Lucky Lechmere List

[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]

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

[/B]

Like you and Stow for example.

[A P Tomlinson]

I donīt 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.

[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"

[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.

[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 donīt 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".

[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]

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]

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]

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...

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.

[A P Tomlinson]

YES! Absolutely untrue that this man was found "over the body"-- and very misleading! One of my pet peeves.

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...

[Pcdunn]

When are you going to stop using this lie? He was first seen standing in the middle of the road. And the fact is that if he had been over to the body then he’d have been taking a huge risk by not admitting to this fact as he couldn’t have known that Paul hadn’t seen him on the move.

YES! Absolutely untrue that this man was found "over the body"-- and very misleading! One of my pet peeves.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

When are you going to stop using this lie? He was first seen standing in the middle of the road. And the fact is that if he had been over to the body then he’d have been taking a huge risk by not admitting to this fact as he couldn’t have known that Paul hadn’t seen him on the move.

[Fiver]

So Fisherman's regurgitating his tired, discredited nonsense again. None of these even imply Lechmere's guilt, and many are flatly wrong. Minus Fisherman's bias, they boil down to Charles Lechmere lived in the area and was the first to find one of the victims.

2. He could have started work at another time, in which case the same would apply.

Lechmere's work start time points against him being the Ripper or the Torsoman. Chapman was murdered after Lechemre started work. To murder Stride and Eddowes would have required staying up 23+ hours straight or getting up at least 3 hours early on his only day off. The Pichin Street Torso was deposited after he started work.

6. He could have had his mother staying elsewhere than a block from the Berner Street murder site.

I see your knowledge of the geography is fairly inadequate.

7. He could have had the Mitre Square murder happening somewhere that did not tally with his old work route from James Street.

I see your knowledge of the geography is fairly inadequate.

8. He could have worked in a line that did not require wearing a knife at all times.

I see your knowledge of the required gear for a van driver is fairly inadequate.

9. He could have helped propping Nichols up.

This continues to point towards Lechmere's innocence. A guilty man would have jumped at the chance for an innocent explanation for fresh blood on his hands or clothes.

10. The wounds to the abdomen need not have been hidden from sight.

I see your knowledge of witness testimony is fairly inadequate.

12. That other rag did not have to be foubd unban exact line from the railway arch up to his lodgings.

I see your knowledge of the geography, geometry, witness testimony, and serial killer behavior is fairly inadequate.

13. The Pinchin Street dumping did not need to happen in his childhood street.

I see your knowledge of the geography is fairly inadequate. According to Gary Barnett, James Street was not Pichin street.

14. Anybody could have seen another man leaving Bucks Row in a hurry before Lechmere got there.

This again points towards Lechmere's innocence. A guilty man would have claimed to have caught a glimpse of someone to divert suspicion.

15. He could have called himself by his registered name, or at least mentioned it, at the inquest.

I see your knowledge of period inquest procedures and declaring of names is fairly inadequate. And that you don't assign the same sense of guilt to other witnesses who didn't mention all of their surnames at a Ripper inquest.

And these points of ignorance and error are deliberate on Fisherman's part, since he's been shown the facts dozens of times.

[FrankO]

We can add that no reporter, after LLoyds getting such juicy morsels from Paul, decided to go round his house in search of a follow up, and ask for "Mr Cross" and be told "No Cross here... this is the Lechmere House!"
"Witness lies!" about either name or address would be easy inch filler for a tabloid.

Even if it were just one of the Papers that were taking an anti Police stand, hoping to get some more of what Paul had said about Mizen not hurrying to the scene, there was a very good chance someone outside of his immediate circle of acquaintances would take an interest and knock on his door asking for Mr Cross and catch him in that needless, pointless lie.

Good one, A P - thanks!