All roads lead to Lechmere.

[Hair Bear]

good post. re flight or flight. theres also a reaction called freeze. i think if lech was the killer he was caught unawares and decided to stay put bluff it out and as you say, find out what paul had seen. ive had a personal experience similar.
.

If you have already answered this, my apologies, but what personal "similar" experience have you had where you just killed someone, then heard footsteps 130 yards away, and couldn't help but freeze?

[FISHY1118]

Having read this entire thread , i would have to say the last two posts on the subject are probably the best two. if Lechmere indeed was the JTR then after each of the remaining murders he would most certainly come under more and more scrunity from the police. Which he was not .

[Aethelwulf]

I think it is abundantly clear to the majority that Lechmere was just a man on his way to work who found a body.

All the so-called ''evidence'' against Lechmere comes from coincidental geography, stretched timings and spinning conversations and their order to suit.

As I have said before, show me some evidence he had the capacity to do it and I will happily rethink. You can cherry pick individual cases of seemingly normal people being nutters all you like – I am sure if you look at the GLOBAL population of cases Lechmere would fall in the ‘less likely’ grouping. Doesn't rule him out of course, but in the light of the fact that there is absolutely nil, zero, nothing to implicate Lechmere, I think it is important.

[ohrocky]

Here's what happened to me.........

A couple of years ago, late one cold winters evening I was returning home from a late football match. Turning the corner into my quiet, tree-lined steet I saw "something" up against the churchyard wall. I approached and saw that it was a young woman lying there, motionless. I didn't know whether she had been attacked, had a medical episode, or had collapsed through drink and / or drugs.

I didn't want to be observed touching the young woman or her posessions so moved a couple of yards away from her. Whilst contemplating what to do I saw a woman passing on her way home from a late shift so I attracted her attention and asked her over. Being a female she had no compunction touching the young lady and eventually rousing her and rifling through her handbag. A nearly empty bottle of vodka was found in her bag so the cause of her collapse soon became apparent.

The rest of the tale doesn't really matter. But I now realise that the way I reacted on finding a woman's body out on the street was not too disimilar at all from the way Lechmere reacted on finding Polly Nichols.

The name issue is a total red herring. In the UK it is not unlawful to go by whatever name you choose provided it is not done with the intention to defraud. On another thread I posted a quote from an MJK thread (originally posted by Wickerman) where a witness gave a name but said it wasn't her real name and that not many people went by their real name. This would suggest that it was certainly not unusual for people to use names other than their registered or "official name".

The Scobie comment has long been used to support the idea of putting the noose around Lechmere's neck. As has been covered already, there is some dispute regarding the content of the bundle presented to Scobie from which he came to his conclusions and also how his interview was edited. If theories and supposition are presented as irrefutable facts then there is scope for the wrong conclusion to be drawn. THis impasse will only ever be resolved if the prosecutor ie Fisherman puts Mr Scobie's bundle and a full transcript of the interview in the public domain.

[Elamarna]

Exactly like Robert Paul.

Of course trafgic flow is irrelvant when there is a pavement.
Plus we are taught if there is no pavement to walk towards on coming traffic, so we can see it coming.

and he enters from the north, will exit north too. why would anyone cross the road, not once but twice?

steve

[Fiver]

Consider his testimony about the side of the street from which he approached the body being opposite to the typical flow of traffic.

Exactly like Robert Paul.

[Fiver]

Everything he did and said about that morning are consistent with what the killer would have done.

Most of what Charles Lechmere said or did that morning was the same as what Robert Paul did.

When Paul suggested giving Nichols a prop, Lechmere refused. A guilty man would have jumped at the chance for an innocent explanation for any bloodstains.

A guilty man would have wanted to be alone as soon as possible to check for bloodstains, try to wash them off, and dispose of the murder weapon. A guilty man would have suggested splitting up to improve their chances of finding a policeman. Lechmere and Paul stayed together, not just until they found PC Mizen, but all the way to Paul's workplace.

[Fiver]

He said that he saw the body, stopped, moved leftward towards the center, suddenly heard footsteps and then turned around and saw Paul. It sounds a bit contrived if you ask me....why so much detail?

Charles Lechmere provided about as much detail as Robert Paul or PC Mizen or PC Neil or PC Thain. That you find Lechmere's testimony suspicious because of it's level of detail says a lot more about you than it says about Charles Lechmere.

[Fiver]

[COLOR=#e74c3c]The old route was actually longer than Fisherman's timed route: add back some time for the heavier shoes and 7 minutes seems about right. The entire walk to Pickford's was about 1.8 miles: 30 minutes is a reasonable time to get there, and a 3:30 am departure seems about right.

Your post does not make sense. You say the old route was longer than Fisherman's timed route, yet you seem to assume this longer route would have been faster than Fisherman's route.

Bath Street between Collingswood and Brady would have been an essential part of Lechmere's walk to work. It 's been underneath a Sainsbury's for nearly three decades. Since he could not have walked the actual route, how did Fisherman estimate the difference? Did he walk it at 3:30am with the amount of street lighting that Lechmere would have had to walk by?

[Fiver]

Why did Lechmere testify to first hearing Paul coming, while Paul makes no mention of hearing someone walking half a football field ahead of him for over a minute? Paul gives the sense that he was unaware of someone in front, and then suddenly saw Lechmere. If Lechmere was the killer, his first perception of Paul would have been auditory - but from farther away; it quite possibly would have been fixated in his brain so that he incorporated it into his testimony.

We have no idea if Lechmere was "half a football field" in front of Paul. We have no idea if Paul heard Lechmere walking in front of him. We have no idea how far Lechmere was away when Paul saw him. Nobody asked Paul these questions .

Lechmere's first perception of Paul would have been auditory. That has nothing to do with whether or not Lechmere was the killer. It's basic human anatomy - the eyes are on the front of the skull.

Paul's route to work means that Lechmere would have been around a corner, invisible and not very audible, until Paul turned into Buck's row.

[Fiver]

Everything about Lechmere's known actions that morning are peculiar.

* He left late for work.
* He walked down the right side of Buck's Row on the pavement.
* As he approached the body, he walked into the street.
* He then crossed to the left side of Buck's Row to look at Nichol's body.
* He agreed with the other carman that they should leave the body and find a policeman.
* He walked together with the other carman until the encountered PC Mizen.
* He informed PC Mizen that he was needed in Buck's Row and that the woman might be dead.
* He continued walking with the other carman down Hanbury Street until they parted company at Corbet's Court.
* He contradicted PC Mizen at the Inquest.

I'm referring to Robert Paul. How can "Everything about Lechmere's known actions that morning" be peculiar when most of what he did was the same as what Robert Paul did?

[drstrange169]

1: "As I got to Buck's-row, by the gateway of the wool warehouse"

2: "I walked into the centre of the road, and saw that it was a woman"

3: "I stepped back to await his arrival"

4: "We then both went over to the body."

[drstrange169]

>>Everything about Lechmere's known actions that morning are peculiar.<<

Nothing Lechmere did was peculiar or inconsistent with what we would expect an innocent man to do.


>>Why did Lechmere testify to first hearing Paul coming, while Paul makes no mention of hearing someone walking half a football field ahead of him for over a minute?<<

Probably because until Buck's Row they were never in sight of each other, as has been shown.


>>He said that he saw the body, stopped, moved leftward towards the center, suddenly heard footsteps and then turned around and saw Paul. It sounds a bit contrived if you ask me>>

Just like P.C. Neil. Do you think his explanation was contrived?

[drstrange169]

>>This is a Lechmere thread and your comparisons are not useful.<<

It would be helpful if you read things I write in context to what I was responding to.

In this case, the fact that Christer introduced a comparison to other suspects.

If you don't want comparisons in this thread, your argument is with Christer not me.

[Abby Normal]

>> ... the inference is that since everyone now considers these people to be innocent, Lechmere should be likewise...<<

It would help if you read some of the posts here over the years, and in some cases threads still going, where all the above have been listed by people as serious, even prime, ongoing suspects.

All, like Lechmere, without any actual proof of guilt. My comparison stands because they are all treated by their modern accusers to the same, "what if's", "could haves", "might have and "should be's" as Lechmere.


>There is a lot that is dodgy about his actions and statements that should attract interest.<<

Make that statement on Casebook, without mentioning Lechmere's name and a significant number of posters will assume you are talking about Diemshitz. Check it out.

wrong. nothing dodgy about diemshitz whatsoever, nor scwartz, nor bowyer, watkins, crow.
dodgy? thats hutch lecmere and richardson, in order of dodgyness.