Was he lying?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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”?

[Geddy2112]

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...

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Geddy2112]

"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.