Tweet
A body is always found by someone (A) but in this case just as it was found another person (B) was heard arriving on the scene. This might be unusual but there’s nothing freakish or inherently incriminating about it. But yes it does introduce the question of whether (A) was actually the killer. The Police at the time clearly didn’t suspect Lechmere but it’s not impossible for the Police to have been mistaken of course and we have no record of any interview that might have taken place. We are left with what we have via The Press so we have to accept the possibility of errors of wording and transcription and, as clocks and watches weren’t so common place, we also have to make a reasonable allowance for estimations. Then we have variables in how people remember what was said or done and in what order (especially during stressful periods) This leaves us with a minefield ripe for shaping a theory. This is why I think that extreme caution is required before stating possibilities as facts.
I’ll mention it again (apologies) but a perfect example of this is the ‘gap of time’ point that appears to have been the starting point for Lechmere being considered a suspect (indeed I spoke to someone a few months ago who has a passing interest in the case who said “surely it was the bloke that discovered the body as timings show that he’d have been at the scene longer than he’d claimed?” In fact I’ve spoken to 3 or 4 similar people who were all convinced of Lechmere’s guilt on this point alone.) Of course this point is based on Lechmere leaving the house at 3.30 but that isn’t what he claimed. He said ‘about’ 3.30. So it was an estimation made during a time when he was probably a bit stressed or annoyed at being late for work. So this introduces the possibility that he’d actually left the house at 3.34 or 3.35 or 3.36 or 3.37. Add to this that we have no way of knowing the exact time that he arrived in Bucks Row then the question screams out - how can any definite point be made under these circumstances? We can’t say “if he left at x time then he would have had y time at the body,” when we don’t know either x or y. So for me this point is invalid. It has to be because reason tells us this.
I’ll mention it again (apologies) but a perfect example of this is the ‘gap of time’ point that appears to have been the starting point for Lechmere being considered a suspect (indeed I spoke to someone a few months ago who has a passing interest in the case who said “surely it was the bloke that discovered the body as timings show that he’d have been at the scene longer than he’d claimed?” In fact I’ve spoken to 3 or 4 similar people who were all convinced of Lechmere’s guilt on this point alone.) Of course this point is based on Lechmere leaving the house at 3.30 but that isn’t what he claimed. He said ‘about’ 3.30. So it was an estimation made during a time when he was probably a bit stressed or annoyed at being late for work. So this introduces the possibility that he’d actually left the house at 3.34 or 3.35 or 3.36 or 3.37. Add to this that we have no way of knowing the exact time that he arrived in Bucks Row then the question screams out - how can any definite point be made under these circumstances? We can’t say “if he left at x time then he would have had y time at the body,” when we don’t know either x or y. So for me this point is invalid. It has to be because reason tells us this.
Comment