Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

[Fisherman]

Hah, I see Christer's appeared, you might want check his book out too,. "Cutting Point". It's NOWHERE NEAR as detailed as Steve's book, but at least you'll get an opposing view point and it's an easy, well written read.

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 Lechmereīs behalf whereas I donīt 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 didnīt 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 donīt 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.

[drstrange169]

See my posts above. I don't haver a problem with the brewery being brightly lit, just where it was lit up.

[Fisherman]

>>Can you point me to your demonstrations please. <<


My article is in a back issue of Ripperologist from a few years ago. I can't remember the issue number, but it has a picture of McCarthy's grave on the cover.
Since then Steve Blomer has produced an ebook that has more than anybody could ever want to know about Buck's Row.

Steve's book can be found here,
Please EMAIL when you order at Insidebucksrow@elamarna.co.uk
https://paypal.me/bucksrow?locale.x=en_GB

He gives regular free updates as new info comes to light. No spoilers, but the next update is going to be a beauty!



>>Are you aware that just before they crossed Brady Street they would have been walking past the Albion Brewery. I have read that it was brightl lit all night. Surely they would have seen each other then?<<

Christer claims it was brightly lit, I see no evidence to support that, as the lights were directed into the brewery not away from it, but it's irrelevant anyway, as the pair could be close and still not see the other.

There are reports from the time saying that the brewery was brigthly lit. If you put your heart to it, I bet you can dīfind them. Congratulations on Steves book, though!

[drstrange169]

Hah! good idea if I included the map!!!!

[drstrange169]

As you can see from this Goad map, the section along Bath Street and Foster was all heavily built up, no space for need for lights. Brewery lights were only needed for the open spaces so employees could see to work at night.

One newspaper, I can't recall which off hand, visited the area sometime later and commented on the brewery lights, but that was pertaining to Brady Street not Bath.

[drstrange169]

Hah, I see Christer's appeared, you might want check his book out too,. "Cutting Point". It's NOWHERE NEAR as detailed as Steve's book, but at least you'll get an opposing view point and it's an easy, well written read.

[drstrange169]

>>Can you point me to your demonstrations please. <<


My article is in a back issue of Ripperologist from a few years ago. I can't remember the issue number, but it has a picture of McCarthy's grave on the cover.
Since then Steve Blomer has produced an ebook that has more than anybody could ever want to know about Buck's Row.

Steve's book can be found here,
Please EMAIL when you order at Insidebucksrow@elamarna.co.uk
https://paypal.me/bucksrow?locale.x=en_GB

He gives regular free updates as new info comes to light. No spoilers, but the next update is going to be a beauty!



>>Are you aware that just before they crossed Brady Street they would have been walking past the Albion Brewery. I have read that it was brightl lit all night. Surely they would have seen each other then?<<

Christer claims it was brightly lit, I see no evidence to support that, as the lights were directed into the brewery not away from it, but it's irrelevant anyway, as the pair could be close and still not see the other.

[Fisherman]

Hi Dusty,

Can you point me to your demonstrations please. Are you aware that just before they crossed Brady Street they would have been walking past the Albion Brewery. I have read that it was brightl lit all night. Surely they would have seen each other then?

Cheers, George

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.
Then again, if Lechmere was 50 yards in front of Paul, then he should have passed the outlet from Foster Street into Bath Street before Paul opened his door. Since it cannot be established what distance there was between the two at this stage, 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. 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, itīs them coincidences again ...

[Fisherman]

So it, s been some time since I posted out here, but this is something that is too interesting to just let pass. There are a number of things that must be weighed in, and not all of them have been weighed in so far.

Letīs 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. In the other cases, Tabram, Chapman, Eddows and Kelly, the killer could be reasoned to have made a point of displaying the damages to the world. So making the assumption should not be controversial. People found alone with recently killed murder victims always were of interest in any investigation of unsolved murder.

Of course, it could just be rotten luck on Lechmereīs behalf that this was so. It could also be rotten luck on his behalf that he just happened to arrive at the site as Nichols would go on to bleed for many minutes. 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 didnīt 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. Impossible to miss, more or less, Iīd say. But of course, maybe Paul was looking at his feet as he walked, and maybe he had clogged ears. Perhaps that explains why Paul did not hear or see Lechmere walking in front of him for a longish time. Regardless of whether Lechmere wore hobnail boots (which was the standard working manīs footwear) or some other shoes, it remains that in an accoustic tunnel made up of houses lining a narrow street will allow you to hear other pedestrians from very far off, the way Neil heard Thain, so it remains odd if the two didnīt notice each other by way of the Schneiders lamp or acoustically.

But of course, technically and statistically a person can have a heap of coincidences pointing in his direction and still be innocent. Like how Mizen may have gotten him wrong, like how Lechmere may have spoken of a potentially dead woman and so on although Mizen never acknowledges it, and like the PC he may have misheard that thing about the PC. Or made it up, even! It could have been such a night, when Charles Lechmere just could not get a break. Fate could have invoked all sorts of wrongful pointers and misleading hints. The rags could have ended up where they were out of sheer coincidence. Both of them. 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 Strideīs throat a stoneīs thrown from his mothers house. And Eddowesīditto 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 Lechmereīs work route.

I could go on, of course, but the topic here is why he stayed put as Paul arrived in Bucks Row. As Gut points out, no evidence had been provided that Lechmere was a psychopath, and so my suggestion that he must have been if he was the killer has no proof adhering to it. Regardless of that, we know from hundreds of cases of serial murder that just about all of these killers have a psychopathic nature. And so, the argument has itīs place: Far from it being a done deal that the killer of Nichols must have run, it may be that Lechmere posessed a common trait of psychopaths: they cannot panic. And so, he would have had the guts to stay put. Moreover, psychopaths are apt liars and they actually enjoy fooling people, because it tickles their sense of being superior. So in these respects, it is easy to see how a psychopath killer may have CHOSEN to stay put. And, as pointed out earlier, it would provide a sensible explanation to why Nicholsī wounds where hidden. There would be something to gain for the killer, quite simply. It all pans out, but that could be another coincidence, of course.

It should also be underlined that we do not know exactly when Lechmere noted Paul. He may have been in a "bubble", when cutting away at the body, and so he may have have been totally unaware about whether Paul had noticed something out of the order. Consequentially, he may have wanted to find out from Paul, and he could not do so by turning away or running.

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. To this, we may add that the police in all likelihood would be on the lookout for a madman, preferably running down the streets with a knife in his hand. They would not look for a working man en route to his job. And they would be even less inclined to believe that a combo of TWO working men enroute to their jobs would harbor the killer! So if Lechmere wanted something to allow him to look innocent, Robert Paul was heaven sent.

These are all matters that must be weighed in before making a call. Posters simply saying "No, it was not Lechmere, the idea is ludicrous" are perhaps less informative and reliable, but such is the way of some, sadly enough.

By the way, wasīt 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? It is af if everything is against him, isnīt it? Even the fact that he didnīt 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. Heartless, I know, but then again, these two (ehrm) serial killers didnīt care much about hearts, did they? They both removed hearts from their victims. And uteri. And rings.

And that should tell us that coincidences DO occur! Right?

Quod est super venari.

[GBinOz]

>>You'd assume they were likely to be wearing 'hobnail boots' and walking on cobbles, so it's hard to believe they were walking anything like close together.<<

At the very least, two residents were awake and nobody heard the two carmen walking, so it's unlikely they were wearing hobnails, plus as carmen, they wouldn't have needed to.

As both Steve Blomer and I have demonstrated, it was perfectly possible for the two men to be within seconds of each other and for them not see the other one until Bucks Row.

Hi Dusty,

Can you point me to your demonstrations please. Are you aware that just before they crossed Brady Street they would have been walking past the Albion Brewery. I have read that it was brightl lit all night. Surely they would have seen each other then?

Cheers, George

[paul g]

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.

[John Wheat]

He was rather 'in the moment' busy with killing so wasn't listening out. He knew how much time he was likely to have based on his knowledge of police beats and wasn't expecting anyone else to be around.

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

[Dickere]

Just a minor point. If they were wearing hobnailed boots and were a distance apart wouldn’t that beg the question why a guilty Lechmere remained in situ? If Lech heard Paul’s echoing footsteps from a distance away why didn’t he simply walk away into the night?

He was rather 'in the moment' busy with killing so wasn't listening out. He knew how much time he was likely to have based on his knowledge of police beats and wasn't expecting anyone else to be around.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

You'd assume they were likely to be wearing 'hobnail boots' and walking on cobbles, so it's hard to believe they were walking anything like close together. Paul has no reason to lie, so it suggests that Lechmere was lying i.e. he had been there for rather longer and wasn't walking. Hmmm...

Yes, that's the bit, or one of them, that Fisherman finds suspicious, and I agree with him.

Cheers, George

Yet how long he appears to have been there was in his own hands. Any of the following would have prevented any chance of (modern) suspicion.

At exactly twenty-five minutes to four on Friday, I left home to go to work.

Shortly before twenty minutes to four on Friday, I left home to go to work.

At about twenty minutes to four on Friday, I left home to go to work.

That was the simple trick he could have used, if he'd been at the murder scene for longer than he cared to admit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a minor point. If they were wearing hobnailed boots and were a distance apart wouldn’t that beg the question why a guilty Lechmere remained in situ? If Lech heard Paul’s echoing footsteps from a distance away why didn’t he simply walk away into the night?