Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=DRoy;302151]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.

I know a lot of people with very good judgment that think the case is an excellent one. They donīt post out here, however, but it does not invalidate their opinions. And posters out here have been very positive too, like Rubyretro and Barnaby, for example. So letīs try and be fair, shall we? Or I shall be sarcastic...

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

And the accoustic evidence from the street, the pulled down dress, the lies apparently told to Mizen, the appearance in court in working clothes, the fact that Lechmere mirrors Pauls paper article, and a few more bits and bobs. How many other suspects do you see out here that can compete? Please tell me!!!

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.

No, it is not. It is grounded in the FACTUAL matter that criminals are much, much more likely to use aliases than honest people, and in the FACT that he signed himself Lechmere on EVERY other occasion. How is that "speculative?. Tell me! Now!

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?

Weigh all the timings together (yes, it is a lot of work, but it has to be done) and then we can speak again.

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.

How many people were on the streets at that time? Listen to Neil, to Lechmere himself, to Paul, to Hutchinson: very few, if any. And how many of those very few had a reason to pass by ALL the sites? Do the bleeding maths, man! How many of these men were found standing by the body of a freshly killed victim. Think. Hard!! He lied about his name, he apparently lied himself past Mizen, the wounds were covered AND he fits the sites and times. How much better can it get?

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.

No, finding out about his nameswop does not alter his routes at all. Michael Connor pointed a finger at him for passing four of the spots, and he did at that stage not know about the namechange.

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.

Prove? I could probably statistically prove that most people who have all these things going against them are normally the culprits too. But I do not have the inclination to do so to satisfy somebody who cannot put two and two together himself - or simply wonīt. It would give nothing. Sorry, DRoy, but thatīs how I see it. Once somebody like you has decided not to consider something, or hasnīt the ability to do so, then there is little I can do about it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I say again - there are no cracks in the theory, no massive improbable leaps of faith in any of the steps that makes it up. There is no report that has to be ignored or that has to be pretended it does not exist (although there are contradictory reports which have to be weighed). The suspect is not one who starts off as being highly improbable. He was there and involved and we have no double to suggest the was cleared.
The case is speculative and circumstantial - but guess what - in the real world purely circumstantial cases are successfully brought. It depends on the weight and interconnectabillity of the circumstantial evidence.
I am happy that this casements these criteria.
No other case does.
Does it prove Lechmere did it? Of course not but he has a hell of a lot more going for him as a suspect than any other.

Oh - the Lechmere case isn't founded on police incompetence - it is based in part on a few errors which may have been caused by manning problems. The cause of these errors is secondary to the suggestion that they were made.

[Fisherman]

Of course, if anybody has identified a crack in the theory, I would be the first to welcome having it presented to me. I do not wish to entertain an untenable theory, and I would be grateful if any cracks that are there could be presented and dealt with accordingly so I can find out if I should stay or go.

Somebody? Anybody?

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

If the locations of the murders being either on his way to work or close to his mother's is part of the theory, then Mitre Square is a crack.

[Fisherman]

If the locations of the murders being either on his way to work or close to his mother's is part of the theory, then Mitre Square is a crack.

If we postulate that the murder spots must be along those tracks, yes - but Mitre Square probably came about as he fled from Berner Street - arguably along his old working route from James Street to Broad Street - into City territory, and close to the Pickfords depot.

He could not kill in his old quarters in St George for they were swarming with coppers.

So no crack, no - a very understandable choice when the first choice was no longer open to him.

I should perhaps say that I regard a crack as something that disenables the theory to be true.

the best,
Fisherman

Off to a restaurant now (one of my boys has his 18th birthday), so Iīm off.

[DRoy]

I know a lot of people with very good judgment that think the case is an excellent one. They donīt post out here, however, but it does not invalidate their opinions. And posters out here have been very positive too, like Rubyretro and Barnaby, for example. So letīs try and be fair, shall we? Or I shall be sarcastic...

Fish,

I have been positive too...about the investigative work you and Lechmere have done, not the theory.

And the accoustic evidence from the street, the pulled down dress, the lies apparently told to Mizen, the appearance in court in working clothes, the fact that Lechmere mirrors Pauls paper article, and a few more bits and bobs. How many other suspects do you see out here that can compete? Please tell me!!!

You don't know the acoustics from the street, nor the footwear of Paul or Lech, nor their hearing abilities, nor blah blah blah. You don't know who pulled the dress down, only that it was pulled down. The lies told to Mizen or Mizen telling lies to save his own @$$? What clothes was he supposed to wear?

No, it is not. It is grounded in the FACTUAL matter that criminals are much, much more likely to use aliases than honest people, and in the FACT that he signed himself Lechmere on EVERY other occasion. How is that "speculative?. Tell me! Now!

Criminals may be more likely but do you have anything to support Lech was a criminal at any point in his life? My original question was whether you have any evidence as to why he chose to call himself Cross instead of Lechmere...no need to answer because I know it doesn't exist. Yes, any answer without proof is speculative.

Weigh all the timings together (yes, it is a lot of work, but it has to be done) and then we can speak again.

I have already. Yes there is a time problem, however, I choose to accept his times were off by a few minutes in which case everyone's testimony could be plus or minus a couple minutes and works out just fine.

How many people were on the streets at that time? Listen to Neil, to Lechmere himself, to Paul, to Hutchinson: very few, if any. And how many of those very few had a reason to pass by ALL the sites? Do the bleeding maths, man! How many of these men were found standing by the body of a freshly killed victim. Think. Hard!! He lied about his name, he apparently lied himself past Mizen, the wounds were covered AND he fits the sites and times. How much better can it get?

What streets are you talking about? If you are talking about Polly's murder area in general, no there weren't many. However, if you draw a circle around the murder sites you get quite a few streets! How many people within that circle were walking about at that time? How many people from outside that circle had to walk by those sites? Is it not easy to presume people had family living on the left and their work on the right so they walked past those sites?

No, finding out about his nameswop does not alter his routes at all. Michael Connor pointed a finger at him for passing four of the spots, and he did at that stage not know about the namechange.

The sites also make a cross (no pun intended) and a pentagram . You don't know what route he normally used and you don't know whether he was close to his mother to even visit her.

Prove? I could probably statistically prove that most people who have all these things going against them are normally the culprits too. But I do not have the inclination to do so to satisfy somebody who cannot put two and two together himself. It would give nothing. Sorry, DRoy, but thatīs how I see it. Once somebody like you has decided not to consider something, or hasnīt the ability to do so, then there is little I can do about it.

I've done your math for you...it isn't me being unable to put two and two together, it's you adding zero + zero + zero and getting one hundred that's the problem. I'm open minded Fish but not open enough to accept speculation plus supposition plus conjecture equals guilt.

Cheers
DRoy

[moonbegger]

Fish ..

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.

If its fine to push the envelope to seven days .. I'm sure its equally fine to push it the other way ..

And I'm not saying "I told you so" but ..

Nobody who has not checked will say that it was EXACTLY 3.45.

moonbegger

[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

Its funny how perspective can change ones you remove your tunnel vision glasses .. and look at everything that was claimed by both men .
Paul ..

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.

So Pauls walks ahead , leaving Cross momentarily ..

Cross .. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row.

They .. being a collective of the two of them ! Still allowing Paul to be walking away first .

Paul .

and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come,

Paul simply uses the Singular .. to explain his part .

Cross .. "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right,"

Clearly, this comes after Paul has already made his comment ..

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Cross .. No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.

So we have Paul saying he Did ( and we have evidence ) and we have Cross saying he didn't ( we also have evidence )

And according to you , Mizen don't even know what the time is , let alone which of the two men spoke to him first ..

cheers

moonbegger

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The longer the post, the less cogent the message.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;302159]Of course, if anybody has identified a crack in the theory, I would be the first to welcome having it presented to me. I do not wish to entertain an untenable theory, and I would be grateful if any cracks that are there could be presented and dealt with accordingly so I can find out if I should stay or go.

Somebody? Anybody?

The best,
Fisherman[/

Double post

[Abby Normal]

Of course, if anybody has identified a crack in the theory, I would be the first to welcome having it presented to me. I do not wish to entertain an untenable theory, and I would be grateful if any cracks that are there could be presented and dealt with accordingly so I can find out if I should stay or go.

Somebody? Anybody?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi fish
There are two major cracks in the theory for me.
One -that a serial killer would kill on his way to work with all that entails. Especially one who would be carrying body parts and a murder weapon.

Two-that a serial killer would confront a witness, but also a policeman shortly after a kill, with body parts and murder weapon still on his body, rather than leave especially when he clearly had a chance to do so.

But I guess it's what your definition of what a crack is because I can at least admit there is no factual mistakes, or even logistical errors in your theory. It's all on the interpretation of the facts, circumstances and evidence that one would have to call any kind of crack in the theory. Even the two I mentioned above could totally be possible (I just find them highly unlikely courses of action).

Lech is way down on my list of viable suspects. I think he was just a witness on his way to work who found the body. That being said, as you know, I have always maintained that he is exactly the type of person that should be looked at and I commend you and lech on your work.

While highly sceptical of your theory I am also somewhat sympathetic and have not only debated you guys on possible weakness in the theory, but have admitted when you have made a good point and even thrown out possible avenues for further research (like work attendance records pickfords to see if he was actually off the day of Polly's murder. Because if he was not scheduled to work that day, believe me he would way up to the top.)

Now, in your theories defense I do also see cracks in lechs story. Not so much the apparent Mizen scam, as I think Mizen, just misremembered, nor the name swap, though that's a little dubious, as I think he may have been known at pickfords as cross.

The one that really has my attention is the missing time we've just recently been discussing. Where was lech? What took him so long? It seems hard to beleive the anal lech, who apparently had a good work record, had a job that depended on being good with time, tells police that he left home at a time that clearly would leave a gap unaccounted for. Paul arrived in bucks row only what a minute or two behind lech according to lech so lech can't say the missing time comes from him dawdling about in bucks row for a long time wondering what to do about the woman.

Now the clincher. Lech says he's late for work. This means he knows what time he left home. There goes the he didn't know what time it was when he left excuse. The missing time. For me, if there's a red flag with lech, this is it.

[Fisherman]

Thatīs one birthday taken care of - parents are not that necessary for the success of it when the kids are grown, so my son does the pubcrawling while I get to Casebook.

I have read DRoys and Moonbeggers answers, and decided not to answer - if it is not old hat, itīs faulty. And I donīt like having it claimed that I think things that I do not think. End of story.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi fish
There are two major cracks in the theory for me.
One -that a serial killer would kill on his way to work with all that entails. Especially one who would be carrying body parts and a murder weapon.

Two-that a serial killer would confront a witness, but also a policeman shortly after a kill, with body parts and murder weapon still on his body, rather than leave especially when he clearly had a chance to do so.

But I guess it's what your definition of what a crack is because I can at least admit there is no factual mistakes, or even logistical errors in your theory. It's all on the interpretation of the facts, circumstances and evidence that one would have to call any kind of crack in the theory. Even the two I mentioned above could totally be possible (I just find them highly unlikely courses of action).

Lech is way down on my list of viable suspects. I think he was just a witness on his way to work who found the body. That being said, as you know, I have always maintained that he is exactly the type of person that should be looked at and I commend you and lech on your work.

While highly sceptical of your theory I am also somewhat sympathetic and have not only debated you guys on possible weakness in the theory, but have admitted when you have made a good point and even thrown out possible avenues for further research (like work attendance records pickfords to see if he was actually off the day of Polly's murder. Because if he was not scheduled to work that day, believe me he would way up to the top.)

Now, in your theories defense I do also see cracks in lechs story. Not so much the apparent Mizen scam, as I think Mizen, just misremembered, nor the name swap, though that's a little dubious, as I think he may have been known at pickfords as cross.

The one that really has my attention is the missing time we've just recently been discussing. Where was lech? What took him so long? It seems hard to beleive the anal lech, who apparently had a good work record, had a job that depended on being good with time, tells police that he left home at a time that clearly would leave a gap unaccounted for. Paul arrived in bucks row only what a minute or two behind lech according to lech so lech can't say the missing time comes from him dawdling about in bucks row for a long time wondering what to do about the woman.

Now the clincher. Lech says he's late for work. This means he knows what time he left home. There goes the he didn't know what time it was when he left excuse. The missing time. For me, if there's a red flag with lech, this is it.

Now THIS is a far better post, where a lot of thought has gone into it!

You think the killing en route to work and the confronting bits are cracks, Abby - but you concede that it may well have gone down this way nevertheless.

I like that. I dislike the kind of people who say that it could not. It could, simple as that, and then we owe it to ourselves to admit this. That does not mean that we must favour the suggestion, only that we realize that it could work anyway.

I noted your thoughts on the timings, and yes, it is impossible to fit Lechmere into the schedule that takes form when reading the inquest information. I agree.

Maybe I should be very happy about your red flag too, since it all seems very logical the way you present it. And of course one needs to know when one left home in order to know if one is late, that is very true.

So on the surface of things, yes we can conclude that he WAS aware of when he left home - and he DID mention a time (or two, to be more precise, out of which only one would make him late: the 3.30 departure).

Then again, we are playing with entities I am not sure ever existed - for all I know, he may have totally lied about it, and he may have left his house at a time that was never mentioned. If he left a lot earlier to enable him to look for prey and take his time, he may well have lost track of the time at the stage Paul met him. And in such a case, his statement that he was late could have been something that was not led on by any knowledge of the time, but instead by a wish not to be left alone with Nichols, waiting for the police to arrive - he may have preferred to join up with Paul and just blurted out the best excuse he could think of: that he was late too.

Of course, in such a case we would KNOW that he was the culprit, whereas in your (clever) scenario, we only get confirmation that he would have had a substantial amount of time unaccounted for.

I can live with both versions, to be honest!

Thanks for providing a soundly reasoned and balanced post, Abby - I needed that!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Just saw this part in your post, Abby: "Paul arrived in bucks row only what a minute or two behind lech according to lech..."

Paul was thirty to forty yards behind Lechmere, no more than that, according to our carman. That would equate perhaps twenty seconds, nothing much more than that!

Of course, if Lechmere was the killer, he would have all the reason in the world to place Paul as close to him as possible in time and space, since that would nullify the risk that he himself was the killer in the eyes of the coroner and jurymen.
This is why it becomes very weird in terms of accoustics, since Lechmere says that he would have heard if anybody stirred down at Browns Stable Yard when he turned into Bucks Row. That equates him asserting us that you would no doubt hear somebody moving 130 yards away.

Funnily, he was not able to hear a briskly walking Paul until the latter was 30 yards away...?
So Lechmere could hear anything 130 yards off in an east-westernly direction in Bucks Row, but he could only hear brisk steps 30 yards off in a west-easternly direction. That does not pan out.

Personally, I would also say that it is kind of odd that Lechmere offered a distance at all. If I was the one witnessing about how I stood in the middle of the street, looking at the body of a woman, I would most probably say that I heard a newcomer arrive, or that another man came along as I stood there. I donīt think that I would approximate and add the distance from which I noticed the newcomer.

Then again, I am no killer, and I would not have the need to impress upon the jury that I would not have had the time to kill the woman before the newcomer arrived.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Barnaby]

Hey Fisherman,

If we take Cross and Paul at their word (and no real reason to distrust Paul), this is what occurred:

Cross, while walking down the street, notices a body. At about the same time, he hears Paul coming from about 40 yards away. Neither Cross nor Paul report hearing each other beyond this distance, and Paul doesn't report hearing Cross at all until he is basically on top of him.


Maybe Paul doesn't hear Cross because Cross isn't walking but simply inspecting the body. But how long was he "inspecting the body." From Cross, not long at all. So Paul should have heard Cross prior to Cross finding the body.

So, to me, Cross lied about how long he was with the body. Either because he was the murderer or because poking around a dead body looks incriminating. In isolation, the latter is reasonable, but when combined with his other suspicious behavior one begins to wonder...