Charles Lechmere interesting link

[moonbegger]

Wrong. Again. You need to keep track of the sources! The paper interview does not say a single word about BOTH men speaking to Mizen, actually. It only has Paul speaking to the PC.

Iīll help you out and post the relevant part:

I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not.

You see? Not a Lechmere in sight anywhere! So explain to me, Moonbegger, why does not Mizen say a word about Paul having spoken to him when he testifies at the inquest? Why is he adamant that one man only came up and spoke to him? And how can it be that he identifies Charles Allen Lechmere as this man, if it was really Paul who did all the talking?

Who should we believe here?

Paul, who says that he did the talking?

Lechmere, who says that HE did the talking, and that Paul joined in that discussion, giving his view?

Or Mizen, who clearly states that Lechmere was the man who came up to him and spoke to him, and who does not even mention that there was another man in place on that morning until the coroner reminds him of that manīs presence?

Donīt answer that one just yet - I have a clue for you!

Lechmere presumably went to the police because of Pauls interview. We can see how he seemingly echoes some parts of it, saying for example that Paul seemed to be frightened of him. He even says that he thought that Nichols looked as if she had been outraged and had gone off in a swoon. Interestingly, this he says AFTER having stated that he believed that the woman was dead ...? Could it be that he echoes the interview once again, since Paul says in it that he thought that Nichols had been outraged?

No matter what - if we reason that Lechmere had seen the Paul interview, then he had ALSO seen that Paul claims to have been the one that spoke to Mizen!
If Lechmere was the killer, and if he had spoken alone to Mizen, misleading him with Paul out of earshot - why would he NOT take advantage of Paul claiming that he had been the one who spoke to Mizen? It would have been a huge advantage to him, since it would give him an alibi for having conned Mizen without Paul being able to hear it.

This is how it adds up. But we have to read the material first before we can see it. And we must not misread it the way you do, because then our chances of unravelling the whole business are reduced to zero in a split second.

All the best,
Fisherman

Its funny how perspective can change ones you remove your tunnel vision glasses .. and look at everything that was claimed by both men .
Paul ..

I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.

So Pauls walks ahead , leaving Cross momentarily ..

Cross .. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row.

They .. being a collective of the two of them ! Still allowing Paul to be walking away first .

Paul .

and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come,

Paul simply uses the Singular .. to explain his part .

Cross .. "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right,"

Clearly, this comes after Paul has already made his comment ..

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Cross .. No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.

So we have Paul saying he Did ( and we have evidence ) and we have Cross saying he didn't ( we also have evidence )

And according to you , Mizen don't even know what the time is , let alone which of the two men spoke to him first ..

cheers

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Fish ..

Charles Lechmere witnessed on Monday the 3rd. If we assume that he gave his testimony at mid day, then that would be not 48 hours after the murder, but instead 80 hours after it.

If its fine to push the envelope to seven days .. I'm sure its equally fine to push it the other way ..

And I'm not saying "I told you so" but ..

Nobody who has not checked will say that it was EXACTLY 3.45.

moonbegger

[DRoy]

I know a lot of people with very good judgment that think the case is an excellent one. They donīt post out here, however, but it does not invalidate their opinions. And posters out here have been very positive too, like Rubyretro and Barnaby, for example. So letīs try and be fair, shall we? Or I shall be sarcastic...

Fish,

I have been positive too...about the investigative work you and Lechmere have done, not the theory.

And the accoustic evidence from the street, the pulled down dress, the lies apparently told to Mizen, the appearance in court in working clothes, the fact that Lechmere mirrors Pauls paper article, and a few more bits and bobs. How many other suspects do you see out here that can compete? Please tell me!!!

You don't know the acoustics from the street, nor the footwear of Paul or Lech, nor their hearing abilities, nor blah blah blah. You don't know who pulled the dress down, only that it was pulled down. The lies told to Mizen or Mizen telling lies to save his own @$$? What clothes was he supposed to wear?

No, it is not. It is grounded in the FACTUAL matter that criminals are much, much more likely to use aliases than honest people, and in the FACT that he signed himself Lechmere on EVERY other occasion. How is that "speculative?. Tell me! Now!

Criminals may be more likely but do you have anything to support Lech was a criminal at any point in his life? My original question was whether you have any evidence as to why he chose to call himself Cross instead of Lechmere...no need to answer because I know it doesn't exist. Yes, any answer without proof is speculative.

Weigh all the timings together (yes, it is a lot of work, but it has to be done) and then we can speak again.

I have already. Yes there is a time problem, however, I choose to accept his times were off by a few minutes in which case everyone's testimony could be plus or minus a couple minutes and works out just fine.

How many people were on the streets at that time? Listen to Neil, to Lechmere himself, to Paul, to Hutchinson: very few, if any. And how many of those very few had a reason to pass by ALL the sites? Do the bleeding maths, man! How many of these men were found standing by the body of a freshly killed victim. Think. Hard!! He lied about his name, he apparently lied himself past Mizen, the wounds were covered AND he fits the sites and times. How much better can it get?

What streets are you talking about? If you are talking about Polly's murder area in general, no there weren't many. However, if you draw a circle around the murder sites you get quite a few streets! How many people within that circle were walking about at that time? How many people from outside that circle had to walk by those sites? Is it not easy to presume people had family living on the left and their work on the right so they walked past those sites?

No, finding out about his nameswop does not alter his routes at all. Michael Connor pointed a finger at him for passing four of the spots, and he did at that stage not know about the namechange.

The sites also make a cross (no pun intended) and a pentagram . You don't know what route he normally used and you don't know whether he was close to his mother to even visit her.

Prove? I could probably statistically prove that most people who have all these things going against them are normally the culprits too. But I do not have the inclination to do so to satisfy somebody who cannot put two and two together himself. It would give nothing. Sorry, DRoy, but thatīs how I see it. Once somebody like you has decided not to consider something, or hasnīt the ability to do so, then there is little I can do about it.

I've done your math for you...it isn't me being unable to put two and two together, it's you adding zero + zero + zero and getting one hundred that's the problem. I'm open minded Fish but not open enough to accept speculation plus supposition plus conjecture equals guilt.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

If the locations of the murders being either on his way to work or close to his mother's is part of the theory, then Mitre Square is a crack.

If we postulate that the murder spots must be along those tracks, yes - but Mitre Square probably came about as he fled from Berner Street - arguably along his old working route from James Street to Broad Street - into City territory, and close to the Pickfords depot.

He could not kill in his old quarters in St George for they were swarming with coppers.

So no crack, no - a very understandable choice when the first choice was no longer open to him.

I should perhaps say that I regard a crack as something that disenables the theory to be true.

the best,
Fisherman

Off to a restaurant now (one of my boys has his 18th birthday), so Iīm off.

[MrBarnett]

If the locations of the murders being either on his way to work or close to his mother's is part of the theory, then Mitre Square is a crack.