didn't notice any blood.

    Because that doesnt set right with his theory, you will find him saying anything to let it pass.

    If there is anything called the blood evidence in this case, then Neil is the likeliest suspect, Fish won't ever admit this.

    The same with Mizen, Lechmere talked to him in company with Paul, Lechmere didn't told Mizen there is a policeman in Buck's Row, yet, if you hear what Fisherman has to say here you will be cracked laughing.

    They don't admit it, its realy difficult for them.


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    It is now the modernity era of ripperology, those who have weak and funny theories will always use this tactic against you:

    Give us one damn definite proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that our suspect is innocent

    Diary defenders, Lechmerians, Druitties.. They use it on daily basis here.


    The Baron

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X