Charles Lechmere interesting link

[moonbegger]

As you are aware I have suggested, he may have felt compelled to give those times as his wife may have been up and awake and aware. He did not know at that stage that the police would not give his house a call.

Then why give his name as Cross instead of Lechmere , considering he was unaware of the level of Police response to him ?

You may be incredulous that his timings were not picked apart. Indeed they should have been. Just as Lechmere should have been looked at properly at the time by the police.

There is also no reason to suspect his timing issues were not picked apart or looked at properly but the Police .. Only if we conclude the Police were all incompetent imbeciles can we conclude this .. between Paul's Lloyd statement sticking him in the frame , and his own willingness to jump in the frame .. it is peculiar to say the least that the police didn't investigate him .

cheers

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
I can only refer you back to the earlier discussion about his name rather than regurgitate it again.
You may think its remarkable that the police did not investigate him - but the information we have suggests they did not.
If you think they were incompetent then I presume you also think all those who criticise the Lechmere theory nowadays are somewhat lacking in some department and with rather less excuse. No?

[moonbegger]

Lech ,

To be honest , I don't really doubt that the police did check him out , but that's just my opinion .. I cannot grasp the idea of a man , first on the scene of a brutal murder , painted in a guilty light by a local newspaper , then throwing himself under that preverbal bus with his own suspect timings being allowed to go about his business , without some questions thrown his way .. it seems inconceivable that the Police would not have done their job .

just because ( as with a lot of evidence ) we have no record of it , it doesn't mean it didn't happen .. common sense tells us it must have .

And what evidence is there that they didn't ? his Name ! and I would refer you back to the many many explanations that would have been more than suffice for any questioning authorities .

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
You seem to think he could have been investigated without his true name being discovered. And mentioned. I don't.
This isn't about explanations for his name swap - that is a separate argument.
You seem to think the police were infallible. I don't.
We know they failed to interview all but a handful of local residents in Bucks Row.
We know they were already fixating on Leather Apron two days before Lechmere appeared.
We know there as a break down in communication which meant that the two Carmen's involvement when unnoticed for several days.
We know that other errors were made - such as leaving Nichols' body unattended which resulted in the mortuary attendants stripping it unsupervised.
We know the case soon spiralled in other directions as murder succeeded murder.
Your faith in police infallibility is quite touching.

Oh - by being painted in a guilty light I guess you mean Paul's interview. But It was is response to that which is telling - he came forward and wriggled out of it by his effortless plausibility. By the time Dew wrote his memoirs it was Paul who was the suspicious character!

[drstrange169]

Hello Fisherman,

Just so i understand what your claiming ...

You believe Paul didn't know the "exact" time when he left home, but by the time he got to the body he was able to be precise.

You believe Crossmere, Mizen, Thail and Neil all got it wrong and Paul's Lloyds Sept 2 interview is the only accurate version of events.



>>Blind passion, was it?<<

Certainly looking more and more that way to me.

[drstrange169]

Hello Lechmere,

>>If he left home at 3.30 he would have been at Brown's Stable Yard at 3.37 or a little before.It would take less than 4 minutes to strangle and carry out the mutilations.That takes us to 3.41, or even 3.40There are a spare 4 or 5 minutes for him to have actually walked down Whitechapel Road, rather than going straight to Bucks Row, meet Nichols, and get to Bucks Row for 3.45.<<

Of course the massive hole in this story is that at 3:45 Crossmere and Paul were talking to Mizen at the corner of Hanbury Street.

Neil had walked all the way down Bucks Row, without seeing the two men either in Bucks Row or Bakers Row or for that matter Mrs Nichols in Whitechapel Road, to discover the body at 3:45.

Crossmere still managed to get to work at the verifiable time of 4 o'clock.

Once again, this whole theory relies on believing Paul's credibility in the Lloyds interview at the expense of every other witness.

[moonbegger]

Moonbeggar
You seem to think he could have been investigated without his true name being discovered. And mentioned. I don't.
This isn't about explanations for his name swap - that is a separate argument.
You seem to think the police were infallible. I don't.
We know they failed to interview all but a handful of local residents in Bucks Row.
We know they were already fixating on Leather Apron two days before Lechmere appeared.
We know there as a break down in communication which meant that the two Carmen's involvement when unnoticed for several days.
We know that other errors were made - such as leaving Nichols' body unattended which resulted in the mortuary attendants stripping it unsupervised.
We know the case soon spiralled in other directions as murder succeeded murder.
Your faith in police infallibility is quite touching.

Oh - by being painted in a guilty light I guess you mean Paul's interview. But It was is response to that which is telling - he came forward and wriggled out of it by his effortless plausibility. By the time Dew wrote his memoirs it was Paul who was the suspicious character!

I don't find his name change a particular red flag , especially in the light of all the overwhelmingly reasonable explanations that would have been eagerly excepted for his doing so .. I am also confident that he would have been asked all the relevant questions regarding his journey to work , including any timing anomaly's .. we can not rule everything out , simply because all the details are lost to us ..

its like believing ole Charles never took a dump because there is no record of it .. sometimes we have to look logically between the lines , and the fact that he was never under suspicion after all red flags that flew about him lends strongly to the concept that he was checked and cleared ..

We know there as a break down in communication which meant that the two Carmen's involvement when unnoticed for several days.

Cross was pulled in on Monday 3rd , 48 hours after the murder , less than 24hours after Pauls finger pointing Lloyds interview .. several days ??

We know they were already fixating on Leather Apron two days before Lechmere appeared.

I thought the Leather apron malarkey took off after Chapman ? most of the local News papers along with the word on the street was ..

The more probable theory is that the murder has been committed by one or more of a gang of men, who are in the habit of frequenting the streets at late hours of the night and levying blackmail on women.

Also ..

"We know the case soon spiralled in other directions as murder succeeded murder."

Yes , but all the Police had to go on , and investigate that first week was Carman Cross ..

cheers

moonbegger .

[drstrange169]

As Fish and Lech hold so much store in Paul's Lloyds interview, I'll leave the last word to Paul from another part of that very paper,

"...he and another man found the corpse long before the police..."

This was in direct reply to PC Niel's testimony that he had found the body at 3:45.

Paul is a very unsteady foundation to construct a theory on, but, hey if he's all there is to accuse Crosmere with, so be it.

[moonbegger]

Another key part of the Lloyds interview laid alongside Cross's inquest statement .. has both men speaking to Mizen , first Paul followed by Cross , they both tell it how it went down , nothing incriminating there either .. if anything Paul gets the credit for Mizens confusion .. not Cross !

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Fish ,


There are plenty , and I mean plenty of well documented examples within this case alone Fish , and I have neither the incline nor the time to document them all for you ..

cheers

moonbegger

Ah - you are "not inclined" to bolster your assertion that Victorian timekeeping was laughable. My telling you that Liverpoolas early as 1840 was pioneering a system where the public clocks were synchronized to be as exact asp possible, this system afterwards being spread over Britain, is something you do not even bother to consider.

Iīm sorry, Moonbegger, but outrageous assertions that we cannot bolster do not belong to the discussion. If we burp something up that we have no knowledge of or the smallest inclination to research, we are at massive fault.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

drstrange169: Hello Fisherman,

Just so i understand what your claiming ...

That WOULD be nice...

You believe Paul didn't know the "exact" time when he left home, but by the time he got to the body he was able to be precise.

... but it seemingly is not going to happen.
No, I do NOT believe that Paul didnīt know the exact time when he left home. I think he DID know it very well. I think he gave his clock a glance and saw that it was a minute or two to 3.45, and that he then left his home, thereafter being sure that as he had seen his clock being 3.43-3-44, it must have been 3.45 as he walked up Bucks Row.

You believe Crossmere, Mizen, Thail and Neil all got it wrong and Paul's Lloyds Sept 2 interview is the only accurate version of events.

No, I think that Mizen, Thain and Neil approximated, just as Edward and Monty say. I further think that there is every reason to believe that neither Mizen nor Thain would have checked the time as they got engaged in the events. The one man I can see realizing that he needed to have an approximation of time was Neil, and I think he and Thain may well have agreed on the approximation on the murder morning. Mizen may have backtracked roughly when he needed to find his timing.

But Paul has every implication of being totally on the money. Nobody who has not checked will say that it was EXACTLY 3.45. And then, at the inquest, fifteen days later, he still confirms that information by saying that it was just before 3.45 that he left his house. He is precise, he is consistent, he uses a terminology that does not allow for any accusations of him having been sloppy. So I believe that his September 2 version AND his inquest testimony are BOTH accurate versions of the event, not least since they mutually corroborate each other!


>>Blind passion, was it?<<

Certainly looking more and more that way to me.

I am not the one cutting away important snippets of information and giving times relating to two different instances as if they related to the same instance. And now you are falsely leading on that Pauls September 2 interview and his inquest testimony would not mutually support each other.
I think you need to be a lot more careful and discerning about these matters, Dr Strange.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Cross was pulled in on Monday 3rd , 48 hours after the murder , less than 24hours after Pauls finger pointing Lloyds interview .. several days ??

I know this is a post made for Edward, but you really cannot do these errors, Moonbegger.
The murder occurred on Friday the 31st of August at around 3.40-3.45.

Charles Lechmere witnessed on Monday the 3rd. If we assume that he gave his testimony at mid day, then that would be not 48 hours after the murder, but instead 80 hours after it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

As Fish and Lech hold so much store in Paul's Lloyds interview, I'll leave the last word to Paul from another part of that very paper,

"...he and another man found the corpse long before the police..."

This was in direct reply to PC Niel's testimony that he had found the body at 3:45.

Paul is a very unsteady foundation to construct a theory on, but, hey if he's all there is to accuse Crosmere with, so be it.

Paul also said that he was the one who spoke to Mizen, donīt forget that, Dr Strange. He bigs himself up and tries to make himself important. There are many examples of this. He eventually leaves out Lechmere of his story in that paper interview.

Now, Iīve got a question for you:

Paul wants to inflate his ego, and he wants to diss the police.

He can do this by overstating his own role, and by making the police out as worthless.

But how does giving the time 3.45 help these strivings? Any guess?

And if he really wanted to impress upon the readers that he and Lechmere found the body long before the police did - then why would he not say that he was there 3.30 instead of 3.45?

You may go on as much as you like about this, you may cut away important information as much as you like and falsely state that Pauls timings in the 2nd of September interview and the inquest reports do not tally as much as you like. In short, you can get is as totally wrong as you like and try to peddle your faulty views as much as you like. You may even add an extra entrance or two to the Broad Street depot, just where you like.

But nothing of that will change the times that were given, and nothing will change that they all perfectly match a scenario where Lechmere is left with a lot of time unaccounted for.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

the Lloyds interview ... has both men speaking to Mizen
moonbegger

Wrong. Again. You need to keep track of the sources! The paper interview does not say a single word about BOTH men speaking to Mizen, actually. It only has Paul speaking to the PC.

Iīll help you out and post the relevant part:

I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not.

You see? Not a Lechmere in sight anywhere! So explain to me, Moonbegger, why does not Mizen say a word about Paul having spoken to him when he testifies at the inquest? Why is he adamant that one man only came up and spoke to him? And how can it be that he identifies Charles Allen Lechmere as this man, if it was really Paul who did all the talking?

Who should we believe here?

Paul, who says that he did the talking?

Lechmere, who says that HE did the talking, and that Paul joined in that discussion, giving his view?

Or Mizen, who clearly states that Lechmere was the man who came up to him and spoke to him, and who does not even mention that there was another man in place on that morning until the coroner reminds him of that manīs presence?

Donīt answer that one just yet - I have a clue for you!

Lechmere presumably went to the police because of Pauls interview. We can see how he seemingly echoes some parts of it, saying for example that Paul seemed to be frightened of him. He even says that he thought that Nichols looked as if she had been outraged and had gone off in a swoon. Interestingly, this he says AFTER having stated that he believed that the woman was dead ...? Could it be that he echoes the interview once again, since Paul says in it that he thought that Nichols had been outraged?

No matter what - if we reason that Lechmere had seen the Paul interview, then he had ALSO seen that Paul claims to have been the one that spoke to Mizen!
If Lechmere was the killer, and if he had spoken alone to Mizen, misleading him with Paul out of earshot - why would he NOT take advantage of Paul claiming that he had been the one who spoke to Mizen? It would have been a huge advantage to him, since it would give him an alibi for having conned Mizen without Paul being able to hear it.

This is how it adds up. But we have to read the material first before we can see it. And we must not misread it the way you do, because then our chances of unravelling the whole business are reduced to zero in a split second.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Dr Strange
The only aspect of Paul’s testimony which is being discussed is his timing for leaving home. Not whatever else he said in either his press interview or at the inquest.
At the inquest he said he left home just before 3.45. In his newspaper interview he said he was at Bucks Row at 3.45.
He had only just left home – a place where he would likely have seen a clock as he said he was late for work. It is not an unfair assumption to suggest that Paul was in the best position to be accurate about the time.
Of course his clock was not synchronised with anyone else’s.
The beat policemen made estimates to the nearest quarter, so it is not unreasonable to suppose that Neil actually got to the crime scene at 3.50.
You say that Lechmere got to work at the verifiable time of 4 am. This isn’t a verifiable time. It is the time he claimed. If he met Mizen at 3.45 it would not be realistically possible. If he left home at 3.20 and did not carry out the murder, the 4 am timing is credible.
But that would mean he met Paul just before 3.30 and Mizen at about 3.35.

In any event, as I have repeatedly said, the only point that need be made about the timings is that Lechmere can be shown to have had a window of opportunity to have carried out the crime.
This need not have been the case. The timings as given may have been too tight to allow such a window, or the body and blood may have shown evidence of an earlier death.
But the information we have gives Lechmere a clear window of opportunity.

What is the purpose behind trying to misrepresent the case as being based on Paul’s newspaper interview?
It is based on looking at all the timings including those given by Lechmere.

Moonbeggar
The fundamental flaw in your argument over the name swap is contained in your expression:
‘all the overwhelmingly reasonable explanations that would have been eagerly excepted for his doing so’.
You meant accepted of course.
It is not the role of a policeman investigating a murder to eagerly accept an explanation given by someone.
The various later day investigators we see on these boards (your self included), who are effectively putting themselves in the shoes of an 1888 policeman, indeed eagerly come up with inventive reasons for the name swap.
I am afraid that is why all such eager explanations fail.
I will repeat what I said before.
Lechmere’s story has to be broken to clear him. These eager explanations of yours come nowhere near breaking the name swap as an incriminating factor.

And the details are not all lost to us.
That Lechmere's real name remained unknown and hence that Lechmere was not properly investigated, is strongly implied by the way he is dealt with in the extant internal police files. Those same files detail the main lines of enquiry in the first couple of weeks after the Nichols murder.
The internal files called him Cross and just Cross on 9th September and 19th October.
These same reports also detail who the police were looking at before the Chapman murder, namely Leather Apron (yes before Chapman) and the slaughter men of Winthrop Street. They were specifically mentioned.

And your timings are out.
Lechmere appeared at the inquest not 48 hours after the murder but over 72 hours (he will have appeared in the stand about 80 hours after). Three days.
His appearance at the inquest was about 12 hours after the appearance of Paul’s story – which the police denied.
So it is totally accurate to say that the police were unaware of the carmen’s involvement for several days.

The Leather Apron malarkey became known on the day of the murder. There are reports that it was almost immediately gossiped about by the lodging house prostitutes. The first press mention was on 1st September.
The gang explanation was dropped by the police by the Sunday. It was mentioned in the same breath as Paul’s story was dismissed. It is likely that his was because they had become fixated with Leather Apron.