Charles Lechmere interesting link

[MrBarnett]

Thanks all the same, Fish.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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 ?

[Fisherman]

Anyone ?

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

Fisherman

[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

[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

[GUT]

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

What I said, or meant if it was unclear is that there are innocent explanations for those two issues. In fact I said that innocent explanations are consistent with the proven issues.

[Fisherman]

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

He was not necessarily extremely bright (and I donīt think that has been suggested either), but most definitely anything but stupid. He would have been quite quick in his thought process, and he would have been able to carefully construe a functioning alternative truth in relatively little time. He was apparently fearless too or able to hide his fear, so comparing him to a rabbit in the headlights does not hold up.

If you want to see what a rabbit in the headlights looks like, just take a look on the "Lechmere didnīt do it" community...

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

He was not necessarily extremely bright (and I donīt think that has been suggested either), but most definitely anything but stupid. He would have been quite quick in his thought process, and he would have been able to carefully construe a functioning alternative truth in relatively little time. He was apparently fearless too or able to hide his fear, so comparing him to a rabbit in the headlights does not hold up.

If you want to see what a rabbit in the headlights looks like, just take a look on the "Lechmere didnīt do it" community...

The best,
Fisherman

G'day Fisherman

But your view of his intelligence is based on you seeing him as the killer and not the other way around, you need to prove that he was anything but stupid. If he was stupid would you agree that the case against him is damaged? Or do you think a stupid person could act in the manner he did?

[moonbegger]

He would have been quite quick in his thought process, and he would have been able to carefully construe a functioning alternative truth in relatively little time

Which still poses the unanswerable question , why not simply conform with Pauls time ?

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

[Fisherman]

G'day Fisherman

But your view of his intelligence is based on you seeing him as the killer and not the other way around, you need to prove that he was anything but stupid. If he was stupid would you agree that the case against him is damaged? Or do you think a stupid person could act in the manner he did?

Yes, my take on his intellectual capabilities is grounded in my belief that he was the killer.
I see no reason to think he was stupid if he was not the killer - he seems coherent enough, he has held downa steady job for twenty years, he opened up his own business, he passed a tidy sum on as he died.
If he WAS stupid, then it would undoubtedly do a lot of damage to the theory I ascribe to.

But he wasnīt stupid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Which still poses the unanswerable question , why not simply conform with Pauls time ?
Cheers

Moonbegger

Once again, I have given my answer to this.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

So if he wasn't stupid, then it was a deliberate decision to create the timing anomaly. Why? Presumably because he left no later than 3.20 (possibly earlier) and feared his wife would confirm this if she were asked by the police .

In that case what did he do with the extra time? 18 mins, possibly more, and he couldn't even manage any organ removal.

Did it take him that long to find Nichols in the first place? Did he take a detour from his 'proven' route to find her? And having done so, did he then deliberately take her back to his work route to murder her?

Perhaps that was the case with the other victims. He went off route to find them and then took them back to make a point of some kind. What do you think?

Personally, I've always believed the choice of location was the women's, not Jack's. And it's unlikely that he found them soliciting within a few yards of where they were killed. So the significance of the two 'proven' routes is severely diminished. He went off route, whatever that was , to find his victims and they then took him to the places they knew where they could be assured of a few minutes' privacy, but not so secluded that they couldn't call for help if necessary.

MrB