Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was he lying?

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

  • Was he lying?

    "On Friday morning he left home about half-past-three to go to work, and passing through Buck's Row he saw on the opposite sound something lying against a gateway. In the dark, he could not tell at first what it was. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw that it was the figure of a woman.

    At the same time, he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's Row in the direction that the witness had come from.

    He stepped back and waited for the new-comer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness was about to knock him down. The witness said to the man, "Come and look over here. There's a woman."
    - Lechmere's Testimony.

  • #2
    The short answers are ‘we don’t know’ and ‘it’s possible.’ Like most suspects we don’t have the killer piece of evidence that eliminates him so we are left to consider likelihoods. I consider him extremely unlikely. Others disagree of course. All alternatives require answers to questions though.

    We can’t prove that he didn’t leave the house at 2.30 so the questions are -

    Would he have given himself 90 minutes to find and kill a victim before getting to work?

    If he allowed himself 90 minutes would he really have brought his victim back to a spot that he passed every day?

    Would he really have been unable to find a victim earlier and elsewhere?

    Would he have allowed himself, given the alternatives, to pretty much get caught in the act at that spot?

    Would he have waited until 3.15 (after Neil passed) in Bucks Row for a victim after failing to find one elsewhere?

    What was he doing that meant that he was still there when Paul arrived given that the murder and mutilation would have taken no more than 2 minutes at a push?


    And if he left the house at exactly 3.30 and arrived in Bucks Row at around 3.37 -

    Can we believe that he set out with the intention to kill 30 minutes before being due to clock on?

    Can we believe that he expected to find a victim in Bucks Row at just that time?

    Can we believe that he just saw Polly and lost control, killing and mutilating her, at a spot that he passed 6 days a week at that time, no more than 20 minutes before being due to clock on?

    And if Paul arrived at 3.44ish as claimed by Christer then again, why the hell was Cross still there when arrived?

    Or,

    Did he leave the house at around 3.33, arrive in Bucks Row at around 3.40 with Paul arriving at around 3.41 then, as Paul said, they found Mizen around 4 minutes later?

    I know which version I think the likeliest Geddy.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 04-28-2024, 10:32 AM.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks Herlock Sholmes
      I'm just trying to pin down exactly in bullet points what rules Lechmere IN but rules Paul OUT. I've tried reading here, the other forums and of course Facebook where Christer and Ed are still allowed to post. It's extremely difficult because as soon as you make a point Christer twists your words (I'm sure his grasp of English is perfectly fine but I do question his ability to 'read between the lines' to what the writing is intending, always sees black or white. When it suits of course) I'm convinced now it is neigh on impossible to have a constructive conversation with the man.

      So from where I'm at..

      1) Lechmere lied in his testimony above (So did Paul)

      2) Lechmere was near the body shortly after time of Death (So was Paul) Both had opportunity.

      3) Lechmere was a carman (for what that implies) (So was Paul)

      4) Bodies were found near Lechmere's possible routes to work (Likewise with Paul, or anyone living East of Bucks Row traversing to the West of Whitechapel.)

      5) Lechmere lied (did he?) at the inquest regarding his name. (Paul's testimony gives alternative recollections, so by default one version must be a lie.)

      6) Double Event occurred near one of Lechmere's relatives house - his mother. (Do we know if Paul had any relatives, friends or connections to said area)

      7) Lechmere's eyes look shifty as hell in the Photo. (Mmmmmmmm)

      Not trying to finger Paul for the crimes at all but toss a coin here...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
        Thanks Herlock Sholmes
        I'm just trying to pin down exactly in bullet points what rules Lechmere IN but rules Paul OUT. I've tried reading here, the other forums and of course Facebook where Christer and Ed are still allowed to post. It's extremely difficult because as soon as you make a point Christer twists your words (I'm sure his grasp of English is perfectly fine but I do question his ability to 'read between the lines' to what the writing is intending, always sees black or white. When it suits of course) I'm convinced now it is neigh on impossible to have a constructive conversation with the man.

        So from where I'm at..

        1) Lechmere lied in his testimony above (So did Paul)

        2) Lechmere was near the body shortly after time of Death (So was Paul) Both had opportunity.

        3) Lechmere was a carman (for what that implies) (So was Paul)

        4) Bodies were found near Lechmere's possible routes to work (Likewise with Paul, or anyone living East of Bucks Row traversing to the West of Whitechapel.)

        5) Lechmere lied (did he?) at the inquest regarding his name. (Paul's testimony gives alternative recollections, so by default one version must be a lie.)

        6) Double Event occurred near one of Lechmere's relatives house - his mother. (Do we know if Paul had any relatives, friends or connections to said area)

        7) Lechmere's eyes look shifty as hell in the Photo. (Mmmmmmmm)

        Not trying to finger Paul for the crimes at all but toss a coin here...
        And in the Lloyd’s article Paul certainly takes the lead which might hint at an ego issue.

        Isn't it strange how the quick thinker who decided to risk waiting for Paul to arrive (because he was confident that, despite having Paul with him, he could bluff his way past a Constable) didn’t think to say to Paul “as I got near the body I could hear someone running away up ahead”?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
          "He stepped back and waited for the new-comer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness was about to knock him down."
          If your suspect is Robert Paul, what is your theory for his behavior at this point?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            If your suspect is Robert Paul, what is your theory for his behaviour at this point?
            I don't have a suspect, like in the other thread I'm continually wondering why Lechmere and not Paul. To answer your point it seems Lechmere is suggesting Paul may be afraid of him. Paul also mentions being 'afraid.' I wonder if Lechmere got this idea from Paul after speaking to him or reading the newspaper before giving his testimony.

            I find it funny Paul states he knew the area (Bucks Row) was dangerous and feared being attacked. However still continued to use that road to go to work most days.
            Last edited by Geddy2112; 04-28-2024, 03:39 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

              I don't have a suspect, like in the other thread I'm continually wondering why Lechmere and not Paul.
              I was just wondering if you considered the possibility that a murderous Robert Paul acted like a startled and "shrinking Violet" when approaching Cross to disarm and allay any sudden suspicions that may have entered Cross's mind.

              Cross, not being the sharpest tool in the shed, passed Paul's frightened reaction to the jury, unwittingly portraying himself as a somewhat sinister character at the scene of a bloody murder, as opposed to Paul---the startled and suspicious onlooker.

              I'm not sure why a guilty Charles Cross would have done such a thing, but I suppose the Lechmerians have their reasons.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

                I don't have a suspect, like in the other thread I'm continually wondering why Lechmere and not Paul. To answer your point it seems Lechmere is suggesting Paul may be afraid of him. Paul also mentions being 'afraid.' I wonder if Lechmere got this idea from Paul after speaking to him or reading the newspaper before giving his testimony.

                I find it funny Paul states he knew the area (Bucks Row) was dangerous and feared being attacked. However still continued to use that road to go to work most days.
                Hi Geddy,

                Maybe Paul would have thought the alternative routes to work were also dangerous.

                The only reason that I can think of for why Lechmere ans not Paul is that based on the evidence that we have, Lechmere got there first. I do think that it's arguable that Lechmere and Paul as a team is a more likely scenario than Lechmere alone. For one thing, it would explain why Lechmere and Paul were in agreement, and different from Mizen in their testimony: they were complicit, so they both lied. However, one would think that if they murdered together, they wouldn't have reported their "finding" to Mizen.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  The short answers are ‘we don’t know’ and ‘it’s possible.’ Like most suspects we don’t have the killer piece of evidence that eliminates him so we are left to consider likelihoods. I consider him extremely unlikely. Others disagree of course. All alternatives require answers to questions though.

                  We can’t prove that he didn’t leave the house at 2.30 so the questions are -

                  Would he have given himself 90 minutes to find and kill a victim before getting to work?

                  If he allowed himself 90 minutes would he really have brought his victim back to a spot that he passed every day?

                  Would he really have been unable to find a victim earlier and elsewhere?

                  Would he have allowed himself, given the alternatives, to pretty much get caught in the act at that spot?

                  Would he have waited until 3.15 (after Neil passed) in Bucks Row for a victim after failing to find one elsewhere?

                  What was he doing that meant that he was still there when Paul arrived given that the murder and mutilation would have taken no more than 2 minutes at a push?


                  And if he left the house at exactly 3.30 and arrived in Bucks Row at around 3.37 -

                  Can we believe that he set out with the intention to kill 30 minutes before being due to clock on?

                  Can we believe that he expected to find a victim in Bucks Row at just that time?

                  Can we believe that he just saw Polly and lost control, killing and mutilating her, at a spot that he passed 6 days a week at that time, no more than 20 minutes before being due to clock on?

                  And if Paul arrived at 3.44ish as claimed by Christer then again, why the hell was Cross still there when arrived?

                  Or,

                  Did he leave the house at around 3.33, arrive in Bucks Row at around 3.40 with Paul arriving at around 3.41 then, as Paul said, they found Mizen around 4 minutes later?

                  I know which version I think the likeliest Geddy.
                  Hi Herlock,

                  While I think Cross is a very weak suspect, I don't think timing is a problem for the theory. However much time it would have taken the Ripper to have done what he did to Nichols, one can put forward a reasonable scenario by which Paul arrives in Bucks Row that much longer after Cross did. For example, if it would have taken 2 minutes, then Cross could have arrived in Bucks Row at 3:37 or 3:38, with Paul arriving at 3:39 or 3:40.

                  This does, however, require that Nichols was ambushed, and I think it's more likely that the Ripper spent some time with her before he killed her.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

                    Hi Herlock,

                    While I think Cross is a very weak suspect, I don't think timing is a problem for the theory. However much time it would have taken the Ripper to have done what he did to Nichols, one can put forward a reasonable scenario by which Paul arrives in Bucks Row that much longer after Cross did. For example, if it would have taken 2 minutes, then Cross could have arrived in Bucks Row at 3:37 or 3:38, with Paul arriving at 3:39 or 3:40.

                    This does, however, require that Nichols was ambushed, and I think it's more likely that the Ripper spent some time with her before he killed her.
                    Hi Lewis,

                    We certainly can’t exonerate him on time. We could perhaps call it a Goldilocks theory - too little time available and we have a problem, too much time available and we have a problem, but if the timing was just right (as your suggested examples a show) there’s no problem.

                    It’s difficult to imagine Cross walking along Bucks Row to a point around 20 minutes from clocking in time, seeing Nichols and deciding to kill and mutilate her there and then, leaving himself 15 minutes to perhaps check himself over for blood and then walk on to work.

                    Ive also wondered, given how close behind him Paul was, if he’d ever previously walked to work and heard a guy behind him. When I was young I used to have to walk along a fairly dim street (although much lighter than Bucks Row of course) so that I could get to a spot where a friend would give me a lift to work. Most mornings two men passed (separately as I waited) On winter mornings when it was dark, after a while, I could even recognise which one was approaching by his steps. We can’t say of course but maybe Cross knew that another guy passed at roughly the same time and on occasion he could hear him depending on timing. And might he not have known that this was a police beat and that a Constable was due at any time? We have no way of knowing of course.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                      5) Lechmere lied (did he?) at the inquest regarding his name. (Paul's testimony gives alternative recollections, so by default one version must be a lie.)
                      Let me mention another witness at one of the Ripper cases. The surname on his marriage license was Lavender. The surname in the censuses for him, his wife, and his children, was Lavender. In a 1876 proceeding at the Old Bailey, his surname was given as Levender [sic] and it is clear from the court records that his friends knew his surname as Lavender. He appeared in city directories as Lavender. He was buried as Lavender.

                      But at the Eddowes inquest, he used the name Joseph Lawende. He never mentioned the surname Lavender.​ So was he lying about his name at the inquest?

                      I have asked Lechemrians this question multiple times. They have never answered.

                      Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                      6) Double Event occurred near one of Lechmere's relatives house - his mother. (Do we know if Paul had any relatives, friends or connections to said area)
                      This is another example of Lechemerian double standards. They don't check if Robert Paul or any other witness or suspect had any friends, relatives, or connections near the murder sites.

                      And Mitre Square is nowhere near his mother's house.

                      Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                      7) Lechmere's eyes look shifty as hell in the Photo. (Mmmmmmmm)
                      I have seen Lechmerians argue that him having a beard is suspicious.

                      And no one matches Pete Spence for psycho eyes.

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	Pete_Spence_%28mugshot%29.jpg
Views:	540
Size:	20.0 KB
ID:	833696
                      "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


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        We certainly can’t exonerate him on time. We could perhaps call it a Goldilocks theory - too little time available and we have a problem, too much time available and we have a problem, but if the timing was just right (as your suggested examples a show) there’s no problem.
                        Just an update, we now have our esteemed Lechmerian pronounce Cross killed Polly Nichols at 3:45am.

                        If we then reason that Lechmere cut her throat at 3.45, then we have one minute disappearing as Paul walks down Bucks Row, another minute falling away as the two men spoke and examined the body, then we have only one minute left - or possibly no minute at all - for an alternative killer to have made his escape.
                        Now trying to shrink the gap. Seriously why does anyone take him seriously if he keeps moving the goal posts?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

                          Just an update, we now have our esteemed Lechmerian pronounce Cross killed Polly Nichols at 3:45am.



                          Now trying to shrink the gap. Seriously why does anyone take him seriously if he keeps moving the goal posts?
                          It’s regular occurence Geddy. We know that Baxter said:

                          “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.”

                          ​​​​​​
                          The times that Baxter clearly went by to make his estimation would have been the ones that he felt were the most reliable available…the three beat Constable’s Neil, Mizen and Thain who all gave 3.45 as the time that they became involved. So the common sense suggestion from Baxter was that the body was found before these 3.45 times The only mention of how long before 3.45 it was that the body was found was from Robert Paul who said that no more than 4 minutes elapsed between the time that he’d met Cross and the time that they had both run into Mizen. So approximately 3.41.

                          As you say, it’s a blatant attempt to manipulate the evidence.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Fiver View Post
                            And no one matches Pete Spence for psycho eyes.
                            Oh he's got Betty Davis eyes...

                            Joseph Lawende, yeah... in the vicinity where a body was found... etc etc... fake name at the inquest, must be JtR.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              We know that Baxter said:

                              “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by [U]so many independent data.”
                              'So many independent data' Good job the grammar Police were not on the case eh?

                              Yes I've seen CH trot that one out at least 4 times in the last week. I do not even bother trying to 'debate' with the bloke anymore. I sent him an olive branch via PM, apologies if I'd been rude etc. He eventually got back to me and also apologised so I thought oh we are getting somewhere here but then continued to bully people on Facebook so I've decided not to engage with him anymore. I can be just as annoying in replying to him with flippant comments and emojis like 'yawn, more waffle' etc. I know that will boil his pee.

                              I've said it before any respecting author would write his account, put out his book and stand by it. He would take whatever criticism on the chin and accept others have opinions and be done with it. But no this one keeps attacking and attacking, changing the rules, moving the goal posts and then when painted into the corner either sends out the insults or ignores the questions. He claimed the newspaper reports regarding Paul's comments can't be relied on because he might have been misquoted. So I suggested if that was the case we need to remove ALL newspaper reports from the JtR case. We would not have much left. No reply. Funny that. However I'm sure ALL the newspaper reports suggesting Lechmere's guilt can stay in. The rest are out.




                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X