Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
The notion that Charles Lechmere changed his name to Cross to avoid the High Rip gangs has been dealt with before. As they did not know his name anyway, changing his name would be no protection.
They could have waited for him at his workplace and done him over there or followed him home from work and desecrated his family. Those heinous gangs were capable of almost anything – weren’t they?
In any case have you any evidence of any other witnesses giving false names for fear of attack from the dreaded High Rips?

DRoy
Watches were in short supply but mantle clocks would not have been.
Paul claimed to know he was late for work and one must presume he based that on something better than dead reckoning. Brown’s Stable yard is only a couple of minutes walk from his house so I think it is a fair assumption that he was reasonably accurate in his timings.
Lechmere also claimed to be late for work… so did he know the time?

I would guess the nearest chiming clock would have been St Mary’s Whitechapel – probably out of hearing.

In any case, all that can be said about the timings is that Lechmere as the murder can fit the timings as given. Of course timings were often estimates, but you cannot get much better than to say he fits the timings as given. And the murder was very fresh, by the blood flow and the Doctor’s estimate. Again you can’t get better than that.

On Nichols’ clothes, they were clearly covering the wounds when Lechmere and Paul touched the body. Paul alone dragged them a bit further down. The significance isn’t in Paul dragging them down. It is in the wounds being covered in the first place.

[moonbegger]

Moonbeggar
The notion that Charles Lechmere changed his name to Cross to avoid the High Rip gangs has been dealt with before. As they did not know his name anyway, changing his name would be no protection.
They could have waited for him at his workplace and done him over there or followed him home from work and desecrated his family. Those heinous gangs were capable of almost anything – weren’t they?
In any case have you any evidence of any other witnesses giving false names for fear of attack from the dreaded High Rips?

If he was known as Lechmere .. and they waited for a Cross , How exactly would they know Lechmere was indeed Cross .. I thought that was yours and Fish's argument .. No one knew him as Cross ! Like I already told Fish , you cant have it both ways

There was no other instance of a witness stumbling into or disturbing a presumed gang murder .. after Chapman the gang thing was quashed and the whole Doctor, uterus harvester started to emerge ..

cheers

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

It's your invention that he disturbed a gang murder. Lechmere certainly mentioned no such thing.
It isn't part of my case = nor I suspect Fisherman's - that High Rip gang members would have known him as Cross or Lechmere. If these heinous gang members were after him, then they would be after a recognisable person - not a name they didn't know. Unless you think they would enquire of a helpful fellow at Pickfords in this manner...
'I say old chap - can you point out Cross (or Lechmere) for me?'

Have you found any other examples yet of witnesses who gave false names under oath for fear of heinous gangbangers?

[MrBarnett]

Hear, hear, Lech.

If witnesses had ever wanted to remain anonymous, we would surely have heard of the concept of, let me think... a 'witness protection program' or some other ridiculous construct. And of course, something so ridiculous would have made the headlines in the press.

MrB.

[drstrange169]

Thank you DRoy, for answering, what I thought was obvious to any unpredecided reader about the timings. Ulitimately the evidence speaks for itself. Did Crossmere and Paul sync watches? Does Paul's timing support or contradict the policemens timings?

[MrBarnett]

It's your invention that he disturbed a gang murder. Lechmere certainly mentioned no such thing.
It isn't part of my case = nor I suspect Fisherman's - that High Rip gang members would have known him as Cross or Lechmere. If these heinous gang members were after him, then they would be after a recognisable person - not a name they didn't know. Unless you think they would enquire of a helpful fellow at Pickfords in this manner...
'I say old chap - can you point out Cross (or Lechmere) for me?'

Have you found any other examples yet of witnesses who gave false names under oath for fear of heinous gangbangers?

Lech may not have mentioned fears of gang activity, but Paul certainly did. Perhaps Lech was unaware of the dangers of his new route to work, having only recently switched from the relative safety of the Whitechapel Road, but even so, it must have crossed his mind that there might be a gang aspect to Nichol's attack, and giving a 'false' name could keep the Rip boys from his door.

And in defence of the Rip boys , I don't believe their approach would have been as uncouth as you suggest. 'I say, old chap, if it's not too much trouble, could you point me in the direction of your esteemed colleague, Mr Charles Allen Crossmere, if it's not too much trouble, don't you know... ' would have been the form. Either that or, ' You gotta carman 'ere called Charlie Crawse or summink, lives in Mile End? Tell 'im Alfie sez 'allo' and to keep his gob shut abaht Bucks Row'

MrB

[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

He said he left home at 3.20 or 3.30. Period.
What reason he had for doing so, we cannot possibly know, but one of the reasons could be that somebody knew that he left at that time, and so he could not lie about it without risking being found out.
At any rate, that is what he said.
And if you leave Doveton Street at 3.20, you are in Buck´s Row 3.27.
If you leave at 3.30, you are there at 3.37.
Neither time tallies with Pauls 3.45, which the latter claimed was the EXACT time. If you claim that, then you have reasonably checked the time against a reliable source.

So it does not add up. That is the one and only way I am having it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"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 !!"



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 .

Actually, these things he did, he need not have done out of love for them. Maybe you don´t realize it, but he could well have done it out of a wish to look the perfect family father. He may have been very controlling and harsh against them all, for all we know. People sometimes cherish the picture they are polishing on of themselves a lot more than they cherish their close ones.

Once again, Moonbegger - life is a complex thing. People sometimes live a long life together, hating each other. You need to know these things, or else you run the risk of oversimplifying.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Also we have PC Thail ..

That in itself would make Pauls timekeeping wrong .

moonbegger

Or Thains. And Thain never said that it was exactly 3.45, does he? Paul did, however, so Thain may well have approximated the time, as may Neil and Mizen have.
Neil said it was 3.45 as he found Nichols. If he wawed Thain down at the approximate same time, it makes sense that they gave the same hour. It equally makes sense that this time may have been the same time that the carmen reached Mizen and spoke to him. It could have been around 3.48, if Paul was on the money. Either way, we cannot fit Lechmere into the picture, since he should have been long gone when Paul entered Buck´s Row.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

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.

Paul said it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he was there, so no, it will NOT go along with him. Not at all, actually. If Paul had been in place at 3.40, he would not even have been late.

It's only a problem if you believe he left home when he said he did.

Yes, it IS a problem. A very big problem. I see no reason to think that he left at 3.40 when he clearly said 3.20 or 3.30.

If he's wrong there then the timing matches up pretty closely.

Yes, of course. Simple, is it not? If it was 2.12 when he got into Buck´s Row and Paul got it wrong and had left HIS house at 2.10, it ALSO fits perfectly. Of course, the PC:s and Llewellyn would in such a case have gotten their timings totally wrong, but it still remains that the scenario as such tells us that Lechmere may have been on the money, and really needs to be cleared.

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

It is not "simple" to suggest that he did not notice a man walking in front of him down silent streets for perhaps 250 yards. The steps sounded like drums in those days.
The notion that he failed to mention it is not a very viable one. He pressed the point that there was noone to see in the streets until he came upon Lechmere.

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"?

He does not - but it would have done him a world of good if Paul had said that: "This man walking ahead of me walked out into the street". That would have exonerated him. But he does not get that break. For some reason.

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.

Clearly, you have not understood the process, Roy.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

So this is the response?

He MAY have given the wrong time as to when he left home, Paul MAY not have heard him even if he walked right in front of him and we really should not get hanged up on the fact that the times and information given point unanimously to foul play on Lechmere´s behalf.

The fact that, as Edward points out, all the parameters are perfectly in line with a suggestion that Lechmere was the killer should not be taken too seriously, since they actually MAY be wrong?

When will somebody complete the picture and add that it all is without interest since he would have run if he was the killer?

And that´s not MAY have run - he WOULD have.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

It's your invention that he disturbed a gang murder. Lechmere certainly mentioned no such thing.
It isn't part of my case = nor I suspect Fisherman's - that High Rip gang members would have known him as Cross or Lechmere. If these heinous gang members were after him, then they would be after a recognisable person - not a name they didn't know. Unless you think they would enquire of a helpful fellow at Pickfords in this manner...
'I say old chap - can you point out Cross (or Lechmere) for me?'

Have you found any other examples yet of witnesses who gave false names under oath for fear of heinous gangbangers?

Unfortunately I don't have "the life and times of Charles Lechmere" book at hand , so we don't get to hear his views on living in a rough part of town surrounded by heinous gangs .. but we do have accounts from his contemporary's who make many a mention of said heinous vicious gangs , in fact we have many news paper headlines that lay the blame for the recent atrocities squarely at the feet of street gangs ..

Now , you can choose to ignore that fact , but the newspapers of the day certainly didn't .. Paul may well have shared his fearful opinions with CrossMere on whom he felt may have been responsible for Pollys attack .. we do have his opinion !

If these heinous gang members were after him, then they would be after a recognisable person

Why would they ? how would the know what Lechmere looked like .. Remember no one knew him as Cross ( witness 1) apparently

We also have the Coroner expressing his belief that Pollys attacker(s) were very likely disturbed , along with, as you and Fish have pointed out many times , she was very freshly killed , still oozing blood .

cheers , moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Or Thains. And Thain never said that it was exactly 3.45, does he? Paul did, however, so Thain may well have approximated the time, as may Neil and Mizen have.
Neil said it was 3.45 as he found Nichols. If he wawed Thain down at the approximate same time, it makes sense that they gave the same hour. It equally makes sense that this time may have been the same time that the carmen reached Mizen and spoke to him. It could have been around 3.48, if Paul was on the money. Either way, we cannot fit Lechmere into the picture, since he should have been long gone when Paul entered Buck´s Row.

The best,
Fisherman

The funny thing here is , you choose good ole inaccurate, unreliable , almost laughable Victorian time , as a means of exacting who was where and when Really goes along way in showing how strong your case against is .
You are relying on the unreliable .. you gotta see that ?

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

The funny thing here is , you choose good ole inaccurate, unreliable , almost laughable Victorian time , as a means of exacting who was where and when Really goes along way in showing how strong your case against is .
You are relying on the unreliable .. you gotta see that ?

moonbegger

Actually, I don´t. And actually, I think you need to tell me just how "inaccurate, unreliable, almost laughable" Victorian timekeeping was.

Substantiate that the public clocks were always totally off, prove to me that the mantelpieces people owned were useless and tell me exactly why Paul would not have been on the money when he said that it was exactly 3.45 as he went down Buck´s Row.

What I have found, glancing through the net, is how clocks became cheap and available to most people in the 19th century across Europe and the US, and how Liverpool became an example of how clocks were synchronized and offered very exact timings to the people on the streets, something that had become a necessity with the indutrial revolution where scores of people needed to get to work at the right time. This took place in the 1840:s, and was then used to reform the timekeeping all over Britain. Maybe they forgot to add London, though, it doesn´t say.
But I am sure this is all wrong, that people had no clocks or only useless clocks in the Victorian East End.

I have always wanted a specialist in this topic, so it´s good you have finally arrived. Now, Victorian timekeeping and it´s flaws...?

Fisherman

PS. When you are done, you will still be faced with the fact that what we have is what we must go by.

[drstrange169]

>>Paul said it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he was there<<

It's truly remarkable how elastic things have to be to fit the Crossmere theory.

Under oath Paul said,
"... just before a quarter to four ..."

The " exactly 3:45" was a quote was from the Lloyds interview, in which we all know Paul overstated his involvement in the incident.

Take the blind passion out of the Lechmere theory and it fades significantly.