Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

""In the middle of the road" is an expression that is normally used by people who have not measured any distances. It can mean anywhere out in the road."

Outstanding.

Monty

So what are you saying? That it must always be EXACTLY in the middle of the road? Inch precision?

THAT would be truly outstanding!

Go to Google, type in "in the middle of the road" and choose pictures, Monty. Then have a look at what people call in the middle of the road.

Try

http://www.johnlund.com/page/1261/turtle-challenge-a-turtle-lies-helpless-on-it's-back-on-a-country-road.asp

or

http://swacgirl.blogspot.se/2012/02/rural-stop-sign-cow-in-road.html

or

http://leahglass.blogspot.se/2010_05_01_archive.html

(fifth pic from top)

or

http://dqcp.blogspot.se/

(19:th from top)

for starters!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Rob Clack: I think you will find I did answer your question.

Actually, you did not. You answered a question that was never asked - if Lechmere should be regarded as a suspect in case he was not cleared by the police.

What I asked was whether you, generally speaking, think that suspicion must cling to ANY person being found alone by a murder victim.

You gave a specific answer to a general question.

Lechmere was not found alone where the body was.

He was found alone in the near vicinity of the body. Skip the semantics!

He was several yards away.

Skip that too. He was some way away, unknown how much.

He did not go up to Nichols body alone as Paul was with him.

True. But he could have come FROM the body as Paul saw him.

So Lechmere should be viewed with some suspicion as he was first seen near the body of a murdered woman.

Also true, and THAT answers my first question.

I would expect the police to have questioned him and cleared him.

I would too - but the name tells another story, as does for example the Dew recollections where Paul is gone into with suspicion but Lechmere is hardly touched upon - he canīt even remember the carmanīs name.

Expecting isnīt good enough. Once you can show - and not just speculate - that he was questioned and cleared, fine. Until that, suspicion must be there.

Not an alternative family name no.

Even if you knew that he was listed by another name and if you did NOT know if he USED the other family name? Would it not be very risky to just accept that if you had a murder on your hands?

We have outlined why he may have used the name. Would you bank on us being wrong, and not even ask the question? What kind of detective would that make you?

Next:

3. Would you agree that suspicion must cling to a person/witness disagreeing with a police officer about what was said inbetween them in relation to murder, especially if what the person/witness said was shaped in a manner that would have taken him or her past the police?

Any more questions I might have to start charging.

Charge away.

Fisherman

[Monty]

""In the middle of the road" is an expression that is normally used by people who have not measured any distances. It can mean anywhere out in the road."

Outstanding.

Monty

[Fisherman]

For my part I do not claim to have solved the case, in fact I am the one who always states the opposite, it will never be solved, it can't be.

I know that you hold that position. I just disagree. Potentially, ANY case of murder can be solved. Admittedly, the chances are miniscule in many cases, but that does not mean that they do not exist.

In the Ripper case, I think we actually can come close to a solution. Mind you, that is not the same as coming close to an agreement. Too many people have vested interests out here for that, be those interests knit to a suspect or a belief that the case cannot be solved.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I will just answer this as life is too short and we are not going to agree. We almost did as vicinity and next to have completely different meanings.

Paul said he saw Lechmere in the middle of the road, which if you calculate is several yards from the body so I am not misrepresenting what he said. This is actually more accurate then saying Lechmere was 'by the body,' 'standing over the body.' I know you don't agree with this because it will diminish the already demished case against Lechmere.

Rob

He still never said anything about "several yards away" - when you use that expression, you work from a certainty that Lechmere was in the exact middle of the road or even further away from the body. You therefore apply your thoughts to what Paul said and you put words into his mouth that he never uttered.

"In the middle of the road" is an expression that is normally used by people who have not measured any distances. It can mean anywhere out in the road.

The best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

For my part I do not claim to have solved the case, in fact I am the one who always states the opposite, it will never be solved, it can't be.

....and herein lies the point that Fish and Eddie miss: Discussion and debate are wonderful things, so long as conclusions are not drawn and presented as fact where uncertainty is all there can ever be. Of course, their haughty attitudes do not help their case, either.

[Rob Clack]

You wonīt find me panicking, Rob. You will find me asking away, question by question in a very structured manner.

I notice that you did not answer the exact question but instead spoke about Lechmeres candidacy in a general way.

What you think about the police and a checkout is something I disagree with, and I have the fact that the police never used his real name to bolster my take. But that is not what we are discussing now.

If you could answer the exact question about the potential guilt clinging to being found alone where a murdered person is, it would be better.

I think you will find I did answer your question. And since we are discussing Lechmere/Nichols it is best we stick to that instead of just making up any scenario as there could be other variables in place. Anyway you are going to accuse me of semantics again, but I can't help that. This is my view.
Lechmere was not found alone where the body was. He was several yards away. He did not go up to Nichols body alone as Paul was with him. So Lechmere should be viewed with some suspicion as he was first seen near the body of a murdered woman. I would expect the police to have questioned him and cleared him.

Then, hereīs the next one:

2. Would you agree that giving another name than your own when speaking to the police in a murder matter is something that must be looked upon with suspicion unless it can be explained?

Fisherman

Not an alternative family name no. I would be suspicious if he gave a false home address. A false place of work. He did not in either case. Also at the Inquest he used Charles Allen Cross. Why bother adding Allen if he was trying to deceive people? The simple answer is he wasn't.

Any more questions I might have to start charging.

Rob

[Patrick S]

Patrick
You won't get any discussion from me on any topic. Life's too short to bother with you.
If other's do then that's their choice.

I'd ignore me, too.....if I were intellectually stunted, desperately trying to pawn off an absurd idea, and unable to win a debate based upon facts, not invented scenarios. I do hope your decision to ignore me here does not mean you will not interact with me when I'm in London this November. I'd hate to think I've blown my chance to discuss this with you face-to-face! I'll gladly fork over ten quid for the pleasure of only a brief encounter!

[Stewart P Evans]

Please -

I have one. In some respects, it resembles yours - we both post out here.
...

Please - I haven't been on the boards for months and months. When I do get a bit bored and decide to have a look I find you and your acolyte(s) still here spouting exactly the same things you were when I left all that time ago. I guess you feel that you can bore people into accepting your weird ideas.

[Stewart P Evans]

For my part...

...
Not that I think that a retired police officer would necessarily be the best bid for somebody to solve the Ripper riddle. Just as such a background can be useful in some instances, it can probably be much less useful in others. Iīve sen policemen out here that have produced input of wildly differing quality, something you may agree about.
...

For my part I do not claim to have solved the case, in fact I am the one who always states the opposite, it will never be solved, it can't be.

[Rob Clack]

If I was to do what you do, I would now say that Paul never said anything about "several yards" from the body - that is to misrepresent what Paul said. He could potentially have been just one or two yards away.

I will just answer this as life is too short and we are not going to agree. We almost did as vicinity and next to have completely different meanings.

Paul said he saw Lechmere in the middle of the road, which if you calculate is several yards from the body so I am not misrepresenting what he said. This is actually more accurate then saying Lechmere was 'by the body,' 'standing over the body.' I know you don't agree with this because it will diminish the already demished case against Lechmere.

Rob

[Fisherman]

Thought I would do a different post for this so don't panic. I have never failed to answer a question someone has asked me. If I have it is because I haven't seen it.

Yes I would agree that a person such as Lechmere should be suspected until cleared.
The question is was he at the time. And the answer I should think is yes he was. The police are not dummies, no matter how much you think they are.

Rob

You wonīt find me panicking, Rob. You will find me asking away, question by question in a very structured manner.

I notice that you did not answer the exact question but instead spoke about Lechmeres candidacy in a general way.

What you think about the police and a checkout is something I disagree with, and I have the fact that the police never used his real name to bolster my take. But that is not what we are discussing now.

If you could answer the exact question about the potential guilt clinging to being found alone where a murdered person is, it would be better.

Then, hereīs the next one:

2. Would you agree that giving another name than your own when speaking to the police in a murder matter is something that must be looked upon with suspicion unless it can be explained?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Rob Clack:

Was Lechmere by her side or in the vicinity? You use both, but they both have different meanings.

They CAN have different meanings, but they can equally describe the exact same thing.

To me, of course, in the vicinity normally sounds more like he was in Winthrop Street. Mizen was in the vicinity too.

It takes away from the actual position we know he was in. In close or very close vicinity is better.

By using 'by her side' you are stating that he was right next to her.

But how far away is "right next to"? I know for certain that people sometimes say "I was standing right next to him and he didnīt notice me", when they were in fact yards away.

It all tumbles down into semantics when we discuss this, and we risk loosing the point. The point is that Lechmere was close enough to potentially have killed her and then he may have stepped back before Paul arrived.

Once we accept that, there is no need for petty quibbles over semantics.

By going by what Paul said at the Inquest that he saw Lechmere standing in the middle of road, several yards from the body it is not suspicious at all.

If I was to do what you do, I would now say that Paul never said anything about "several yards" from the body - that is to misrepresent what Paul said. He could potentially have been just one or two yards away.

We both know that he was close enough to potentially have done the deed and stepped back. Thatīs all that matters when the fog clears.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

There, thatīs YOUR answers. Now, would you agree that a person found alone in the vicinity of a murdered person must always belong to the suspects until cleared?

(Hint - I donīt think I will have any answer this time either...)

Fisherman

Thought I would do a different post for this so don't panic. I have never failed to answer a question someone has asked me. If I have it is because I haven't seen it.

Yes I would agree that a person such as Lechmere should be suspected until cleared.
The question is was he at the time. And the answer I should think is yes he was. The police are not dummies, no matter how much you think they are.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Iīd much rather you answered my question to you - we can find out in no time at all if Lechmere is a good suspect that way.

Since I feel in a charitable mood, I will answer YOUR que... eh, accusations first:

Was he found by the victims side? That is a question of interpretation. If we claim that we cannot be found by a victims side without touching sides with the victim, then you have a point. Otherwise, it is not a very useful point at all.
Robert Paul stated, respectively, that he was "standing where the body was" and that Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road". "In the middle of the road" does not have to mean in the exact middle of the road, it simply means that he was standing out in the road. He could have been physically very close to the body.

I have seen many films etcetera where people saying "Iīm right here by your side" have been physically many yards away from the person they are speaking to. If Lechmere had sat down three yard from the body, on the kerb, he could have said afterwards that he waited by the bodyīs side, and he would be correct.

Here is what is actually misleading: to lead on that the two, victim and killer, were far apart and thus not connected in any suspicious manner, by claiming it is "misleading" to say that Lechmere was found by the side of the victim.

As for the other point, Robert Paul says that he saw Lechmere as he approached Browns stable yard. He says nothing about seeing him any earlier.

So he comes up to Lechmere, who is standing still in the "middle of the street", without knowing what Lechmere did before that.
That actually means that Lechmere was alone with the victim until Robert Paul stumled upon him just as I said.

Maybe you have some semantic point to make - you often have - but that changes very little. Before Robert Paul arrived, Lechmere was in place and nobody else was.

If he was there alone for just some seconds or if he was there alone for many minutes is an open question.

There, thatīs YOUR answers. Now, would you agree that a person found alone in the vicinity of a murdered person must always belong to the suspects until cleared?

(Hint - I donīt think I will have any answer this time either...)

Fisherman

Was Lechmere by her side or in the vicinity? You use both, but they both have different meanings. By her side in my opinion would be a foot or two, not ten to twelve, but we have had this discussion before, so there is no point going over it again. By using 'by her side' you are stating that he was right next to her. We know he wasn't. You have also used the expression (it might have been Ed, thinking about it so apologise if I am wrong) 'standing over the victim' both interpretations would give the impression he was in touching distance of Nichols and so make him look suspicious. By going by what Paul said at the Inquest that he saw Lechmere standing in the middle of road, several yards from the body it is not suspicious at all. He was just standing there. Not going towards or away from the body. Again, nothing suspicious there. And they went towards the body together. The case against Lechmere stumbles before it even starts. Even before we get to the ludicrous name change scenario.

Rob