Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All roads lead to Lechmere.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    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

    Comment


    • #92
      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.

      Comment


      • #93
        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.

        Comment


        • #94
          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 .

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            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?

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Hair Bear View Post

              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?
              AbbyNormal did explain this. You must have missed it.

              He killed someone, heard footsteps 130 yards away and froze.

              This happened in the early part of 2021.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                AbbyNormal did explain this. You must have missed it.

                He killed someone, heard footsteps 130 yards away and froze.

                This happened in the early part of 2021.
                Utter nonsense Fleetwood. He was innocently on his way to work at the time. But...did he try to deceive us with the name Abby Normal, a name he never used in any other context?
                Thems the Vagaries.....

                Comment


                • #98
                  Sigh…

                  Can we draw the line at accusing each other of murder?

                  Thanks,

                  JM

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Edward Stow makes a very curious statement starting at the 15:16 mark in his latest video, “Jack the Ripper: The Evidence. Part 1.”

                    "Now, there are various other witnesses that gave times as well, but the only two witnesses we have to synchronize the times for are Paul and Lechmere because they are the two who interacted with each other here (Ed is standing near the crime scene). The others are actually police witnesses."

                    This is very strangely argued. Why on earth are the other witnesses irrelevant if we are trying to analyze what happened?

                    Let’s look at the deposition of Police-constable John Thain, 96 J (Morning Advertiser, September 4th). -- I was on duty in Brady-street on the morning of the murder and passed the end of Buck's-row every thirty minutes. Nothing attracted my attention until 3.45 a.m., when I was signaled by another constable in Buck's-row. I went to him and found him standing by the body of a woman.

                    So, according to Thain, the body was discovered shortly before 3:45 a.m.---before Robert Paul, quizzed at the inquest over two weeks later, claims he even left for work!

                    From the deposition of PC Jonas Mizen (Daily News, September 4):“Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." This carman, of course, was Charles Lechmere, “in company with” Robert Paul.

                    So, according to Mizen, Lechmere and Paul had already left the crime scene and were near the corner of Baker’s Row at around 3.45 a.m.—again, at the very time Robert Paul states he left for work.

                    Next up we have PC John Neil, who is states he found the body at 3.45 (“Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45”—Daily News, 3 September)

                    Yet viewers of the video are asked to look only at Paul and Lechmere’s estimated times in complete isolation.

                    In brief, if the audience ignores three-fifths of the relevant witnesses, there is suddenly a missing seven minutes in Lechmere’s account.

                    How can anyone justify this as a fair-minded approach for a historian to take?
                    Last edited by rjpalmer; 10-05-2022, 07:54 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                      Edward Stow makes a very curious statement starting at the 15:16 mark in his latest video, “Jack the Ripper: The Evidence. Part 1.”

                      "Now, there are various other witnesses that gave times as well, but the only two witnesses we have to synchronize the times for are Paul and Lechmere because they are the two who interacted with each other here (Ed is standing near the crime scene). The others are actually police witnesses."

                      This is very strangely argued. Why on earth are the other witnesses irrelevant if we are trying to analyze what happened?

                      Let’s look at the deposition of Police-constable John Thain, 96 J (Morning Advertiser, September 4th). -- I was on duty in Brady-street on the morning of the murder and passed the end of Buck's-row every thirty minutes. Nothing attracted my attention until 3.45 a.m., when I was signaled by another constable in Buck's-row. I went to him and found him standing by the body of a woman.

                      So, according to Thain, the body was discovered shortly before 3:45 a.m.---before Robert Paul, quizzed at the inquest over two weeks later, claims he even left for work!

                      From the deposition of PC Jonas Mizen (Daily News, September 4):“Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." This carman, of course, was Charles Lechmere, “in company with” Robert Paul.

                      So, according to Mizen, Lechmere and Paul had already left the crime scene and were near the corner of Baker’s Row at around 3.45 a.m.—again, at the very time Robert Paul states he left for work.

                      Next up we have PC John Neil, who is states he found the body at 3.45 (“Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45”—Daily News, 3 September)

                      Yet viewers of the video are asked to look only at Paul and Lechmere’s estimated times in complete isolation.

                      In brief, if the audience ignores three-fifths of the relevant witnesses, there is suddenly a missing seven minutes in Lechmere’s account.

                      How can anyone justify this as a fair-minded approach for a historian to take?
                      They can’t of course Roger but it’s considered justifiable in the world of those trying to shoehorn a case for Lechmere.

                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        They can’t of course Roger but it’s considered justifiable in the world of those trying to shoehorn a case for Lechmere.
                        agree Herlock
                        too much shoehorning. hes a valid suspect without all the shoehorning. and overegging too much of that too! : )

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                          agree Herlock
                          too much shoehorning. hes a valid suspect without all the shoehorning. and overegging too much of that too! : )
                          I don't agree there is nothing that makes Lechmere a valid suspect.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                            How can anyone justify this as a fair-minded approach for a historian to take?
                            They can't justify it. It's deliberately ignoring inconvenient facts that don't fit the theory. That's "history" the way David Irving writes it.
                            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                            "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                              Lechmere’s mother’s first husband was still alive when she married him.
                              I should hope so, doesn't look good marrying a corpse. (joke)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                Edward Stow makes a very curious statement starting at the 15:16 mark in his latest video, “Jack the Ripper: The Evidence. Part 1.”

                                "Now, there are various other witnesses that gave times as well, but the only two witnesses we have to synchronize the times for are Paul and Lechmere because they are the two who interacted with each other here (Ed is standing near the crime scene). The others are actually police witnesses."

                                This is very strangely argued. Why on earth are the other witnesses irrelevant if we are trying to analyze what happened?

                                Let’s look at the deposition of Police-constable John Thain, 96 J (Morning Advertiser, September 4th). -- I was on duty in Brady-street on the morning of the murder and passed the end of Buck's-row every thirty minutes. Nothing attracted my attention until 3.45 a.m., when I was signaled by another constable in Buck's-row. I went to him and found him standing by the body of a woman.

                                So, according to Thain, the body was discovered shortly before 3:45 a.m.---before Robert Paul, quizzed at the inquest over two weeks later, claims he even left for work!

                                From the deposition of PC Jonas Mizen (Daily News, September 4):“Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." This carman, of course, was Charles Lechmere, “in company with” Robert Paul.

                                So, according to Mizen, Lechmere and Paul had already left the crime scene and were near the corner of Baker’s Row at around 3.45 a.m.—again, at the very time Robert Paul states he left for work.

                                Next up we have PC John Neil, who is states he found the body at 3.45 (“Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45”—Daily News, 3 September)

                                Yet viewers of the video are asked to look only at Paul and Lechmere’s estimated times in complete isolation.

                                In brief, if the audience ignores three-fifths of the relevant witnesses, there is suddenly a missing seven minutes in Lechmere’s account.

                                How can anyone justify this as a fair-minded approach for a historian to take?
                                Yes can't ignore the 3 PC's.Fisherman said/justified 3 :45 am was wrong because if Neil asked Thain to get Dr. Llewellyn, a 3-5 minute walk to 152 Whitechapel Road, how come Dr Llewellyn said he was called at around 4 am,how come Thain arrived at 4 am in Llewellyn 's residence.In another version of the inquest it was 3:55 am I think,when Llewellyn was called by Thain.
                                Well either Thain was asked by Neil later rather than sooner or there was something wrong with Llewellyn's clock.Can't ignore 3 PC's.
                                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                                M. Pacana

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X