Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

If he was such a strong suspect, the best one, then you wouldn't have the need to mislead people and let the facts speak for themselves.

Rob

Well, letīs check if he IS a strong suspect, then!

1. Would you agree that a person found alone in the vicinity of a murdered person must always belong to the suspects until cleared?

Fisherman

(Hint - this is where I think you will decline to answer. But I am prepared to be surprised!)

[Rob Clack]

You need to start getting your facts right before you can have a debate with anyone Christer.

And are you saying that:

-the fact that Lechmere was found by a victims side

He wasn't found by Nichols side. You know fine well that is not true, yet you keep telling people he is.

-the fact that he was alone with the victim until being stumbled upon by Robert Paul

Again you know for a fact that this is not true.

This is what I mean. Mislead people to make your case stronger. If you look at the facts, Paul found Lechmere in the middle of the road and they both went to Nichols side together. Puts a different light on things doesn't it?
And in all the thousands of posts about Lechmere over the past few years, has anything new been added to try and incriminate him? No. It is the same old stuff which is churned out all the time.

Rob

[Lechmere]

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.

[Lechmere]

Has the Kelly MJK3 photo thread been locked or something?

[MrBarnett]

Ed,

I sense the beaters have put that particular fire out, and as most of us know bugger all about Aussie rules football, this is the only game in town.

MrB

[Rob Clack]

Not as far as I know. I've already parted with my knowledge and wisdom on that subject.

[Fisherman]

You need to start getting your facts right before you can have a debate with anyone Christer.

He wasn't found by Nichols side. You know fine well that is not true, yet you keep telling people he is.

Again you know for a fact that this is not true.

This is what I mean. Mislead people to make your case stronger. If you look at the facts, Paul found Lechmere in the middle of the road and they both went to Nichols side together. Puts a different light on things doesn't it?
And in all the thousands of posts about Lechmere over the past few years, has anything new been added to try and incriminate him? No. It is the same old stuff which is churned out all the time.

Rob

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

[MrBarnett]

The question surely is 'Was Lech close enough to the body to have stepped back a few paces on hearing Paul's approach?' The answer's yes and unless we can imagine an astute copper writing him off as a suspect because he was a few feet away, then Fish's point is valid, even if couched in terms that encourage a suspicious interpretation over a possible innocent one.

MrB

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.