Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

The proven issues that spring to mind are the route to work and the name.

And yes the innocent explanations are also to a large part based on speculation because that is all we really have, [and I know that the same applies to his guilt] but I keep going back to the fact that the prosecution has to prove the case and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and so far it's just not there.

But again it may all be that we want different levels of persuasion.

That is VERY apparent, GUT!

Ifwe do not speak about the courts, but instead of the police: Do you think that they would have taken an interest in Lechmere if they had known what we know about the false name, his timings, his routes, the Mizen scam, the lack of hearing each other in Bucks Row - and Bath Street, the lighting conditions in Bath Street, the covered up body, the situation of his motherīs place, his old connections to St Georges-in-the-East ...?

I have always said that they would immediately identify him as the number one suspect and be all over him like a rash if they had known all these factors (obviously some of them were apparent, but they seem not to have investigated them further).

What policeman worth his salt could say "Nah, letīs leave him alone" with that kind of knowledge?

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

The proven issues that spring to mind are the route to work and the name.

And yes the innocent explanations are also to a large part based on speculation because that is all we really have, [and I know that the same applies to his guilt] but I keep going back to the fact that the prosecution has to prove the case and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and so far it's just not there.

But again it may all be that we want different levels of persuasion.

[Lechmere]

'an innocent explanation as being consistent with all of the proven issues, as opposed to the speculative issues'.

And the innocent explanations are not based on speculation? Really?
Proven issues? Like what exactly?
At least I can admit that the guilty explanations are based on conjecture and speculation.

[Fisherman]

G'day Fisherman

Yes possibly more convictions on circumstantial evidence that direct evidence prior to the developments in forensics no arguments about that.

But the fact that we are discussing it tells us nothing about his viability as a suspect, somewhere else on these boards someone was discussing Van Gogh that doesn't make him a viable suspect does it?

No, it does not. But that was not the point I am making.

Nobody in his right mind would even dream to suggest that a court case could be presented against van Gogh.

But it is clear that such a suggestion can be made visavi Lechmere.

He has the other suspects beaten by miles in this respect.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

GUT
If we are discussing his viability as a suspect, then how can you deny that he is a viable suspect when you admit there are guilty interpretations to his actions?
When determining viability as a suspect a much lower threshold of evidence or presumption is surely required compared to that necessary to initiate proceedings in court.

To destroy his viability as a suspect (and eliminate him as a suspect) some proof of innocence would be needed I would suggest. Or if not absolute proof of innocence, then something that very strongly suggests proof of innocence at this remove.
Such as that he was elsewhere on a given night, that he had an alibi that was known at the time, or that he was cleared at the time or investigated at the time and effectively 'let go', or some other circumstance that makes the relevant person wholly improbable.

Absolute proof of innocence would not of course be required to find him not guilty in a trial, because as you say people in such circumstances are innocent until found guilty and so proof of guilt is required, rather than proof of innocence (and the guilt can be based purely on circumstantial evidence).

G'day Lechmere

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.

[Lechmere]

GUT
If we are discussing his viability as a suspect, then how can you deny that he is a viable suspect when you admit there are guilty interpretations to his actions?
When determining viability as a suspect a much lower threshold of evidence or presumption is surely required compared to that necessary to initiate proceedings in court.

To destroy his viability as a suspect (and eliminate him as a suspect) some proof of innocence would be needed I would suggest. Or if not absolute proof of innocence, then something that very strongly suggests proof of innocence at this remove.
Such as that he was elsewhere on a given night, that he had an alibi that was known at the time, or that he was cleared at the time or investigated at the time and effectively 'let go', or some other circumstance that makes the relevant person wholly improbable.

Absolute proof of innocence would not of course be required to find him not guilty in a trial, because as you say people in such circumstances are innocent until found guilty and so proof of guilt is required, rather than proof of innocence (and the guilt can be based purely on circumstantial evidence).

[GUT]

If Lechmere goes down, he goes down on circumstantial evidence, not on conclusive proof.
It would not be the first time that a guilty verdict was reached on circumstantial evidence only. Far from it.

The mere fact that we are discussing the possibility of him being taken to task on the existing evidence should tell the story when it comes to how viable he is as a suspect.

All the best,
Fisherman

G'day Fisherman

Yes possibly more convictions on circumstantial evidence that direct evidence prior to the developments in forensics no arguments about that.

But the fact that we are discussing it tells us nothing about his viability as a suspect, somewhere else on these boards someone was discussing Van Gogh that doesn't make him a viable suspect does it?

[Fisherman]

I guess that's where we are coming at it from different perspectives, and please understand have a great deal of respect for you and Fisherman and the work you are doing on Cross, however I believe that the onus is to prove guilt not to prove innocence but that is probably because am an ardent supporter of Innocent until proven guilty.

If Lechmere goes down, he goes down on circumstantial evidence, not on conclusive proof.
It would not be the first time that a guilty verdict was reached on circumstantial evidence only. Far from it.

The mere fact that we are discussing the possibility of him being taken to task on the existing evidence should tell the story when it comes to how viable he is as a suspect.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Wasnīt it said that the brewery in Bath Street was well lit by outside gaslights? I seem to remember having read that, but I may be wrong.

If so, then Robert Paul should have seen Charles Lechmere walking in front of him.

All the best,
Fisherman

Here we go, the Evening News of September 7 1888:

"It has been stated that the street is a dark one, but this is altogether wrong, for it is well lighted at all hours of the night by the great lamps outside the brewery of Messrs. Mann and Crossman, in addition to the ordinary street lamps, and it seems inconceivable that such a well-lighted street would be selected for the crime."

The paper mistook Bath Street for Bucks Row, apparently. But at any rate, we here have it on record that "the great lamps" outside the brewery made the street well-lit. At ALL hours of the night.
So here we have Robert Paul walking out into the well-lit Bath Street, where reasonably Charles Lechmere would have walked right in front of him - and still he says at the inquest, as per the Times, that he had not met any one before he reached Buck's-row, and did not see any one running away.

He could not possibly have missed Lechmere - and yet he does. Why? Because, I would suggest, that as Robert Paul walked down the well-lit Bath Street, crossed Brady Street and turned into Buckīs Row, Charles Lechmere was occupied subduing, throttling and cutting away at Polly Nichols.

Once again the evidence is against the carman. Once again there is an anomaly. Once again, it seems more credible that he lied than told the truth. Once again, we can add to the pile of evidence that goes against Charles Allen Lechmere being innocent.

The stretch from the corner where Foster Street joins Bath Street is some sixty yards long. It was well lit by great lamps outside the brewery. Why did not Robert Paul see his fellow carman walking down that stretch? Why was Bath Street empty? Why was Lechmere not walking thirty, forty yards in front of the hurrying Paul?

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day Lechmere

I am aware of the innocent explanations. The innocent explanations do not come anywhere near to proving his innocence. And that is the task – to prove innocence so he can be eliminated.

And I guess that's where we are coming at it from different perspectives, and please understand have a great deal of respect for you and Fisherman and the work you are doing on Cross, however I believe that the onus is to prove guilt not to prove innocence but that is probably because am an ardent supporter of Innocent until proven guilty.

Re taking the case to Court personally I would need to see a lot more, but good luck with finding it.

[Fisherman]

Dr Strange seems to be suggesting that Lechmere bog hopped his way from urinal to urinal all the way from Doveton Street to Bucks Row to eat up those precious minutes. Perhaps like Cadosch he had some urinary condition and he had some prurient reason for not using his own privy.
Watch it Dr Strange, Miss Marple will be after you. Fancy accusing Charles Lechmere of such things with no foundation.

Myself, I would be pissed.

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

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.

Miss Marple
I am unaware of any fiction being created about Charles Lechmere’s life. I am unaware of any story being put forward in any way shape or form about his treatment of his wife. I am unaware of any negative analysis of his children. Beyond a couple of harmless questions from Barnaby.
I’m sure the ‘real’ fictional Miss Marple would pay more attention to the facts.

GUT
The point had been made that it was somehow illegitimate to look at Lechmere’s behaviours and see if a guilty interpretation could be put on them.
Clearly this is utter nonsense.
If I have previously said that his actions should be looked at both ways – to see of guilty or innocent explanations are available – then very clearly this is not a contradiction of the point that his actions should be looked at to see if there are guilty explanations. It is merely one half of the equation, raised in response to a ludicrous accusation.
I am aware of the innocent explanations. The innocent explanations do not come anywhere near to proving his innocence. And that is the task – to prove innocence so he can be eliminated.
Furthermore if there is a whole string of inter-related guilty interpretations then a strong circumstantial case is built. It remains to be seen (possibly) if such a string would have been enough to take a case to court.

Dr Strange seems to be suggesting that Lechmere bog hopped his way from urinal to urinal all the way from Doveton Street to Bucks Row to eat up those precious minutes. Perhaps like Cadosch he had some urinary condition and he had some prurient reason for not using his own privy.
Watch it Dr Strange, Miss Marple will be after you. Fancy accusing Charles Lechmere of such things with no foundation.

[Fisherman]

Wasnīt it said that the brewery in Bath Street was well lit by outside gaslights? I seem to remember having read that, but I may be wrong.

If so, then Robert Paul should have seen Charles Lechmere walking in front of him.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Please note how Lechmere will have passed Foster Street where Robert Paul lived, and so the two will have walked in tandem, thirty, forty feet inbetween them for around 200 yards, without hearing or seeing each other.

Remarkable, that!

The best,
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Hello Barnaby,

Here's a map showing the most likely (red), possible (orange) and perhaps (blue) routes for Crossmere, from Doveton to Buck's. The black circles are toilets where he could have stopped on the way. I don't know exactly where number 22 was, so I've started from the middle of Doveton.