Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Stewart P Evans]

You are not...

You did. But hereīs the opportunity to prove your point about "silly Ripperologists".
Or to just wave it away.
I mean, just jumping into a discussion and offer a Graham Chapmanish "Silly! Silly! Stop it, thatīs silly!" is not going to convince many people of the superior quality of your argument. Not until you presented some argument at all, at least.
There are issues to evaluate, questions to answer, anomalies to be explained - or explained away. And you DID join the thread for some sort of reasoning, didnīt you?
All the best,
Fisherman

You are not going to entice me into your tedious and pointless 'suspect' discussions. Do get a life.

[Stewart P Evans]

But...

I feel quite comfortable with it myself, Mr Barnett. There is every reason to.
The best,
Fisherman

But I do hope that you are not smug, you sound it.

[Fisherman]

Goodness me! Did I say all that??? I'd better go and take some pills. I could have sworn I wrote only a few lines.

You did. But hereīs the opportunity to prove your point about "silly Ripperologists".

Or to just wave it away.

I mean, just jumping into a discussion and offer a Graham Chapmanish "Silly! Silly! Stop it, thatīs silly!" is not going to convince many people of the superior quality of your argument. Not until you presented some argument at all, at least.

There are issues to evaluate, questions to answer, anomalies to be explained - or explained away. And you DID join the thread for some sort of reasoning, didnīt you?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

How?

...
Were those thirty years served in a murder squad at any time?
...
Is it your police expert hunch, or can you substantiate it?
...
Fisherman

I have questioned and arrested dozens of crime suspects, was a tutor constable and trained around sixty officers to do the job, have dealt with dozens of sudden deaths, witnessed many autopsies, acted as coroner's officer, trained and been part of the firearms team, and have been involved in murder investigations. How does your police record stand?

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Not sure I feel too comfortable having my slightly tongue in cheek fictionalised copper's hunch being waved in SPE's face like that.

Let's hope he has the good grace to answer, despite the somewhat combative tone of the question.

MrB.

I feel quite comfortable with it myself, Mr Barnett. There is every reason to.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Not sure I feel too comfortable having my slightly tongue in cheek fictionalised copper's hunch being waved in SPE's face like that.

Let's hope he has the good grace to answer, despite the somewhat combative tone of the question.

MrB.

[Stewart P Evans]

Goodness me!

And are you saying that:
-the fact that Lechmere was found by a victims side
-the fact that he was alone with the victim until being stumbled upon by Robert Paul
-the time given, that should have Lechmere half a mile down Hanbury Street at 3.45
-the covered up wounds
-the correlation between murder spots and Lechmeres working routes
-the discrepancy beteen what Lechmere and Mizen said at the inquest
-the lack of hearing Lechmere on Pauls behalf
-the name change
-the arrival in working clothes to the inquest
-the correlation between his mothers house and the Stride murder
-the finding of the torso very close by his mothers place
...would not interest a seasoned policeman?
Were those thirty years served in a murder squad at any time?
Mr Barnett says it would be silly not to investigate further, but you seem to be of a different meaning.
If you think it would not be necessary to investigate further, how do you justify that take on things? Why is this gathered evidence of no consequence? How does it amount to a bee in a bonnet only?
Is it your police expert hunch, or can you substantiate it?
All the best,
Fisherman

Goodness me! Did I say all that??? I'd better go and take some pills. I could have sworn I wrote only a few lines.

[Fisherman]

I'm sorry, I'm too cynical by far. It's a result of being a police officer for nearly thirty years.

And are you saying that:

-the fact that Lechmere was found by a victims side
-the fact that he was alone with the victim until being stumbled upon by Robert Paul
-the time given, that should have Lechmere half a mile down Hanbury Street at 3.45
-the covered up wounds
-the correlation between murder spots and Lechmeres working routes
-the discrepancy beteen what Lechmere and Mizen said at the inquest
-the lack of hearing Lechmere on Pauls behalf
-the name change
-the arrival in working clothes to the inquest
-the correlation between his mothers house and the Stride murder
-the finding of the torso very close by his mothers place

...would not interest a seasoned policeman?

Were those thirty years served in a murder squad at any time?

Mr Barnett says it would be silly not to investigate further, but you seem to be of a different meaning.

If you think it would not be necessary to investigate further, how do you justify that take on things? Why is this gathered evidence of no consequence? How does it amount to a bee in a bonnet only?

Is it your police expert hunch, or can you substantiate it?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

One thing

There is only one thing worse than taking this subject too seriously - and that is taking yourself too seriously.

[Stewart P Evans]

I'm sorry...

I'm sorry, I'm too cynical by far. It's a result of being a police officer for nearly thirty years.

[MrBarnett]

As a comparative outsider it presents to me as an amusing parlour game. So long as people adhere to rules: no lies , no excessive stretching of facts and no personal animosity it's surely harmless enough. And if it encourages people to scurry off and research obscure little byways that's all to the good.

If all posterity ever gets from the Crossmere debate is
a photo of Charles and his family's rags to riches story, it will not have been a total waste of time.

MrB

[Stewart P Evans]

Just goes to show...

Just goes to show how silly 'Ripperologists' can be when they get a bee in their bonnet about a certain 'suspect' (or non-suspect, depending on how you see it).

[MrBarnett]

Dear Fish,

All along I have been working on the assumption that the time discrepancy potentially gave Lech another 10 mins or so with the body. Perhaps I should have included that in my fictional account.

Of the two possible responses I suggest above, the only one that makes sense to me is, 'Dig a little deeper, old boy.'

That's where I and I'm sure a lot of other fair minded people are. You've got a case that had it been outlined to the police at the time would have lead to them considering Lech as a person of interest. And if that's as far as it goes, backed up with some interesting background it will make a good read. By no means, Case Closed, but an intriguing possibility.

MrB

[Patrick S]

Letīs be biased enough to suggest that the latter alternative becomes the chosen one. If so, you will inevitably return in thought to the Nichols murder, since that was when the carman surfaced.

You and everybody else have been working from the assumption that the carman arrived only a few seconds ahead of Robert Paul, but since you have now begun to take an interest in Lechmere, you of course check whether this holds true.
To your amazement, you realize that it is only the carmans assertions that points to him not having had the time to committ the crime - strangely, Paul seems not to have heard or seen him in spite of having walked right behind him down Bath Street and Bucks Row.

You also note that Lechmere claims to have left home at 3.20 or 3.30, so you spend your lunch timing the walking distance and you find out that Lechmere should have been long gone at the stage when he "found" Nichols.

Then you think about the other victims that have surfaced. Werenīt they all put on display? Horrendous matters, with entrails spread over their bodies, splayed legs, explicite poses...?

So why was Nichols not posed like that, you ask yourself. And then you reealize that Lechmere could have conned Paul. He must have heard him as the latter entered Buckīs Row, you reason, and he must have decided not to run, but instead cover up what he did and take a chance. It is all beginning to make sense to you.

On the coffeebreak, you seek out your mate Mizen. He is chewing at a bisquit when he answers your question if he really only spoke to Lechmere on that morning:

-Yeah, sure. That other weasly type sneaked away like a thief, he did, some way down Hanbury street before he stopped and waited for his mate.

But, you say, Lechmere said that both he and Paul spoke to you...?

-No, thatīs not true. But thereīs something wrong about that Lechmere bloke. All meek and quaint, but he didnīt remember things correctly. He told me about this other copper, see, and then he changed his mind although there WAS another copper in Bucks Row, that Neil fellow. It was all very odd.

-Thatīs why I didnīt rush off in a hurry. Why would I, if I had a colleague in place? Itīd been another matter if that carman had told me that it was a serious matter, that sheīd been cut, but he said nothing about that!

-He didnīt?

-Not a word. So there I was, trotting along at a gentle speed, and what happens? The woman proves to be more butchered than the average lamb in a slaughterhouse, and I look like a complete fool for not having rushed to Neils assistance.

-I mean, he MUST have known, mustnīt he?

+++++++++

After this, Iīd say you will begin to be pretty damn sure that youīve nailed your man.

All the best,
Fisherman

Oh, dear. It's even worse than I thought.

[Patrick S]

I presume you are referring to me as the toady Patrick. As ever your ignorance is manifest as is your inability to conduct yourself with a semblance of politeness. That is par for the course with you.. Enjoy your sad negative obsession.

Sorry. Is Fish the toady? I assume that's what's upset you. I don't want to confuse rank, do I?

Polite? That's how I began this discussion many months ago. Alas, when confronted with an arrogant, patronizing tone by a couple of hustlers with a vastly overestimated opinion of their own intelligence, I abandon politeness and respond in kind. After all, I know the exact post that made me realize the sort of arrogant ugliness I was dealing with. All was sweetness and light until it was clear I had questions as opposed to blind faith and support for your nonsensical tripe. I mean, obviously I'm not the only one you spar with, am I?

Further, my '"obsession" (it's more of a light diversion, really) with you and YOUR toady is anything but sad. It's quite entertaining and, in spite of it's tone, somewhat productive, when answers are forthcoming.

I'm ready for a more positive course of debate anytime you say the word. In my view, your attitude, delivery, and pugilistic manner are not doing service to your work.