Charles Lechmere interesting link

[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!

[Rob Clack]

You won“t 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, here“s 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]

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.

[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

[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

[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]

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 can“t even remember the carman“s name.

Expecting isn“t 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

[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

[The Good Michael]

Cross:


He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement."


To paraphrase, Cross was in the middle of the road. He could see the body off to the side on the pavement. It was in the middle of the road that he met Paul.
Now, he didn't say he was next to the body. In fact, he said he wasn't.



Paul:

30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway.

To paraphrase, Paul saw Cross standing in the middle of the road and wanted to walk past. The man (Cross) interrupted him and pointed to the corpse way over on the side of the road.

This is pretty clear stuff, but it doesn't mean that Cross didn't kill Nichols and then move to the middle of the road.


Cheers,

Mike

[Rob Clack]

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

This is why it is pointless debating with you. If I said I was in the middle of the road. Guess what. I am in the middle of the road.
So your saying that because he said he was standing in the middle of the road he was actually standing near the kerb?

Unbelievable.

Unless you can come up with anything new there is no point in continuing this as we have been through it before.

I will point out that you conveniently ignored my point about using 'Allen' and that he gave the correct home and work address.

Rob

[The Good Michael]

I do remember a time when a little kid was on the side of the road and I was driving along. I yelled, "Hey get out of the middle of the road!" scared the hell out him and confused him because he had done no wrong.


Mike

[Fisherman]

The Good Michael: Cross:


He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement."


To paraphrase, Cross was in the middle of the road. He could see the body off to the side on the pavement. It was in the middle of the road that he met Paul.
Now, he didn't say he was next to the body. In fact, he said he wasn't.

No, he never said he wasn“t next to the body, Mike. You infer it and you may be right or wrong. Plus "the middle of the road" is inexact.



Paul:

30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway.

To paraphrase, Paul saw Cross standing in the middle of the road and wanted to walk past. The man (Cross) interrupted him and pointed to the corpse way over on the side of the road.

Yes, at that stage they would have been closer to the northern side of the road. But where exactly Lechmere was from the outset, we don“t know. Not is it very important as such, for we DO know, just as you say that...

"... it doesn't mean that Cross didn't kill Nichols and then move to the middle of the road."

That is all that matters. The side quibbles about yards, feet and road middles is just a convenient way to avoid discussing the core matter. I“m glad you didn“t join in.

The best,
Fisherman

[Colin Roberts]

Having played a small part in the discovery of Lechmere's true identity, I am rather intrigued by the possibility that he was 'Jack the Ripper'.

Unfortunately, Lechmere's candidacy has been horribly undone by the very people that have been attempting to promote it. Consequently, an intriguing person of interest has effectively become a very improbable 'suspect'.

Why, oh why, Christer and Edward, did you have to cheapen the case against Lechmere with suggestions that he preyed upon his victims whilst in route to and from his place of employment?

All that ever needed to be said was that he traversed the major axis of the killing field of 'Jack the Ripper'¹ as a matter of daily routine, and that he was therefore intimately familiar with its immediate vicinity. He could have preyed upon his victims - for the most part - whilst on his own time.

Peter Sutcliffe didn't prey upon his victims whilst in route to and from his place of employment, but he makes a damn good candidate for having been the 'Yorkshire Ripper'. He didn't pass through the 'red light' portions of Manningham, Chapeltown and Moss Side whilst on his way to work each day, but instead prowled those areas at night, after having gone home from his routine day-trips and then back out again. Perhaps Lechmere could have found a way to do the same. Perhaps not.

Peter Sutcliffe didn't dispatch one of his victims on his mother's doorstep either, but …

So on, and so on, and …

You have allowed your imaginations to run wild Christer and Edward; and in turn you have created a host of scenarios that are plainly and simply too specific, and in many instances rather unrealistic. Consequently, you have muddied the water.

¹ The immediate vicinity of the killing field of 'Jack the Ripper': an area within which I perceive a 50% probability that our perpetrator's 1888 residence is to be found.


Accumulation of Probability Distribution (Elliptical): Murder-Site Mean-Center, to Extent of Fifty Percent Accumulation (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011

[Rob Clack]

I do remember a time when a little kid was on the side of the road and I was driving along. I yelled, "Hey get out of the middle of the road!" scared the hell out him and confused him because he had done no wrong.


Mike

I think you confused him because he wasn't in the middle of the road.

Rob

[Fisherman]

Rob Clack: This is why it is pointless debating with you. If I said I was in the middle of the road. Guess what. I am in the middle of the road.
So your saying that because he said he was standing in the middle of the road he was actually standing near the kerb?

Unbelievable.

It only becomes unbelieveable when you put words into my mouth!

Did I say that he was near to the kerb?

No.

I said that we cannot posit that he must have been in the exact middle of the road.

That road was five yards wide or so. If he had two yards to one side and three to the other, he could well have been described as being in the middle of the road just the same. Easily!! Look at the pics I pointed to, listen to what Mike says. And two yards from the kerb and a corpse is close! And if you move him that half yard further away, he is STILL close.

You are seemingly just trying to avoid the real issue, Rob. He was close, he could have stepped back from the body into the road, he was alone with the body and there is nothing that tells us that he did not do the deed - at least nothing that can be measured in two feet of Bucks Row!

Unless you can come up with anything new there is no point in continuing this as we have been through it before.

Agreed. I was not the one who stepped in to comment about it, it was you.

I will point out that you conveniently ignored my point about using 'Allen' and that he gave the correct home and work address.

Then I will point out that I have given my answer to that dozens of times on these boards. I am certain that you know my answer, even. If you wish, I can explain it again, just tell me.

If you want to save me the trouble, it is easy enough to find.

The best,
Fisherman