Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

Columbo beat me to the punch, but if Lechmere's cargo had been stolen or tampered with, that was a sackable offence. We are being asked to believe that Lechmere was up to tricks like this for decades, committing different strings of murders across London, but in reality he was gainfully employed throughout his life.

How many ‘strings’ of murders are you being asked to believe Lechmere was involved in?

[GUT]

Re raising the alarm, can you imagine the response if he had woken the whole area and it turned out to be nothing but a drunk. Many of these poor brighter got a few hours sells a night at the best of times.

[Fiver]

How many ‘strings’ of murders are you being asked to believe Lechmere was involved in?

I'm surprised you missed it.

Fisherman has been blaming both the Ripper killings and the Torso murders on Charles Lechmere.

[GBinOz]

why do people keep saying he didn't raise the alarm?

Within seconds of seeing the body(according to him, anything else is speculation and should not be used to say he didn't raise the alarm) , he calls Paul walking some 40 yards behind him to the body. Is that not raising the alarm?

Steve

Hi Steve,

I have a couple of things that I find curious in this scenario.

Firstly, it would have been expected that Lechmere would have called to Paul walking some 40 yards away, but he didn't. He waited for him and moved into his path in what, given the reputation of the area for knockdown robberies, could have been perceived by Paul to be threatenening behaviour. Lechmere didn't speak to Paul until after he had touched him on the shoulder as Paul attempted to pass him.

Secondly, if Paul was only 40 Yards behind Lechmere, he had, after turning into Buck's Row, 70 yards in which to see or hear a man walking in front of him, but he didn't. The implication is because when Paul turned into Buck's Row, Lechmere was stationary, 110yards away, "where the woman was". Who knows how long Lechmere was there before Paul turned into Buck's Row? Certainly not Paul.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

Re raising the alarm, can you imagine the response if he had woken the whole area and it turned out to be nothing but a drunk. Many of these poor brighter got a few hours sells a night at the best of times.

as former cop, i would think you would have something alittle more useful to offer. and by raising the alarm i obviously dont mean screaming at the top of his lungs,or waking the whole neighborhood, but falling down the semantic rabbit hole seems to be par for the course on lechmere threads.

[Abby Normal]

But None were in a position of being 40 yards ahead of someone else were they.

That he is seen, near a body before he raises the alarm is irrelevant IF he is only 40 yards ahead of Paul.
To put it as clearly as possible, if he tells the truth, when else apart from he sees the body COULD he have raised any alarm

Th e brutal truth is that despite the thousands of posts suggesting he is there significantly ahead of Paul, it's nothing but speculation .
Nothing wrong with speculation, but it's just that.


steve

i dont think its irrelevant, quite the opposite my friend.and yes it is speculation, never said it wasnt. but speculation based on facts and the rarity of an innocent "witness" being seen alone with a freshly killed victim, before anyone else was. see what i did there... i even got rid of the phrase before raising the alarm. and its still suspicious and odd.

[Doctored Whatsit]

We only have the brief inquest statements of Charles and Paul, and Paul's press account, to consider as evidence, and neither of them were asked testing questions demanding the significant details which we are asking about, whereas the police would have questioned both of them separately, and taken detailed statements from them. It would seem that the police were perfectly happy with the greater detail that they possessed. We can only guess that the two statements covered the facts to the satisfaction of the police.

As has happened so frequently, we have inquest reports and press reports, but not the far more vital police evidence. I am inclined to believe that although they may have made some mistakes, the police were not idiots, and the information they held, which we cannot ever know, was probably perfectly satisfactory. I am, of course, like everyone else, making an assumption, but not an unreasonable one.

[drstrange169]

>>It puts me in mind of The Blockheads, Ian Drury’s band.<<

One of the tightest bands I ever saw. Davey Payne gave the best sax!

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I have a couple of things that I find curious in this scenario.

Firstly, it would have been expected that Lechmere would have called to Paul walking some 40 yards away, but he didn't. He waited for him and moved into his path in what, given the reputation of the area for knockdown robberies, could have been perceived by Paul to be threatenening behaviour. Lechmere didn't speak to Paul until after he had touched him on the shoulder as Paul attempted to pass him.

Secondly, if Paul was only 40 Yards behind Lechmere, he had, after turning into Buck's Row, 70 yards in which to see or hear a man walking in front of him, but he didn't. The implication is because when Paul turned into Buck's Row, Lechmere was stationary, 110yards away, "where the woman was". Who knows how long Lechmere was there before Paul turned into Buck's Row? Certainly not Paul.

Chebers, George

Hi George


I use to say its all about perception, are you aware of events or in a bubble. If you do the same action everyday , like travelling to work on public transport, this often happens, you miss or nearly miss you stop, despite annouchments.
And if that exact spot was known for problems, then you may switch on as you approach it.
And that still applies, but it was very dark, and Paul had only just left home, his eyes had not started to adjust to the low light at this point. Focus would be poor, but you may notice movement, say from the pavement into the road.
I give a good explanation of distances between Lech and Paul, in "Inside Bucks Row " the next update will touch on the vision issue, which will be covered in far greater detail in another work I have planned on lighting.

As for the first comment, better to approach than call out when you are unsure just what's happened.


Steve

[Elamarna]

i dont think its irrelevant, quite the opposite my friend.and yes it is speculation, never said it wasnt. but speculation based on facts and the rarity of an innocent "witness" being seen alone with a freshly killed victim, before anyone else was. see what i did there... i even got rid of the phrase before raising the alarm. and its still suspicious and odd.

We will disagree Abby.

But what else should he have done?

Steve

[MrBarnett]

I'm surprised you missed it.

Fisherman has been blaming both the Ripper killings and the Torso murders on Charles Lechmere.

I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t recognise it from your description.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I still think it’s strange that he didn’t scarper if he heard Paul’s approach from some distance away (echoing hobnailed boots). Especially as he heard Paul before he saw him? If Paul had, in effect, sneaked up on him and ‘appeared’ say, 20 or 30 yards away I could perhaps understand it as Lechmere couldn’t have been sure that Paul wasn’t the have-a-go hero type who might have taken it upon himself to chase after him if he’d decided to run. But even in that circumstance Lechmere couldn’t have been anything like certain that he hadn’t got blood on his clothing. If he could think quickly enough to come up with the Scam in such short notice then he’d certainly have been aware that calling Paul over might have resulted in an eventual meeting with a Constable with him having wet blood on his clothing and carrying a bloodied knife. Or that going in search of a Constable with Paul would have meant passing a lamp or two which could have led to Paul seeing wet blood on him.

[MrBarnett]

>>It puts me in mind of The Blockheads, Ian Drury’s band.<<

One of the tightest bands I ever saw. Davey Payne gave the best sax!

Dury, not Drury, obviously.

I was hoping for an opportunity to use the dreadful pun, ‘Hit me with your Lytham shtick’.

Apologies for the diversion here.

[Fiver]

I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t recognise it from your description.

It wasn't my description.

[MrBarnett]

It wasn't my description.

It was your post. If you were quoting someone else, you should have used quotation marks.