Polly's Skirts - Lechmere The Killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This clothing issue is another example…a perfect one actually…of the truly desperate levels that have been plumbed in order to bolster a non-existent case against this childishly obviously innocent man. Cross becomes almost of minor aristocracy and it’s deemed strange that he turned up to the inquest in his work clothes. Perhaps his valet hadn’t shown up with his change of clothing?

How does this imply guilt or even imply at remotely suspicious or even unusual behaviour? Cross drove a cart for a living for God’s sake. He wasn’t a High Court Judge. To Pickford’s he was a nothing. A two a penny driver who they could dump whenever they pleased to be confronted with a queue of men waiting to step onto his vacant cart. They would have paid him the minimum wage that they could get away with and they certainly wouldn’t have paid him for non-attendance. It’s entirely possible that he made a few deliveries before turning up at the inquest, but he’d have been quite ready to go back to work if his testimony finished in time.

Another non-issue embarrassingly stretched, woven, distorted and fabricated into a tick in favour of a guilty Cross.

[Fiver]

I'm not trying to pinpoint a time when he left home with it fiver ...... remember what I said about you putting words into my mouth and how tiring it is?

I quoted you directly. You said "I treat a stranger to him, who testified that he was 40 yards away and approaching the body after the attack, as gospel."

So how does Lechmere hearing Paul approaching say anything about Paul's innocence?

[Fiver]

Where did you get this?

4 am to 8pm ...... 16 hour work days? The guy wouldn't have lived to be 70.

Just follow the link. Pickford's carmen worked 14 to 18 hour days.

Charles Lechmere would have gotten off work some time between 6pm and 10pm.

Paul was accosted by the Lloyd's reporter at 3:30 pm that afternoon.

The one available source contradicts your 3:30pm time.

"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative." - Lloyds Weekly News, 2nd September 1888

On 31 August, 1888 sunset was at 6:47pm.

[Fiver]

The kill someone and then run around the block back to the body theory does not convince me.

How about you?

It's not likely that Robert Paul was the Ripper and did that, but nothing in Charles Lechmere's statement gave Paul an alibi.

[Fiver]

I didn't bother to read the rest, you only have 3 chances to come up with something sensible in response and you struck out.
Best of luck next time.

It's your theory. The burden of proof is on you. And so far, you haven't shown that Charles Lechmere wearing his work clothes to the inquest was odd, let alone suspicious.

[rjpalmer]

So, moving half way across the street, you identify an unconscious woman at 3:40 am.
Then, hearing footsteps, you turn around and stand there gawking at the newcomer for some 30 seconds?

Why not? Finding a motionless woman on the pavement in a dark and deserted street at 3.40 a.m. is a disconcerting event.

Many men would worry about the propriety of immediately groping an unknown, unconscious woman on the sidewalk. How would it appear to the approaching pedestrian?

You see, once the stench of suspicion is aimed at Cross, he can do nothing to dissipate it.

Had he rushed over and started feeling Nichols' chest for a heartbeat, just imagine the ecstasies of suspicions that you (and Robert Paul and Christer and Edward) would be casting in his direction.

But since he instead positioned himself in the middle of the street at waited for Paul's arrival so they could approach the victim together, you STILL cast suspicion in his direction.

He can't win.

[The Baron]

I said this before, the best thing to do if one found a body lying on the ground outside in the street is to run away as fast as possible, and do not stop to help, according to Fisherman theory.



The Baron

[Newbie]

Why not? Finding a motionless woman on the pavement in a dark and deserted street at 3.40 a.m. is a disconcerting event.

Many men would worry about the propriety of immediately groping an unknown, unconscious woman on the sidewalk. How would it appear to the approaching pedestrian?

You see, once the stench of suspicion is aimed at Cross, he can do nothing to dissipate it.

Had he rushed over and started feeling Nichols' chest for a heartbeat, just imagine the ecstasies of suspicions that you (and Robert Paul and Christer and Edward) would be casting in his direction.

But since he instead positioned himself in the middle of the street at waited for Paul's arrival so they could approach the victim together, you STILL cast suspicion in his direction.

He can't win.

If a Victorian woman fainted in the day light, with a lot of men around,
a bloke would do what? ..... eventually come to her aid and 'grope' her after an intense and lengthy internal debate about what was proper?
Converse with another bloke, whereby you agree to approach her in tandem?
Run for a matron somewhere?

Come on RJ!! It was 3:40 am and some other bloke was approaching.

A disconcerting event, of course, means that you will abandon such nonsense, because of your grave concern for the woman's safety.

Standing there for 30 seconds indicates that her situation was not that disconcerting to Lechmere, given his lack of urgency about the matter. Which makes me wonder why he would stop in the first place?

Curiosity would be the only possible explanation.

And then why physically block Paul's path? And why the subdued "its a woman" statement?
Not urgent enough to bend over and check if she's breathing ... aka"groping",
but then suddenly a sense of urgency compels him to block Paul's path.

Do you see the contradiction RJ?

Lech is the Teflon suspect to some here.

[Newbie]

It's your theory. The burden of proof is on you. And so far, you haven't shown that Charles Lechmere wearing his work clothes to the inquest was odd, let alone suspicious.

I have no illusion or desire to change your mind fiver.

This is not a court of law where one is compelled to eliminate reasonable doubt in all members of a jury.

[Geddy2112]

Then, hearing footsteps, you turn around and stand there gawking at the newcomer for some 30 seconds?

That is not what happened though.

1) Lechmere walked along the North side of Bucks Row and noticed something opposite.
2) Lechmere moved to the middle of the road and noticed it was actually a woman.
3) At the same time he heard Paul approaching. Paul states he sees Lechmere in the middle of the road.
4) Lechmere then approaches Paul, who drops his shoulder and tries to avoid him. 'As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Paul) stepped in the roadway to pass him.'
5) Lechmere taps Paul on the shoulder and alerts him of the woman lying on the South side of the street.

Sorry not seeing anything in the evidence to suggest he stood there gawking at the newcomer for some 30 seconds.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If a Victorian woman fainted in the day light, with a lot of men around,
a bloke would do what? ..... eventually come to her aid and 'grope' her after an intense and lengthy internal debate about what was proper?
Converse with another bloke, whereby you agree to approach her in tandem?
Run for a matron somewhere?

Come on RJ!! It was 3:40 am and some other bloke was approaching.

A disconcerting event, of course, means that you will abandon such nonsense, because of your grave concern for the woman's safety.

Standing there for 30 seconds indicates that her situation was not that disconcerting to Lechmere, given his lack of urgency about the matter. Which makes me wonder why he would stop in the first place?

Curiosity would be the only possible explanation.

And then why physically block Paul's path? And why the subdued "its a woman" statement?
Not urgent enough to bend over and check if she's breathing ... aka"groping",
but then suddenly a sense of urgency compels him to block Paul's path.

Do you see the contradiction RJ?

Lech is the Teflon suspect to some here.

You talk of a ‘grave concern for the woman’s safety.’ Do you consider for one minute that not everyone is the same? Not everyone is a caring, good-Samaritan type? Surely you’ve seen videos online of people lying in the street with people passing by on their way with stopping or lifting a finger to help or even to see if that person was ok? And harder times breed harder people. It happens.

Cross himself said that he first thought that it was a piece of tarpaulin which he thought would be of benefit to his work. Then, as he gets to the middle of the road he’s thinking “hold on, that looks like a body” so…what thoughts might have gone through his head that you choose to completely ignore because you appear to think that everyone is entirely selfless?

Is it just a drunk? What might happen if that’s the case? Might they attack me? What if I help him/her up and they’re sick all over me? What if there’s someone lying in wait to mug me and the ‘body’ is just a means of getting me over into the shadows? What if it’s someone injured that I have to help…I might be late for work. What if it’s a woman who starts accusing me of stuff? What if there’s a gory injury…I hate the sight of blood? Or might he just have thought “it’s not my problem to help people dossing in the street, I think I’m going to leave her…hold on there’s someone coming. We can go over together and he can do the physical checking.” We can’t know what he was or wasn’t thinking but he could have thought any of these things.

From the inquest (but not verbatim)

‘As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway.’

He didn’t physically block his path, he tapped him on the shoulder as Paul was going to walk past. What’s ‘suspicious’ about any of this? It’s the action of a man who’s just realised that he’s found someone who might be dead.

Robert Paul, after talking to Cross, found nothing suspicious about him. The coroner found nothing suspicious about him and the police found nothing suspicious about him and they heard from his own lips what he was thinking and what he did. They had more detail than the summary that we are left with. None of this would have happened if Cross had killed her because he wouldn’t have been there. He’d have fled. It’s what killers do. They don’t stick around for a chat which would introduce all manner of risks that he would have no way of influencing or controlling.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why not? Finding a motionless woman on the pavement in a dark and deserted street at 3.40 a.m. is a disconcerting event.

Many men would worry about the propriety of immediately groping an unknown, unconscious woman on the sidewalk. How would it appear to the approaching pedestrian?

You see, once the stench of suspicion is aimed at Cross, he can do nothing to dissipate it.

Had he rushed over and started feeling Nichols' chest for a heartbeat, just imagine the ecstasies of suspicions that you (and Robert Paul and Christer and Edward) would be casting in his direction.

But since he instead positioned himself in the middle of the street at waited for Paul's arrival so they could approach the victim together, you STILL cast suspicion in his direction.

He can't win.

You can’t help thinking that, for some, an alibi would prove his guilt Roger.

[rjpalmer]

If a Victorian woman fainted in the day light, with a lot of men around,
a bloke would do what? ..... eventually come to her aid and 'grope' her after an intense and lengthy internal debate about what was proper?
Converse with another bloke, whereby you agree to approach her in tandem?
Run for a matron somewhere?

It's not 'day light' and there is not a 'lot of men around.' He did not see a woman faint.

The fact that you have to dream up an entirely different scenario shows that you're on weak footing.

It's pitch black in a deserted street at 3.40 a.m. He sees a motionless woman lying on the sidewalk. At the same moment he hears--and soon sees---a dark figure approaching.

His first instinct is to figure out what the hell is going on, and who this figure is coming towards him. When he sees that the man looks like another carman--evidently from his apron---he lowers his guard, and they approach the woman together.

And for this--and the fact that he used his stepfather's name--you're going to string him up from the nearest lamp post?

[Geddy2112]

And for this--and the fact that he used his stepfather's name--you're going to string him up from the nearest lamp post?

And most importantly turning up at the inquest dressed as Captain Carman...

[Fiver]

I read somewhere that Lech was raised in a family dwelling that got a 'V' decent rating from (census?) inspectors in the rough & tumble neighborhood of Tiger Bay.

I believe that's from Booth's Poverty Map. It in no way implies anything about what Charles Lechmere would wear to an inquest.

Ma Lechmere was raised on the Clive family estate,

Maria Roulson was the daughter of a butler. Thomas Roulston, her father, appears to have been illiterate - he made a mark instead of signing his will. She married an alcoholic bootmaker who went bankrupt and deserted the family. leaving her a struggling single mother.

you bet he was raised to wear his besties at a event like a Victorian era inquest,

You have yet to provide a shred of evidence to back your theory.

Had he fallen on bad habits of hard liquor and moral dissipation fiver?

So now you claim that not showing up in your Sunday best was a sign of alcoholism and moral dissipation? By that standard, most of the witnesses, including the police, were alcoholic reprobates.