Charles Lechmere interesting link

[moonbegger]

Also , is this the damning evidence that concludes the Police did not believe Pauls Lloyd statement ?

Up till midnight there was no arrest, but the police state they have various informations which possibly may give a clue, but which are barely to be relied on.

cheers

moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

In answer to your last post - not really.

In answer to the one before - if the police had visited his house his ripper days might have been in jeopardy as his wife would have realised that he was involved in some way, although legally or criminally (with respect to police suspicion for the murder) he would have been able to wriggle out of trouble.

But he wanted to avoid his wife finding out hence the name swap.
That is the hypothesis anyway.

[moonbegger]

In answer to your last post - not really.

But he wanted to avoid his wife finding out hence the name swap.
That is the hypothesis anyway.

So there is no evidence that Police discounted Pauls statement ?

But he wanted to avoid his wife finding out hence the name swap.

Here's another hypothesis . His wife told him to use his stepfathers name in order not to drag her and her children's name through the mire ..

Both Hypothesis have sod all evidence to support them , but wouldn't you agree they are equally feasible .

cheers

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

So , your answer as I understand it Fish .. There would have been nothing criminal or illegal regarding his explanation , in fact it would have been accepted by investigating officers .. But he may have bought suspicion upon himself and put his ripping days in jeopardy IF he was the killer .

Am I close ?

moonbegger

No. Not at all, actually.

It would not have been criminal to call himself Cross. But if the police found out, then no matter if he WAS the killer or not, suspicion would attach to him.

Surely, Moonbegger, you can see this? When somebody named Joseph Jones says Donald Duck, Ernest Hemingway, Joe Black, John Jacob Astor or William McSwiggin when asked by the police for his name, the police will not lightheartedly look away from that. And the more serious the crime is, the more trouble the nameswopper will be. It will inevitably have the police looking into the person, unless they have a very good reason not to do so - lika an alibi or something such.

Excuse me for asking, but since I am getting more and more confused by the questions put out here: Is this not as evident as Mount Fuji on a clear day...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
There is plain evidence that the police discounted Paul's story but what you quoted isn't the main portion.

Why does appearing as an innocent inquest witness equate to dragging the family name in the mire?
Do you know of any other witness who gave an (I was going to say 'false') alternative name as a witness to avoid dragging the family name into the mire?
Particularly where the real or true name remained undisclosed?

[moonbegger]

Fish ,

No. Not at all, actually.

don't you mean yes , exactly like that !

It would not have been criminal to call himself Cross. But if the police found out, then no matter if he WAS the killer or not, suspicion would attach to him.

So he would Not be charged for any illegal , law-breaking , criminal act ? And if he was confident that he himself was not the killer , he would have nothing to hide, or indeed anything to fear from Police suspicion ?

Lech,

Why does appearing as an innocent inquest witness equate to dragging the family name in the mire?

His wife would have been very fearful of the very realistic threat of murderous street gang retribution ( lot's of local folk were genuinely worried ). Having her family name, and her husband splashed across the tabloids as the man who may have disturbed the killers would have surely added to her fear.

And remember this , the killer(s) of Polly may not have known exactly how much an intruding Lechmere may have witnessed .. even more reason to hide behind his stepfathers name !

I know you cant dispute that fact , because its the same argument you put forward for a guilty Lechmere confronting Paul

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

There is plain evidence that the police discounted Paul's story but what you quoted isn't the main portion.

Do me a lemon Ed , throw me a bone here , the old dick emery's obviously fried . Donde sta ?

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
I certainly haven't used anything like that argument with respect to anything whatsoever.
Using an alternative name would have been no protection from the legendary High Rips. I would presume they didn't know his name anyway. That false argument has been done to death several times already.

[MrBarnett]

Let's not overestimate the reach of the 'legendary' High Rips.
They were not the mafia. They controlled a few local streets, I doubt that Mrs Lech had even heard of them.

MrB.

[moonbegger]

Moonbeggar
I certainly haven't used anything like that argument with respect to anything whatsoever.
Using an alternative name would have been no protection from the legendary High Rips. I would presume they didn't know his name anyway.

"He had no idea how much Paul had witnessed or what he had seen"

Ok Ed , I had always assumed that was a main reason given by team Lechmere, as to why he waited and confronted Paul ?

In fact it was the only reason that that made the whole flight or fight argument semi plausible .

I still don't understand why keeping your real ( more familiar ) name out of the papers would be such a bad thing at all .. Especially if suspected of disturbing a vicious murder ! And yes , where there's a will there's a way , people can discover almost anything if they have a mind to , but why make it easy for them . And you can play down the whole gang thing as much as you like , but back then it was very real and people were very fearful , the local papers were full of it .. In fact we have more evidence for this than we do anything "Guilty Lechmere" related .

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Hello MrBarnett ,

Let's not overestimate the reach of the 'legendary' High Rips.

Yes , and lets not underestimate the power of fear !

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

[MrBarnett]

Hi Moonbeggar,

If the press said it was so, then it must have been.

Lucky old Victorians, eh, in those innocent days before journalistic exaggeration.

MrB

[moonbegger]

You could be right there Mr Barnett , Maybe nothing happened at all , no murders , no criminals , no crime , no gossiping grannys , Maybe we have all been sold a huge Victorian lemon , those pesky ole East Enders eh

But do let me know if you come across some factual documentation contradicting these wild stories that almost every publication conspired to create .. I would love to hear how it really was back then ..

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.

Those pesky Policemen are at it now

cheers , moonbegger .

[MrBarnett]

But do let me know if you come across some factual documentation contradicting these wild stories that almost every publication conspired to create .. I would love to hear how it really was back then ..

Hi Moonbeggar ,

Show me the wild stories that every publication ran about the gangs and I'll have a go at explaining why that might not have been uppermost in Mrs L's mind.


MrB

[Fisherman]

moonbegger: Fish ,

don't you mean yes , exactly like that !

No. Not at all, actually.

So he would Not be charged for any illegal , law-breaking , criminal act ?

For giving the wrong name? No - but he would draw suspicion upon himself.

And if he was confident that he himself was not the killer , he would have nothing to hide ...

Letīs see now ... if he was confident he was not the killer, would he have anything to hide... hmmmm ....

Tough question, that one! But after deliberating for a longish time, Iīve decided to go with a "No". I base it on the fact that innocent people never have anything to hide - thatīs what "innocent" means: having nothing to hide.

I would have thought that was as obvious as Mount Fuji on a clear day, but correct me if I am wrong.

,,,, or indeed anything to fear from Police suspicion ?

That is a slightly trickier one, Moon. Issenschmidt was innocent (sorry, Lynn), but did that mean that he had nothing to fear from police suspicion? Apparently not. So all we can say is that innocent people ought not to have anything to fear from police suspicion. Sometimes it does not pan out that way, though.

Altogther, I think it is a strictly academic view you are applying here, since Lechmere would in all probabaility not have been innocent in the first place.

All the best,
Fisherman