Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Dickere View Post
    So Mr Blotchy seems to be getting some traction in other threads. Do people feel he fits Lech or is there anything that rules him out of being the killer if it was Blotchy ?
    Charles Lechmere. Look at the cheeks under the facial hair.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

      Paul doesn’t see Lechmere until he see’s him standing in the middle of the road near the body. He clearly hasn’t seen Lechmere prior to that.
      He doesn't say he hadn't seen Cross/Lechmere prior to that, just starts his testimony at the point he noticed him standing in the middle of the road. If the street was as well lit as the article suggests, then how could Paul have missed seeing Cross/Lechmere hunched over the body, slashing away, and then moving away from the body?

      The lighting is problematic both ways, if the street is dark enough that Paul wouldn't see Cross/Lechmere then there's is plenty of time for the killer to flee unnoticed (either as Cross/Lechmere approaches, or there's the issue of explaining why Cross/Lechmere remains), but if it is light enough that Paul's not seeing Cross/Lechmere is suspicious (the idea we're exploring here), then how does Cross/Lechmere get away from the body to the middle of the street without being seen, and how does he know he's not been seen?

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

        He doesn't say he hadn't seen Cross/Lechmere prior to that, just starts his testimony at the point he noticed him standing in the middle of the road. If the street was as well lit as the article suggests, then how could Paul have missed seeing Cross/Lechmere hunched over the body, slashing away, and then moving away from the body?

        The lighting is problematic both ways, if the street is dark enough that Paul wouldn't see Cross/Lechmere then there's is plenty of time for the killer to flee unnoticed (either as Cross/Lechmere approaches, or there's the issue of explaining why Cross/Lechmere remains), but if it is light enough that Paul's not seeing Cross/Lechmere is suspicious (the idea we're exploring here), then how does Cross/Lechmere get away from the body to the middle of the street without being seen, and how does he know he's not been seen?

        - Jeff
        We know that the gateway was in darkness. Lechmere doesn’t know if he’s been seen or not, it’s probably why he chose to stay and confront Paul. He has to ascertain what Paul has seen.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

          We know that the gateway was in darkness. Lechmere doesn’t know if he’s been seen or not, it’s probably why he chose to stay and confront Paul. He has to ascertain what Paul has seen.
          If Paul had seen Lech kill Polly wouldn't he have just shouted "Police". And even if Paul had just seen Lech hunched over Polly but not kill her , surely Lech would not have taken a chance and directed Paul to a dead body with blood flowing openly from the neck if he was the killer.
          What was he going to do if Paul got suspicious of him ?
          Regards Darryl

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

            If Paul had seen Lech kill Polly wouldn't he have just shouted "Police". And even if Paul had just seen Lech hunched over Polly but not kill her , surely Lech would not have taken a chance and directed Paul to a dead body with blood flowing openly from the neck if he was the killer.
            What was he going to do if Paul got suspicious of him ?
            Regards Darryl
            Good questions Darryl. Paul could have seen Lechmere hunched over in the darkness and not initially realised what he was seeing.
            When trying to figure out what was going on in Lechmere’s head we have to bear in mind that if he is JTR then he is a psychopath. He’s also likely been caught completely unawares and won’t have time to think.
            Getting Paul to come and see the body is a huge risk (so is killing somebody in a location like Bucks Row). However, if Paul hasn’t seen anything then Lechmere can go through his pantomime of finding the body with a witness / alibi there to see it.
            People seem to look for the logical and sensible option, it’s a unique situation with a unique man, we can’t judge him by our own standards.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

              We know that the gateway was in darkness. Lechmere doesn’t know if he’s been seen or not, it’s probably why he chose to stay and confront Paul. He has to ascertain what Paul has seen.
              If the street is so well lit, why does Cross/Lechmere not see Paul far earlier given her killer would be facing to the east where Paul comes from (Paul is not in the dark)?

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                If the street is so well lit, why does Cross/Lechmere not see Paul far earlier given her killer would be facing to the east where Paul comes from (Paul is not in the dark)?

                - Jeff
                I think that somebody coming from the board school direction is the bigger risk. It’s much closer. I would suggest facing West makes more sense. My feeling is that Lechmere was totally focussed on Nichols, he was zoned in, and became aware of Paul too late.
                Killing her and beginning his mutilations would take his eye off the ball so to speak.
                So my hypothesis is he’s got his back to Paul and concentrating on Nichols just a bit too long.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                  Charles Lechmere. Look at the cheeks under the facial hair.
                  do we know if lech had carrotty/fair hair?
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • Hi SS,

                    Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                    I think that somebody coming from the board school direction is the bigger risk. It’s much closer. I would suggest facing West makes more sense. My feeling is that Lechmere was totally focussed on Nichols, he was zoned in, and became aware of Paul too late.
                    Killing her and beginning his mutilations would take his eye off the ball so to speak.
                    So my hypothesis is he’s got his back to Paul and concentrating on Nichols just a bit too long.
                    Yes, I agree that there's a bigger risk from west (but as you say, regardless of which way he's facing, the location itself is highly risky; but that applies to all of the outside murders of the C5). But, the position of Polly's body, with her head to the east, and the mutilations to the abdomen, more of them towards the lower region and on her left side, and with her dress pulled up towards her head, points to her killer positioned more towards her feet to me, which in turn would have him facing east. That would make his position similar to what it appears to have been in the Chapman and Eddowes cases as well (Stride's lack of mutilations I think makes it impossible to say other than when he cut her throat he was near her head, and with Kelly he would have to be to the side given the position of the bed, etc).

                    However, if you have a different notion as to the killer's position, then that appears to be where our differences arise. But "back to the east" does mean when he is startled by Paul, he's in a position to move away from Paul towards the relative safety he's looking towards. Obviously we're not going to resolve that as we can go over the evidence we have, but clearly will end up where we are again (since we would just be retracing the path of interpretations we've both followed already). I admit, I have a hard time imagining how the injuries that are described could have been inflicted if the killer is crouched more towards her head and facing west, because as I say to me they seem almost to require him to be reaching up towards her chest then cutting downwards towards her feet (which means he's more towards her feet, hence facing east), but I'm sure you visualise it differently.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                      Charles Lechmere. Look at the cheeks under the facial hair.
                      And Lechmere had legs too. Obviously guilty.

                      Regards

                      Herlock Sholmes

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                        Good questions Darryl. Paul could have seen Lechmere hunched over in the darkness and not initially realised what he was seeing.
                        Can you really be serious when you say things like this Bob? When Paul saw Lechmere he was standing in the middle of the road. There’s no wriggling around this fact.

                        Regards

                        Herlock Sholmes

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                          do we know if lech had carrotty/fair hair?
                          Not sure. The photo I have has been coloured and he looks fair haired but I don’t know for sure. However, there is clearly a birth mark or similar on his left cheek. I think the blotchy / ruddy / sunburned complexion mentioned by some witnesses fits with Lechmere.

                          Comment


                          • What is it that’s wanted here by those seeking a guilty Lechmere?

                            He came upon him and disturbed him in the act or that he must have seen from a distance away because Bucks Row was lit up like Oxford Street?

                            That he was a cool thinking Hannibal Lecter type but he dumbly put himself in a position over which he had zero control rather than flee?

                            That Paul could have interrupted Lechmere but no way could Lechmere have disturbed someone else?

                            It just keeps sounding more and more desperate.
                            Regards

                            Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                              Not sure. The photo I have has been coloured and he looks fair haired but I don’t know for sure. However, there is clearly a birth mark or similar on his left cheek. I think the blotchy / ruddy / sunburned complexion mentioned by some witnesses fits with Lechmere.
                              Of course you do Bob.
                              Regards

                              Herlock Sholmes

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                Can you really be serious when you say things like this Bob? When Paul saw Lechmere he was standing in the middle of the road. There’s no wriggling around this fact.
                                I completely agree Lechmere was standing the road. I meant that Lechmere didn’t know that, and that Lechmere may have thought that Paul had seen him at the body.
                                For the record, I believe that when Paul first saw Lechmere, Lechmere was in the middle of the road, 2 or 3m away from the body.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X