Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

[GBinOz]

I'm confused, Fishikins.

Not having read your book, I was expecting you to say it is full to overflowing with 'evidence for the carmans guilt'. Yet here you are, apparently very cross with Dusty for not providing you with a 'single piece' of 'genuine' evidence for Lechmere's guilt, implying there is none in your book and you are getting desperate for examples - for the sequel perhaps?

Have I accidentally landed on a different planet?

Love,

Mrs Logic
X

Mrs Logic,

You might care to re-read what you have written here. I think you may have used "for' when you meant "against". Your mistake makes your post look like nonsense and your tone supercilious, which I feel sure was not your intention.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Rather than starting with the assumption that Lechmere, or anyone else, was the killer, we should look at the facts and see if they point towards or away from a suspect.

If bodies stop bleeding as fast as you have claimed in this or other threads, then the most likely person to have killed Polly Nichols was PC Neil. After all, Robert Paul testified "he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint".

Nichols clothes were pulled down. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Robert Paul testified "The clothes were disarranged, and he [Paul] helped to pull them down.



We know that Paul saw "in Buck's-row a man [Lechemere] standing in the middle of the road". We do not know how far apart they were at that time - no one asked Paul. We do not know if Paul had seen or heard Lechmere earlier in his walk to work - no one asked Paul.



You continue to ignore the Hooper Street rag which was found far closer and sooner to the Pinchin Street Torso - after all it doesn't fit your theory.

Nothing ties the Goulston street rag to Lechmere. Nothing ties the St Philips church rag to Lechmere or to the Ripper or to the Torso killings.



Hundreds of men traversed these streets on a daily basis. So far, you have provided no evidence of any connection between Lechmere and the Tabram, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, or Kelly murders.

* Tabram was not killed on Lechmere's route to work.
* Chapman was killed on a route Lechmere might have taken to work, but she was killed an 1 1/2 hours after he arrived at work. Lechmere had an alibi.
* Stride was killed 2 1/2 hours before Lechmere normally left for work. Eddowes was killed 1 1/2 hours before Lechmere normally left for work. Who gets up 2 1/2 hours early on their day off? Especially when they normally have to be at work at 4am?
* Kelly was not killed on Lechmere's route to work.



Psychopaths are less prone to anxiety, they are not immune to it.

"Psychopathy is characterized by diagnostic features such as superficial charm, high intelligence, poor judgment and failure to learn from experience, pathological egocentricity and incapacity for love, lack of remorse or shame, impulsivity, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, manipulative behavior, poor self-control, promiscuous sexual behavior, juvenile delinquency, and criminal versatility, among others." - Psychiatric Times

Feel free to provide any evidence of Charles Lechmere showing signs of psychopathy.



Lechmere testified "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." There is no reason for Lechmere to lie about that.



Psychopaths are not know for thinking on their feet. They are known for "poor judgment" and "impulsivity". Real serial killers are not as clever, quick-thinking, or witty as Hannibal Lector. On the whole they're rather stupid.



The Ripper and the Torso Killer are different killers with very different MOs. And Charles Lechmere was at work when the Pinchin Street Torso was deposited. Lechmere had an alabi.



Lechmere was using the name Charles Cross in court over a decade before the Ripper killings, so clearly it has nothing to do with whether was the killer. People have suggested several reasons why Lechmere could have used the Cross name - you have ignored all of them because they do not fit your theory.



Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

ironic you quote doyle. lol fact:

there are no such things as fairies.

sherlock holmes was fictional.

jack the ripper was real.

lechmere was seen hovering near a freshly killed ripper victim.

no one else was seen near her near tod.

lech has a descrepency with what he told a police officer about it.

lech gave a different name to police to what he was commonly was known as.

lechs trek to work brought him near other victims near there tod.

lechs mum lived near murder sites imcluding the pinchin torso.

i cant spell for shite

i had a rough day and am now drunk as a monkey.

i hope england beats italy.

**** off.

[drstrange169]

>>The Sadok Schneider and Sons Cap factory was about 100 feet further down Durward Street. It can't have provided much light. PC Neil said "it was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row" and he had to examine "the body by the aid of my lamp".<<

Absolutely correct, but you must remember, like a moth, Christer is fixated with lights.

Ironically, the ONLY bright light in the area was in Brady Street, which means Paul and anybody else would have been highly visible as they turned into Bucks Row. Which is probably why the killer ran off when they saw Lechmere turn into Bucks.

[drstrange169]

>>Have I accidentally landed on a different planet?<<

When it comes to Christer's posts,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk

[Fiver]

Robert Paul lived in Foster Street, at an address that was around 40 yards up that street from Bath Street, where the brewery was situated. This means that if Lechmere was 40 yards in front of Paul all the time, then he should have passed under the brewery lights at the end of Foster Street just as Paul stepped out from his lodgings. If Lechmere was only 30 yards in front of Paul, then he should have passed under the lights, in plain view of Paul, as the latter had walked ten yards down Foster street in the direction of Bath Street.

Most people, upon leaving their houses, turn to face the door and lock it. They aren't focused on something 40 yards away that's in the corner of their eye and is only there for a moment.

Besides, Paul and Lechmere were probably farther apart than that. Lechmere says he heard Paul when he was "about forty yards away". This is sometime after Lechmere had started to slow down and cross the street.

... the more poignant matter is that they must at any rate have walked down Bucks Row in close proximity to each other (if Lechmere told the truth), and the Schneiders Cap factory light together with the accoustic disposition of the street would in all likelihood have meant that Paul should have noted Lechmere ahead of himself - if Lechmere was really there.

Obviously Lechmere really was there. A ghost didn't stop Robert Paul.

Paul says he saw Lechmere in front of him. We don't know how far that distance was - nobody asked Paul at the time.

The Sadok Schneider and Sons Cap factory was about 100 feet further down Durward Street. It can't have provided much light. PC Neil said "it was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row" and he had to examine "the body by the aid of my lamp".

The fact that Paul says that he noted Lechmere as he himself approached Browns Stable Yard is totally in line with Lechmere having lied about things. Unless, of course, it´s them coincidences again ...

Nothing in Paul's statement is "totally in line with Lechmere having lied about things". Paul said "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". Paul does not say what that distance was, so his statement does not disprove anything about Lechmere's statemen.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Off topic here, (sorry Wolf), but how come Doyle gets quoted as the pinnacle of rational thought and reason? The guy believed in paper fairies and all manner of other nonsense. He could write a good reason, but he sure didn't practice it. There's an enigma.

[Fiver]

Let´s make the assumption that Lechmere was the killer of Nichols. This is in line with how Neil and Mizen both stated that she was still bleeding as they saw the body, and it is in line with how she was the one and only victim who had her abdominal woulds hidden from sight.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Rather than starting with the assumption that Lechmere, or anyone else, was the killer, we should look at the facts and see if they point towards or away from a suspect.

If bodies stop bleeding as fast as you have claimed in this or other threads, then the most likely person to have killed Polly Nichols was PC Neil. After all, Robert Paul testified "he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint".

Nichols clothes were pulled down. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Robert Paul testified "The clothes were disarranged, and he [Paul] helped to pull them down.

It may be that it was just rotten luck on his behalf that Paul did not see Lechmere up at the Bath Street brewery, that was well lit, and that he didn´t notice him on the northern pavement, although he would have had the lamp outside Schneiders Cap factory between himself and Lechmere for a long time, meaning that Charles should have been very easy to see.

We know that Paul saw "in Buck's-row a man [Lechemere] standing in the middle of the road". We do not know how far apart they were at that time - no one asked Paul. We do not know if Paul had seen or heard Lechmere earlier in his walk to work - no one asked Paul.

The rags could have ended up where they were out of sheer coincidence. Both of them.

You continue to ignore the Hooper Street rag which was found far closer and sooner to the Pinchin Street Torso - after all it doesn't fit your theory.

Nothing ties the Goulston street rag to Lechmere. Nothing ties the St Philips church rag to Lechmere or to the Ripper or to the Torso killings.

It could have been a cruel fluke that the killer did away with Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly in the very area that was traversed by Lechmere on a daily basis, just as it could have been his bad luck only that had the unknown killer cut Stride´s throat a stone´s thrown from his mothers house. And Eddowes´ditto another stones throw from where he would have passed en route to work for many, many years. Plus it could of course have been a fluke only that the two women who were killed on a Saturday night were the exact two victims that did NOT fall prey along Lechmere´s work route.

Hundreds of men traversed these streets on a daily basis. So far, you have provided no evidence of any connection between Lechmere and the Tabram, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, or Kelly murders.

* Tabram was not killed on Lechmere's route to work.
* Chapman was killed on a route Lechmere might have taken to work, but she was killed an 1 1/2 hours after he arrived at work. Lechmere had an alibi.
* Stride was killed 2 1/2 hours before Lechmere normally left for work. Eddowes was killed 1 1/2 hours before Lechmere normally left for work. Who gets up 2 1/2 hours early on their day off? Especially when they normally have to be at work at 4am?
* Kelly was not killed on Lechmere's route to work.

it may be that Lechmere posessed a common trait of psychopaths: they cannot panic.

Psychopaths are less prone to anxiety, they are not immune to it.

"Psychopathy is characterized by diagnostic features such as superficial charm, high intelligence, poor judgment and failure to learn from experience, pathological egocentricity and incapacity for love, lack of remorse or shame, impulsivity, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, manipulative behavior, poor self-control, promiscuous sexual behavior, juvenile delinquency, and criminal versatility, among others." - Psychiatric Times

Feel free to provide any evidence of Charles Lechmere showing signs of psychopathy.

It should also be underlined that we do not know exactly when Lechmere noted Paul.

Lechmere testified "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." There is no reason for Lechmere to lie about that.

Once more, the streets were patrolled by PCs on beats, and as has been pointed out, if Lechmere ran and left Paul to note a murder, the fomer may have been passing a PC as Paul cried blue murder. A psychopath, very capable of thinking on his feet, may well have decided that engaging Paul was the better way of getting out of Bucks Row.

Psychopaths are not know for thinking on their feet. They are known for "poor judgment" and "impulsivity". Real serial killers are not as clever, quick-thinking, or witty as Hannibal Lector. On the whole they're rather stupid.

By the way, was´t it unlucky for our carman that the other serial killer at large in them days also cut away abdominal walls, cut from pubes to ribs and left a victim with a shallow such cut on her belly in the very street that Charles and his family had always returned to? I mean, just how unlucky can a man get?

The Ripper and the Torso Killer are different killers with very different MOs. And Charles Lechmere was at work when the Pinchin Street Torso was deposited. Lechmere had an alabi.

Even the fact that he didn´t give the authorities his correct name when he was involved with violent deaths could probably be used by fantasists like me to imply that Charles Lechmere could be the killer.

Lechmere was using the name Charles Cross in court over a decade before the Ripper killings, so clearly it has nothing to do with whether was the killer. People have suggested several reasons why Lechmere could have used the Cross name - you have ignored all of them because they do not fit your theory.

Quod est super venari.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

[Dickere]

I'm confused, Fishikins.

Not having read your book, I was expecting you to say it is full to overflowing with 'evidence for the carmans guilt'. Yet here you are, apparently very cross with Dusty for not providing you with aw 'single piece' of 'genuine' evidence for Lechmere's guilt, implying there is none in your book and you are getting desperate for examples - for the sequel perhaps?

Have I accidentally landed on a different planet?

Love,

Mrs Logic
X

Surely for is the wrong word here, Caz ? It should be against, presumably.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

In the interest of fairness, I've also read Christers book, which I've previously recommended. It's a very different book, but is well written and makes some very interesting points. I'd say read them both, they're both of merit, and Christers book is the go to on Letchmere. Of course, equally, one can disagree with his conclusions. That's kind of the point of reading books on such matters. Hear the arguments, draw your own conclusions.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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

I highly recommend it, and at a fiver for the ebook in all its highly referenced and map filled glory it's well worth the investment.
It's genuinely one of the most impartial and objective study's of the events you'll find, and if you disagree with any of Steve's conclusions, then great, because he puts it all out on display, so any reader can draw their own conclusions. It's definitely not a regurgitation of known facts, that's really doing him a disservice. But it's really not a book of his conclusions, it's just a comprehensive collating of the numerous records and a very sound understanding of them, how they relate to each other and how they can be interpreted, in various ways. It's definitely not an anti Letchmere book, that's not what he sets out to prove. It's a credit to the subject, and certainly deserves respect. Read it, and decide for yourself.

[caz]

My question still stands, regardless of whether you like it or not: can you produce a single piece of genuine evidence for the carmans guilt? It is a relevant question since you wrote that I ommitted to mention such evidence. You see, once you make that claim, you lead on that this kind of evidence exists. So let’ s hear it once and for all: does it? Examples, please. Not ”alternative innocent explanatios though”, like ”Maybe he was In Scotland”.

You really, REALLY don’ t want to answer that one, do you?

And we all understand why that is.

I'm confused, Fishikins.

Not having read your book, I was expecting you to say it is full to overflowing with 'evidence for the carmans guilt'. Yet here you are, apparently very cross with Dusty for not providing you with a 'single piece' of 'genuine' evidence for Lechmere's guilt, implying there is none in your book and you are getting desperate for examples - for the sequel perhaps?

Have I accidentally landed on a different planet?

Love,

Mrs Logic
X

[Kattrup]

>> Evening News, 7 September 1888 <<

Thanks, that's the article I was referring to in Post #33, which of course was in turn, referring to the lighting in Brady Street. The Goad map shows there was an open yard in the brewery facing Brady Street so no surprise that was lit. Bath St, near Foster St, however, was full of building, no open yards. ergo no lighting, other than possible street lamps.

Yes, it's hard to keep up with all the misunderstandings and baseless claims. In this case, I think the idea is that the paper mistook Buck' Row for Bath Street. You think it refers to Brady Street, which is more likely, as the article mentions the lamps "outside" the brewery, which would indicate some sort of gateway.

The brewery was large, so being well-lit the light could imho spill into Bath Street, of course.

[drstrange169]

>> Evening News, 7 September 1888 <<

Thanks, that's the article I was referring to in Post #33, which of course was in turn, referring to the lighting in Brady Street. The Goad map shows there was an open yard in the brewery facing Brady Street so no surprise that was lit. Bath St, near Foster St, however, was full of building, no open yards. ergo no lighting, other than possible street lamps.

[drstrange169]

>>It is a relevant question since you wrote that I ommitted to mention such evidence<<

Sure, quote the post where I used the phrase "genuine evidence" and you might have some credibility. Otherwise it's just one of your infamous dodges.

I can't be responsible for something you invented, that's down to you. I can only be responsible for the actual words and their meaning, that I wrote.

[Kattrup]

>>You may have expeessed the same view independently, but you are certainly not the only one who has expressed it. So now that this has been established, let´s leave the lights for the simple reason that they cannot be proven to have made any difference regardless of their position.<<


Page 64 of your book,

"He passed outside a well-lit brewery in Bath Street."

If it isn't important as you've just claimed, why do you keep harping on it? And since you chose to wrote that in a your book, where is your evidence that it is true?

Relying on Fisherman's head as a source is never a good idea. In this case, he's probably recalls Evening News, 7 September 1888, stating about Buck's Row: "It has been stated that the street is a dark one, but this is altogether wrong, for it is well lighted at all hours of the night by the great lamps outside the brewery of Messrs. Mann and Crossman, in addition to the ordinary street lamps, and it seems inconceivable that such a well-lighted street would be selected for the crime."