Charles Lechmere interesting link

[moonbegger]

Moonbeggar.

I am suggesting that maybe Lechmere gave the time of 3.30 as he was trying to coordinate his story with the very well publicised timings given by Neil (rather than Thain actually). That would have resulted in only a very small window of opportunity (and barely a red flag) between Lechmere's leaving time of 3.30 and Neil arriving at Brown's Stable Yard at 3.45.
This does not mean (need I say - yes I seem to have to) that I have suddenly come around to thinking that Neil did actually get there at 3.45.
I am suggesting that maybe Lechmere gave his time based on Neil's advertised timing.
That's all.

With regard to the timings, I have also said repeatedly, that all that can be said that with the timings as given, Lechmere certainly hasn't got a 'time' alibi. He has a window of opportunity wide enough for him to have carried out the murder. The timings could be shrunk to disallow it also.

With a victim who had only just been freshly killed, and indeed where the doctor estimated she had been killed more or less moments before the Paul-Lechmere meeting, and further given that the state of the body and the clothing suggested that the killer may have been interrupted, then with the timing issue you could not do any better than to suggest opportunity on the part of Lechmere.
This is not proof but you could not realistically get a better combination of circumstances that are capable of a guilty interpretation.

And yes, if you were to proceed through all the different aspects there are alternative guilty or innocent explanations - that is a given.
But it is the sheer quantity of potential guilty explanations - rather than each individual one - that build together to make this case.

I am suggesting that maybe Lechmere gave the time of 3.30 as he was trying to coordinate his story with the very well publicised timings given by Neil (rather than Thain actually). That would have resulted in only a very small window of opportunity (and barely a red flag) between Lechmere's leaving time of 3.30 and Neil arriving at Brown's Stable Yard at 3.45.

Or maybe it happened exactly like this and there was no need to coordinate anything ! .. and yes there is also a guilty spin that can be attributed to it , but all the timings lend themselves to everything unfolding exactly how all witnesses claimed ! So what is your proof that it didn't happen exactly like above ? what solid proof do you have that counters six sworn testimonies ?

With a victim who had only just been freshly killed, and indeed where the doctor estimated she had been killed more or less moments before the Paul-Lechmere meeting, and further given that the state of the body and the clothing suggested that the killer may have been interrupted,

I think you make a stronger case here , for Mr Lechmere disturbing the Killer or Killers , and being fearful of retribution on him and his family ( hence the name switch )

Fish,

Why did Lechmere not go to the inquest in his Sunday best when everybody else did?

Again logic would suggest , being a Monday , he was either pulled in, or told to report to the station or inquest , by an early morning beat copper .. Hence his work attire ! What solid evidence do you have to suggest otherwise ?

In both instances, the case against relies solely on speculation , you are challenging the logical , the verifiable , the witness's under oath , with pure speculation and fantasy ..

like I have said many times regarding the CrossMere claim , you are building your house on quicksand .. present some solid facts instead of flip flopping from one moot point to another .

Every guilty action has an innocent Explanation , just like every Innocent explanation has a guilty accusation .. that is the CrossMere theory in a nutshell .

cheers , moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

Come on Fish. You state there isn't one piece that clears him and I'm stating you don't have one piece of incriminating evidence proving guilt.

Actually, you didnīt - you said that there was not one thing to go on. We have got tons to go on, and you should have known it by now.

What's the problem with that? If any of my comments are intellectually untenable and completely false then prove his guilt on one thing. Don't speculate, don't guess, prove guilt somehow.

Have a long, good read of the latest posts, DRoy, and then we can have a chat. What we have is a suspect where a discussion can be had whether the accusations agaisnt him would stand up in court or not.

... and thatīs what you describe as having nothing to go on. Dear, dear me ...!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=moonbegger;303019]

Again logic would suggest , being a Monday , he was either pulled in, or told to report to the station or inquest , by an early morning beat copper .. Hence his work attire ! What solid evidence do you have to suggest otherwise ?

The fact that the police did not believe in Robert Pauls interview - they backed up Neil when he said that he was the first and sole finder of Nicholsīdead body. Thatīs about as solid proof you are gonna get.

In both instances, the case against relies solely on speculation , you are challenging the logical , the verifiable , the witness's under oath , with pure speculation and fantasy ..

How nice of you not to call my "speculation and fantasy" impure! May I remind you that you too are speculating and fantasizing? The innocent approach (in spite of Lechmereīs lying about his name, lying to Mizen etctera) is a house of cards. Really, Moonbegger...!

like I have said many times regarding the CrossMere claim , you are building your house on quicksand .. present some solid facts instead of flip flopping from one moot point to another .

Yes, do that - present some solid facts telling us that he was innocent. I have a lied-about name for example. What do YOU have?

Every guilty action has an innocent Explanation...

No, guilty actions never have innocent explanations. You got that semantically wrong.

...just like every Innocent explanation has a guilty accusation

That comes closer to the truth.

What you need to do is to set yourself a limit beyond which you stop believing in coincidences, and when that limit is passed ...

Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Greetings Fish ,

The fact that the police did not believe in Robert Pauls interview

Is this the same argument that got quashed some time back Fish .. or do you have some new solid evidence that verifies your claim ?

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

So why would the police offer a reward , when they had already discounted the gangs ?

On the assumption that the crime was committed by one of a "High Rip" gang, some of whose names are known, the police are, it is stated, empowered by the Chief Commissioner to give money payment to those who give confidential statements, with the additional assurance that any one who turn's Queen's evidence against the actual perpetrator will be at once pardoned of any participation he may have had in the matter. The murder is of such an exceptionally brutal character that the detective officers are using the most strenuous exertions to bring the criminals to justice.

moonbegger

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;303022]

Yes, do that - present some solid facts telling us that he was innocent. I have a lied-about name for example. What do YOU have? Fisherman

Present some solid facts that tell us that Joseph Barnett was innocent. While your at it, present some solid fact that tell us that Robert Paul was innocent. By God, who's to say he didn't kill Nichols and circle around and run into Cross, just to give himself an alibi. Give me solid facts that Mizen didn't do it.

Further, you have no idea if the name was "lied about". It's a stretch from the outset to call it a lie, isn't it? After all, he didn't invent the name, did he? You have no information about the man's life with respect to name he identified with, how others knew him. Cross is -after all - a pretty simple name. Perhaps from a young age, people simply called him 'Cross'. So, he closely identified himself with that name. I have no idea and neither do you.

Official documents call him Lechmere. He identified himself to the police as Cross. I mean, yeah....... Why not conclude he's Jack the Ripper?

But please. Tell us more about the "Mizen Scam"! I need a good chuckle today.

[Fisherman]

Greetings Fish ,

Is this the same argument that got quashed some time back Fish .. or do you have some new solid evidence that verifies your claim ?

moonbegger

No - and nor do I need it. It is very clear that the police disbelieved Paul from the outset, so threīs no quashing, Iīm afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

Present some solid facts that tell us that Joseph Barnett was innocent. While your at it, present some solid fact that tell us that Robert Paul was innocent. By God, who's to say he didn't kill Nichols and circle around and run into Cross, just to give himself an alibi. Give me solid facts that Mizen didn't do it.

See - you have realized the problem. Good on you. We are not going to get many facts to work with. But we DO have some.

Further, you have no idea if the name was "lied about".

Ah, but I do. I am absolutely sure, even. That is one of those facts I mentioned: You have one name and one name only that is your true name. The rest are false names. So it is a fact that he lied about his name.
That is not to say that he could not have called himself Cross at times (which I donīt think he did, but for arguments sake...), but such a thing would not go to absolve him. He lied about his name.

It's a stretch from the outset to call it a lie, isn't it?

No, it is not.

After all, he didn't invent the name, did he?

Well, in a way he did. He was supposed to say "Lechmere" when he was asked about his true name (that is what the police ask for when they ask your name), but he thought up another name instead - Cross. Invented it for the moment, so to speak.

You have no information about the man's life with respect to name he identified with, how others knew him.

On the contrary - I DO have such information. I know that a great many people knew him by the name of Charles Lechmere, since that was what he answered when asked about his name by any authority.
You, on the other hand, have no bolstering at all for your supposition/claim/fantasy (or whatever we should call it) that he bounced beteeen names like a guttaperka ball. The suggestion is a rather silly one, unless youīve noticed that yourself, Robert. Or John. Or Lewis. Or Patrick.

Cross is -after all - a pretty simple name. Perhaps from a young age, people simply called him 'Cross'.

Mmm. Holmgren, my name, is not that common a name. But I have never been called anything else nevertheless. I have a friend who is named Natt och Dag (Night and Day, a name with a proud history but ever so weird), and he is not called Svensson. Though it would have been simpler.

So, he closely identified himself with that name. I have no idea and neither do you.

One wild guess and one truth. A fifty per cent outcome. Happy?

Official documents call him Lechmere.

Yes, they do.

He identified himself to the police as Cross.

Yes, he did.

I mean, yeah....... Why not conclude he's Jack the Ripper?

Add a number of anomalies and the suggestion becomes a sounder one. Add even more, and you have a case. The best case there is, actually, on this issue.
It is not - as some try to lead on - just the question of a name. It is a whole chain of anomalies.

But please. Tell us more about the "Mizen Scam"! I need a good chuckle today.

Read your own posts, then, Franz. They humour me.

Good night,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

No - and nor do I need it. It is very clear that the police disbelieved Paul from the outset, so threīs no quashing, Iīm afraid.

I think I must have missed the clarification of this Fish .. would you be so kind as to point me in the right direction of said evidence ?

we do have various press reports of an Officer quizzed and reprimanded over his alleged actions on the night , which would not make sense if his story was believed by all ?

moonbegger

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Do you consider you are lying every time you sign off as 'Fisherman' ?

If not, please explain why.

MrB

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Do you consider you are lying every time you sign off as 'Fisherman' ?

If not, please explain why.

MrB

No, I donīt consider I am lying when I sign off as Fisherman. These are public boards and we are allowed to write under a chosen signature. It is common procedure out here, even, although there are numerous exceptions.

However, if I was to go to the police and testify in relation to a murder case, I would not call myself Fisherman - I would give the police the name under which I am known in the registers, my true name, the only true name I have. Otherwise I WOULD be lying. In fact, no matter the context, I would always be lying if I said that my true name was Fisherman. The same goes for every other name I have ever called myself that was not my true name.

If the police had asked me "Are you Fisherman", I would of course tell them that I am. But I donīt think the Met asked Lechmere if he was Cross, so that kind of melts away as a viable explanation.

May I say that I think you are digging deep now, Mr Barnett? It has an element of desperation to it, that is how it looks to me at least...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I think I must have missed the clarification of this Fish .. would you be so kind as to point me in the right direction of said evidence ?

we do have various press reports of an Officer quizzed and reprimanded over his alleged actions on the night , which would not make sense if his story was believed by all ?

moonbegger

So who disbelieved Neil? Who reprimanded him? And when?

Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

I'm not digging deep at all. Just reacting to the spin that in my opinion detracts from what might otherwise be a tantalising possibility.

You put forward Lech's 'lying' as evidence of his guilt. But with your own use of your nome de plume, you provide us with a perfect example of an innocent use of an alternative name. Of course, you would not give that name to the police if asked. But that isn't the point.The point is that in certain circumstances it is not necessarily lying to identify oneself by a name other than that on one's birth certificate.

You've got me wrong if you think I'm a desperate Lech naysayer. Think of me as a sensitive teenager at a family wedding: some of the hyperbole emanating from team Lech is a bit like watching an over enthusiastic dad-dance.

MrB

[DRoy]

Actually, you didnīt - you said that there was not one thing to go on. We have got tons to go on, and you should have known it by now.

Have a long, good read of the latest posts, DRoy, and then we can have a chat. What we have is a suspect where a discussion can be had whether the accusations agaisnt him would stand up in court or not.

... and thatīs what you describe as having nothing to go on. Dear, dear me ...!

Fisherman

Fish,

For clarification on what I meant to say...there is not one fact that proves Lech is guilty of anything.

One thing at a time can be easily explained but when you said to look at all of the 'coincidences' and put them together, I did just that. When I look at your list, I understand why you feel he's guilty...it's a big list! But when looking closer at each item on the list, I don't see what you see.

I don't see Lech's home or work place being any more significant than the other thousands of people living in the same place. I don't see the times fitting like you do. I don't see a problem with the name Cross. You get the idea.

No I don't think it would stand up in criminal court. It wouldn't stand up in civil court either where you only have to prove on a balance of probability he's guilty.

I look forward to your continued research though, as always I enjoy your posts so hope you find something more concrete.

Cheers
DRoy

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar

Ther are not six witnesses whose times corroberate each other.
It is perfecty reasonable to put some store in Paul’s timing as he had only just left home where he almost certany had a clock as he knew he was late.
The police tended to round to the nearest quarter, so their timing could easily be seven and a half minutes out either way.
For the police’s timing tonbe right, Lechere must have left ,ater tha he said. Which ever version you prefer, the times have to be massaged.
Incidentally, if you are looking for solid proof for anyttjimng then you are in the wromg area of study.
But I come back to the point I made, yet again, again, again.
All that can be said that given the various times that were given, Lechmere can be shown to have had the opportunity

None of the Lechmere case is built on quicksand, for the very good reason that they case does not sink in any of the disputable parts.
If you were an investigating officer in this case at the time, and if you were faced with the circumstantial and arguable aspects that relate to Lechmere, and if you then took no further action because you loftily shrugged off these matters as of no account, then I would suggest you should have been drummed out of the force and tarred and feathered for good measure.

There is no case for Lechmere disturbing anyone as he didn’t say any such thing. If you think he was innocent then why would he lie? Or are you suggesting he lied to save his own skin and was too gutless to even tell Mizen or and kept it secret from Paul as well?

The speculation and fantasy Moonbeggar is all yours.
And you mention the witness under oath? You have him lying under loath and covering up that he had witnessed the attack.
Well he did lie under oath as he gave an incorrect name.

And there is solid evidence that the police disregarded Paul’s newspaper interview. They issued a statement of some sort after it explicitly pooh-poohing it that was widely reported in the press.

You also seem very muddled on the issue of rewards.