Charles Lechmere interesting link

[drstrange169]

Hello Barnaby,

>> ... it seems odd ... given that he talked about "being on guard" and "hurrying along" and fearful of "terrible gangs." <<

Had he said it in that order, it would be odd, but in fact he said he was "hurrying along" and started "being on guard" once he saw Crossmere. This implies he was, 1. not paying attention and 2. wasn't worried until he perceived a possible threat, i.e. seeing someone standing still. Footsteps walking away aren't threatening.

>> ...I believe Fisherman has argued that Cross should have been much farther along had he left home when he said that he did.<<

Crossmere did not name a time for finding the body, any other time is useless, unless we can synch it to Crossmere's clock. The only points of reference we have, is Crossmere's claimed leaving home time and arriving at work time. Both are consistant with the distance he had to travel and the events that he said happened. Of course he could have lied, but we have no evidence to support that.

Ergo, the notion that Crossmere had time unaccounted for is pure speculation and the notion that Paul did not hear him is also speculation.
Nothing wrong with speculating, until people start confusing it with actual evidence.

As I wrote before, the ONLY confusing thing about Crossmere is the his name and we can all speculate about that;-)

[Fisherman]

moonbegger: When exactly was the Inquest Fish ? was it not at the time of the murders ? The only official instance we have of this witness answering to any name at the time of the murders is when he went by the name Cross , At the time of the murders

Albeit , it may not have been his regular name at that time .. it is however a name he was used to , had a history with , and chose to use !

For all we know, he could have just used the name Cross on that inquest day, in order to keep his true name from getting out. He may have felt very unfamiliar with it.
The picture you paint is one where he easily floated inbetween the names, "had a history with" and felt very used to and comfortable with it.
Saying that he responded to that name at the time of the murders euqals saying that he regarded himself as Charles Cross at that stage, and I do not for a moment believe that he did.

If you say that he took on the Cross identity on the inquest day, you will be correct. Saying that he generally speaking responded to that name at the time of the murder is another thing altogether.

The inquest day when Lechmere attended was the 3rd of September. He marketed himself as Charles Cross on that day. "The time of the murder" was on August 31st. I should think he was much more probably Charles Lechmere on that particular day.

Peddling the view that he ever thought of himself as somebody else than Charles Lechmere will not wash until it can be proven. Effectively, it can not.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Barnaby,

>> ... it seems odd ... given that he talked about "being on guard" and "hurrying along" and fearful of "terrible gangs." <<

Had he said it in that order, it would be odd, but in fact he said he was "hurrying along" and started "being on guard" once he saw Crossmere. This implies he was, 1. not paying attention and 2. wasn't worried until he perceived a possible threat, i.e. seeing someone standing still. Footsteps walking away aren't threatening.

>> ...I believe Fisherman has argued that Cross should have been much farther along had he left home when he said that he did.<<

Crossmere did not name a time for finding the body, any other time is useless, unless we can synch it to Crossmere's clock. The only points of reference we have, is Crossmere's claimed leaving home time and arriving at work time. Both are consistant with the distance he had to travel and the events that he said happened. Of course he could have lied, but we have no evidence to support that.

Ergo, the notion that Crossmere had time unaccounted for is pure speculation and the notion that Paul did not hear him is also speculation.
Nothing wrong with speculating, until people start confusing it with actual evidence.

As I wrote before, the ONLY confusing thing about Crossmere is the his name and we can all speculate about that;-)

So here we go again, Dr Strange! One more perfectly intelligent and knowledgeable poster has a dig at the Lechmere theory - and gets it all very wrong.

This time it is said that "the notion that Crossmere had time unaccounted for is pure speculation and the notion that Paul did not hear him is also speculation".

Letīs check and see, shall we?

Charles Lechmere said he left home at either 3.20 or 3.30. We can also see, if we take a look at the stretch he had to walk to arrive at Pickfords, that he would have had perhaps a 35-40 minute trek there, tallying well with the times he mentioned and a notion that he was a little late on the morning. It is quite feasible that the different times reported in different papers as to when Lechmere left home that morning - 3.20 and 3.30 - may have come about as a result of Lechmere perhaps saying that he NORMALLY left at 3.20, but since he was late this morning, he left at 3.30 instead.

You claim that his given information about when he left and when he arrived at Pickfords is "consistant with the distance he had to travel and the events that he said happened."

Letīs say that he started out at 3.20 - that is consistant with being able to arrive at Pickfords at 4.00, as he claimed to have done.

The trek from 22 Doveton Street to Browns Stable Yard would have taken less than seven minutes to cover. So if he left at 3.20, he should have been in Buckīs Row at 3.27.

How does that tally with Paul being there exactly at 3.45? Paul was adamant about the time, so he had checked, apparently.

Are you saying that Paul was eighteen minutes off, and that he had actually set out from Foster Street long before he needed to? Reasonably, he would have realized this as he arrived in Corbettīs Court. But he does not speak of having been mistaken about being late, does he?

And if this is true, then Paul and Lechmere would have found the body at 3.27, whereafter it would have taken them around twenty minutes to get their behinds to Mizen up at Hanbury Street, two-three minutes away...?

So maybe Lechmere did not leave at 3.20? Maybe he left at 3.30?

If so, we have him in Buckīs Row at 3.37, Paul has left home eight-nine minutes earlier than he thought he did, and he must once again have been totally wrong when he tells us that it was exactly 3.45 as he passed down Buckīs Row. He would once again not have been late at all.

Has it occurred to you that if Charles Lechmere was to arrive in Broad Street at 4.00 - as he said he did - then he would have managed the approximate 28-33 minute trek he had left after Buckīs Row in fifteen minutes? Squeezing in the conversation with Mizen at the same time? If he left home at 3.30, that is - if he left at 3.20, he would have had a better chance to make it - but he would have been in Buckīs Row eighteen minutes before Paul was there!

We cannot be sure about the exact timings. But we CAN be sure that we cannot fit Lechmereīs description of his timings into the overall schedule we have - far from it. If we are to believe that his timings were correct, then we have to move all the other peopleīs timings around 8-18 minutes to allow for absolving Lechmere.
Apparently, that does not bother you in the least - to you, Lechmere walks free and all the others were terribly wrong.

So much for your take on the timings. Letīs now turn to your claim that it is "pure speculation" that Paul did not hear Lechmere until he saw him standing in the middle of Buckīs Row.

It is true that Paul never says "I did not hear the other man walk in front of me". But we do not have to have that phrasing at hand to conclude that this was so anyway.

What Paul says in his paper interview is "It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was." That means that Lechmere was not moving at this stage - he was not walking out into the street, he was already there, standing still as Paul saw him.
The wording from the inquest goes: "... as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road."
Once again, we find that Lechmere was described as a static figure, standing still in Buckīs Row.

This cannot be contested - nowhere does it say that Paul noticed a man, walking in front of him, stepping out into the street. He was already there.

So what you must set your hope to is that Paul would nevertheless have heard Lechmere before the moment he saw him. He would have made out his steps in the darkness in front of him, and then the steps would have gone silent. After that, he would have reached Browns Stable Yard and found Lechmere standing there.

If so, why does he not say that? Why does he instead say that "He had not met any one before he reached Buck's-row, and did not see any one running away", as per the inquest report?

What he effectively says is that the streets were empty. He had noticed noone. And Lechmere would reasonably - unless he was lying - have walked in front of Paul all the way since he took a right turn into Bath Street a minute or two before he entered Buckīs Row.

This is what we have. Empty streets, and a carman that suddenly notices another man standing in the middle of the road, at a point where a freshly killed woman lies.

And there is nothing strange with that - Lechmere had left home at 3.30 at the latest, and he had been in Bucks Row for at least eight minutes before Paul arrived. So Paul could effectively not have heard him.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

The inquest day when Lechmere attended was the 3rd of September. He marketed himself as Charles Cross on that day. "The time of the murder"

Bingo !!!! and I think you'll find Fish , I suggested " Murders" as opposed to "murder" ..

I think You and Lech have done a great job highlighting the things that Charles Lechmere thought important during his life , first and foremost his Family , he cared enough to Register them , School them , always doing the right thing regards to them .

But you have the hardest times conceiving , that he would do the simplest of things to keep them out of harms way ???????

I am curious to know , how many on these boards would do whatever it takes in order to keep the ones they love from imminent harm , be it stab or shoot , even kill Scumbags who are intent on causing their wives , husbands , children serious harm .. think about it for a minute !!

All Charles Lechmere did , all he had to do was use his Step fathers name ! and based on the way he conducted his entire life ( thanks to Lech & Fish )it becomes almost inconceivable that he would not have done it without an approving nod from his step dads old colleges .

One simple act , to keep his entire family safe from harm and retribution from any gangs committing these heinous crimes in his neighborhood .. As Paul even commented "being on guard" and fearful of "terrible gangs." Why is it so inconceivable ??

It makes perfect sense to me .

cheers ,

moonbegger

[DRoy]

Fish,

We don't know how Paul was able to time it as exactly as 3:45 nor do we know how Lech timed his journey.

For Paul to give a time as exactly 3:45, you'd assume Lech would know it was exactly 3:45 as well. If they were in the same area around the same time then you'd assume they'd both be able to fix the time but Lech doesn't, only Paul does. Maybe Paul had a watch, but how did he time his watch? His work clock, his home clock, a clock on the way to work? I wonder if those times are all synced?

If Lech could lie about killing someone, I'm sure he could also lie or even be mistaken about when he left his house.

Neil, Mizen, Thain and Paul all give times of 3:45. Mizen meeting Paul and Lech, Neil finding the body, Thain being signalled by Neil, and Paul finding Lech with the body. They can't all be right.

Just saying, it isn't that easy to use timing as a reason to presume him guilty. Timing is too difficult to prove. It is a lot easier to presume Lech lied as there is no proof he didn't, but I know you're better than resorting to just that.

Cheers
DRoy

[moonbegger]

Another thing is .. CrossMere had Pauls 2nd sept Lloyds press report to mull over and hone his story . If he was so inclined to avoid suspicion , he would have surely adjusted his times accordingly ..

He told his own story with his own times regardless of what Paul had reported .. Hardly the sign of a guilty man trying to stay one step ahead of the game ..

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

I think you'll find Fish , I suggested " Murders" as opposed to "murder" ..

Okay. Well, that only makes your suggestion more preposterous, so I would not be too happy about that distinction.

I think You and Lech have done a great job highlighting the things that Charles Lechmere thought important during his life , first and foremost his Family , he cared enough to Register them , School them , always doing the right thing regards to them .

But you have the hardest times conceiving , that he would do the simplest of things to keep them out of harms way ???????

Most people will do that. But how do we know that this was true of Lechmere? Conjecturing is fine and dandy, but letīs admit it when we do it.

I am curious to know , how many on these boards would do whatever it takes in order to keep the ones they love from imminent harm , be it stab or shoot , even kill Scumbags who are intent on causing their wives , husbands , children serious harm .. think about it for a minute !!

Why would we? Itīs self-evident. But not all people feel the same, and we canīt tell where Lechmere stood on the issue.

All Charles Lechmere did , all he had to do was use his Step fathers name ! and based on the way he conducted his entire life ( thanks to Lech & Fish )it becomes almost inconceivable that he would not have done it without an approving nod from his step dads old colleges .

I am sorry, but thatīs the purest of conjecture. For all we know, Thomas Cross can have been a disciplinary terror, and Charles can have hated him and sworn never to use his name. Sorry to crash the party, but there you are.

One simple act , to keep his entire family safe from harm and retribution from any gangs committing these heinous crimes in his neighborhood .. As Paul even commented "being on guard" and fearful of "terrible gangs." Why is it so inconceivable ??

Itīs not inconceivable at all. But I would prefer to have Lechmereīs working trek NOT passing the murder spots, to have his mother NOT living in Cable Street, to have ST Georges in the East NOT being his old haunts, to NOT have Nichols wounds covered, to NOT have Paul saying that he noticed nobody until he saw that man in the middle of the street, to NOT have Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30, to NOT have him arriving at the inquest in working gear and his apron and to NOT have Mizen implicating him as a baldfaced liar.

Why is it so inconceivable to you that this all adds up and speaks of a sinister character?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Another thing is .. CrossMere had Pauls 2nd sept Lloyds press report to mull over and hone his story . If he was so inclined to avoid suspicion , he would have surely adjusted his times accordingly ..

He told his own story with his own times regardless of what Paul had reported .. Hardly the sign of a guilty man trying to stay one step ahead of the game ..

moonbegger

If he said that he left home close to 3.40 and his wife knew that he left at 3.20 - what do you think would happen if the police asked her about that? They WOULD HAVE if they decided to pay her a visit.

Things are sometimes more complex than we want them to be. People are sometimes killers. When we have a mountain of anomalies that point to such a thing, we will normally be correct if we get suspicious.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fish,

We don't know how Paul was able to time it as exactly as 3:45 nor do we know how Lech timed his journey.

For Paul to give a time as exactly 3:45, you'd assume Lech would know it was exactly 3:45 as well. If they were in the same area around the same time then you'd assume they'd both be able to fix the time but Lech doesn't, only Paul does. Maybe Paul had a watch, but how did he time his watch? His work clock, his home clock, a clock on the way to work? I wonder if those times are all synced?

If Lech could lie about killing someone, I'm sure he could also lie or even be mistaken about when he left his house.

Neil, Mizen, Thain and Paul all give times of 3:45. Mizen meeting Paul and Lech, Neil finding the body, Thain being signalled by Neil, and Paul finding Lech with the body. They can't all be right.

Just saying, it isn't that easy to use timing as a reason to presume him guilty. Timing is too difficult to prove. It is a lot easier to presume Lech lied as there is no proof he didn't, but I know you're better than resorting to just that.

Cheers
DRoy

Read my post 303 again, Roy. We must weigh it all together, and we cannot do that intelligibly and NOT realize that Lechmere is the odd one out. You are welcome to produce atimeline that exonerates him, if you can. Go ahead, donīt be shy!

It SEEMS - as you may be willing to concede - that he should have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.26-3-37.
Why is it that this tallies so very well with Paul not saying a woird about anybody having walked in front of him? "Coincidence", eh?
Why is it that Paul sees him standing still in the middle of the street, instead of moving out into it? "Coincidence"?
Why do his routes to work and his mothers place "coincide" with the murder spots?
Why did Nichols and only Nichols of the cut-up victims have her wounds hidden? "Coincidence"?
Why did Mizen say that he had been told that another PC awaited him in Buckīs Row? Did he lie?
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The truth is and remains that there are scores of things that point the carman out. One coincidence? Fine! Two? Equally - almost - fine! Three? Well ... Four? Hey, whatīs this? Five, six, seven, eight, nine...
He did it. There can be very little doubt.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Iīm sure that the blood will boil in a number of posters now - but I wonīt debate the errand any further today, Iīve got better and more pressing things to do. I will take up where I left tomorrow, unless you have all realized that I have the better arguments and thrown in the towel accordingly.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

If he said that he left home close to 3.40 and his wife knew that he left at 3.20 - what do you think would happen if the police asked her about that? They WOULD HAVE if they decided to pay her a visit.

The best,
Fisherman

Ahh , so now he would be worried about what his Hermit , blind , deaf , unsociable wife may know regardless that his whole operation depended on her Not speaking , not hearing , not reading , not neighborly gossiping with anyone at all .. and now over an apparent uncertainty regarding her timekeeping , he is prepared to open himself up to inquiry ..

lets look at it both ways Fish .. by him saying he left home at 3.20 .. right there would be the open invitation to police to investigate him and his wife further and find out why it took him as long as it did ..
by saying 3.40 he fits in snugly with everyone else , no need to investigate him any further ..
You really cant have it both ways Fish .. this elaborate accusation seems to be unraveling at every turn .

cheers

moonbegger

[Bridewell]

Fish,

We don't know how Paul was able to time it as exactly as 3:45 nor do we know how Lech timed his journey.

Neil, Mizen, Thain and Paul all give times of 3:45. Mizen meeting Paul and Lech, Neil finding the body, Thain being signalled by Neil, and Paul finding Lech with the body. They can't all be right.

Cheers
DRoy

I suspect that not many working class men owned a watch and that the few watches they had were cheap and not particularly reliable. If Paul gave the time as 3.45am it is likely that he heard a clock strike the three quarters. Mizen probably made his notes retrospectively and with a degree of approximation as he attached so little significance to the encounter with the two carmen that he carried on knocking up.

It's been said before, but it bears repeating that all timings should be treated as approximate.

[moonbegger]

"I am curious to know , how many on these boards would do whatever it takes in order to keep the ones they love from imminent harm , be it stab or shoot , even kill Scumbags who are intent on causing their wives , husbands , children serious harm .. think about it for a minute !!"

Why would we? Itīs self-evident. But not all people feel the same, and we canīt tell where Lechmere stood on the issue.

But we can Fish , you and Lech have showed us how much effort Charles put into rigorously and regimentally elevating his family .. registering and schooling and working his ass off for them .. You have shown us time after time he always had their best interests at heart .. at every level .

He didn't even need to stab , or kill anyone , All he needed to do was keep his and his family's name out of the press by simply using his step fathers name .. Job done ! Well done Mr Lechmere .

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

I suspect that not many working class men owned a watch and that the few watches they had were cheap and not particularly reliable. If Paul gave the time as 3.45am it is likely that he heard a clock strike the three quarters. Mizen probably made his notes retrospectively and with a degree of approximation as he attached so little significance to the encounter with the two carmen that he carried on knocking up.

It's been said before, but it bears repeating that all timings should be treated as approximate.

Also we have PC Thail ..

his attention until 3.45 a.m., when he was signalled by the flash of the lantern of another constable (Neale). He went to him, and found Neale standing by the body of the deceased

That in itself would make Pauls timekeeping wrong .

moonbegger

[DRoy]

Read my post 303 again, Roy. We must weigh it all together, and we cannot do that intelligibly and NOT realize that Lechmere is the odd one out. You are welcome to produce atimeline that exonerates him, if you can. Go ahead, donīt be shy!

Fish,

He could have left his house at any time, I don't think when he left home is possible to pinpoint since he could have been wrong or lying. He was probably at the yard around 3:40 if I were to guess. This would go along with Paul and the three policemen give or take a few minutes.

That doesn't exonerate him but I sure don't see it being a problem. It's only a problem if you believe he left home when he said he did. You've chosen to believe certain pieces of his evidence and disbelieve others.

It SEEMS - as you may be willing to concede - that he should have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.26-3-37.

Not sure why you assume that? Only if his timing of leaving home is correct. If he's wrong there then the timing matches up pretty closely.

Why is it that this tallies so very well with Paul not saying a woird about anybody having walked in front of him? "Coincidence", eh?

Paul didn't notice anyone or failed to mention it. That simple.

Why is it that Paul sees him standing still in the middle of the street, instead of moving out into it? "Coincidence"?

Lech admits to being in the middle of the street when he hears Paul and waits the 40 yards for Paul to reach him. Why does he have to be walking "out into it"?

Why do his routes to work and his mothers place "coincide" with the murder spots?

It only does to those stuck on Lech being The Ripper. I've looked at the street maps 1000 times and see thousands upon thousands of people living right in the heart of the WM sites with each of them a reason to be around the murder spots.

Why did Nichols and only Nichols of the cut-up victims have her wounds hidden? "Coincidence"?

I'm not sure what you mean? According to Paul they both pulled the clothes down. Regardless, if Paul couldn't see the cut throat then presumably he wouldn't be able to see the other wounds. What benefit would it be for Lech the killer to cover something that neither he nor Paul could see anyway? They still didn't do a good job of fixing the clothes because Neil said the clothes were disarranged when he found the body.

Why did Mizen say that he had been told that another PC awaited him in Buckīs Row? Did he lie?

Probably, to save his own bacon for not getting the information from Paul and Lech in the first place.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

No, please continue...

The truth is and remains that there are scores of things that point the carman out. One coincidence? Fine! Two? Equally - almost - fine! Three? Well ... Four? Hey, whatīs this? Five, six, seven, eight, nine...
He did it. There can be very little doubt.

That isn't truth Fish, it's you believing what you're saying. You've convinced yourself, but that doesn't make it so. You keep saying you have to look at the entire thing as too many coincidences can't be coincidences. You know what, I agree. However, I also recommend you look at each piece seperately to make sure you're being honest with the 'evidence' you're using to arrive at the coincidence in the first place. You may no longer have six, seven, eight, nine...

Cheers
DRoy