Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Monty]

You seem to think the police were infallible. I don't.

Nor do I

We know they failed to interview all but a handful of local residents in Bucks Row.

Not entirely true.

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

Again, misleading. The police were following all leads.

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

Do we now, and how is that conclusion reached?

We know that other errors were made - such as leaving Nichols' body unattended which resulted in the mortuary attendants stripping it unsupervised.

Error in what context?

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

Spiralled? Again, in what context?

Your faith in police infallibility is quite touching.

Your belief in police inadequacy is necessary, it helps fill in the cracks of your theory.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Nor do I

Not entirely true.

Again, misleading. The police were following all leads.

Do we now, and how is that conclusion reached?

Error in what context?

Spiralled? Again, in what context?

Your belief in police inadequacy is necessary, it helps fill in the cracks of your theory.

Monty

Okay, Monty. Iīll bite. Just for you. And I think that you ask relevant questions here, to some extent. In other cases, I am not equally happy about your claims...

We know they failed to interview all but a handful of local residents in Bucks Row.
Not entirely true.
And WHY is it not "entirely true? Because, of course, they MAY HAVE interviewed a lot of people - but ONLY after the coroner had reprimanded them for not having done it on their own accord. Which is the whole point Edward was making - the police had the opportunity to cast their net wide, but they only managed to get a measly few lines and hooks in the sea from the outset.

We know they were already fixating on Leather Apron two days before Lechmere appeared.
Again, misleading. The police were following all leads.
That is in all probability NOT true - they would have followed as many leads as they believed even remotely useful, and to the extent they had resources for. At any rate, not all leads would have been followed with the same zeal, and the Leather Apron lead was seemingly the lead they mainly focused on at that remove in time. Moreover, Edward did not say that they ONLY followed that lead, he said that they were fixating on Leather Apron at the stage - and they could of course focus on more than one suspect if they chose to. So how that could earn the label "misleading" is more than I understand and totally uncalled for.

We know there as a break down in communication which meant that the two Carmen's involvement when unnoticed for several days.
Do we now, and how is that conclusion reached?
That conclusion is reached by acknowledging that if they had asked Mizen about it all and if Mizen had answered them about all he had seen and heard, they would have known from the outset that there were two carmen that had passed down Buckīs Row and seen the body. Since that was not communicated, they failed to see the relevance of the Paul interview, and it can therefore be said that the lack of communication meant that the carmen went wrongfully unnoticed.

We know that other errors were made - such as leaving Nichols' body unattended which resulted in the mortuary attendants stripping it unsupervised.
Error in what context?
It was specifically requested by DS Enright that the body should not be touched, but Llewellyn nevertheless found Mann and Hatfield stripping the body as he arrived to the mortuary, disenabling him to look at how the clothing had been attached to Nichols as she was found. So the error was on behalf of the mortuary keeper and his assistant, not on the police. But it would of course have helped immensely if the body had not been left unguarded.

We know the case soon spiralled in other directions as murder succeeded murder.
Spiralled? Again, in what context?
The added murders required resources to be directed to them, and so the Nichols murder could not be allowed to take up the whole police force. Other suggestions as to the culprit/s followed in the tracks of the new murders, and made the overall investigation a more complex and demanding one.

Your faith in police infallibility is quite touching.
Your belief in police inadequacy is necessary, it helps fill in the cracks of your theory.
Police inadequacy is part of the theory - but very far from all of it, Monty. And so far, it fits. When we say that the police - individually or as a force - failed in some respects in combination with the Nichols murder, it is not an unsubstantiated suggestion, it is historical fact.

By the way, was not the main "crack" - as far as you are concerned - that you think he would have legged it? Was that not how you reached your conclusion that Lechmere is "a nonstarter"?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Monty
I knew you wouldn't appreciate your name being used approvingly in support of the Lechmere theory.

It is true to say that up to the sitting of the inquest held on 17th September, the only people seen by the police in Bucks Row were the
Green's, the manager of Essex Wharf, the watchman at the Snider's factory, the policeman at Great Eastern Wharf and the Board School keeper.
This was specifically drawn attention to. Whether it was rectified is open to doubt.

We have no idea whether or not the police were following all leads. One would presume they would have been following all leads that they thought significant at the time.

I would suggest that there was a breakdown in communication which led to the police not taking proper notice of the two Carmen's involvement because:
Neil was presented as the first finder in all initial news reports, at the first day of the inquest and as late as Sunday night in a statement that was issued to the press to contradict the Paul newspaper story.
The two Carmen were entirely absent from the narrative until Paul's story broke (which was initially pooh-poohed), and was only accepted after Lechmere's appearance at the inquest on the Monday (which may or may nit have been preceded by Lechmere appearing at a police station to give a statement).
Mizen is reported to have said that he had 'seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention.'

The stripping of the body by the Mortuary attendants after it was left unattended was mentioned several times during the inquest and it was repeated several times that instructions were given for the body not to be touched. It was initially thought that the clothing had been cut by the culprit rather than by the attendants to remove it. The removal of the clothing made it more difficult establish how the wounds were inflicted.
If it was not a matter of concern then it would not have been dwelt on at the inquest.

The case spiralled in other directions after the Chapman murder as a whole series of new leads had to be followed up. This is not uncommon in serial killings where the police get overwhelmed with information and it becomes more and more difficult to untangle earlier lines of enquiry or indeed revisit earlier aspects of the case.

There are no cracks in my theory.

[Lechmere]

Monty
There is no need to be so defensive about the police investigation. As you readily admit they were not infallible.
Lechmere’s late appearance when they already had what looked like to them strong lines of enquiry to pursue, and given their understandable inexperience in dealing with serial killers – who are unlike the normal run of criminals that they had some success in combatting – would have combined to make it all too easy for them to overlook Lechmere and take him at face value.

You should take solace that the Lechmere theory only incorporates small low level Police mistakes. Unlike longer established theories that rely on Keystone operations - such as that of Kosminsky (where they did not know when he died) or Tumblety (where they supposedly failed to secure him even though he was in jail and then supposedly failed to keep him under observation when he was released, and then failed to track him when he fled to America, supposedly sending an officer in a wild goose chase to Canada instead of New York).

[Fisherman]

You should take solace that the Lechmere theory only incorporates small low level Police mistakes. Unlike longer established theories that rely on Keystone operations - such as that of Kosminsky (where they did not know when he died) or Tumblety (where they supposedly failed to secure him even though he was in jail and then supposedly failed to keep him under observation when he was released, and then failed to track him when he fled to America, supposedly sending an officer in a wild goose chase to Canada instead of New York).

Or Ostrog - "elevated" to a homicidal maniac, while in fact he dealt in deception and fraud, and is not recorded as having been a man of violence at all. Plus, of course, he was apparently not in place in the East End throughout the murder series anyway ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Wow,

Three bites in one, two from the same fish, and its me who is defensive?

I'll address in order.

Monty

[Lechmere]

You might get double teamed again.
Call up Moonbeggar as a special reserve.

[Monty]

Okay, Monty. Iīll bite. Just for you. And I think that you ask relevant questions here, to some extent. In other cases, I am not equally happy about your claims...

We know they failed to interview all but a handful of local residents in Bucks Row.
Not entirely true.
And WHY is it not "entirely true? Because, of course, they MAY HAVE interviewed a lot of people - but ONLY after the coroner had reprimanded them for not having done it on their own accord. Which is the whole point Edward was making - the police had the opportunity to cast their net wide, but they only managed to get a measly few lines and hooks in the sea from the outset.

Indeed, whoever enquiries were made. You must bear in mind the logistics involved, along with the numbers of available constable to undertake such a task. Sometimes you, and Ed, and many others, do not see the whole, but rather focus on one aspect, without considering the mitigating circumstances. J Division, at the time, was under strength.

We know they were already fixating on Leather Apron two days before Lechmere appeared.
Again, misleading. The police were following all leads.
That is in all probability NOT true - they would have followed as many leads as they believed even remotely useful, and to the extent they had resources for. At any rate, not all leads would have been followed with the same zeal, and the Leather Apron lead was seemingly the lead they mainly focused on at that remove in time. Moreover, Edward did not say that they ONLY followed that lead, he said that they were fixating on Leather Apron at the stage - and they could of course focus on more than one suspect if they chose to. So how that could earn the label "misleading" is more than I understand and totally uncalled for.

This fixation is undoubtedly taken from the reading of press reports. It is they, not the police, who were fixated on Leather Apron.


We know there as a break down in communication which meant that the two Carmen's involvement when unnoticed for several days.
Do we now, and how is that conclusion reached?
That conclusion is reached by acknowledging that if they had asked Mizen about it all and if Mizen had answered them about all he had seen and heard, they would have known from the outset that there were two carmen that had passed down Buckīs Row and seen the body. Since that was not communicated, they failed to see the relevance of the Paul interview, and it can therefore be said that the lack of communication meant that the carmen went wrongfully unnoticed.

Ah, conclusion reached. Therefore it is more an assumption than ascertained fact. I understand now.

Id say more miscommunication, if that scenario is true, than a breakdown in communication.

We know that other errors were made - such as leaving Nichols' body unattended which resulted in the mortuary attendants stripping it unsupervised.
Error in what context?
It was specifically requested by DS Enright that the body should not be touched, but Llewellyn nevertheless found Mann and Hatfield stripping the body as he arrived to the mortuary, disenabling him to look at how the clothing had been attached to Nichols as she was found. So the error was on behalf of the mortuary keeper and his assistant, not on the police. But it would of course have helped immensely if the body had not been left unguarded.


DS Enright stated that he informed the attendants not to touch the body, however that was denied. That said, I agree, the body should not have been touched, however Hatfield and Mann were conducting a common procedure when the dead arrive at the mortuary.

It is quite easy to pass judgement when one is ignorant of the era and what, exactly, occurred or was expected to occur. Hence my request for context.

We know the case soon spiralled in other directions as murder succeeded murder.
Spiralled? Again, in what context?
The added murders required resources to be directed to them, and so the Nichols murder could not be allowed to take up the whole police force. Other suggestions as to the culprit/s followed in the tracks of the new murders, and made the overall investigation a more complex and demanding one.

I agree. However that is not a sign of an incompetent police force.

Your faith in police infallibility is quite touching.
Your belief in police inadequacy is necessary, it helps fill in the cracks of your theory.
Police inadequacy is part of the theory - but very far from all of it, Monty. And so far, it fits. When we say that the police - individually or as a force - failed in some respects in combination with the Nichols murder, it is not an unsubstantiated suggestion, it is historical fact.

Granted, there were failures, such as the management of the crime scene, however some of those failures you and Ed cite are, actually, assumptions, and not historical fact. It is those assumptions which you both require to validate your theory.

By the way, was not the main "crack" - as far as you are concerned - that you think he would have legged it? Was that not how you reached your conclusion that Lechmere is "a nonstarter"?

Oh there are many reasons Christer, many, many reasons.

Monty

[Monty]

Monty
I knew you wouldn't appreciate your name being used approvingly in support of the Lechmere theory.

Actually, I didn't notice.

It is true to say that up to the sitting of the inquest held on 17th September, the only people seen by the police in Bucks Row were the
Green's, the manager of Essex Wharf, the watchman at the Snider's factory, the policeman at Great Eastern Wharf and the Board School keeper.
This was specifically drawn attention to. Whether it was rectified is open to doubt.

Well, clearly that's not true, as reports clarify that there is no doubt. However, I do accept that, up until that point on the 17th, not everybody had been seen.

We have no idea whether or not the police were following all leads. One would presume they would have been following all leads that they thought significant at the time.

Leads were followed, Thick makes this clear in his interview with the Times after Kellys murder, and I see no reason why leads would be discarded for Leather Apron. The fact Chapman was murdered only 8 days later really stretched resources, as leads came in by the flood load.

I would suggest that there was a breakdown in communication which led to the police not taking proper notice of the two Carmen's involvement because:
Neil was presented as the first finder in all initial news reports, at the first day of the inquest and as late as Sunday night in a statement that was issued to the press to contradict the Paul newspaper story.
The two Carmen were entirely absent from the narrative until Paul's story broke (which was initially pooh-poohed), and was only accepted after Lechmere's appearance at the inquest on the Monday (which may or may nit have been preceded by Lechmere appearing at a police station to give a statement).
Mizen is reported to have said that he had 'seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention.'

Again, as mentioned to Christer, I would say that's miscommunication, rather than a breakdown in communication. This happens, and it is easy to sit back 126 years later and pick over what little remains of the investigation carcass and make such claims.

We have no complete idea on what the police were doing within the day to day work during the investigation, only what is left behind in summary and special reports.

The stripping of the body by the Mortuary attendants after it was left unattended was mentioned several times during the inquest and it was repeated several times that instructions were given for the body not to be touched. It was initially thought that the clothing had been cut by the culprit rather than by the attendants to remove it. The removal of the clothing made it more difficult establish how the wounds were inflicted.
If it was not a matter of concern then it would not have been dwelt on at the inquest.

I agree. I just needed to know the context.

The case spiralled in other directions after the Chapman murder as a whole series of new leads had to be followed up. This is not uncommon in serial killings where the police get overwhelmed with information and it becomes more and more difficult to untangle earlier lines of enquiry or indeed revisit earlier aspects of the case.

Again, I agree, and appreciate the clarification.

There are no cracks in my theory.

There are, just a few, otherwise this thread would not be active.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:
Indeed, whoever enquiries were made. You must bear in mind the logistics involved, along with the numbers of available constable to undertake such a task. Sometimes you, and Ed, and many others, do not see the whole, but rather focus on one aspect, without considering the mitigating circumstances. J Division, at the time, was under strength.

Apparently the coroner didnīt think much of their need to chill a bit. He does not say anything at all about any mitigating circumstances, but instead wants the inquiries made A S A P. Realizing that two and a half weeks had passed since the murder, he could well have a point. Generally speaking, of course the resources you have will only cover so much - but you are the one who said that they followed up on all leads...

This fixation is undoubtedly taken from the reading of press reports. It is they, not the police, who were fixated on Leather Apron.

The press did itīs share. But Helson tells us that "careful search has been and is continued to made to find this man...", Thick arrested Pizer as supposedly being Leather Apron on the 10th of September and Abberline acknowledged that the prostitutes of the East End felt terror for Leather Apron who supposedly blackmailed and ill-used them. He was and he needed to be an important man to investigate on behalf of the police, and it is clear that they did what they could to find him.

Ah, conclusion reached. Therefore it is more an assumption than ascertained fact. I understand now.
Id say more miscommunication, if that scenario is true, than a breakdown in communication.

Aha, itīs a game of semantics now?
The information about the carmen was at hand from the second they left Mizen. But it was not communicated. Unless you believe that it WAS communicated but disbelieved by his superiors? Whether we call it miscommunication or a breakdown of communication is something I do not think is very relevant, but I would have thought that "miscommunication" pointed to some sort of wrongful communication, not the loss of communication as such.
And at the end of the day, a miscommunication on behalf of the police would not be a very commendable thing either, would it?

DS Enright stated that he informed the attendants not to touch the body, however that was denied. That said, I agree, the body should not have been touched, however Hatfield and Mann were conducting a common procedure when the dead arrive at the mortuary.
It is quite easy to pass judgement when one is ignorant of the era and what, exactly, occurred or was expected to occur. Hence my request for context.

It is equally easy to speak of ignorance when that is uncalled for. It is of no consequence that Mann and Hatfield conducted a common procedure as such, because that common procedure should have not come about since it had been ordered that the body should not be touched. And, just like I said, there was always the possibility to leave a guard with the body.

I agree. However that is not a sign of an incompetent police force.

Nor did I say it was.

Granted, there were failures, such as the management of the crime scene, however some of those failures you and Ed cite are, actually, assumptions, and not historical fact. It is those assumptions which you both require to validate your theory.

The theory builds on circumstantial evidence, and it is about in such amounts as to produce a very strong case. That is the simple truth.
Anybody can for example say that we just assume that he lied about his name because he was the killer, and they will be correct. We do assume that - but we do so because that assumption builds on a wealth of other indicators that he was the killer. Many a criminal has been convicted on circumstantial evidence, by the way.

Oh there are many reasons Christer, many, many reasons.

Did you change your mind, then? Iīm curious. Or are you still saying that he is a non-starter and that he would have run?
You are welcome to name any other reason at any time.
My guess is you wonīt. Letīs see if I am ignorant in that respect too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

There are, just a few, otherwise this thread would not be active.

Monty

That is wrong, I am afraid. It is quite enought that some ignorant person SAYS that he perceives a crack to keep the thread going.

And that happens all the time.

That does not mean that any crack is there, however.

What you postulate is that any critic offered is automatically valid critic. You may need to reconsider that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

You guess right.

Well done.

Monty

[Monty]

That is wrong, I am afraid. It is quite enought that some ignorant person SAYS that he perceives a crack to keep the thread going.

And that happens all the time.

That does not mean that any crack is there, however.

What you postulate is that any critic offered is automatically valid critic. You may need to reconsider that.

The best,
Fisherman

I reconsider nothing Christer.

The fact that issues, which have been raised for nigh on two years, and are still being raised, and have not been satisfied, is a pretty big indication you boys have a lot more work to do before this theory is convincing.

And the arrogance to state there are no cracks, well, I'll just leave you be to wallow in your own glory...until my interest is piqued again.

Monty

[DRoy]

That is wrong, I am afraid. It is quite enought that some ignorant person SAYS that he perceives a crack to keep the thread going.

And that happens all the time.

That does not mean that any crack is there, however.

What you postulate is that any critic offered is automatically valid critic. You may need to reconsider that.

The best,
Fisherman

Fish,

I'll keep it going. Although I sense arrogance in your post, I can't fathom why that would be since nobody but Lechmere accepts you've even made a case.

Your main 'evidence' boils down to a name, timing and murder site locations.

1) Name: gave Cross as his name instead of Lechmere. Do you have proof why he used the name? None at all. Any answer at all you come up with is 100% speculative.

2) Timing: How do we know what time Lech left his house? We can't. How do we know when Lech got to the murder site? We don't. How do we tell how long Lech was with Polly? We can't. Any answer you give is speculative unless of course you trust Lech and this part of his story. Why would you believe a killer though when you don't believe most of his other testimony?

3) murder sites: Lech's mother lives close and they follow his path to work. Do they really? Couldn't the same be said for people living by Lech's work who would have to cross the same path but in the opposite direction? How many people live within the area between Lech's home and work? Isn't it just as possible that someone living in the middle of the sites without a job took a right turn one day to kill and turned left the next time? You've 'found' a pattern when there is absolutely zero proof of one existing in the first place.

4) compound interest: you add 1, 2 and 3 up and arrive at guilty of murder. The problem with that of course is when you add zero plus zero plus zero you get zero which is the value of proof or evidence supporting your theory. Presuming he's guilty because he changed his name makes it easy to find times and paths that make him look even more guilty but it doesn't make it so.

There aren't cracks in the theory, there is only one big empty pit. It's pure fiction Fish, based on filling in the gaps with supposition and cherry picking the actual 'evidence'. Prove something, anything at all, then we'll all eat crow.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Monty: I reconsider nothing Christer.

I often do, whenever itīs called for. I think it is one of the more serious flaws in many posters out here that they fail to do so.

The fact that issues, which have been raised for nigh on two years, and are still being raised, and have not been satisfied, is a pretty big indication you boys have a lot more work to do before this theory is convincing.

So no mentioning of what the "many, many" issues were? You have to admit that I got that one spot on.
Actually, it will always be hard to "satisfy" those who say that he would have run by telling them that I donīt concur. And if people say that they believe - out of the blue - that he used to call himself Cross on Tuesdays, Fridays and on Sunday mornings, then they will be equally hard to "satisfy" by telling them that it is unsubstantiated balderdash. If these are the types of "issues" you refer to, then yes, I will and can not satisfy all people out here.
There are however not any "issues" that directly contradict or disprove the theory as such. There has never been and I suspect there will never be either. And keep in mind that we are talking about a theory with caserelated details involved. Itīs not a lofty theory about some deluded crackpot who the police thought a useful suspect back in 1888, where no critic can be offered on any caserelated details SINCE THERE ARE NO CASERELATED DETAILS TO CRITICIZE!
To my mind, that in itself blows any other suspect out of the water.

And the arrogance to state there are no cracks...

That was not me. It was Edward who said it. I only pointed out that whenever people say that there are cracks around, it is no given thing that this is so. It may equally apply that they are so pissed off by their inability to find any cracks, that they claim that they are there just the same.

If you had asked me straightforward if I DO think there are any cracks or not, it would have been another thing. I would have told you that there are undecided factors that one may discuss - but decidedly no cracks as such.

The best,
Fisherman