Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Lechmerians want us to believe anything they say, they are the leaders when it comes to masterminds, one of many ridicolous things they want us to believe is that Paul was the most stupid and imbecile person in Whitechapel!

    He was walking in a dark row, he knew it was dangerous there, there was not a soul around, he didn't hear anyone's footsteps, suddenly he saw a man standing alone, near a woman who was laying on the ground, and whom he later knew was recently murdered, that mysterious man didn't let him pass, he didn't let him help the woman up, he even convinced him to lie to the police, but Paul the imbecile didn't ever suspect him to be the killer nor told the police about his suspicions, instead he went away to help him further, by accepting his offer to lie to the police,and later to the coroner and to the jury!


    It must be Lechmere's magic, I saw a photo of him, I think his eyes are very deep and sharp, he has that look........oh



    The Baron

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

      You are ignoring Robert Paul, who was also there when Lechmere talked to PC Mizen.

      If Lechmere had said there was another PC in Bucks Row, Robert Paul would have immediately known Lechmere was lying.

      If Lechmere had said this nonexistent PC had told Lechmere and Paul to send other PCs to Bucks Row, Robert Paul would have immediately known Lechmere was lying.

      Which should have raised lots of questions for Paul.



      If Lechmere scammed PC Mizen, then Robert Paul would have been a full participant in the scam. Your theory fails unless you can find a motive for Robert Paul participating in the scam.
      Perhaps as Lechmere and Paul were both late for work, or claimed to be, they decided to tell the PC that another PC wanted him, to save time and extracate themselves from the situation. Perhaps for different reasons.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

        Perhaps as Lechmere and Paul were both late for work, or claimed to be, they decided to tell the PC that another PC wanted him, to save time and extracate themselves from the situation. Perhaps for different reasons.
        Why? why would they do this? Maybe they both killed Nichols! there's no witness to the Paul/Cross meeting. Maybe they're just two psychos who wanted to mess with the police. the original Hill Side Stranglers!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
          Lechmerians want us to believe anything they say, they are the leaders when it comes to masterminds, one of many ridicolous things they want us to believe is that Paul was the most stupid and imbecile person in Whitechapel!

          He was walking in a dark row, he knew it was dangerous there, there was not a soul around, he didn't hear anyone's footsteps, suddenly he saw a man standing alone, near a woman who was laying on the ground, and whom he later knew was recently murdered, that mysterious man didn't let him pass, he didn't let him help the woman up, he even convinced him to lie to the police, but Paul the imbecile didn't ever suspect him to be the killer nor told the police about his suspicions, instead he went away to help him further, by accepting his offer to lie to the police,and later to the coroner and to the jury!


          It must be Lechmere's magic, I saw a photo of him, I think his eyes are very deep and sharp, he has that look........oh



          The Baron
          Exactly! I can take a bit of the evidence that we know of and speculate, but now the speculation is just down to stroking egos. Let's throw every bit of shite at the wall and see what sticks. Cross the genius. He narrowly escapes with a tour de force of luck and then puts himself in the same situation twice more. what a brilliant man he was! A regular Dr. Moriarty! Let's get out of this by the skin of my teeth and then I'll do the same thing while on the clock to Chapman in the backyard of a full house at 5 in the morning! Wait! I'll slap a woman around in Dutsfields yard too and make sure at least 2 people see me! Mitre's square? of course! a security guard with his door open and a cop that passes by every 8 minutes or so. I learn from my mistakes! I'm the smartest man in the world!
          Last edited by Columbo; 07-27-2021, 05:25 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Columbo View Post

            Exactly! I can take a bit of the evidence that we know of and speculate, but now the speculation is just down to stroking egos. Let's throw every bit of shite at the wall and see what sticks. Cross the genius. He narrowly escapes with a tour de force of luck and then puts himself in the same situation twice more. what a brilliant man he was! A regular Dr. Moriarty! Let's get out of this by the skin of my teeth and then I'll do the same thing while on the clock to Chapman in the backyard of a full house at 5 in the morning! Wait! I'll slap a woman around in Dutsfields yard too and make sure at least 2 people see me! Mitre's square? of course! a security guard with his door open and a cop that passes by every 8 minutes or so. I learn from my mistakes! I'm the smartest man in the world!



            And I will keep the bloody knife on myself, I am the smartest guy ever been created, no one, and I mean no one ever will search me, no one will stop me, I can make my way out of hell when I want.

            I will go to the inquest, and stand in front of the coroner and the whole jury, I will tell everone that Mizen was a liar and that I didn't tell him there was another Policeman in Buck's row, I will contradict him freely, openly, explicitly, and go to kill again in only 5 days, no one ever will be watching my ass after this, no one will suspect me, they all will know Mizen is the bad guy here, they all are just a bunch of imbecile detectives....


            I will tell the jury that the other man thought the woman might be still breathing, freshly killed!, and that I didn't hear any footsteps whatsoever and didn't see anyone there!, but no one from those lunatic detectives will ever suspect me of killing her, I am so smart!


            I have a family, a dozen of kids, but who cares, my lust to kill on my route to work is at most important to me.... I like to start my daywork by killing cutting and mutilating someone around!







            The Baron

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post




              And I will keep the bloody knife on myself, I am the smartest guy ever been created, no one, and I mean no one ever will search me, no one will stop me, I can make my way out of hell when I want.

              I will go to the inquest, and stand in front of the coroner and the whole jury, I will tell everone that Mizen was a liar and that I didn't tell him there was another Policeman in Buck's row, I will contradict him freely, openly, explicitly, and go to kill again in only 5 days, no one ever will be watching my ass after this, no one will suspect me, they all will know Mizen is the bad guy here, they all are just a bunch of imbecile detectives....


              I will tell the jury that the other man thought the woman might be still breathing, freshly killed!, and that I didn't hear any footsteps whatsoever and didn't see anyone there!, but no one from those lunatic detectives will ever suspect me of killing her, I am so smart!


              I have a family, a dozen of kids, but who cares, my lust to kill on my route to work is at most important to me.... I like to start my daywork by killing cutting and mutilating someone around!







              The Baron
              I think my cart full of goods will be safe here while I hunt down and mutilate someone. The guy on the back with the rifle guarding it won't say anything. What? that huge bloodstain on my pocket? it's my pet uterus. I take it everywhere. Huh? Kill in the middle of the night instead of right before or during work? not for me, I'm the great and powerful Cross! Besides, I have 12 kids to feed! Come on people.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Columbo View Post

                Why? why would they do this? Maybe they both killed Nichols! there's no witness to the Paul/Cross meeting. Maybe they're just two psychos who wanted to mess with the police. the original Hill Side Stranglers!
                Why would they do it ? Paul to get to work asap, Lechmere had already delayed him. Lechmere to get the policeman away from him asap.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  What we need not do is to accept that Lechmere left home at 3.20 precisely every day. If he left home with a mindset to kill, he needed to add time to the schedule unless he was willing and ready to be late for work.
                  No one is saying Charles Lechmere left home at precisely 3:20am every day. Absolutely no one. Not even Charles Lechmere.

                  If he left home with a mindset to kill, it was already too late to adjust his schedule. Finding a victim, killing, and mutilating them would probably take 15 to 20 minutes or more. Which would mean he'd have to leave the house at least 15 to 20 minutes early. Which would mean he'd have to leave wake up at least 15 to 20 minutes early. Which would mean that the night before he would need to reset an alarm clock or track down the knocker upper and tell them to wake up early.

                  Which guarantees that he would have preplan a lie to tell his wife, possibly his kids, and possibly a knocker upper. And hope they didn't note he got up early on a day someone was killed by the Ripper.

                  That's going to bed with a premeditated plan to kill, not waking up and impulsively deciding to kill. It's possible, but it would cost half-an-hour of precious sleep every day he tried it and usually give him no opportunity to kill. It would make more sense for a carman to murder on the way home. It would not require premeditation and not waste huge amounts of time.


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                    Why would they do it ? Paul to get to work asap, Lechmere had already delayed him. Lechmere to get the policeman away from him asap.
                    Then why drag Paul into this at all? Run. all he had to do was run. It's that simple but no one want's to admit it. He could've just run. which is what you have to believe he did at the other murder sites if he was JTR.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      I think that is the obvious conclusion. Paul was very vociferious in his interview with Lloyds, implying that he left Lechmere with the body and had a "one man show" with Mizen. Come the inquest it's an entirely different matter. I've read five accounts of his sworn testimony. In three he simply talks about finding a policeman. The Evening Standard and The Morning Advertiser quote Paul as saying "I sent the other man for a policeman". Lechmere discovered the body and the natural thing to do would be for Paul to stand back and let Lechmere relate the circumstances, as testified by Mizen. I tend to agree with Jeff in thinking that there is no need for the "white lie" alternative - the testimony is enough.

                      For some - the ones who will never accept that Paul was not standing close to Lechmere throughout - the testimony is not enough, although it should perhaps have been. That is why I have pointed to the possibility of a lie agreed upon by the carmen. Just like you, I donīt favour the suggestion. To me, Mizen was telling the truth.
                      As for Pauls "light version" of the Lloyds article, served at the inquest, it is not the only example of a sudden change of heart. Have a look at Cadosch and you will see what I mean. One must of course also leave some learoom for how the Lloyds article may have been spiced up by the reporter and not by Paul.


                      Christer, while you were in Iceland I did raise a question on your request for evidence of innocence in my post #328 for when you returned. You may have missed it while sheltering from the barrage of unwarranted attacks upon your person. I admire your perserverence.

                      Cheers, George
                      Noted now! The 3.30 time and Harriet Lilley, yes - one has to take into account a number of things. First, the testimony is uncorroborated, meaning that we may have an example of an attentionseeker. We may also have other people in the street, some time before Nichols and Lechmere made theor respective - or joint - entrance/s.
                      There is also a third possibility that I do. ot ascribe to myself, but it deserves mentioning nevertheless. When Bundy strangled his victims, he only brought them to the borderland of death. Then he let go of their necks and allowed them to come back to conscience again. After that, he strangled them to the brink of death again, and so on. This could have been what Lilley heard at 3.30 IF the sounds came from Lechmere and Nichols. A prolonged and cruel stretch of time, used to dangle death before the victim over and over again, feeling like God on the killers behalf.
                      But as I said, it is not an option I favour. I think the Ripper killed his victims as swiftly as possible and then set about the cutting, which was his primary goal if you ask me. Therefore, I tend to think that one of the two other options will likely apply.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Columbo View Post

                        it's my pet uterus. I take it everywhere. Huh?






                        The Baron

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                          No one is saying Charles Lechmere left home at precisely 3:20am every day. Absolutely no one. Not even Charles Lechmere.

                          If he left home with a mindset to kill, it was already too late to adjust his schedule. Finding a victim, killing, and mutilating them would probably take 15 to 20 minutes or more. Which would mean he'd have to leave the house at least 15 to 20 minutes early. Which would mean he'd have to leave wake up at least 15 to 20 minutes early. Which would mean that the night before he would need to reset an alarm clock or track down the knocker upper and tell them to wake up early.

                          Which guarantees that he would have preplan a lie to tell his wife, possibly his kids, and possibly a knocker upper. And hope they didn't note he got up early on a day someone was killed by the Ripper.

                          That's going to bed with a premeditated plan to kill, not waking up and impulsively deciding to kill. It's possible, but it would cost half-an-hour of precious sleep every day he tried it and usually give him no opportunity to kill. It would make more sense for a carman to murder on the way home. It would not require premeditation and not waste huge amounts of time.

                          Hi Fiver,

                          The timing for Cross leaving home is so he can be caught killing Nichols. Solely based on sketchy blood flow info. To believe Cross killed Nichols, you have to believe it was chance that he came upon her and said "yep, time to kill and mutilate!" Brilliant.

                          Columbo

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                            Nice. Must have been a great time.

                            Not for a large number of magnificent trout, it wasnīt.

                            Yes, in The Times it's not given as transcript quotes, and we get a paraphrasing by the reporter what he said to the coroner "...Witness and the other man [Lechmere/Cross] walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen. ...", which is admittedly ambiguous as to who is speaking.

                            It is. The overall impression when reading the inquest articles and the Lloyds article is one where Paul did take aprt and did speak to Mizen. It is one of the likely misconceptions one must be able to see through before being able to understand the case in "my" way.

                            And, re-checking, I see it's not Paul who testifies that he spoke to Mizen, but Cross/Lechmere testifies that Paul stated he believed her to be dead (in The Times). So, while The Times paraphrase is consistent with Paul indicating he spoke, which would be consistent with Cross/Lechmere's testimony that Paul spoke, you could argue that PC Mizen indicates Paul didn't speak, Cross/Lechmere is lying, and Paul is using the "royal we" and never corrects Cross/Lechmere's statement that he had spoken.

                            Yes, what Paul says is that "we informed the PC..." etcetera, and as you are apparently aware, there are many situations when the person who says "we" did actually not parttake in the action spoken of itself; "All of our family, all nine of them, went to the church and lit a candle", for example. Did all nine hold the match? No, but anyone of the nine is allowed semantically to say "we lit a candle". The same goes for Pauls testimony - he may have used "we told the PC" in the same way - the entity of two carmen informed Mizen, but both of them need not have spoken to Mizen or even approached him.
                            I am elated to see how you seem to understand this. I spent many posts trying to make the late Robert Linford see it too, but to no avail. It was not a boring exercise in any way, but neverthless slightly disheartening.


                            Yes, I saw your answer. I would, however, disagree that exposing the lie you told to cover up things when it's clearly not required is hardly a plan working like clockwork. Rather, it's a bungling unforced error. Also, I'm not shaping how he thinks, I'm simply harnessing the description of how he's supposed to think that you've put forth in your theory. You have many times stated that Cross/Lechmere is a very cunning, quick thinking, psychopath who was bluffing his way out after having been almost caught. His lack of emotional response to what others would find stressful is what allows him to come up with the clever cons and scam his way out. I'm just holding him to that description, and his unforced error doesn't follow. Basically, I'm working with the shape you've given me.

                            To be fair, what I say is that psychopaths are fearless and good liars and often able to think on their feet. Tnat does not mean that Lechmere must have been any mastermind, though. And I still think that the lie option - that I do NOT favour, as I hope you realize, is a possibility that cannot be discarded as a non-starter. To me, what Mizen said about how ONE man spoke to him is enough. It has been suggested that he could have misheard the matter of the other PC, but if both Paul and Lechmere spoke to Mizen, then he lied at the inquest. And that is another matter altogether, one that forces us to believe that the PC was willing to tella lie that would be gainsaid by Lechmere and Paul alike. It would stand no chance of getting believed, and it would be a risk he was not likely to take in my view. Ergo, he spoke the truth and Lechmere lied.

                            But you can't have it both ways. You have to speculate that Cross/Lechmere gets it wrong, in fact, not just gets it wrong in a normal way, but deliberately lies, and then exposes that lie as well. All I suggest is a typical memory error of what was actually said, "that he was wanted in Buck's Row", and finding that there was a police officer there, making the natural assumption what was meant was "he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row". Given the situation, it's a very normal misunderstanding of intention, and doesn't require any complicated speculations of people deliberately lying. Both of us have to suggest things about what the intentions of the people involved are, that's the nature of theorizing. It's up to others to evaluate which, if either, speculation is more acceptable given the evidence we have to work with.

                            I actually can have many things both ways, as possible suggestions. Of course, if they are mutually excluding each other, only one (at most) can be true. But that is another matter.

                            Yah, it makes no sense, as if they heard a PC coming, they would just alert that one rather than wonder off hoping to find another.

                            It is a given to me, yes.

                            True, we can't bin something just because we don't like it, but that's not what I'm suggesting as the motivation for viewing it as a non-starter. As I've pointed out, it ends up contradicting itself, and that's pretty much a death sentence for a theory since lack of internal consistency is self falsification. While you don't like my arguments, that's no reason to bin them, and I'm not making any more use of speculation than the "white lie" theory I'm evaluating - I'm just using it in different parts, but that's allowed, I'm presenting a counter-argument to the "white lie" train of thought.

                            I'm not suggesting it shoots your whole theory down, I'm just saying that particular line of presentation looks to me to get you into logical trouble. I thought you had said earlier it wasn't your favorite idea anyway? But maybe I'm misremembering that, and it was either someone else or you were referring to something else. I can't seem to find the post again, but if my memory serves then it would mean you have other ideas that you think work better. I'm just suggesting you're right on that, they would have to work better because this one pretty much qualifies as "not working" without throwing in a few "...but we can't assume he would think that way ..." to rebut a critique of theory that is based upon presuming how he thinks in the first place. If I can't, you can't, and if you can't, there's no theory.

                            Anyway, just giving you and everyone else something to think about. And again, if I've recalled correctly and you've got other more preferred explanations, I think you would be better off focusing your energies there. It's up to you if you think you need to keep every option you've thought of on the table. I don't see any need for that myself as it feels like clutter to me. To each their own.

                            Oh, and you know, the "pub" forum would be a good place for any fishing photos you may wish to share.

                            - Jeff
                            My theory favours the suggestion that Charles Lechmere told Paul to walk on and he would catch up after having spoken to Mizen, simple as. And that makes Paul "The other man, who walked down Hanbury Street" as per one press report. So no, you are correct, my theory is not shot down. It is not even hit. I cannot even feel any gunpowder smoke lingering in the air.
                            But the suggestion of a lie, although presenting a more complicated scenario, cannot be ruled out. That is what I am saying.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                              Hi Christer,

                              Just a quick question. In your investigations of Lechemere, have you come across any suggestion that he may have been a Free Mason?

                              Cheers, George
                              Quick answer: No.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                                Lechmerians want us to believe anything they say...


                                The Baron
                                Do you really want us to believe that?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X