Evidence of innocence

[caz]

He chose not to prop the body up, even though it would have provided an innocent excuse for blood on his hands or clothing.


I have never come across that argument before and it is a powerful one.

The explanation Christer Holmgren offered was that Lechmere was trying to avoid revealing the injuries suffered by the victim.

If that were true, why would Lechmere have called anyone's attention to the body in the first place?

The fact about this case never mentioned by Lechmere's accusers is that Paul intended to walk right past and would never have noticed the body had not Lechmere stopped him.

I've heard the argument before, and it's far more logical, if the killer was really caught on the hop and had to improvise after quickly shoving the dripping knife up his sleeve.

But it makes zero sense that he'd have gone out of his way to draw the guy's attention to the woman lying there with her head nearly off, and then worry that he might notice something amiss. He'd have had no control over Paul, if he'd wanted to strike a match and have a better butcher's at the woman, or try to move her to a sitting position.

As you say, we know that Paul wanted to avoid the stranger and the bundle in the road entirely, which would have saved Lechmere the trouble of setting up plausible excuses for the blood or taking any avoidance measures of his own.

It's nonsense on stilts.

And I blame Butler for spreading it far and wide.

Free the Pickfords One!

The Butler did it!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

ummm. because hes a serial killer, hes in the mood and is taking the opportunity?

Circular argument, Abby. Or, if you prefer, cart before the horse.

If you had already established that Lechmere was a serial killer, or at the very least a violent psychopath, you would be able to explain all his movements in that context, because there would have to be an explanation.

As things stand, it's speculation built on sand - signifying nothing.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

A central tenet of the Church of Lechmere, Unholy Be His Name, is that Lechmere killed women he encounted on the way to somewhere he had a legitimate reason to go going at that time.

Mitre Square is not on the route between Lechmere's mothers' house and his home on 22 Doveton Street.

It's Schroedingers Suspect again. Anyone killed near a route Lechmere normally traveled is treated as proof that he was an impulsive opportunistic killer who didn't care if anyone noticed the victom was killed near his travel routes. Anyone not killed near a route Lechmere normally traveled is treated as proof that he was an crafty killer who cared a lot if anyone noticed the victim was killed near his travel routes.

These completely contradictory behaviors are excused away by saying psychopaths don't behave consistently. Which if the Church of Lechmere, Unholy Be His Name, really believed, they wouldn't be trying to find patterns with psychological profiles and geographical profiles and leylines drawn across the map.

To play devil's advocate here, I suppose there could be an argument for Lechmere realising, after his close call in Buck's Row, that it would be a really, really bad idea to kill again on a direct route from A to B that could be associated with his known movements. He had to be more careful on subsequent outings.

The downside would be if he was ever recognised near another crime scene, where he had no business being, as carman Cross, murder witness in the Nichols case.

But Clever Cross/Lucky Lechmere should not have had to alter his game one jot, because he knew he could outwit anyone with his catalogue of excuses and avoidance measures, which he kept in a bag with his knife in case of need. Had he been seen dropping the bloody apron piece, the writing on the wall would have been for the buffoons trying to pin the pinny on this super villain. He would have said he just found it there and used it to wipe away his tears on hearing the sad news of a murder in Berner Street.

And everyone would say what a decent man he was.

Love,

Caz
X

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don't know whether you are aware of this, Caz, but Butler is saying that anyone (including this writer) who says that the day of the Lord Mayor's Show was a holiday in the City of London is 'ignorant', but that he cannot say whether Lechmere went to work that day, or whether Lechmere killed Kelly on his way to work.

He also says that he cannot say whether Lechmere killed Chapman on his way to work.

[caz]

According to the Church of Lechmere, Lechmere was the man who killed women on his way to work, except on Saturday night, when he killed women on his way home from his mother's house, except that he had an exceptionally poor sense of direction, and went in the wrong direction three times after leaving his mother's house, without worrying what any children with him at the time - he only had nine of them at the time - thought about what he was doing, without worrying about what his wife thought he was doing ( I mean presumably she expected him to come home some time before midnight from his mother's house), and was taking such a carefree route home to Bethnal Green that he had time to stop in Spitalfields and leave a piece of bloody apron there, still leaving him about 2 miles from home about 2 hours after he set out from his mother's house - according to the documentary featuring Holmgren, Norris and others - to go home!

Of course, murderers are not rational, but then neither are some researchers.

It rather makes a mockery of one of the old arguments, possibly since discarded, that Lechmere couldn't risk lying about when he left home on the morning of the Nichols murder, to give himself no time to have done the deed, because his wife might have got wind of it!

I'm only surprised he didn't have to do a 'Christie' on her, and put her under the floorboards, when she began to have sore misgivings after each new murder, when the swine was meant to have been busy making more babies with her and was nowhere to be found.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I don't know whether you are aware of this, Caz, but Butler is saying that anyone (including this writer) who says that the day of the Lord Mayor's Show was a holiday in the City of London is 'ignorant', but that he cannot say whether Lechmere went to work that day, or whether Lechmere killed Kelly on his way to work.

He also says that he cannot say whether Lechmere killed Chapman on his way to work.

Yes, I did read the relevant posts, PI1.

I think we can safely say that as a source, Butler is about as much use as what they had to clear up after the Lord Mayor's Show.

[Clue: begins with d and rhymes with bung, hung and lung. Good for rhubarb apparently.]

Love,

Caz
X

[Mark J D]

According to the Church of Lechmere, Lechmere was the man who killed women on his way to work, except on Saturday night, when he killed women on his way home from his mother's house, except that he had an exceptionally poor sense of direction, and went in the wrong direction three times [blah]...

Lechmere was the man who killed women in the newly familiar streets he passed through on the way to work from his new Doveton Street address, except in the wee hours of Sunday morning, when he killed women in streets that were very familiar to him from his having passed through them on the way to work from his old James Street address.

M.

[Abby Normal]

Circular argument, Abby. Or, if you prefer, cart before the horse.

If you had already established that Lechmere was a serial killer, or at the very least a violent psychopath, you would be able to explain all his movements in that context, because there would have to be an explanation.

As things stand, it's speculation built on sand - signifying nothing.

Love,

Caz
X

its not a circular argument-PI asked a very simple question and I answered it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

its not a circular argument-PI asked a very simple question and I answered it.

In # 6186 I wrote to Mark JD, who appears to be a follower of Butler-Stow:

I asked you the question: why would a man commit two murders on his way home from his mum's house?

and your response is that I can play a game with myself.


In # 6188, you replied to my original question:

ummm. because hes a serial killer, hes in the mood and is taking the opportunity?


In # 6197, caz replied to you:

Circular argument, Abby. Or, if you prefer, cart before the horse.

If you had already established that Lechmere was a serial killer, or at the very least a violent psychopath, you would be able to explain all his movements in that context, because there would have to be an explanation.


Your reply, in #6203, was:

its not a circular argument-PI asked a very simple question and I answered it.



It WAS a circular argument, because it was clear that the discussion was about Lechmere, i.e. why would Lechmere have done those things on his way home from his mother's house?

Your answer was that he was a serial killer.

That is indeed a circular argument.

[Abby Normal]

In # 6186 I wrote to Mark JD, who appears to be a follower of Butler-Stow:

I asked you the question: why would a man commit two murders on his way home from his mum's house?

and your response is that I can play a game with myself.


In # 6188, you replied to my original question:

ummm. because hes a serial killer, hes in the mood and is taking the opportunity?


In # 6197, caz replied to you:

Circular argument, Abby. Or, if you prefer, cart before the horse.

If you had already established that Lechmere was a serial killer, or at the very least a violent psychopath, you would be able to explain all his movements in that context, because there would have to be an explanation.


Your reply, in #6203, was:

its not a circular argument-PI asked a very simple question and I answered it.



It WAS a circular argument, because it was clear that the discussion was about Lechmere, i.e. why would Lechmere have done those things on his way home from his mother's house?

Your answer was that he was a serial killer.

That is indeed a circular argument.

no my answer was in direct response to your question, which didnt mention lechmere at all. it was more of a rhetorical question the way you posed it. but just to be clear, if you had said why would Lechmere kill on his way from his mothers house, I would have replied... if he was a serial killer etc.
Therefore not a circular argument, just a hypothetical.

And besides serial killers have been known to take any opportunity to fullfil their desires, including while at work, at there place of business, to and from family members etc etc.

btw, i dont think lech was the ripper, just he makes a valid suspect.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

no my answer was in direct response to your question, which didnt mention lechmere at all. it was more of a rhetorical question the way you posed it. but just to be clear, if you had said why would Lechmere kill on his way from his mothers house, I would have replied... if he was a serial killer etc.
Therefore not a circular argument, just a hypothetical.

And besides serial killers have been known to take any opportunity to fullfil their desires, including while at work, at there place of business, to and from family members etc etc.

btw, i dont think lech was the ripper, just he makes a valid suspect.

I see.

I don't think Lechmere is a valid suspect, but I enjoy analysing all the nonsense written by so-called Lechmerians.

[Abby Normal]

I see.

I don't think Lechmere is a valid suspect, but I enjoy analysing all the nonsense written by so-called Lechmerians.

well, i dont think everything written by the lechmerians is nonsense. some of it is actually quite intriguing IMHO.
But to each his own.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, I did read the relevant posts, PI1.

I think we can safely say that as a source, Butler is about as much use as what they had to clear up after the Lord Mayor's Show.

[Clue: begins with d and rhymes with bung, hung and lung. Good for rhubarb apparently.]

Love,

Caz
X

I think Susan Clapp may have a mole on here, which wouldn't surprise me as there seem to be a few dubious characters on here.

She has just found out about our conversation here.

But don't worry; I defended you and gave her what for at the same time.

And everything I wrote to her was strictly factual.

No 'assumptions'.

[Fiver]

To play devil's advocate here, I suppose there could be an argument for Lechmere realising, after his close call in Buck's Row, that it would be a really, really bad idea to kill again on a direct route from A to B that could be associated with his known movements. He had to be more careful on subsequent outings.

The downside would be if he was ever recognised near another crime scene, where he had no business being, as carman Cross, murder witness in the Nichols case.

Appreciate you playing devil's advocate. All ideas should be examined.

Charles Lechmere testified at the Inquest on 3 September, 1888. In addition to the not-so-observant PC Mizen, Inspectors Abberline, Helson, and Spratling, as well as detective Sergeant Enright were at the Inquest.

On the morning of 8 September, Chapman was murdered in Hanbury Street. We know from Lechmere's testimony that this was on the route he and Robert Paul walked after talking to PC Mizen. (We also know from eyewitnesses that Chapman was killed after Lechmere would have arrived at work.)

As you note, to kill again on a direct route from A to B that could be associated with his known movements would be a really, really bad idea.

Yet this is what the Church of Lechmere, Unholy Be His Name, would have you believe that Lechmere killed on a route that he had publicly stated at the Inquest. A route that PC Mizen might have been able to confirm. A route that Robert Paul definitely would have been able to confirm.

And having got away with these mindnumbingly stupid and completely unnecessary risks twice, he then stopped and became crafty.

Also, at the time of Chapman's murder, Robert Paul still had not testified. That wouldn't happen until 17 September, where he would confirm almost all of Lechmere's statements. The only real difference was their estimated times, but that wasn't Paul versus Lechmere, that was Paul versus Lechmere and Mizen and Neil and Thain.

[Fiver]

Lechmere was the man who killed women in the newly familiar streets he passed through on the way to work from his new Doveton Street address, except in the wee hours of Sunday morning, when he killed women in streets that were very familiar to him from his having passed through them on the way to work from his old James Street address.

M.

Mitre Square would have been at least 1/3 mile detour off of Lechmere's route between James Street and the Broad Street Station where he worked.