Lucky Lechmere List

[A P Tomlinson]

Actually, that was exactly how Robert Paul phrased himself when interviewed in Lloyds Weekly. He said that the man he saw in Bucks Row was standing where the woman was. So the woman you have come to consider a cult member for saying "standing where the woman was" is quoting actual evidence ascribed to Robert Paul.

If you are thinking that "where the woman was" does not dovetail with "in the middle of the road", you need to consider that the phrasing "he was standing in the middle of the road, right where the woman was" could well describe a scene where Lechmere was in line with the woman, but some way out in the street.

But hey, why not paint her out as a cult member, trying to elevate dubious information into facts? And compare her to a murderous Manson gang member? After all, that IS what these boards are for.

Or?

Keep on "correcting", A P, you seem well cut out for that role.

When someone says "he was caught, standing over the body" (ocassionally accompaned by the unironic use of the term "Red Handed") would you consider that a true reflection of the situation?

[Fisherman]

When someone says "he was caught, standing over the body" (ocassionally accompaned by the unironic use of the term "Red Handed") would you consider that a true reflection of the situation?

No, I would not. But that was not what we discussed here, was it? What we discussed here was that you found a woman quoting Robert Paul from his Lloyds Weekly interview was deserving of being compared to one of Charles Mansons killer girlfriends.

i object every bit as you probably do, to anybody claiming that Charles Lechmere was found crouching over the body.

I also object vehemently to anybody claiming that such a proposal is part of the Lechmere theory.

I consistently defend the right of the Missing Evidence documentary to portray Lechmere as a figure crouching over the figure of Polly Nichols as the figure of Paul was approaching - because the whole idea of the portraying was to show how the docu proposes that this was what would have happened. If it was not to be allowed for, then how can it be allowed for to say that Lechmere was the likely killer? Why would it be allowed to speculate that somebody was the killer, but NOT allowed to portray the suggestion in pictures? Because it becomes too uncomfortably real...?

Finally, I have tried - to no avail - hundreds of times to point out that NOBODY can establish how close to the body Lechmere was when Paul saw him. It is and remains impossible, and it is and remains uninteresting, unless it can be suggested or shown that Lechmere was too far away to have been the killer. Anyone who was intent on conning an oncomer the way I suggest Lechmere probably did, would do wisely to step as far away from the body as possible, and that is what I believe that Lechmere did. If I was to guess myself how close he was at that stage, I would say that he was likely a few yards away from the body, two, three, perhaps even four or five. As I said, there can be no knowing. But that would be my own guess. Which is why I very much dislike the ones who say that Lechmere was observed crouching over the body. But I would never object to anybody saying that he was standing where the body was, for the simple reason that we do have that phrasing from Paul, as per Lloyds Weekly.

I hope this can show you exactly where I come from. If it can stop the silliness about cultism, so much the better.

[A P Tomlinson]

No, I would not. But that was not what we discussed here, was it? What we discussed here was that you found a woman quoting Robert Paul from his Lloyds Weekly interview was deserving of being compared to one of Charles Mansons killer girlfriends.

i object every bit as you probably do, to anybody claiming that Charles Lechmere was found crouching over the body.

I also object vehemently to anybody claiming that such a proposal is part of the Lechmere theory.

I consistently defend the right of the Missing Evidence documentary to portray Lechmere as a figure crouching over the figure of Polly Nichols as the figure of Paul was approaching - because the whole idea of the portraying was to show how the docu proposes that this was what would have happened. If it was not to be allowed for, then how can it be allowed for to say that Lechmere was the likely killer? Why would it be allowed to speculate that somebody was the killer, but NOT allowed to portray the suggestion in pictures? Because it becomes too uncomfortably real...?

Finally, I have tried - to no avail - hundreds of times to point out that NOBODY can establish how close to the body Lechmere was when Paul saw him. It is and remains impossible, and it is and remains uninteresting, unless it can be suggested or shown that Lechmere was too far away to have been the killer. Anyone who was intent on conning an oncomer the way I suggest Lechmere probably did, would do wisely to step as far away from the body as possible, and that is what I believe that Lechmere did. If I was to guess myself how close he was at that stage, I would say that he was likely a few yards away from the body, two, three, perhaps even four or five. As I said, there can be no knowing. But that would be my own guess. Which is why I very much dislike the ones who say that Lechmere was observed crouching over the body. But I would never object to anybody saying that he was standing where the body was, for the simple reason that we do have that phrasing from Paul, as per Lloyds Weekly.

I hope this can show you exactly where I come from. If it can stop the silliness about cultism, so much the better.

No, but that was what I was correcting people on which is what caused Squeaky to chip in with her battle cry.
Her adherence to the mantras she has heard and never dared to look at challenging for herslf is cult like in its refusal to accept that the people who told her this rubbish, or the video or in her case documentary she watched, might not have been fullt forthcoming with the facts in favour of putting up graphics of a man leaning over a body, when it didn;t happen that way and the people behind it knew that, but went with it anyway.

[Fisherman]

No, but that was what I was correcting people on which is what caused Squeaky to chip in with her battle cry.

If you ask me, you should not call her Squeaky, A P. It reflects very poorly on yourself, at least in my view. And, as I said, regardless of what people who are - shall we say overoptimistic - about the theory, she is quoting Robert Paul directly from how he was quoted in Lloyds Weekly. She is in the clear - but you are less so, calling her names. That is how I see it. Who knows, maybe you will call me the High Priest of the Lechmere Cult next time ...? Those are inclusions that do not belong to a sound discussion.

Her adherence to the mantras she has heard and never dared to look at challenging for herslf is cult like in its refusal to accept that the people who told her this rubbish, or the video or in her case documentary she watched, might not have been fullt forthcoming with the facts in favour of putting up graphics of a man leaning over a body, when it didn;t happen that way and the people behind it knew that, but went with it anyway.

I don´t know here, and I don't know what she believes. All I know is that she is in her right to quote Paul in saying "standing where the body was".

[Abby Normal]

There is a poster on Youtube, an American Lady I believe, who seems to haunt me whenever I correct this misunderstanding on various comment sections. She posts the same thing every time "STANDING WHERE THE WOMAN WAS!!!!!"
I have come to consider her the Squeaky Fromme of the Cult of Lechmere...

thats what Paul said. shes right. although she probably should have told you that quote was from him instead of just saying that phrase everytime without the context.

edit.. i see fish has told you.

[Sam Flynn]

she is in her right to quote Paul in saying "standing where the body was".

Minor correction: "standing where the woman was". Incidentally, we don't know for sure if that was a direct quote from Paul, or the journalist or a sub-editor condensing what Paul said in full for reasons of space.

That notwithstanding, what Lloyds Weekly doesn't say is that Paul saw the man "standing by the body", "standing near the body" or "standing over the body". I'd suggest that this is precisely what Paul would have said if either of those eventualities had been true... if for no other reason than all three options would need less typesetting effort, space and ink than "standing where the woman was"

[A P Tomlinson]

I don´t know here, and I don't know what she believes. All I know is that she is in her right to quote Paul in saying "standing where the body was".

In a belief that he was standing over body the way the documentary shows and in order to contradict the idea that he was NOT standing over the body or crouching over the body?
And at the expense of understanding the wider context?
Pitiful pedantry.

I suppose if being technically correct about a point of grammar is more important than understanding the situation, and attempting to prevent other people from being inofrmed about that wider context in order to "win"... then yeah. You score another point... It does seem to be a major driving force for you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And, as I said, regardless of what people who are - shall we say overoptimistic - about the theory….

[/B]

Like you and Stow for example.

[Paddy Goose]

Christer has the wrong man fitted up as Jack the Ripper. He cannot prove his case because of his insistence on police malfeasance.

The theory is Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. But the man who found the body of Polly Nichols and subsequently testified at the inquest "identified" as Charles Cross. Since Christer insists the police never bothered to inquire if Pickford's had a Charles Cross in their employ, how do we know Charles Lechmere was masquerading as Charles Cross? We don't.

We have no idea who the man calling himself Cross was. He gave an address which came back to Lechmere, but so what? He wore an apron to the inquest but so what?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve never understood the significance of him wearing an apron at the inquest.

[Fiver]

I object every bit as you probably do, to anybody claiming that Charles Lechmere was found crouching over the body.

Oh, really? Then who posted the following in this thread?

1. He could have walked another way to work, and so he would never have been found standing alone by the side of a very freshly killed Ripper victim.

I also object vehemently to anybody claiming that such a proposal is part of the Lechmere theory.

It's central to Von Stow's version of the theory.

And you've endorsed, not condemned the documentary that claimed Lechmere was found crouching over her body.

[Fiver]

There is a poster on Youtube, an American Lady I believe, who seems to haunt me whenever I correct this misunderstanding on various comment sections. She posts the same thing every time "STANDING WHERE THE WOMAN WAS!!!!!"
I have come to consider her the Squeaky Fromme of the Cult of Lechmere...

Textbook cult behavior. It reminds me of some of the Christian snake-handling cults of the US Deep South.

* Find an ambiguous text.
* Twist it to mean what you want it to mean.
* Ignore all the clear texts that contradict your interpretation.
* Try to shout down or misrepresent anyone tries to present the whole picture to members of the cult.

[Paddy Goose]

I’ve never understood the significance of him wearing an apron at the inquest.

Hi Hurley, I don't know the significance of the apron either. We don't need to know though. The man who showed up wearing an apron claiming to be Charles Cross is not proven to be a carman at all. Because according to Christer, the police didn't bother to check with Pickford's if they had a Charles Cross in their employ. So whoever the man was, he could have been some kind of imposter. In costume.

Simply giving a Doveton Street address does not prove he was Charles Lechmere. The so-called Pickfords driver Charles Cross was a mystery man. Nothing about him was ever verified, ever checked. Christer said so.

Christer has the wrong man fitted up as Jack the Ripper. He cannot prove his case because of his insistence on police malfeasance.

[Fiver]

I’ve never understood the significance of him wearing an apron at the inquest.

My guess is that it was to make it easier for PC Mizen to identify him. Mizen doesn't impress me as the shiniest apple on the tree.

(The man, whose name is Cross, was brought in, and the witness [Mizen] identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question.) - 4 September 1888 Morning Post.

Alternatively, Lechmere may have put in a partial day of work before he had to testify at the inquest and/or he hoped to put in a partial day after he finished his testimony. Or both might ideas might be true.

Or there's the Cult of Lechmere view - he wore the carman's uniform to cunningly disguise who he really was. Which make no sense, because he was a carman.

[Fiver]

Christer has the wrong man fitted up as Jack the Ripper. He cannot prove his case because of his insistence on police malfeasance.

Sort of like Christer's insistence that carmen wore hobnailed boots that could be heard at least a block away, which explains how the Ropper was able to murder all those people without being heard arriving or leaving?