Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Lechmere]

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

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

And Lech might have been only slightly late, for all we know. And as a 20 year plus man at Pickfords, he might not have been bothered about being slightly late and not in much of a hurry at all. And he might have had a shorter stride than Paul, for all we know . Too many unknowns for us to be sure to within a few yards how far apart they were.

If you say, given the times and distances, it's a bit odd that they were not aware of each other until they almost collided in Bucks Row, I am in complete agreement with you. It starts me wondering.

But when you state that they were x number of yards away at a given point, you've lost me.

MrB

[Fisherman]

Fish,

And Lech might have been only slightly late, for all we know. And as a 20 year plus man at Pickfords, he might not have been bothered about being slightly late and not in much of a hurry at all. And he might have had a shorter stride than Paul, for all we know . Too many unknowns for us to be sure to within a few yards how far apart they were.

If you say, given the times and distances, it's a bit odd that they were not aware of each other until they almost collided in Bucks Row, I am in complete agreement with you. It starts me wondering.

But when you state that they were x number of yards away at a given point, you've lost me.

MrB

We cannot know any exact measures - but we CAN identify the exact measures that would apply if all other parameters are constant. Lechmere said that Paul was thirty, forty yards behind him, it therefore applies that - all other parameters being constant - they had the same distance inbetween them as they walked down Bath Street.

This may hold true or it may not. Lechmere could have had bad blisters on his feet, making him slow, we just don´t know these things. But that is also the reason why we should not count any such thing into the assessment we must make. And that assessment tells us that they were thirty, forty yards apart all the way. It´s the least biased approach - we leave all things constant and accept that they would have walked at the approximate same speed.

Just as you say, it really, really should have us thinking. My own thinking is that it is strange that he is never absolved from a single point.

Why did not Mizen say that TWO men spoke to him?
Why do not Mizen and Lechmere agree about what the PC was told?
Why is it that it seems that Lechmere played down the seriousness of the errand?
Why was not Nichols left with her clothes flung up over her?
Why did he not say "Lechmere" as he was asked for his name?
Why did not Paul say that he noticed a bloke walking some way up ahead?
Why did Lechmere not go to the inquest in his Sunday best when everybody else did?
Why did he ommitt to mention where he lived in front of the inquest?
Why is it that the time he left home allows for him to have done the deed?
Why couldn´t just Paul have said that he actually DID see somebody en route to work - a man under the brewery lamps?
Why is it that the murders coincide with Lechmeres logical routes to work?
Why did the victims all die at hours that logically tally with his route to work?
Why did just Stride have to die at 12.45 - on a free night for Lechmere?
Why could not one of the working trek victims have been the one that died at 12.45?
Why did Eddowes die so close to the convenient Broad Street depot?
Why is Eddowes the only other victim to die early? On Lechmere´s free night?

Why can´t 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?

I´m just a bit curious about these matters, Mr Barnett.

All the best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

I'm no scientist or statistician, but my common sense tells me the least biased approach would be to assume there was a difference in their stride/speed. Lechmere could have been 4ft 8 and Paul 6ft 5 or vice versa for all we know. That their strides were exactly the same is one possibility out of many. To assume the one over any of the other possibilities is not unbiased. It is based on the desire to convince people that Lechmere arrived in Bucks Row earlier than his evidence suggests, thereby giving him time to carry out the crime before Paul appeared.

As I said before, point out that Paul's being unaware of Lech until the last minute is odd given their evidence and I am all ears. Attempt to back it up with unsubstantiated detail and your wavering converts head for the hills.

MrB.

[Jon Guy]

As I said before, point out that Paul's being unaware of Lech until the last minute is odd given their evidence and I am all ears. Attempt to back it up with unsubstantiated detail and your wavering converts head for the hills.

Cross only became visible to Paul when Cross stepped into the middle of the road. Before that Cross would have been walking in front of Paul in the gloom of the large warehouse walls on that side of the street.

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: Fish,

I'm no scientist or statistician, but my common sense tells me the least biased approach would be to assume there was a difference in their stride/speed. Lechmere could have been 4ft 8 and Paul 6ft 5 or vice versa for all we know. That their strides were exactly the same is one possibility out of many.

Least biased? Aha. Then should we have Lechmere or Paul as the fastest one? Which is the least biased suggestion?

Come on, Mr Barnett. When we do not know, the only way to do things is to work from the suggestion that both men were of the same average size. That is how it is done. Why would we guess away about their respective lengths? That would be silly.
Likewise, we must assume that they made the same average speed too.

That is the ONLY way to be unbiased and not give one man some sort of advantage over the other.

To assume the one over any of the other possibilities is not unbiased. It is based on the desire to convince people that Lechmere arrived in Bucks Row earlier than his evidence suggests, thereby giving him time to carry out the crime before Paul appeared.

No, it is not. It COINCIDES with my assumption that Lechmere was the killer, but that´s not my fault, is it? And anyway, things always coincide with my theory, so I´m quite used to it.

As I said before, point out that Paul's being unaware of Lech until the last minute is odd given their evidence and I am all ears.

It is odd that Paul was unaware of Lech until the last minute. There!

Attempt to back it up with unsubstantiated detail and your wavering converts head for the hills.

That should only be the case if I somehow tampered with the statistics and tried to award the two men different speeds. If anybody should head for the hills because I do things right, then farewell to them.

To suggest that there must have been a difference of speed inbetween the two men is nothing short of ridiculous and totally biased. You shall have to settle for much, much less: that there MAY have been such a difference, but as it stands, we must work from the assumption that there was not.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Cross only became visible to Paul when Cross stepped into the middle of the road. Before that Cross would have been walking in front of Paul in the gloom of the large warehouse walls on that side of the street.

If he DID, then he would have had the lamp at Schneiders cap factory behind him, as seen from Paul´s 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.

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.

More suggestions?

The best,
Fisherman

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

[Roy Corduroy]

I am not sure what you are after here? A suggestion that Charles Lechmere is exonerated every time a killing goes down in a spot where the carman should reasonably have been at the approximate murder time?

You're not sure? I thought I made myself perfectly clear, Fish. I even provided a visual aid to demonstrate my point. A map showing the Coal Depot in writing. He had to go around the coal depot, which channeled him directly through Buck's Row where he found the body of Polly Nichols. My point being of course that he had a perfectly legitimate reason for being at that place at that time.

I can't make it any clearer to you without becoming redundant.

As for the 'every time' killings, I'm afraid that's your hill to climb, Fisherman. I'm discussing Lechmere's one known connection to the case.

Roy

[Jon Guy]

If he DID, then he would have had the lamp at Schneiders cap factory behind him, as seen from Paul´s 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! It´s in a couple of the papers.

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

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Out of curiosity, where exactly was the cap factory?

MrB

[Fisherman]

You're not sure?

Roy

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

Fisherman

[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 wasn´t 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

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Out of curiosity, where exactly was the cap factory?

MrB

Found it!

[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

[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).