Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    >>So now the police who couldn't even be bothered to speak to the residents of Buck's Row are going to investigate the timings of one of their own by asking people who don't have clocks when it was that they were woken up<<

    Why would the police need to investigate? You don't seem to understand how capitalism works. The people were paying for a service, if Mizen didn't supply it, they would be at the police station demanding their money back.

    Can you show me where Mizen was punished for not doing his job? And if he is so dodgy in your mind, can we dismiss his witness box claim about Cross?

    "Here we go round in circles to nowhere"
    This is junk underserving of an adult's attention.

    M.
    (Image of Charles Allen Lechmere is by artist Ashton Guilbeaux. Used by permission. Original art-work for sale.)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post

      >> I ask you for evidence of Lechmere disturbing anyone. It never happened. You plucked this out of thin air.<<

      Sigh, Did Diemshitz hear anyone running away? Did Watkins?


      >>The dress was pulled down to Nichols knees. <<

      And some reports say it was nearly up to her stomach.

      And NO report says it was "pulled down" before Paul tried.

      Again inventing things is all very nice, but facts are important to some of us.


      >>True. Lechmere couldn’t guarantee Paul wouldn’t pull out a match.<<

      Thank you, a glimmer of light at last.


      >>The facts on the ground are quite clear. Nichols wounds were concealed ...<<

      Then you don't know what you are talking about and I'm wasting my time. The neck wounds were clearly visible to PC Neil. I don't understand how to can post here and not know that.



      >>Actually I’ve quoted both the inspector in charge of the Bucks Row case and Lechmere himself. I’m a Psychology Graduate. I understand evidence very, very well.<<

      At the The Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too, presumably;-)





      It’s typical to ask Dusty to provide evidence of Lechmere disturbing JTR, an event which never happened, and to end up on what time the Dr was woken up. You literally get a bible worth of information which is completely off topic, including Dusty Springfield song lyrics.


      Here are some facts.


      Fact 1.

      Lechmere very clearly states that he saw or heard nobody else. There is nobody else around.


      Fact 2.

      Nichols dress had been pulled down to her knees, confirmed by Lechmere himself. The wounds to the abdomen had been covered up. And this was the scene Lechmere found, prior to Paul or anyone else arriving.


      Fact 3.

      Lechmere was found standing “where the woman was” by witness Robert Paul. We can place Lechmere at the scene of the crime close to the time it happened.


      Fact 4.

      Lechmere usually left for work around 03.20 (from press reports of the inquest). When Paul meets him in Bucks Row it’s is around 03.45. On his usual daily commute Lechmere would arrive in Bucks Row around 03.27. On the morning in question Lechmere is for some reason very, very late.


      Fact 5.

      Lechmeres home in Doveton Street is roughly a 6 or 7 minute walk from the murder scene.


      Fact 6.

      Even taking Lechmere at his word that he running late and leaves home at 03.30 on the morning in question, he should arrive in Bucks Row around 03.37 which is well before Paul even leaves home. When Lechmere turns into Bucks Row Paul hasn’t even left the house.


      Fact 7

      Despite Lechmere having a head start and entering Bucks Row first, Paul somehow manages to catch up and meet Lechmere at the murder scene.


      Fact 8

      Polly has been the victim of a very violent attack. She has horrific injuries. Yet Paul isn’t even sure if Nichols is dead. There are no obvious signs she has been killed, despite Paul getting close enough to touch her hands and face.


      These are just a few of the facts of Bucks Row. And to get back to the title of the thread ‘Evidence of Innocence’ there’s still nothing been posted that removes Lechmere as a suspect, or even suggests innocence.














      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

        Christer has explained the issue of Lechmere's address over and over again: I myself had read and understood the relevant distinction within minutes of arriving at this site, half a year ago.

        I think Christer doesn't need to reply to this endlessly repeated garbage -- which, to be frank, no longer seems honest. I shyly suggest that he should ignore it and do other things instead...

        M.
        The police knew his correct address

        The coroner had every right to ask him his address. And he would not give a false address for fear of casting suspicion on himself [ Fish says this ]

        The Star knew his correct address. So anyone who reads The Star would. And before you start saying, Ahh but they knew a Cross who worked at Pickfords as a carman in Broad st and who got to work at 4 that morning . Not a Lechmere who worked at well, Pickfords as a carman in Broad st and who got to work at 4 that morning.

        He freely gave his work address , and freely volunteered the info that he had worked there for over 20 yrs at the inquest, thus narrowing the field down even further to the fact that Cross/ Lech were the same person.

        Anyone who went to the inquest and who knew Lech would automatically recognise him as Cross

        He gave the name Cross in his one known other incident involving the police and Pickfords . An incident he was fully exonerated from. So no need for him to act suspicious.

        And you wonder why me and others ask questions when one of the cornerstones of Lech being a suspect is the name/ID/address issue.

        I will ask you the question Mark , If the coroner asked Lech to give his address while he was being questioned say - " You say you were on the way to work from your home address which you say you left around 3 30 when you discovered the body. From what address where you coming from , and do you normally pass down Bucks row ? " Seems like a pretty straightforward question which Baxter could have asked.
        So what do you think Lech's answer would be ?
        I don't know
        I can't remember
        Lie
        Or tell the truth

        Regards Darryl






        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

          This is junk underserving of an adult's attention.

          M.
          Much like most of this thread.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

            Been away from the party with Covid. So playing catch up

            I hope it didnīt affect you too much - good to hear youīre back, anyway!

            For Lech's address answer this - What do you think Lech would have said if the coroner asked him his address - I Don't know, Give a false address , Can't remember or give his correct one. No fudging , just answer the question.

            No fudging? Do you really think that is the best way to ask a question, Darryl? The coroner would not have needed to ask about his address, becasue he already had it in his papers. If he DID ask, there was only one answer he could give, 22 Doveton Street. Otherwise, the coroner and police alike would be very surprised, donīt you think?

            Was that fudging? Or?


            Also , it is not a bitter blow to me that Polly's wounds may have been covered . It is a bitter blow to you that you cannot bring forward one iota of evidence that they were.

            There are lots of things I cannot prove, Darryl. I am presenting a theory, not a proven case although the amount of evidence takes it close to such a thing in Lechmereīs case. Anyhow, it is no blow at all to me that I cannot prove it. What I need to entertain my theory is that it cannot be disproven. And it can't.

            And while you are at it why don't you answer the point what Paul said - "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul
            Was he lying ? mistaken? or just telling the truth .Again no fudging.
            I have alread answered it, Darryl. The clothing would have been up at her thighs, which is why Lechmere said "When I first saw her, the clothing was up over her knees." If the abdomen had been laid bare, would the description that the clothing was "up over the knees" be used? I donīt think so. Pauls description sounds typically victorian to me - the clothing was so high up as almost to bare the stomach! Meaning that it was NOT so high up as to bare the stomach, of course.

            Was THAT fudging?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
              He would not give a false address to the police. He did give his correct address to the police.

              Capisce?


              You openly admit this Fish, yet you still persist in the notion that Lech tried hiding his true ID. Bizarre . And you wonder why I have trouble understanding you.
              These were a set of brutal murders in an impoverished area of the east end. Not some plot to a John Le Carre novel of bluff and double bluff.
              Yes, it is amazing that you seem not to unsderstand it. But Iīm happy to explain it to you again!

              1. When Lechmere approached wither the police or the inquest (we dnīt know for certain whether he first visited the cop shop or whether he went directly to the inquest), the police would have needed to make sure that he was what he claimed to be; a witness in the Nichols case. Therefore, he will have been asked questions about Bucks Row and the woman in the street, just as he will have been required to present the police with his name, address and place of work. At THIS stage (letīs call it stage 1), he gave the police the name Cross, the address 22 Doveton Street and the work-place Pickfords in Broad Street.
              When he dealt with the police, there was always the risk that they were going to check out his details, and so it would be very perilous not to provide the correct address. I trust you can see that -if he had said 11 Rotten Row and the police checked it out, he would be toast.
              The name, however, was a different matter - even if he was not called Cross at work or anywhere else, he could still say that he occasionally used his dead stepfathers name, and it would not have been a breach of the law. it would certainly make the police suspicous if they checked him in depth and nobody admitted to ever calling him Cross, but he woud be within the limits of the law.

              2. When the carman subsequently took the stand in the Working Lads Institute at the inquest, he seemingly only gave them a name (Cross - consistent with what he had told the police), a working place (Pickfords at Broad Street - consistent with what he had told the police) but no address! Yes, the Star had the address, but that likely owes to how they aquired it in retrospect. Now, would leaving out his address at the inquest mean that the police suddenly forgot about he had told them that he lived in 22 Doveton Street? Of course not. Ergo, it was not the police he would have tried to hide his identity from by concealing his address. It would have been somebody else, and that (or those) somebody else would have been amingst the people who only accessed information about the matter via the papers. And in the papers, he was presented as Charles Cross, a Pickfords carman with no given address.
              To me, this means that he seemingly effectively hid himself from the ones who read the papers. Being a Pickfords carman is being one out of many hundreds of men, so that parameter would not give him away. The other two parameters, however, WOULD give him away: The name Charles Lechmere was very uncommon, whereas the name Charles Cross was not. The address 22 Doveton Street would also tell who he was.
              But being fed "Charles Cross, Pickfords carman" only would NOT lead people to realize who he was unless he always did call himself Cross, in which case there would be those who recognized him, namely thosw who knew him by that name.
              It must also be considered that even if he DID call himself Cross at work, but Lechmere in all other contexts, then the ones who only knew him as Lechmere would not be abe to make out who Charles Cross, murder case victim was.

              I hope I have been clear enough now, Darryl. Please let me know if you still havent got it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                Christer has explained the issue of Lechmere's address over and over again: I myself had read and understood the relevant distinction within minutes of arriving at this site, half a year ago.

                I think Christer doesn't need to reply to this endlessly repeated garbage -- which, to be frank, no longer seems honest. I shyly suggest that he should ignore it and do other things instead...

                M.
                Oh! I read Darryls post first, and so I provided him with the whole shabang. Again. It if can save me trouble in the future, itīs worth it. (And no, I doinīt think for a moment that I am headed towards a future with no trouble...)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                  >>I have already prepared an answer for your various "points", listing and torching your claims as I went along. Itīs on my computer desk. So you can have that, if you want to<<

                  Yes please.

                  >> after you have provided an answer to why John Thain would have spent up to around a quarter of an hour looking for Dr Llewellyns practice.<<

                  If you read my posts, you'd know I already have and shown the evidence that supports it.
                  I have read your posts. And you have not explained how Thains trek to Llewellyn seemingly took up to a quarter of an hour. So letīs do it this way: I donīt want to be served the old canard "I HAVE explained it, so go look for it yourself" again, so what you will do, is to name the post you are referring to, and we shall see.
                  I may need to add that if I were you, I would not want to read the answers I have instore for you, since they caontain proof that you have misrepresented the material. But itīs your choice - explain the Thain dilemma or give me the number of a post that does by your hand, and off we go!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                    >>So now the police who couldn't even be bothered to speak to the residents of Buck's Row are going to investigate the timings of one of their own by asking people who don't have clocks when it was that they were woken up<<

                    Why would the police need to investigate? You don't seem to understand how capitalism works. The people were paying for a service, if Mizen didn't supply it, they would be at the police station demanding their money back.

                    Can you show me where Mizen was punished for not doing his job? And if he is so dodgy in your mind, can we dismiss his witness box claim about Cross?

                    "Here we go round in circles to nowhere"
                    Even if - and thatīs one of the biggest ifīs ever - the customers woken up at the wrong time or not woken up at all DID go to the cop shop to reclaim their money, do you really think that we woud know about that today? Would it have made headlines? Or any lines at all?

                    I donīt think so.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                      For those not familiar with Christer’s shenanigans, when he’s been caught out , like calling his own posts “bonkers”, he usually seeks to change the subject. This entails saying things like I can answer everything, but I won’t. Do I need to cite examples of previous dummy spits?

                      Usually this ploy is accompanied by claims that people must answer his questions first, even though, as in this case they already have. It’s like that famous scene in Orson Welles's “Lady from Shanghai”, all mirrors and deflection.

                      As it happens I’ve got nothing better to do right now so, in this case, I’ll play along with Christer’s “funny little games” and also like the "Lady From Shanghai" scene, let's shatter a few mirrors and find the truth. There are, of course, multiple scenarios, this is but one.

                      Mizen would have past the Albion Brewery clock about 3:45, from there it was about a minute's journey to where he could have seen Neil’s signal.

                      Time 3:46.

                      This is backed up by his inquest testimony,

                      Nothing attracted his attention until about 3:45 a.m.”
                      The Times

                      Another couple of minutes would have pasted, going down Buck’s Row and talking to P.C. Neil. But for this little game of Christer’s I want to keep things tight, so let’s say it took only one minute.

                      Time 3:47

                      Thain then goes to Llewelyn’s house, according to Christer, a two minute journey.

                      Time 3:49

                      Obviously, or perhaps I shouldn’t say that because Lechmerians don’t do obvious, nobody would be at the door waiting for him. So we can reasonably expect it to take 1-5 minutes before someone answers. Since we’re taking the shortest possible time for the sake of this silly game, let’s say one minute.

                      Time 3:50

                      We know from Dr. Blackwell and Mrs Stride’s murder, that Llewelyn is not likely to be the one answering the door. It would be either a servant or Llewelyn’s assistant Dr. Seacombe. They would then have to wake Llewelyn.

                      Time 3:51

                      Already we are in the reasonable realm of Llewelyn’s claim,

                      I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four”.
                      Daily News

                      But, the unanswerable question is, when did Llewelyn look at a clock?
                      In his bedroom or after he dressed and went downstairs?

                      In his bedroom,

                      Time 3:52

                      Dressed and down stairs,

                      TIME 3:55 !!!!!!!!!


                      Baxter tells us that Llewelyn was at the murder site around fifteen minutes after Neil discovered the body. That would be around 4:00 which gives him, by the shortest possible scenario, just less than 10 minutes to get dressed, pack his bag and get to the murder site. Using Blackwell, who lived a similar distance from his murder site, that is a perfectly feasible time scenario.

                      Remember I have cut these times down to there lowest limits, in more realistic terms, all this would have taken some minutes longer.

                      Can we now please stop all these silly stories that smack so much of
                      desperatism and get on with it?
                      So you include all the things Llewellyn did AFTER being called to Bucks Row, like gtting out of bed, getting dressed and going downstairs as if they happened BEFORE he was called to Bucks Row?

                      And then YOU speak of ME in terms of "shenanigans"?

                      Snake oil Dusty is at it again!

                      Comment


                      • Dusty:

                        Still got some free time up my sleeve so let’s look at Baxter’s summation:


                        “In less than an hour and a quarter after this she was found dead …”

                        This establishes that Baxter believes the murder took place before 3:45.

                        First mistake - Baxter very clearly says in the summary that the finding of the body cannot have been far off 3.45, meaning that we cannot rule out 3.45 or any of the minutes adjacent to it. Honesty, please!

                        He goes on to say,

                        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.

                        What are the “so many independent data” according to Christer it is only one piece of data. The unspecific time Paul says he left home. How can that be?

                        Next mistake: I have already pointed out that Baxter speaks of MANY data, and I believe it was true that there was. Since Baxter never lists them, I canīt say how many they were, but I certainly never suggested that it was one only. But I do think that Thains and Llewellyns timings were a vital part of it.
                        I would appreciate if you do not misrepresent me again, Dusty - you already have worked up a large debt in that department.


                        Surely the “data” he is refering to is Mizen’s time, Neil’s time, Llewelyn’s time, Thain's time and Cross’s time etc. “… so many independent data.

                        The timings must have been part of it, but other things will have played a role to.

                        And if not, where does he say not?

                        Since when did he have to? He said that there were many independent data fixing the finding time close to a time not far off 3.45. It is only if we want to try and dismiss that information that we need to ask the kind of childish questions you do.

                        Cross first, does Baxter dispute any of the times Cross gave?

                        "The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work"

                        No mention of Cross being mistaken.

                        Mizen, does Baxter question Mizen’s time?

                        “The carmen reported the circumstances to a constable at the corner of Hanbury-street, 300 yards distant, but although he appeared to have started without delay, he found another constable was already there”

                        No mention of Mizen being mistaken.

                        Does Baxter question Neil’s time?

                        “In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen.”

                        No mention of Neil being mistaken.

                        No mention of ANYONE being right or wrong. But Baxter concluded from ALL the information that the body was found at a time not far off 3.45. Therefore, the PC:s timings CAN NOT have been correct, as per Baxter. No verbal acrobacy can change that.

                        But interestingly in the above sentence, he places Neil finding the body, in his words,
                        “within a few minutes” of Cross and Paul.

                        So now we know without any doubt what Baxter meant when he said,

                        “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m.”

                        He believed Cross and Paul found the body “within a few minutes” of Neil.

                        Within a few minutes, as in around five minutes. Which IS within a few minutes. Meaning that the body was found around 3.45. And meaning that Neil got there around five minutes (=a few minutes) later. The layout of the scene and the walking treks covered the same ground but in different directions and so five minutes or more must have told Neil and the carmen apart at the murder site.

                        There is no ambiguity, Baxter’s “fixed data” is supplied by the policemen.

                        He does not speak of any "fixed data", he says "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data." So it is the TIME that is fixed, not the data. And the time the body was found is fixed at close to 3.45.

                        He even emphasises the point later on,

                        “Constable Neil was positive that he was at the spot half an hour before”

                        And how does that mean that Baxter believes that Neil was at the spot at 3.15? If he was certain that the carmen found the body at 3.45, then Neil was in place at the murder site 3.50 or thereabouts and then half an hour before that was 3.20, not 3.15.
                        You have a nasty habit of trying to use figures in a way they cannot be used, Dusty. It looks a lot like manipulation in my eyes. Once we move on to the next point, we will all see it happening again - in floodlight.


                        Finally Baxter tells us Llewelyn was on site by around 4:00.

                        “Even if Paul were mistaken in the movement of the chest, Neil found her right arm still warm, and even Dr. Llewellyn, who saw the body about a quarter of an hour afterwards”

                        Something that would be very hard to do if Thain only arrived at the surgery at Christer’s claimed time of 3.57.

                        That would leave no time for the servant to answer the door, no time for them to alert Llewelyn, and no time for Llewelyn to get dressed and pack his bag.

                        No matter how much Lechmerians try to twist and tease, the actual facts always win out.

                        You want to know what happened follow the evidence not the fiction.

                        Indeed! And that is why we should do so in this last point too!!

                        Now, what exactly does the coroner say? He says that Dr Llewellyn saw the body a quarter of an hour after Neil found Nicholsī arm warm. And when was that? Well, since Baxter lays down that the carmen found the body at a time not far off 3.45, then we must acept that Neil could not have reached the body until five minutes or more afterwards. So the time at which Neil found that arm warm was around 3.50 or some minute afterwards.

                        And so, once we look at it fairly and justly, Llewellyn was NOT in place at 4 AM as you try to sell in the shape of a little bottle of snake oil, all the while bragging about being the one who represents the facts. He was in place 4.05 AT THE EARLIEST!!

                        So, Dusty, revealed. Again!

                        Caught misrepresenting. Again!

                        And getting flogged publically for it. Again!

                        Itīs always a risk, you know. You may want to ponder that before you try selling this kind of misinformation again.
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 11-16-2021, 12:55 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Okay, here's some unsolicited bitching about 'housekeeping issues.'

                          Is it just me, or is it only on the Lechmere threads that some people don't bother to use the quote function in any coherent way? I don't recall seeing this elsewhere.

                          If the responding poster makes the effort to copy the original poster's message onto his clipboard, and then cut-and-pastes the appropriate section of the quote each time he responds, it makes it a heck of a lot easier for the casual reader to follow along and realize who is saying what. Otherwise, some of these long exchanges become too convoluted to follow.

                          But I'm howling at the moon.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            Yes, it is amazing that you seem not to unsderstand it. But Iīm happy to explain it to you again!

                            1. When Lechmere approached wither the police or the inquest (we dnīt know for certain whether he first visited the cop shop or whether he went directly to the inquest), the police would have needed to make sure that he was what he claimed to be; a witness in the Nichols case. Therefore, he will have been asked questions about Bucks Row and the woman in the street, just as he will have been required to present the police with his name, address and place of work. At THIS stage (letīs call it stage 1), he gave the police the name Cross, the address 22 Doveton Street and the work-place Pickfords in Broad Street.
                            When he dealt with the police, there was always the risk that they were going to check out his details, and so it would be very perilous not to provide the correct address. I trust you can see that -if he had said 11 Rotten Row and the police checked it out, he would be toast.
                            The name, however, was a different matter - even if he was not called Cross at work or anywhere else, he could still say that he occasionally used his dead stepfathers name, and it would not have been a breach of the law. it would certainly make the police suspicous if they checked him in depth and nobody admitted to ever calling him Cross, but he woud be within the limits of the law.

                            2. When the carman subsequently took the stand in the Working Lads Institute at the inquest, he seemingly only gave them a name (Cross - consistent with what he had told the police), a working place (Pickfords at Broad Street - consistent with what he had told the police) but no address! Yes, the Star had the address, but that likely owes to how they aquired it in retrospect. Now, would leaving out his address at the inquest mean that the police suddenly forgot about he had told them that he lived in 22 Doveton Street? Of course not. Ergo, it was not the police he would have tried to hide his identity from by concealing his address. It would have been somebody else, and that (or those) somebody else would have been amingst the people who only accessed information about the matter via the papers. And in the papers, he was presented as Charles Cross, a Pickfords carman with no given address.
                            To me, this means that he seemingly effectively hid himself from the ones who read the papers. Being a Pickfords carman is being one out of many hundreds of men, so that parameter would not give him away. The other two parameters, however, WOULD give him away: The name Charles Lechmere was very uncommon, whereas the name Charles Cross was not. The address 22 Doveton Street would also tell who he was.
                            But being fed "Charles Cross, Pickfords carman" only would NOT lead people to realize who he was unless he always did call himself Cross, in which case there would be those who recognized him, namely thosw who knew him by that name.
                            It must also be considered that even if he DID call himself Cross at work, but Lechmere in all other contexts, then the ones who only knew him as Lechmere would not be abe to make out who Charles Cross, murder case victim was.

                            I hope I have been clear enough now, Darryl. Please let me know if you still havent got it.
                            So in other words he achieved absolutely nothing by this so called ruse. The police knew his address and were he worked . They could question/arrest him anytime in the future if they so required. Glad we are clear about that.
                            You are seeing smoke and mirrors were there are none
                            Last edited by Darryl Kenyon; 11-16-2021, 02:30 PM.

                            Comment


                            • No fudging? Do you really think that is the best way to ask a question, Darryl? The coroner would not have needed to ask about his address, becasue he already had it in his papers. If he DID ask, there was only one answer he could give, 22 Doveton Street. Otherwise, the coroner and police alike would be very surprised, donīt you think?

                              Was that fudging? Or?


                              Of course they would be very surprised , I am glad you agree Fish

                              Comment


                              • Lechmere’s marriage certificate, and his kids registered at school as Lechmere’s. He was married in 1870 and clearly his name has been Lechmere since 1870 and possibly earlier. Likely the moment his stepfather died he changed back to his baptised name which is interesting in itself. He appears to have only been Cross while his stepfather was around, before and after it’s Lechmere. His kids were all registered at school as Lechmere.
                                The point being that by 1888 Lechmere hadn’t used the name Cross anywhere for nearly two decades. The only 2 times in his adult life we find the name Cross is when he’s at an inquest.
                                I would add that anyone who still calls him Cross is incorrect. It suggests to me that those who do so have a refusal to face any facts about Lechmere, even the basics like his name.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X