Charles Lechmere interesting link

[MrBarnett]

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

[moonbegger]

Just as a side note .. This article from the local paper , does seem to highlight the heightened awareness around the Bucks row area ..

Throughout the week the interest in the Whitechapel murder has been kept at fever heat. Following so closely as it does upon the shocking murder of the unfortunate Martha Tabram; such excitement was only to be expected, ignoring altogether the horrible mutilation of the second victim. The scene of the fearful tragedy has been daily visited by hundreds of people who freely conversed amongst themselves upon the all absorbing topic - the prospects of bringing the murderer to justice, while the green gates of the mortuary in Montague-street were the objects of an awesome curiosity. Special writers and artists have visited the spot in large numbers, and many are the inquiries that have been promiscuously set on foot in the neighbourhood by amateur detectives. It is not surprising that these frequent and brutal crimes should have alarmed the residents in the locality - which it is well known is a rather low one - especially as there seems at present to be no likelihood of the perpetrators of these dreadful outrages being discovered. The residents are only too willing and glad to be of any service to the authorities, so there is no difficulty in this respect. Of course, there are many rumours as to the action of the police. It is stated, though not authoritatively, that the detectives are carefully watching a number of persons in the vicinity

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Anyone ?

Couldnīt be my turn - I have already given my view.

Fisherman

[moonbegger]

anyone fancy having a stab at this ..

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

Anyone ?

[moonbegger]

Moonbeggar
I missed your point about why Lechmere would have said he left at 3.30 as that would allow a guilty looking window when combined with Paul’s newspaper account.
Obviously this is guess work – as I cannot see into his mind – but maybe Lechmere was taking more notice of, and conforming to, the much more widely publicised timings given by PC Neil.

PC Neil also states 3.45 ? on the 1st ,

At a quarter to 4 o'clock Police-constable Neill, 97J, when in Buck's-row, Whitechapel, came upon the body of a woman

Cheers

Moonbegger

[Fisherman]

As can be seen from this photo, Christer.
Even in daylight a person may have blended in due the bend in the distance.

Jon!

I appreciate that much work must go into trying to exonerate the carman at any price, and you are pulling a heavy load.

However, take a look at that bend yourself, and imagine where the lamp was.

Lechmere would perhaps have walked to the right of the lamp, from Pauls point of view, but I am still certain that he would have been clearly visible - lamps are surrounded by an aura of light, gas lamps included..

At any rate, as Lechmere stepped down from the pavement and walked out into the middle of the road, he had to walk right past the lamp, from where Paul was. Straight past it.

Just saying.

The best we (you) can do for Lechmere is to try and conjure up reasons why he would not be visible when passing in front of a shining lamp, why he would not be audibly detectable to Paul, why the two may have been much longer apart walking down Bath street (aptly named since it bathed those who passed outside the brewery in light) und so weiter.

The more logical thing to do would be to admit that there is something very strange involved in what Lechmere said. It simply does not pan out on any level.

Why do you think he felt inclined to assess the distance to Paul as he noticed him in the first place...? Would the inquest and the coroner be interested in the exact measure?

Or was Lechmere working on his innocent pose?

I know what I think.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. Why do you suppose you can see that lorry in your picture as a large silhouette? Could it be due to the light shining on the lorry from behind it?

[Jon Guy]

As can be seen from this photo, Christer.
Even in daylight a person may have blended in due the bend in the distance.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks all the same, Fish.

[Mr Lucky]

Having said that, I don't think anyone has claimed to have enough evidence on Lechmere to warrant prosecution.

Hi Barnaby

Actually I have, but it's far more complicated than that and though a prosecution case can be made against Cross for the Buck's-row murder, paradoxically by the time the ripper murders come to an end, Cross actually had immunity from prosecution (unknown to him of course).

[Fisherman]

Found it!

Ah - I was just going to post the link

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=16979&page=35

...since there are different bids. I have seen it placed to the east of Essex wharf, but I think Rob Clack has got it correct on the picture in this link.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Out of curiosity, where exactly was the cap factory?

MrB

Found it!

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: The Schneider`s lamp (it would be described as a glow, rather than shining), if between Paul and Cross , would have hindered Paul`s viewpoint of anything past the lamp, Christer.

Possibly. But it wasnīt between them, Jon. Lechmere was between Paul and the lamp...

Yes, Cross stepped into the middle of the street and Paul noticed him.

AFTER he had done so. It is not said that it was the movement that made Paul see Lechmere. Paul says clearly that the man he saw was STANDING in the middle of the road/where the woman was.

Agreed, but that was after the chaps had seen initially each other.

Was it? It is not defined as such, so it could have been either way.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

You're not sure?

Roy

I was being sarcastic. I am sure of that, at least.

Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Out of curiosity, where exactly was the cap factory?

MrB

[Jon Guy]

If he DID, then he would have had the lamp at Schneiders cap factory behind him, as seen from Paulīs viewpoint, thirty, forty yards behind Lechmere. I think Rob and Edward have agreed that this lamp was shining on the night.

So why did not Paul see him? He would have been the solar eclipse of that lamp to Paul..

The Schneider`s lamp (it would be described as a glow, rather than shining), if between Paul and Cross , would have hindered Paul`s viewpoint of anything past the lamp, Christer.

Anyways, Jon, lamp or not, Lechmere did not become visible to Paul as he stepped into the middle of the street. He was already there when Paul saw him..

Yes, Cross stepped into the middle of the street and Paul noticed him.

PS. Lechmere actually says that what he did when Paul arrived was to step back! Itīs in a couple of the papers.

Agreed, but that was after the chaps had seen initially each other.