Charles Lechmere interesting link

[moonbegger]

Evening all

the gap in his timings was not noticed - innocent or guilty.

Or Maybe it was , and he had a perfectly acceptable explanation ( there really is no proof either way), just like the explanation he had regarding his name ?

And on that note .. 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 he would not have 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 .

Cheers

Moonbegger

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

Fish ,

"Speculation based on conjecture , I thought we put this ole chestnut to bed some time back .. The Inquest was on Monday , Cross dressed for work , you really don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude he was either going to work or at work and was either hunted down or decided to volunteer his statement . ( Unless I am totally unaware , and you now have proof that he had Monday off work )'

Failure to answer !!!

Here it is then - you are wrong. The police did NOT put any faith at all in Pauls story. Pauls story is the only way they would have known about "Cross". Ergo, they never spent a second in search of him, but instead believed that John Neil was the one who had found the body.

Incidentally, my "failure to answer" was to some extent led on by the fact that I have answered this a hundred times before.

So where is the big crime or drama with him using a Legit name ?

To begin with, it is NOT a "legit name", legally speaking. Only one name is legit when speaking to the police and an inquest - your true one. And the drama lies in the false name being part of the revelation that Charles Lechmere was a liar and quite probably the killer of Nichols - and Jack the Ripper. So BOTH crime and drama.

A/ Not Necessarily .

Yes, necessarily.

B/oh yeah , his deaf , dumb , blind , illiterate , unsociable , non gossiping wife

She was not deaf, she was not dumb and she was not blind. We cannot know whether he was unsociable or non gossiping.

She was illiterate. But that should not mean that she be castigated by someone like you for anything else.

Thank you for the debate. I will not participate any more in it with you until further notice.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lech ,



I may well have misread your point about his identity being still masked during a police visit , I cant be assed to trawl through the boards , but the fact that you post this leads me to no other conclusion other than I was mistaken ..

Cheers
moobegger .

Well, THANK GOD for that!

If you do not wish to "trawl through the boards", then please be a bit more discerning about what you suggest on my and Edwards behalf.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Fish ,

"Speculation based on conjecture , I thought we put this ole chestnut to bed some time back .. The Inquest was on Monday , Cross dressed for work , you really don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude he was either going to work or at work and was either hunted down or decided to volunteer his statement . ( Unless I am totally unaware , and you now have proof that he had Monday off work )'

Failure to answer !!!

"Finally...? What on earth are you going on about? We have for three years been saying that he used the name Cross since it would have some legitimacy tied to it."

So where is the big crime or drama with him using a Legit name ?

and further more , what is to stop Lechmere using that same explanation at the police station , and save himself having to worry about the Police finding out ?

His wife. If he gave the name Cross, but said that he actually was called Lechmere, then he would
A/ Have been given as Cross A K A Lechmere in the police reports.
B/ Not have been able to keep it from his wife that he was the witness.

A/ Not Necessarily .
B/oh yeah , his deaf , dumb , blind , illiterate , unsociable , non gossiping wife

Cheers

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Lech ,

(Get that? If the police had visited his house, where his wife lived, then Lechmere would not have been able to mask his true identity and his wife would have discovered that he had been involved and called himself Cross).

I may well have misread your point about his identity being still masked during a police visit , I cant be assed to trawl through the boards , but the fact that you post this leads me to no other conclusion other than I was mistaken ..

Cheers
moobegger .

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

Fish ,

Speculation based on conjecture , I thought we put this ole chestnut to bed some time back .. The Inquest was on Monday , Cross dressed for work , you really don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude he was either going to work or at work and was either hunted down or decided to volunteer his statement . ( Unless I am totally unaware , and you now have proof that he had Monday off work )

As for the rest of the conundrum Fish, I fear you are not fully getting it ,
your reach may exceed your grasp on this particular point sir , so I will leave it for others to ponder .

I am "getting" every single bit of your conundrum - and I just presented how it is untangled. He could not give the real departure time to the inquest for fear that his wife would give him away if the police payed them a visit, something that was entirely on the cards.

If there is somebody here that fails to comprehend, itīs not me.

Ah so we finally get to the meat & veg .. Cross does indeed have some legitimate reason to use the name Cross !!

Finally...? What on earth are you going on about? We have for three years been saying that he used the name Cross since it would have some legitimacy tied to it.

Where were you those three years?

and further more , what is to stop Lechmere using that same explanation at the police station , and save himself having to worry about the Police finding out ?

His wife. If he gave the name Cross, but said that he actually was called Lechmere, then he would
A/ Have been given as Cross A K A Lechmere in the police reports.
B/ Not have been able to keep it from his wife that he was the witness.

Like I have said ninetyfive times now, as long as the police did not pay his wife a vist, he would be fine with them knowing all about him, name included. But he could NEVER bank on the police stayng away from him.

.. especially if some one knew him at the local inquest and happened to mention it ..

If that had happened, we would know - he would have been down as Cross A K A Lechmere in the reports.

Oh and Fish ..

Yeah...?

I think you will find that your team man Lechmere posted that .. and my response was to the argument , not you personally .. but you do like to jump in with both feet before testing the water .. so what can I say ???

You can say "Iīll go take a look again". Myself, I will not do so however, since I know that Edward is also of the opinion that a police visit to his house would in all probability give his true identity away. It goes without saying.

What more can you get wrong, Moonbegger?

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Moonbegger,

I think that you raise a really good point about why not lie about the time he left given he had no qualms lying about his name.

The case against seems a very precise and exact science , but I feel the above scenarios , which if fact play out as one big scenario , are contradictions of each other .. unless of course he had nothing to hide on both counts !

I follow most of your argument but if he had nothing to hide on both counts why didn't he use his real name? This was rather official business.

Hello Barnaby ,

I think that Lechmere just answered that one for me .. As I have always believed Lechmere did indeed have some legitimate reason or excuse to use the name Cross ..
cheers
moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Fish ,

That was also, by the way, why he went to the inquest in his working gear - he kept it from his wife, and so he could not go away that morning in his Sunday best.

Speculation based on conjecture , I thought we put this ole chestnut to bed some time back .. The Inquest was on Monday , Cross dressed for work , you really don't have to be a rocket scientist to conclude he was either going to work or at work and was either hunted down or decided to volunteer his statement . ( Unless I am totally unaware , and you now have proof that he had Monday off work )

As for the rest of the conundrum Fish, I fear you are not fully getting it ,
your reach may exceed your grasp on this particular point sir , so I will leave it for others to ponder .

Lech ..

Hence the use of the Cross name - he could come up with an explanation for its use if the name swap was exposed as it would have been if the police had visited his house.

Ah so we finally get to the meat & veg .. Cross does indeed have some legitimate reason to use the name Cross !! and further more , what is to stop Lechmere using that same explanation at the police station , and save himself having to worry about the Police finding out ? .. especially if some one knew him at the local inquest and happened to mention it ..

Oh and Fish ..

Request: Do NOT claim again that I have said that a visit to his house on behalf of the police would not reveal his right name!!!

I think you will find that your team man Lechmere posted that .. and my response was to the argument , not you personally .. but you do like to jump in with both feet before testing the water .. so what can I say ???
Cheers

moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

To answer Moonbeggar's queries, when one lies it is usually best to stick to the truth as much as possible, have an explanation for the lie if possible, and where necessary obfuscate and be vague of possible. Not that I am an expert in lying I hasten to add.

Hence the use of the Cross name - he could come up with an explanation for its use if the name swap was exposed as it would have been if the police had visited his house. (Get that? If the police had visited his house, where his wife lived, then Lechmere would not have been able to mask his true identity and his wife would have discovered that he had been involved and called himself Cross).
But what of his leaving time?
He was vague about the route taken to Bucks Row. We have one non-existent street name, so we have no way of knowing, although if innocent one would have to presume upon the most direct route.
The 3.20 and 3.30 conundrum sounds like a bit of obfuscation, forced upon him because his wife knew roughly when he left and if, yes if, the police came calling and he had said 3.40, he could have been caught out.

My overriding suggestion is that he generally did not expect the police to come calling as he was confident in his abilities and his plausibility. But that would not stop him having insurance policies where possible.
The proof of the pudding is that his name swap was not noticed - whether he was innocent or guilty, and that the gap in his timings was not noticed - innocent or guilty.
Just as his dispute with Mizen was barely noticed.

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

Fisherman ,

Because we have no way of nailing the times down exactly I was simply using the extremes .

No you werenīt. We cannot suggest that he got from Doveton Street to Bucks Row in two seconds flat. And you DO use the 3.20 time, so you HAVE to add time to get to Bucks Row too.

The point I was making , and I fear is being buried in a mountain of procrastination and misdirection is that , the simple fact of the matter is the( Time discrepancy ) be it 20minutes 18 minutes 15 or 10 minutes , whatever it may be .. if he guilty , and he is knowingly raising that red flag by not slotting appropriately into Pauls well known time frame , There lies my problem ..

knowing full well he has 25 (apparently) or whatever unaccountable minutes , and doing nothing about it , he willingly raises that red flag , just in the ever so slight chance that the police may (for no reason whatsoever) pay his wife a visit and ask questions ..

Break it down like this:

1. My whole point in saying that he gave his address to the police but not his name, was because he did not want his wife to find out about him being involved in the inquest proceedings as a witness. That was also, by the way, why he went to the inquest in his working gear - he kept it from his wife, and so he could not go away that morning in his Sunday best.

2. If his wife was awake as he left, and if she knew quite well that he left at 3.20-3.30, then what would happen if the police came around asking about Lechmere - if the latter had told the police that he left at 3.40 and they asked his wife to confirm this?

3. He could not beforehand ask his wife to lie for him and inform the police that he left a lot later than he actually did, since his wife would reasonably get suspicious then, and that was precisely what he wanted to avoid from the outset.

Can you see the conundrum now?

Yet on the other hand, he knowingly gives them a false name (apparently), knowing full well there is an even higher risk now , due to his admitted 25 unaccountable minutes that the Police ( for good reason ) will pay his wife a visit and ask questions ?

See the above. Even if you are a clever person, planning things and being able to foresee a difficulty or two, you just cannot be prepared for everything that happens. He would have a lot to keep track of, adjusting the true version of events into something that seemed innocent, and so he may not have been able to always choose the best option.

Yet we are encouraged to believe , that a Police visit to his wife ( Mrs Lechmere ) would somehow not reveal his fake name , but would definitely reveal a fake leaving time ??

That was the second time you presented this outright lie, and I am getting tired of it. If the police DID visit the house he lived in, then they WOULD get his real name. That is why he chose the fake name "Cross" and not anything taken out of the blue: He KNEW that the risk was there that the police would come around, and he KNEW that such a thing WOULD reveal his correct name. So what he needed and what he employed was a name that was not his own - but where he could explain why he used it anyway.

Request: Do NOT claim again that I have said that a visit to his house on behalf of the police would not reveal his right name!!!

Now if you ever do find a credible answer to this conundrum Fish , I would be glad to hear it ..

You just did.

The best,
Fisherman

[Barnaby]

Moonbegger,

I think that you raise a really good point about why not lie about the time he left given he had no qualms lying about his name.

The case against seems a very precise and exact science , but I feel the above scenarios , which if fact play out as one big scenario , are contradictions of each other .. unless of course he had nothing to hide on both counts !

I follow most of your argument but if he had nothing to hide on both counts why didn't he use his real name? This was rather official business.

[moonbegger]

Fisherman ,

Because we have no way of nailing the times down exactly I was simply using the extremes . The point I was making , and I fear is being buried in a mountain of procrastination and misdirection is that , the simple fact of the matter is the( Time discrepancy ) be it 20minutes 18 minutes 15 or 10 minutes , whatever it may be .. if he guilty , and he is knowingly raising that red flag by not slotting appropriately into Pauls well known time frame , There lies my problem ..

knowing full well he has 25 (apparently) or whatever unaccountable minutes , and doing nothing about it , he willingly raises that red flag , just in the ever so slight chance that the police may (for no reason whatsoever) pay his wife a visit and ask questions ..

Yet on the other hand, he knowingly gives them a false name (apparently), knowing full well there is an even higher risk now , due to his admitted 25 unaccountable minutes that the Police ( for good reason ) will pay his wife a visit and ask questions ?

Yet we are encouraged to believe , that a Police visit to his wife ( Mrs Lechmere ) would somehow not reveal his fake name , but would definitely reveal a fake leaving time ??

The case against seems a very precise and exact science , but I feel the above scenarios , which if fact play out as one big scenario , are contradictions of each other .. unless of course he had nothing to hide on both counts !

Now if you ever do find a credible answer to this conundrum Fish , I would be glad to hear it .. otherwise I do believe your arrogant and belittling attempts at sarcastic wit do you a great disservice ..

Cheers ,

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

I'm sorry Fish , I thought you had no business responding to me ??

But on your 3 points .. (1) I was using the 3.20 - 3.45 time frame .. (2) you are now claiming he did not willingly say 3.20 and (3) that was Lech's claim .

moonbegger

Here you go again! I am not claiming that he "did not willingly say 3.20", Moonbegger!!!

There were paper accounts that mentioned BOTH 3.20 and 3.30. My guess is that Lechmere said that he NORMALLY left 3.20 (the trek to Broad Street took about 40 minutes) but on the murder morning he was ten minutes late and left 3.30.

However, if he DID leave 3.20, then he would be in Buckīs Row at 3.27 (you forgot the time it took to walk that distance!), and Paul said that he arrived there at 3.45. So itīs 3.45-3.27, leaving us with 18 minutes - like I said.

Please, PLEASE do not put words/opinions in my mouth that do not belong there. And DO read what I have said and try to understand it before you comment on it.

Once you do that, you are more than welcome to ask away.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

That went awry again, Moonbegger.

If I may untangle matters for you?

1. The unaccounted time is not 25 minutes. It is either around 8-9 minutes or around 18-19 minutes.
2. We do not know if he "willingly" told about the time - it could be that his wife knew when he went out.
3. A police visit to his wife would in all probability reveal his fake name.

Details, Moonbegger. Attention to details. Absolutely crucial!

Last time over, you claimed that I had problems with the question in which order Lechmere and Paul spoke to Mizen. I have said and will keep saying that I have no such trouble, since I am convinced that Paul did not say a single word to the PC.

If you read these things before you post, you will do a far better job. At least I hope so.

By the way, how does a case get better when you drop suspicious anomalies? In what way does it fortify the case against Lechmere if we say that the name change was nothing odd or unusual at all?

To me, that would be sheer idiocy. But maybe thatīs just me.

The best,
Fisherman

I'm sorry Fish , I thought you had no business responding to me ??

But on your 3 points .. (1) I was using the 3.20 - 3.45 time frame .. (2) you are now claiming he did not willingly say 3.20 and (3) that was Lech's claim .

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Great post Abby ,

I agree totally with everything here , but would just like to throw a couple of scenarios out there regarding this one and only red flag ..

knowing full well he has 25 (apparently) unaccountable minutes , and doing nothing about it , he willingly raises that red flag , just in the ever so slight chance that the police may (for no reason whatsoever) pay his wife a visit and ask questions ..

Yet on the other hand, he knowingly gives them a false name (apparently), knowing full well there is an even higher risk now , due to his admitted 25 unaccountable minutes that the Police ( for good reason ) will pay his wife a visit and ask questions ?

Yet we are encouraged to believe , that a Police visit to his wife ( Mrs Lechmere ) would somehow not reveal his fake name , but would definitely reveal a fake leaving time ??

The case against seems a very precise and exact science , but I feel the above scenarios , which if fact play out as one big scenario , are contradictions of each other .. unless of course he had nothing to hide on both counts !

I , like you Abby , believe there is a stronger case against Lechmere if you scrap the whole name change malarkey , and focus on the missing 25 mins .

just my take ..

moonbegger

That went awry again, Moonbegger.

If I may untangle matters for you?

1. The unaccounted time is not 25 minutes. It is either around 8-9 minutes or around 18-19 minutes.
2. We do not know if he "willingly" told about the time - it could be that his wife knew when he went out.
3. A police visit to his wife would in all probability reveal his fake name.

Details, Moonbegger. Attention to details. Absolutely crucial!

Last time over, you claimed that I had problems with the question in which order Lechmere and Paul spoke to Mizen. I have said and will keep saying that I have no such trouble, since I am convinced that Paul did not say a single word to the PC.

If you read these things before you post, you will do a far better job. At least I hope so.

By the way, how does a case get better when you drop suspicious anomalies? In what way does it fortify the case against Lechmere if we say that the name change was nothing odd or unusual at all?

To me, that would be sheer idiocy. But maybe thatīs just me.

The best,
Fisherman