Evidence of innocence

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I was thinking the same - I speculate (of course) he could generally have walked the orange route - without turning back to Bucks Row - and continued down Whitechapel Road cutting through a side road or walkway to Old Montague Street. If Bucks Row was the type of place to be knocked down and robbed he would have done better to avoid it. I guess we will never know the route he usually walked to work but the possibilities are numerous. Best wishes.

It's worth remembering that it was Paul who made claims about the character of the neighborhood, and yet, there he was, walking down Bucks Row.

[Fisherman]

It's worth remembering that it was Paul who made claims about the character of the neighborhood, and yet, there he was, walking down Bucks Row.

True. Then again, his wasnīt spoilt for alternatives; Winthrop Street? Much the same. He would have to go down to Whitechapel Road to find a somewhat safer thoroughfare, and on the murder morning, he was late, so he would perhaps not be inclined to add further time to the trek.

But your point is a good one. Poster Ben - who hasnīt posted for quite some time now - rejected the possibility that Lechmere could have killed Tabram off Old Montague Street because it was so dangerous a street that no-one with his wits intact would use it.

Whether or not the Whitechapel killers wits were intact was something he seemingly forgot to ponder.

[FrankO]

But I would say that if all things always went down as expected and if nothing was ever out of what we perceive as the ordinary, then it would be a lot easier to chase serial killers ...

I'm not saying I really would have expected a guilty Lechmere to have said he'd left home about 3.35, Christer (he could have 'automatically' stuck to his usual 3.30, just as you suggest), just that I would find it a logical solution for a serial killer trying to remain off radar, because that's what a guilty Lechmere would have been trying to do from the start: bluff his way out of Buck's Row with Paul, lie his way past Mizen, come forward as a result of Paul's interview in the Lloyd's and, appear at the inquest. Always trying to remain the innocent witness in the eyes of everybody. Other than that, you're, of course, right: besides the luck they often enforce, serial killers didn't and don't always do what we, normal folk, expect or, otherwise, it would have been much easier to catch them.

[Paddy Goose]

Good morning Mark,

... mention Lechmere's name, and someone, somewhere immediately feels the uncontrollable need to fabricate an objection to something...

Yes, for instance, one Stewart Evans objected to something. He explained the police would certainly have investigated if Charles Cross was in fact an employee of Pickfords and therefore on his way to work that morning and every morning. And as Stewart pointed out, this info would have been contained in the police notebooks kept at the times. Police notebooks which are lost today.

Was Stewart Evans "fabricating" something as you say? Or was he basing this on his knowledge of the case and of police history. (Along with with Mr Rumbelow. The long lost police notebooks were previously mentioned in their book, Scotland Yard Investigates.)

But thank you for the word "fabricate" Mark. Because when I mentioned the police notebooks here on a "Lechmere" Suspect thread, I got mocked for my trouble by Fish. So yes apparently we've come to the point now where Fish is claiming Stewart Evans fabricated things.

[Fisherman]

I'm not saying I really would have expected a guilty Lechmere to have said he'd left home about 3.35, Christer (he could have 'automatically' stuck to his usual 3.30, just as you suggest), just that I would find it a logical solution for a serial killer trying to remain off radar, because that's what a guilty Lechmere would have been trying to do from the start: bluff his way out of Buck's Row with Paul, lie his way past Mizen, come forward as a result of Paul's interview in the Lloyd's and, appear at the inquest. Always trying to remain the innocent witness in the eyes of everybody. Other than that, you're, of course, right: besides the luck they often enforce, serial killers didn't and don't always do what we, normal folk, expect or, otherwise, it would have been much easier to catch them.

I can easily see your point, Frank, no probs!

[Fisherman]

Good morning Mark,



Yes, for instance, one Stewart Evans objected to something. He explained the police would certainly have investigated if Charles Cross was in fact an employee of Pickfords and therefore on his way to work that morning and every morning. And as Stewart pointed out, this info would have been contained in the police notebooks kept at the times. Police notebooks which are lost today.

Was Stewart Evans "fabricating" something as you say? Or was he basing this on his knowledge of the case and of police history. (Along with with Mr Rumbelow. The long lost police notebooks were previously mentioned in their book, Scotland Yard Investigates.)

But thank you for the word "fabricate" Mark. Because when I mentioned the police notebooks here on a "Lechmere" Suspect thread, I got mocked for my trouble by Fish. So yes apparently we've come to the point now where Fish is claiming Stewart Evans fabricated things.

And to think that I have not even been involved in this exchange…?

Stewart Evans also called the Lechmere theory ”strange”, Paddy - the one and only practical, detailed and substantiated theory in terms of circumstantial evidence linked to the actual case. So that kind of completes the picture of his take on things.

I am not a religious man, and so I may invest less in Stewart Evans than you do. I tend to think that Andy Griffiths - who never suggested any theory of his own that could be threatened by Lechmere and who had no problems accepting that Lechmere could have been overlooked by the police - would be equally qualified to make an educated weighing as Evans would.

[Paddy Goose]

Fish, you mocked me when I mentioned police notebooks on this thread, pal.

[Fisherman]

Fish, you mocked me when I mentioned police notebooks on this thread, pal.

Anybody can bring up anything in a way that invites disbelief, I’ m afraid. How it suddenly introduced me into your exchange with other posters remains a riddle to me, though. As for mocking, you dabble in that field yourself at times, I believe?

Not that any of this will take the case forward…

[The Baron]

When you read something like this

>> I am not a religious man, and so I may invest less in Stewart Evans than you do

You know the poster is losing and very vulnerable.

That is one of many reasons I don't buy anything Fisherman says.


Good post Paddy Goose !



The Baron

[Mark J D]

Yes, for instance, one Stewart Evans objected to something. He explained the police would certainly have investigated if Charles Cross was in fact an employee of Pickfords and therefore on his way to work that morning and every morning. And as Stewart pointed out, this info would have been contained in the police notebooks kept at the times. Police notebooks which are lost today.

Was Stewart Evans "fabricating" something as you say? Or was he basing this on his knowledge of the case and of police history. (Along with with Mr Rumbelow. The long lost police notebooks were previously mentioned in their book, Scotland Yard Investigates.)

But thank you for the word "fabricate" Mark. Because when I mentioned the police notebooks here on a "Lechmere" Suspect thread, I got mocked for my trouble by Fish. So yes apparently we've come to the point now where Fish is claiming Stewart Evans fabricated things.

A perfect example of what I was talking about.

M.

[Fisherman]

When you read something like this

>> I am not a religious man, and so I may invest less in Stewart Evans than you do

You know the poster is losing and very vulnerable.

That is one of many reasons I don't buy anything Fisherman says.


Good post Paddy Goose !



The Baron

Thank you, Baron - you are the one source I know I can always rely on. Always rubbish. Always.

[Dickere]

Yuh. I've always considered it a weird location, whether Polly took the killer there or he found her soliciting (or sleeping) there. I can't help feeling that there's something big we don't know about -- such as Lechmere wanting to avoid Winthrop Street because he'd unsuccessfully tried something there, or there were horse-slaughterers working there who knew him, etc...

M.

It seems a strange place to solicit, you wouldn't expect much trade there at that time of the morning I'd have thought. Maybe she was just sleeping, I hadn't considered that.

[SuperShodan]

It’s interesting to read that the police would have interviewed Lechmere. We can’t assume that this occurred. There is no evidence that it did.
Lechmere only spoke to one Policeman, PC Mizen. Mizen never took Lechmere’s name, address or where he worked. So how exactly did the police get hold of him for an interview? They had absolutely no idea who he was or where to find him.
And why would they want to interview him anyway? The police were under the impression PC Neil discovered the body. Lechmere was just some random passing on a message. He had nothing to do with it.
Moving on, in 1888 police had about 3 weeks training. They just weren’t as well trained as our modern police force. We can’t assume modern, professional policework. It seems to me Lechmere slipped through the net. A fact borne out by evidence - on the first day of the inquest it was still thought Neil found the body. So we can say that Lechmere definitely hadn’t been interviewed by the start of the inquest.

[Mark J D]

It’s interesting to read that the police would have interviewed Lechmere. We can’t assume that this occurred. There is no evidence that it did.

Absolutely.

I really, genuinely, can't be bothered with coppers' fantasies about what the police 'would have' done in 1888. I grew up in the era of Peter Sutcliffe -- whose eventual arrest in a car with false number plates still saw the police allow him to go behind a bush and hide several weapons, including a hammer and a knife, that were only found the next day; and whose delivery to Hammerton Road police station still allowed him the time and privacy to hide a knife in a toilet cistern. All this ludicrous incompetence after the police had interviewed him *nine times* and logged *60 appearances of his car* in the red light districts where he found his victims.

Thick. As. Mince.

Lechmere must have laughed himself to sleep *a thousand times*...

M.

[SuperShodan]

Absolutely.

I really, genuinely, can't be bothered with coppers' fantasies about what the police 'would have' done in 1888. I grew up in the era of Peter Sutcliffe -- whose eventual arrest in a car with false number plates still saw the police allow him to go behind a bush and hide several weapons, including a hammer and a knife, that were only found the next day; and whose delivery to Hammerton Road police station still allowed him the time and privacy to hide a knife in a toilet cistern. All this ludicrous incompetence after the police had interviewed him *nine times* and logged *60 appearances of his car* in the red light districts where he found his victims.

Thick as mince.

Lechmere must have laughed himself to sleep *a thousand times*...

M.

Exactly. Bucks Row was a total fiasco of an investigation. It was dumb and dumber on steroids.
Even the inquest was a complete joke. A guy is found standing near a freshly killed dead body down a deserted back street at 03.45 and nobody thinks this is worth looking into.
The police didn’t even establish the basic facts, like who found the body. They were utterly useless.