All roads lead to Lechmere.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

[I][B]>>


>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.

Hutchinson surely? Hanging about outside Millers Court, not appearing for days after? No, Richardson, with his dubious shoe story! Or Schwartz with his pipe wielding pursuer?

[drstrange169]

Correctamondo!

[Newbie]

>> ... 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.

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

This is a Lechmere thread and your comparisons are not useful. That game can be played to exonerate any suspect....it is easy. A significant number of posters make many claims; i'm sure some are convinced Jack the Ripper was a phantasm; again, for the sake of this thread, that is irrelevant. You can either respond to other posters suspicions about Lechmere's actions, or ignore them entirely. Running around and attempting to put a wet blanket over everything related to Lechmere is dull.

Everything about Lechmere's known actions that morning are peculiar. One cannot say that that makes him the killer; one can say that there is quite enough to sway a reasonable person that there was some degree of dishonesty in his actions and testimony. 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. 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? The killer would have purposefully chose a dark morning and would have depended on auditory information for his escape while he made the incisions. Based on the position of Nichols body, his ears would have been aligned parallel to the street and initially would have had no way of knowing from which direction the sounds were coming (sound waves entering both ears simultaneously). His mistake! Which way do you flee? If it was Lechmere, he would have had the added disadvantage of his accoutrements.... which to some degree identified the killers trade if spotted. Paul, a fellow delivery man would surely know. All the more reason to bluff it and then follow Paul in search of a PC, instead of pretending to remain behind with the body. It wouldn't be that difficult for a half way competent police department to track him down. Everything he did and said about that morning are consistent with what the killer would have done. Consider his testimony about the side of the street from which he approached the body being opposite to the typical flow of traffic. The murder was committed on the left hand side of the street...perfectly consistent with a murderer picking up Nichols on White Chapel, heading down Brady, taking a left on Bucks row, proceeding up Bucks row some bit, strangling her, and then planning to head towards Pickford'd afterwards. If the killer and Nichols came from the other direction (and could find shadows to conduct business), the kiling would have taken place on the right hand side of the street. By itself, not a big deal...but even this little detail is consistent with the notion of Lechmere as the killer. In fact, every little action is consistent with what an intelligent killer might do; and Lechmere was an intelligent guy.

[Abby Normal]

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long Alfred Crow was alone with Mrs Tabram.

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long Louis Deimshitz was alone with Mrs Stride.

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long PC Watkins was alone with Catharine Eddowes.

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long “Indian Harry” was alone with Mary Kelly.

It would seem that not being able to establish how long the finder was with the body is is standard not unusual. And ALL the named above have been accused of being the killer.

These are all false dichotomies: the inference is that since everyone now considers these people to be innocent, Lechmere should be likewise considered innocent. No one (i hope) is claiming that since Lechmere discovered the body first and that there is no verifiable way to determine how briefly he was with the body, he should be considered a prime Ripper suspect. There is a lot that is dodgy about his actions and statements that should attract interest.

If you have more evidence about Louis Delmshitz's (or the others) suspect behavior shortly after their discovery, or at an inquest, please share it with us. Each should be treated independently.

correct newbie! not only that but none of the above were seen with the victim before raining any alarm. and with some easy research im pretty sure it can be established within good reason how long they were all alone, for example bowyer had been sent to collect marys rent so probably could be verified from mccarthy, watkins on a beat etc.

now that being said, im a big fan of witness suspects, like hutch, lech and richarsdon, because all were alone with the victim near tod, and all have dodgy stories. i think these are the types of people who need more looking into, as opposed to suspects pulled from the air like the mad jew suspects, jacob levy, etc.

[Elamarna]

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

This is a Lechmere thread and your comparisons are not useful. That game can be played to exonerate any suspect....it is easy. A significant number of posters make many claims; i'm sure some are convinced Jack the Ripper was a phantasm; again, for the sake of this thread, that is irrelevant. You can either respond to other posters suspicions about Lechmere's actions, or ignore them entirely. Running around and attempting to put a wet blanket over everything related to Lechmere is dull.

Everything about Lechmere's known actions that morning are peculiar. One cannot say that that makes him the killer; one can say that there is quite enough to sway a reasonable person that there was some degree of dishonesty in his actions and testimony. 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. 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? The killer would have purposefully chose a dark morning and would have depended on auditory information for his escape while he made the incisions. Based on the position of Nichols body, his ears would have been aligned parallel to the street and initially would have had no way of knowing from which direction the sounds were coming (sound waves entering both ears simultaneously). His mistake! Which way do you flee? If it was Lechmere, he would have had the added disadvantage of his accoutrements.... which to some degreein identified the killers trade if spotted. Paul, a fellow delivery man would surely know. All the more reason to bluff it and then follow Paul in search of a PC, instead of pretending to remain behind with the body. It wouldn't be that difficult for a half way competent police department to track him down. Everything he did and said about that morning are consistent with what the killer would have done. Consider his testimony about the side of the street from which he approached the body being opposite to the typical flow of traffic. The murder was committed on the left hand side of the street...perfectly consistent with a murderer picking up Nichols on White Chapel, heading down Brady, taking a left on Bucks row, proceeding up Bucks row some bit, strangling her, and then planning to head towards Pickford'd afterwards. If the killer and Nichols came from the other direction (and could find shadows to conduct business), the kiling would have taken place on the right hand side of the street. By itself, not a big deal...but even this little detail is consistent with the notion of Lechmere as the killer. In fact, every little action is consistent with what an intelligent killer might do; and Lechmere was an intelligent guy.

So much speculation, presented as fact, he would do this, he would do that.

But let's look at a few specific points.

Firstly using left and right side of the street is directionally dependent, why not simply say North or South. Small point .

You say if the killer picked Nichols up in the Whitechapel road and entered Bucks Row via Brady street the killing would occurr on the left (south side) but if the killer and Nichols came from the West it would be on the right( north)?

Why do you assume this, because it is simply an assumption.
If they entered Bucks Row from the Whitechapel road via Thomas or Court streets or Woods Buildings they reach Bucks Row from the South, there is no reason to assume when entering Bucks Row they would cross to the northern side, yes they could do, why do you assume they would?


Lechmere was an intelligent guy?

That's simply an ASSUMPTION on your part.
He might have been, but we don't KNOW that.

What is clear is that ever action taken by Lechmere, you view as suspicious.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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."

[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?

[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]

[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]

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]

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]

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.