Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;302772]

Fish,

So if he wasn't stupid, then it was a deliberate decision to create the timing anomaly. Why? Presumably because he left no later than 3.20 (possibly earlier) and feared his wife would confirm this if she were asked by the police.

I would warn about predisposing that it was a deliberate decision to create the time anomaly - Einstein may have forgotten to bring an umbrella in rainy weather, and he was a clever guy too.
My own personal take on matters is that he may well have added a measure of minutes to the time he actually left, but what we have is what we must go by and it is very much in line with him having had that window of opportunity.

In that case what did he do with the extra time? 18 mins, possibly more, and he couldn't even manage any organ removal.

Come on, Mr Barnett - he may have had to wait for ten minutes before a suitable prey - Nichols - came along.

Did it take him that long to find Nichols in the first place? Did he take a detour from his 'proven' route to find her? And having done so, did he then deliberately take her back to his work route to murder her?

We can only guess. I do think, however, that the prostitutes normally were the ones who chose the spot. And there is every chance that he picked her up on Whitechapel road.

Perhaps that was the case with the other victims. He went off route to find them and then took them back to make a point of some kind. What do you think?

I think that out of the ones who fell prey along his working trek, Nichols is the only one where I donīt prioritize the murder spot as the place where he necessarily met his victim. Could have, though!
Osborn/Wentworth, George Yard close by Old Montague, Hanbury Street, Dorset Street - these women he would have had a very decent chance of having met without straying from his trek.

Personally, I've always believed the choice of location was the women's, not Jack's. And it's unlikely that he found them soliciting within a few yards of where they were killed. So the significance of the two 'proven' routes is severely diminished. He went off route, whatever that was , to find his victims and they then took him to the places they knew where they could be assured of a few minutes' privacy, but not so secluded that they couldn't call for help if necessary.

I think I have given my answer to that already, Mr Barnett.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Barnaby
I accept that the burden of proof is on those trying to make a case - but GUT was going beyond that, probably to be fair just by using slightly imprecise wording, in suggesting that the case for Lechmere's innocence was based on some proven matter.

Moonbeggar.
Errrr
No I'm not saying that Thain was right.
Llewellyn was more likely to be right, mind you, for the time he was called up. But I would suggest that coordinating Than with Llewellyn is more likely to put the Neil-Thain conversation at 3.50 - but that's another story.

You have been imagining that you had discovered some sort of major point about Lechmere raising a red flag against himself by saying he left at 3.30, when he may have known that Paul put their meeting at 3.45 - thus advertising that he had a window of 8 minutes unaccounted for.
Have you forgotten that?

I am suggesting that maybe Lechmere gave the time of 3.30 as he was trying to coordinate his story with the very well publicised timings given by Neil (rather than Thain actually). That would have resulted in only a very small window of opportunity (and barely a red flag) between Lechmere's leaving time of 3.30 and Neil arriving at Brown's Stable Yard at 3.45.
This does not mean (need I say - yes I seem to have to) that I have suddenly come around to thinking that Neil did actually get there at 3.45.
I am suggesting that maybe Lechmere gave his time based on Neil's advertised timing.
That's all.

With regard to the timings, I have also said repeatedly, that all that can be said that with the timings as given, Lechmere certainly hasn't got a 'time' alibi. He has a window of opportunity wide enough for him to have carried out the murder. The timings could be shrunk to disallow it also.

With a victim who had only just been freshly killed, and indeed where the doctor estimated she had been killed more or less moments before the Paul-Lechmere meeting, and further given that the state of the body and the clothing suggested that the killer may have been interrupted, then with the timing issue you could not do any better than to suggest opportunity on the part of Lechmere.
This is not proof but you could not realistically get a better combination of circumstances that are capable of a guilty interpretation.

And yes, if you were to proceed through all the different aspects there are alternative guilty or innocent explanations - that is a given.
But it is the sheer quantity of potential guilty explanations - rather than each individual one - that build together to make this case.

[DRoy]

My own thinking is that it is strange that he is never absolved from a single point.

Fish,

My thinking is that it is strange that some find him guilty so easily with not a single point to go on.

Why did not Mizen say that TWO men spoke to him?

Ask Mizen. Why is it Lech's fault Mizen states he only talked to one person and how does this somehow incriminate Lech?

Why do not Mizen and Lechmere agree about what the PC was told?

See above.

Why is it that it seems that Lechmere played down the seriousness of the errand?

'Seems' is a good word. Could it be because he didn't know the seriousness? Did Paul know the seriousness? This doesn't incriminate Lech in any way.

Why was not Nichols left with her clothes flung up over her?

Ask the killer. Nobody knows who pulled her clothes down, nor why, nor when. This doesn't incriminate Lech in any way.

Why did he not say "Lechmere" as he was asked for his name?

I'm not even going to bother with this one.

Why did not Paul say that he noticed a bloke walking some way up ahead?

Because he didn't notice one. Seriously, this isn't evidence against Lech at all why Paul could/couldn't, did/didn't...

Why did Lechmere not go to the inquest in his Sunday best when everybody else did?

How do you know they did? How do you know what he normally wore? How do you know these weren't his best clothes? How do you know he didn't have a huge job immediately afterwards? This is not incriminating in the least.

Why did he ommitt to mention where he lived in front of the inquest?

No proof he did. It may have been stated but not heard. Not the least bit suspicious or incriminating.

Why is it that the time he left home allows for him to have done the deed?

Because he had to leave home at some time to arrive at work when he's supposed to! Should he have left two hours early to arrive at work two hours early? The other murders are earlier or later so did he change his shift daily?

Why couldnīt just Paul have said that he actually DID see somebody en route to work - a man under the brewery lamps?

Because he didn't see anybody. Really? These questions are your evidence?

Why is it that the murders coincide with Lechmeres logical routes to work?

They coincide with anyone going the opposite direction as well. They also coincide with someone living in the heart of the murder sites and either turning left or right. Wow! Is there a pattern in the murder sites?

Why did the victims all die at hours that logically tally with his route to work?

I don't see they do. We don't know when his shift was nor what routes he took except for the one day.

Why did just Stride have to die at 12.45 - on a free night for Lechmere?

Free night, how can we be so sure? If she died 5 hours earlier or later would it make any difference to you?

Why could not one of the working trek victims have been the one that died at 12.45?

Because you'd find a way to make the puzzle piece fit anyway?

Why did Eddowes die so close to the convenient Broad Street depot?

That question and the wording of it doesn't warrant a response

Why is Eddowes the only other victim to die early? On Lechmereīs free night?

See my response about Stride.

Why canīt the poor man get one single break and have his story confirmed and proven in just one single, measly instance? Why is it that we ALWAYS find the room for him to have done it?

Because even if it doesn't fit some people find a way to make it fit. An example would be Lech's mother living on the supposed murder path yet no proof Lech even talked to mother or visited or walked from her house at any time.

For a supposed serial murderer, he sure did a lot of things that at least a couple see as incriminating. Was he really that dumb to leave so much info out there for others to interpret as sure signs of guilt...or are those couple Lech murderer supporters that good at armchair detective work? Hmmmm...

Cheers
DRoy

[moonbegger]

Moonbeggar
Neil stated he was at the crime scene at about 3:45, like Paul, but at leastvguve minutes must have separated them.
Can you work for yourself now that if Lechmere gave his times to conform with Neil and not Paul then he would not have been out by very much?
Another one of your schoolboy errors.

Also I'm not entirely sure of what you think is signified by the press report about the hullabaloo in the vicinity of Bucks Row after the murder.

So are you claiming that Thain was correct with his Times ( especially when tied in with Llewellyn's 4am call)

Or was Paul right with his Exactly 3.45 ? Choose a horse and ride it !

Here is the thing , We Don't know what times were off and who's times were on .. we don't even know what time Cross left for work ! " About 3.30" allowing for just after , and fitting in nicely .. then we have "3.20" which would IF claimed would raise obvious concerns .. By using the same logic you apply to the Lechmere case.. He obviously said "About 3.30" because if he said 3.20 .. he would have been questioned about it .. and there is no evidence that he was .

Infact "About 3.30" as well as pointing to his innocence , also points to the suggestion that he did mirror Pauls time after all, If guilty
The whole 3.20 time makes no sense Guilty or innocent .

See that Ed , another one of my school boy errors is to look at both sides of the equation impartially ..

like I have said many times regarding the CrossMere claim , you are building your house on quicksand .. present some solid facts instead of flip flopping from one moot point to another .

Every guilty action has an innocent Explanation , just like every Innocent explanation has a guilty accusation .. that is the CrossMere theory in a nutshell .

Infact as you correctly point out , that is the same with a lot of suspects ..

cheers , moonbegger .

[Barnaby]

Lechmere,

I think GUT's skepticism is reasonable. The burden of proof should be on those advancing Lechmere as the Ripper. I don't think we should all by default just sit on the fence and wait to be swayed. Rather, we should be skeptical of all suspects unless sufficient evidence convinces us otherwise. What constitutes "sufficient evidence" is different for everyone, I suppose.

[Lechmere]

GUT
Without wishing to labour the point, you said:

I think my words were that there is a glimmer of a possibility of a guilty interpretation. However see an innocent explanation as being consistent with all of the proven issues, as opposed to the speculative issues.

This implies that you think your belief in Lechmere’s innocence is based on more factual or proven issues than is my suspicion as to his guilt.
However, your belief in his innocence is based purely on your conjecture and speculation about these proven issues.
We have an incident that can be explained in alternative ways – you always choose the innocent explanation. That is speculation just as much as choosing the guilty explanation.
Your speculative choice may be more personally satisfying to you but it is no more based on anything that is proven than is the guilty choice.

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
Neil stated he was at the crime scene at about 3:45, like Paul, but at leastvguve minutes must have separated them.
Can you work for yourself now that if Lechmere gave his times to conform with Neil and not Paul then he would not have been out by very much?
Another one of your schoolboy errors.

Also I'm not entirely sure of what you think is signified by the press report about the hullabaloo in the vicinity of Bucks Row after the murder.

[Barnaby]

And anyway, things always coincide with my theory, so Iīm quite used to it.
Fisherman

I've noticed this. You do have a good amount of inductive support for your explanation of the events. And you get about as close as one can get to generating testable predictions (e.g., with the acoustics) 125 years later.

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

So if he wasn't stupid, then it was a deliberate decision to create the timing anomaly. Why? Presumably because he left no later than 3.20 (possibly earlier) and feared his wife would confirm this if she were asked by the police .

In that case what did he do with the extra time? 18 mins, possibly more, and he couldn't even manage any organ removal.

Did it take him that long to find Nichols in the first place? Did he take a detour from his 'proven' route to find her? And having done so, did he then deliberately take her back to his work route to murder her?

Perhaps that was the case with the other victims. He went off route to find them and then took them back to make a point of some kind. What do you think?

Personally, I've always believed the choice of location was the women's, not Jack's. And it's unlikely that he found them soliciting within a few yards of where they were killed. So the significance of the two 'proven' routes is severely diminished. He went off route, whatever that was , to find his victims and they then took him to the places they knew where they could be assured of a few minutes' privacy, but not so secluded that they couldn't call for help if necessary.

MrB

[Fisherman]

Which still poses the unanswerable question , why not simply conform with Pauls time ?
Cheers

Moonbegger

Once again, I have given my answer to this.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

G'day Fisherman

But your view of his intelligence is based on you seeing him as the killer and not the other way around, you need to prove that he was anything but stupid. If he was stupid would you agree that the case against him is damaged? Or do you think a stupid person could act in the manner he did?

Yes, my take on his intellectual capabilities is grounded in my belief that he was the killer.
I see no reason to think he was stupid if he was not the killer - he seems coherent enough, he has held downa steady job for twenty years, he opened up his own business, he passed a tidy sum on as he died.
If he WAS stupid, then it would undoubtedly do a lot of damage to the theory I ascribe to.

But he wasnīt stupid.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

He would have been quite quick in his thought process, and he would have been able to carefully construe a functioning alternative truth in relatively little time

Which still poses the unanswerable question , why not simply conform with Pauls time ?

He raises the (look at me , I'm guilty , red flag) with his timing issues , on the slim chance that his wife may contradict him . But we are led to believe that this first class pathological liar would not be able to come up with something on the spot, or for that matter, had a ready made excuse and explanation ready for the lost minutes should it come to light .. and really there is no reason it should come to light , unless of course it is he (Lechmere) who brings it to light by not aligning his statement with Paul ..

So why would he not simply conform with Pauls timing , and deal with time contradiction should it arise .. and there really is no reason it should have .
He has the whole name change explanation ready to go , so why jeopardize everything by not conforming with Pauls times ?

Not even the double lie excuse would make much sense .. because if he's prepared to tell one lie (his name) then he is forced automatically to tell the 2nd lie to cover the first one ! But he does not .. rings of nothing to hide to me IMHO .

Cheers

Moonbegger

[GUT]

He was not necessarily extremely bright (and I donīt think that has been suggested either), but most definitely anything but stupid. He would have been quite quick in his thought process, and he would have been able to carefully construe a functioning alternative truth in relatively little time. He was apparently fearless too or able to hide his fear, so comparing him to a rabbit in the headlights does not hold up.

If you want to see what a rabbit in the headlights looks like, just take a look on the "Lechmere didnīt do it" community...

The best,
Fisherman

G'day Fisherman

But your view of his intelligence is based on you seeing him as the killer and not the other way around, you need to prove that he was anything but stupid. If he was stupid would you agree that the case against him is damaged? Or do you think a stupid person could act in the manner he did?

[Fisherman]

Well, the one thing the two lies have in common is a fear of his wife's reaction if the police do come calling. The name switch as an attempt to prevent her hearing about the events in the first place, and the dodgy timings as an acknowledgement that if she is questioned, she will not lie for him.

I don't see why we should think of Lech as particularly bright. The evidence suggests otherwise. The bluffing of Paul strikes me as much a case of rabbit in the headlights as a carefully considered reaction.

MrB

He was not necessarily extremely bright (and I donīt think that has been suggested either), but most definitely anything but stupid. He would have been quite quick in his thought process, and he would have been able to carefully construe a functioning alternative truth in relatively little time. He was apparently fearless too or able to hide his fear, so comparing him to a rabbit in the headlights does not hold up.

If you want to see what a rabbit in the headlights looks like, just take a look on the "Lechmere didnīt do it" community...

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Proven route to work and his name disprove the theory?
That's news to me.

What I said, or meant if it was unclear is that there are innocent explanations for those two issues. In fact I said that innocent explanations are consistent with the proven issues.