Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[MrBarnett]

Of course, meat was not the only commodity handled through Broad Street, and delivering already butchered - and possibly cooked - meat is not the same as participating in the slaughtering of animals. Presumably it’s the killing of the animals and it’s attendant cruelty that can disturb those involved in it.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman


A nomadic lifestyle? How do you figure?

He moved from dwelling to dwelling during his formative years. Thatīs what I am referring to.

Isn't the earliest mention of his "close contact" with the horse flesh business in 1891, his mother's occupation?
How does that relate him to the supposedly desensitizing butchery business? Also, would it be possible for you to mention which scientific studies you are referring to?

The earliest indication of Lechmere being linked to the butchery trade stems from how the Broad Street depot was very much about delivering meat. After that, the 1891 matter is the first safe recording as far as I know. We know, however, that the Lechmere family was deeply involved within the horse flesh business, although we donīt know where it begins. I am speculating that Charles Lechmere was possibly participating in it early on, and if he was always linked to the Broad Street depot from itīs opening back in 1868, we seemingly have some sort of a meat industry connection right there, although to what exact degree, we cannot tell.

As for the research on the desensitizing effects of the meat and butchery trade, this passage points to it:

Amy Fitzgerald, a criminology professor at the University of Windsor in Canada, has found a strong correlation between the presence of a large slaughterhouse and high crime rates in U.S. communities. One might object that a slaughterhouse town’s disproportionate population of poor, working-class males might be the real cause, but Fitzgerald controlled for that possibility by comparing her data to counties with comparable populations employed in factory-like operations. In her study released in 2007, the abattoir stood out as the factor most likely to spike crime statistics. Slaughterhouse workers, in essence, were “desensitized,” and their behavior outside of work reflected it.

It stems from the link https://greenstarsproject.org/2020/0...nditions-ptsd/

I remember that there are other scientists who reached found similar results, but I cannot remember their names. I hope the example I provide will suffice for you.

PS. Just noticed that this passage followed on the earlier one:

A 2016 paper by psychology researchers at the University of South Africa looks at the psycho-social consequences of becoming a slaughterer. It reports on worker interviews, covering topics from the trauma of their first kill to recurring nightmares and feelings of shame, fear, emotional detachment, socially rejection, and violence.

The risk potential of employees suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome was evident throughout the stages of being a slaughterfloor employee.

A 2009 paper used rigorous statistical methods to look at the impact of slaughterhouses and local crime rates. The authors, from Michigan State University, reference Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel, The Jungle (which shone a light on the meat industry) and point out that almost no empirical investigations had been carried out to test the link between slaughterhouses and crime until now, 100 years later. Their conclusion:

The findings indicate that slaughterhouse employment increases total arrest rates, arrests for violent crimes, arrests for rape, and arrests for other sex offenses in comparison with other industries.

Here’s how the Yale Global Health Review explains the kind of PTSD that slaughterhouse workers suffer from:

A type of post-traumatic stress disorder called perpetration-induced traumatic stress (PITS). Unlike many forms of traumatic stress disorders in which sufferers have been victims in a traumatic situation, sufferers of PITS are the “causal participant” in a traumatic situation. In other words, they are the direct reason for another being’s trauma. Living with the knowledge of their actions causes symptoms similar to those of individuals who are recipients of trauma: substance abuse, anxiety issues, depression, and dissociation from reality.

So, there we are. It is an rather an extensive field of research, it would seem.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman. I didn't think there was any diagnosis of psychopathy, but maybe some proxy evidence that suggested he might be. A long shot given the distance in time, but reports of him harming pets or poorly treating his family, lack of friends etc...

That would be nice, but as you know, no such records exist. No records of good or bad behaviour is there, the river of time has floated that material out to sea long ago. But I somethimes ponder the 1876 incident when a carman named Charles Cross and working for Pickfords ran over and killed a young boy with his cart. It was decided that it was an accident - but from the outset, the father of the boy, who had spoken to bystanders, was apparently informed that the driver had acted recklessly.

These kinds of things stick in my mind. Why is it that this kind of accusations should surface when Charles Cross happens to run over a young kid and kill him? Bad luck? Then again, the carmen of Pickfords had a nasty reputation of being reckless, and so it could perhaps have been this that coloured peopleīs judgment.

It nevertheless dovetails with the rest of the evidence in the overall case against Lechmere. He doesnīt seem to be able to get a break, does he?

[Fisherman]

Actually the word evidence is the problem here. There's no evidence against anyone. There is merely conjecture. How many men lived the same lives in that day and age as Charles Cross? Probably thousands. How many dealt with the slaughter business? Hundreds if not thousands including fish mongers, farmers, etc. Obviously not all turned into a serial killer.

Maybe there is a difference between Sweden and the English speaking countries, but at least here, there is such a thing as circumstantial evidence. And circumstantial evidence may well suffice to sentence people in murder cases. Arenīt you speaking of proof, not evidence?

Did the killer hide the wounds or did the interruption force him to leave in a hurry before getting the clothes situated for organ extraction? If this was his first, he may have been still fighting with the clothes when Lechmere (or Paul in this situation if we assume Lechmere was the killer) came ambling down the street and he jumped the fence.

Fighting with the clothes? That fight had been won - she was cut from sternum to groin, more or less, and more cuts were added. The fact that the Nichols case is the only case where there were abdominal mutilations that were hidden points to the possibility that the killer was still in place as Paul arrived. If we include Tabram, there were five cases of abdominal mutilations, and the only case where these were hidden was the Nichols case. So it was a one in five option that Lechmere would have this feature pointing to potential guilt on his behalf.
In a sense, the case against Lechmere is a numerical one. How large was the chance that Paul would arrive at the exact time that meant that he did not see Lechmere stopping - but he was neverthless close enough to give Lechmere an alibi? How large is the chance that Mizen would be the one lying about the extra PC? Or that he would have misheard Lechmere? How large was the chance that out of the thousands of street in the East End, the four murders committed at around 3 - 4 AM all took place along Lechmeres logical routes to work? How large was the chance that Lechmere would stumble upon Nichols at a remove in time when she would still bleed from the neck for a further seven minutes or so? How large was the chance that he would call himself by another name than he otherwise always did in authority contacts?

Itīs murder mathematics, and it does point very clealy in the carmans direction. As I keep saying, these things may, technically speaking, all be unlucky coincidences, and so there MAY just be another killer (although my personal conviction is that the chances are so slim as to be beyond the anorectic) - but how on earth can these figures result in the idea that another killer is somehow LIKELIER...???? The idea is preposterous. Lechmere must be the red hot top suspect - and in all likelihood also the killer.

Is there any indication that Lechmere was so quick on his feet that he would come up with the tarpaulin scenario?

How would that indication look? A recorded victory in the 1887 East End Think-on-your-feet challenge? I am in no way impressed by it. He had had three days to figure out what to say to the inquest, and other feats of his are more remarkable in my view, not least the second PC. In that case, there were no three days of pondering, he had to think that one up on the go.

Is there any indication as to why he would've thought it was a good idea to lie to the one policeman by telling him another is already there? This one bothers me because Mizen had no reason to suspect Lechmere and Paul of anything other than reporting a possible drunk or death, which in that time it was not uncommon to come across a dead person who drunk themselves to death, or someone who just dropped dead. So Mizen probably wouldn't have asked them to come back anyway.

The difference is that if Lechmere only said that there was a woman on her back in Bucks Row, then Mizen would have anticipated that Lechmere knew this on account of being the finder of the woman. In such a case, since there was no certainty WHY she was on her back, it could be anything from a case of drunkenness to murder, and Mizen would reasonably be obliged to take the name of the carman (and perhaps also detain Lechmere until it was cleared up). After that, if Mizen walked up to Bucks Row and found Nichols cut to pieces, he would reasonably get curious about why the carman had not seen what was afoot. By inventing the other PC and teaming up with Paul, Lechmere secured a minimum level of attention on Mizens behalf.
And donīt forget what a psychopath is about, Columbo! I do not rule out that he enjoyed tailoring this kind of solution, that it gave him a sense of being very clever.

And what thrill would it be to come forward to an inquest, get on the stand and contradict a policeman with all the possible repercussions that could bring? That makes as much sense as suspecting Tumblety was Astrakhan man.

If he did NOT come forward, what would that mean in terms of suspicions, Columbo? The more interesting thing is that the murder was the talk of the town, and on everybody's lips. So why did he not come forward on the first inquest day...?

On a whole it doesn't add up. Lechmere finding the body makes him an interesting prospect. But he apparently was not considered a suspect by the police from the documentation that exists. And if he was suspected he would have surely come up somewhere in someones diary, memoirs etc. Just my opinion.

Of course he was not suspected. And there is no reason to think that he must have been, if there was reason to. The state prosecutor in Sweden only just named the killer of Olof Palme, Swedens prime minister who was killed in 1986. The killer was probably Stig Engström, who was dressed as the killer, and who himself sought out the police and the papers and wanted as much participation as possible. The police quickly grew tired of him and ruled him out of the investigation in early 1987, only to realize in 2020 that they were wrong. Engström claimed that the witnesses who spoke of a man in a cap and an overcoat running up the stairs of Tunnelgatan and who thought this was the killer had actually seen him, Engström, who did the run to try and help the police!
And everybody bought it, even the scores of private investigators and amateur sleuths. The police bought it to the degree where they wrote in their 50 million pound investigation that the real killer would have looked like and have been dressed like Engström, a carbon copy, more or less!

That case goes a million miles to prove how everybody can get it wrong even if the evidence is there all the time, staring them in the eyes.

Lechmere was a family man, a steady worker and he reported himself to the police not once but twice. He was nothing like what the police, press and public outlined, and so he was overseen. It is that easy, and we should not think that easy is impossible. it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Kattrup]

Hi Fisherman

What there is, is the knowledge that Lechmere grew up under circumstances that are similar to what many psychopaths have endured: a missing father figure, a seemingly dominant mother and a nomadic lifestyle, moving inbetween different homes.

A nomadic lifestyle? How do you figure?

We also know that he was in close contact with the horse flesh business, although we cannot pin it exactly in time - and the butchery business is a desensitizing one, according to scientific studies made.
.

Isn't the earliest mention of his "close contact" with the horse flesh business in 1891, his mother's occupation?
How does that relate him to the supposedly desensitizing butchery business? Also, would it be possible for you to mention which scientific studies you are referring to?

[Columbo]

Hi Columbo.

Evidence may be too strong a word - just looking for indicators that suggest Lechmere may have been a psychopath. If it existed, it would strengthen the case against him.



We do not know for sure that Lechmere lied to Mizen, it could have been a misunderstanding. But if Lechmere was the murderer, he would know that Mizen would soon discover the murder and would want a statement from him.



It makes little sense to me either - I think it was more likely a misunderstanding. But if it was a deliberate lie, I think Fisherman's theory is a reasonable one.



Not being considered a suspect by the police is not in itself a sign of innocence. However, I agree with your general thrust, that Lechmere has the makings of a decent suspect but evidence to prove/support that is circumstantial and based on logical but inconclusive reasoning. It is why any additional information that either supports or detracts from his candidacy would be useful to unearth.

I appreciate this. Very nicely put. Fisherman knows I support his belief and ideas towards Lechmere being a suspect. I find his arguments intriguing and I appreciate his insights overall. But at the end of the day we really have no reasons to suspect Lechmere anymore than George Hutchinson killing MJK. At least with the documentation available to us at this point. Several years after Lechmere was brought to our attention we have very little new. Maybe something will surface that will bolster these claims.

[etenguy]

Actually the word evidence is the problem here. There's no evidence against anyone. There is merely conjecture. How many men lived the same lives in that day and age as Charles Cross? Probably thousands. How many dealt with the slaughter business? Hundreds if not thousands including fish mongers, farmers, etc. Obviously not all turned into a serial killer.

Hi Columbo.

Evidence may be too strong a word - just looking for indicators that suggest Lechmere may have been a psychopath. If it existed, it would strengthen the case against him.

Did the killer hide the wounds or did the interruption force him to leave in a hurry before getting the clothes situated for organ extraction? If this was his first, he may have been still fighting with the clothes when Lechmere (or Paul in this situation if we assume Lechmere was the killer) came ambling down the street and he jumped the fence.

Is there any indication that Lechmere was so quick on his feet that he would come up with the tarpaulin scenario? Is there any indication as to why he would've thought it was a good idea to lie to the one policeman by telling him another is already there? This one bothers me because Mizen had no reason to suspect Lechmere and Paul of anything other than reporting a possible drunk or death, which in that time it was not uncommon to come across a dead person who drunk themselves to death, or someone who just dropped dead. So Mizen probably wouldn't have asked them to come back anyway.

We do not know for sure that Lechmere lied to Mizen, it could have been a misunderstanding. But if Lechmere was the murderer, he would know that Mizen would soon discover the murder and would want a statement from him.

And what thrill would it be to come forward to an inquest, get on the stand and contradict a policeman with all the possible repercussions that could bring? That makes as much sense as suspecting Tumblety was Astrakhan man.

It makes little sense to me either - I think it was more likely a misunderstanding. But if it was a deliberate lie, I think Fisherman's theory is a reasonable one.

On a whole it doesn't add up. Lechmere finding the body makes him an interesting prospect. But he apparently was not considered a suspect by the police from the documentation that exists. And if he was suspected he would have surely come up somewhere in someones diary, memoirs etc. Just my opinion.

Not being considered a suspect by the police is not in itself a sign of innocence. However, I agree with your general thrust, that Lechmere has the makings of a decent suspect but evidence to prove/support that is circumstantial and based on logical but inconclusive reasoning. It is why any additional information that either supports or detracts from his candidacy would be useful to unearth.

[etenguy]

There is no evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath. If there was, then I believe the Ripper case would be a done deal for most people. Having had a proven psychopath at a murder scene, fitting like a glove with the blood evidence and seemingly lying his way out of it does not leave much room for other speculations, does it?

What there is, is the knowledge that Lechmere grew up under circumstances that are similar to what many psychopaths have endured: a missing father figure, a seemingly dominant mother and a nomadic lifestyle, moving inbetween different homes.

We also know that he was in close contact with the horse flesh business, although we cannot pin it exactly in time - and the butchery business is a desensitizing one, according to scientific studies made.

What we can say without hesitation is that whoever the Ripper was, he was doubtlessly a psychopath. The key element of a psychopaths mental disposition is the inability to empathize with others, and to realize the pain people go through in dangerous and lifethreatening situations. This lack of empathy is what allows the psychopaths to take lives as if it was a walk in the park. And the Ripper is a prime example, taking psychopathy to itīs extreme by simply using his victims as aquired pieces of flesh for him to cut up at will. This is something that reveals the underlying psychopathy in a very clear manner.

Once we make the assumption that Lechmere was the killer, we must therefore also make the assumption that he was a psychopath. I have said before, and I donīt mind repeating it, that if Charles Lechmere was not a psychopath, then he was not the killer.

But his whole demeanor in combination with the Nichols murder and ensuing inquest is totally in line with psychopathy. He did not care to come to the first day of the inquest, it was not until he was revealed by Pauls intereview that he arrived on the second day. And when he did, he calmly denied having conned Mizen, cool as you like.
Similarly, he was able to think on his feet without panicking as he joined Paul after the examination, concocting the lie about the second PC. Note how he apparently never mentions to Mizen that he himself was the killer, instead he positions himself so that Mizen simply accepts that he was a messenger sent by the true finder of Nichols. It all fits so very well, not a word about being the finder, obscuring that Nichols was likely dead and adding the one thing that could see him through: a second PC. And calmly setting about hiding the injuries as Paul was walking down the street!

If this is how the murder went down, then it is not something that any ordinary person would ever be likely to think up - but it is in perfect line with what a full-blown psychopath would present.

So there you are: No evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath, an early life in line with the kind of life that shapes many psychopaths and a behaviour at the murder scene and inquest that is in perfect line with psychopathy if he was the killer.

Some call that circular reasoning, I call it logical and consequential thinking. The alternative of a phantom killer who hid the wounds for no reason at all, who for once abstained from positioning his victim, who was able to sneak out soundlessly, who was never seen by anybody and who made the blood run even longer than is the case when we look at Lechmere as the killer is not a very logical one. I read up on sheep slaughter only this week, and it seems that a sheep will bleed out completely and go from running to dripping in around one and a half to two minutes. Nichols blood was still running as Mizen arrived, at least seven minutes after she was cut.

Much as we owe it to ourselves not to totally exclude the possibility of another killer, why would anybody make it a preferrred option? It is senseless and in conflict with the evidence.

Hi Fisherman. I didn't think there was any diagnosis of psychopathy, but maybe some proxy evidence that suggested he might be. A long shot given the distance in time, but reports of him harming pets or poorly treating his family, lack of friends etc...

[Columbo]

Hi Baron - for most people the sentiment you express would very likely be correct - unnecessary risk taking, but if I have properly understood Fisherman's argument, he suggests that Lechmere had psychopathic tendencies. I'm no psychologist but thrill seeking, sensation seeking, risk taking and a lack of empathy are commonly associated with psychopathic behaviour. A person such as this could very well behave as Fisherman has outlined.

However, we do not know that Lechmere did have psychopathic tendencies, it is a theory. I know little of Lechmere's life and behaviour. I think we would need to look into Lechmere's life more closely to try and establish whether these traits were manifested in areas of his life. I would also suggest we need to look at the other Ripper murders to try to establish if the murderer generally displayed psychopathic tendencies. Fisherman knows far more about Lechmere than most, and certainly much more than me, he may very well be able to point to such evidence.

Actually the word evidence is the problem here. There's no evidence against anyone. There is merely conjecture. How many men lived the same lives in that day and age as Charles Cross? Probably thousands. How many dealt with the slaughter business? Hundreds if not thousands including fish mongers, farmers, etc. Obviously not all turned into a serial killer.

Did the killer hide the wounds or did the interruption force him to leave in a hurry before getting the clothes situated for organ extraction? If this was his first, he may have been still fighting with the clothes when Lechmere (or Paul in this situation if we assume Lechmere was the killer) came ambling down the street and he jumped the fence.

Is there any indication that Lechmere was so quick on his feet that he would come up with the tarpaulin scenario? Is there any indication as to why he would've thought it was a good idea to lie to the one policeman by telling him another is already there? This one bothers me because Mizen had no reason to suspect Lechmere and Paul of anything other than reporting a possible drunk or death, which in that time it was not uncommon to come across a dead person who drunk themselves to death, or someone who just dropped dead. So Mizen probably wouldn't have asked them to come back anyway.

And what thrill would it be to come forward to an inquest, get on the stand and contradict a policeman with all the possible repercussions that could bring? That makes as much sense as suspecting Tumblety was Astrakhan man.

On a whole it doesn't add up. Lechmere finding the body makes him an interesting prospect. But he apparently was not considered a suspect by the police from the documentation that exists. And if he was suspected he would have surely come up somewhere in someones diary, memoirs etc. Just my opinion.

[Fisherman]

Hi Baron - for most people the sentiment you express would very likely be correct - unnecessary risk taking, but if I have properly understood Fisherman's argument, he suggests that Lechmere had psychopathic tendencies. I'm no psychologist but thrill seeking, sensation seeking, risk taking and a lack of empathy are commonly associated with psychopathic behaviour. A person such as this could very well behave as Fisherman has outlined.

However, we do not know that Lechmere did have psychopathic tendencies, it is a theory. I know little of Lechmere's life and behaviour. I think we would need to look into Lechmere's life more closely to try and establish whether these traits were manifested in areas of his life. I would also suggest we need to look at the other Ripper murders to try to establish if the murderer generally displayed psychopathic tendencies. Fisherman knows far more about Lechmere than most, and certainly much more than me, he may very well be able to point to such evidence.

There is no evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath. If there was, then I believe the Ripper case would be a done deal for most people. Having had a proven psychopath at a murder scene, fitting like a glove with the blood evidence and seemingly lying his way out of it does not leave much room for other speculations, does it?

What there is, is the knowledge that Lechmere grew up under circumstances that are similar to what many psychopaths have endured: a missing father figure, a seemingly dominant mother and a nomadic lifestyle, moving inbetween different homes.

We also know that he was in close contact with the horse flesh business, although we cannot pin it exactly in time - and the butchery business is a desensitizing one, according to scientific studies made.

What we can say without hesitation is that whoever the Ripper was, he was doubtlessly a psychopath. The key element of a psychopaths mental disposition is the inability to empathize with others, and to realize the pain people go through in dangerous and lifethreatening situations. This lack of empathy is what allows the psychopaths to take lives as if it was a walk in the park. And the Ripper is a prime example, taking psychopathy to itīs extreme by simply using his victims as aquired pieces of flesh for him to cut up at will. This is something that reveals the underlying psychopathy in a very clear manner.

Once we make the assumption that Lechmere was the killer, we must therefore also make the assumption that he was a psychopath. I have said before, and I donīt mind repeating it, that if Charles Lechmere was not a psychopath, then he was not the killer.

But his whole demeanor in combination with the Nichols murder and ensuing inquest is totally in line with psychopathy. He did not care to come to the first day of the inquest, it was not until he was revealed by Pauls intereview that he arrived on the second day. And when he did, he calmly denied having conned Mizen, cool as you like.
Similarly, he was able to think on his feet without panicking as he joined Paul after the examination, concocting the lie about the second PC. Note how he apparently never mentions to Mizen that he himself was the killer, instead he positions himself so that Mizen simply accepts that he was a messenger sent by the true finder of Nichols. It all fits so very well, not a word about being the finder, obscuring that Nichols was likely dead and adding the one thing that could see him through: a second PC. And calmly setting about hiding the injuries as Paul was walking down the street!

If this is how the murder went down, then it is not something that any ordinary person would ever be likely to think up - but it is in perfect line with what a full-blown psychopath would present.

So there you are: No evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath, an early life in line with the kind of life that shapes many psychopaths and a behaviour at the murder scene and inquest that is in perfect line with psychopathy if he was the killer.

Some call that circular reasoning, I call it logical and consequential thinking. The alternative of a phantom killer who hid the wounds for no reason at all, who for once abstained from positioning his victim, who was able to sneak out soundlessly, who was never seen by anybody and who made the blood run even longer than is the case when we look at Lechmere as the killer is not a very logical one. I read up on sheep slaughter only this week, and it seems that a sheep will bleed out completely and go from running to dripping in around one and a half to two minutes. Nichols blood was still running as Mizen arrived, at least seven minutes after she was cut.

Much as we owe it to ourselves not to totally exclude the possibility of another killer, why would anybody make it a preferrred option? It is senseless and in conflict with the evidence.

[etenguy]

He didn't just come forward, he stood in front of the coroner and the jury in a murder case, and denied telling Mizen that a policeman wanted him in Bucks Row, rising all the red questions marks upon himself, and went killing in 5 days!

If I was the police, I will not only suspect him, I will watch the mother of him and her dog too.

This is not only taking unnecessary risk, this is suicide.


finitio.


The Baron

Hi Baron - for most people the sentiment you express would very likely be correct - unnecessary risk taking, but if I have properly understood Fisherman's argument, he suggests that Lechmere had psychopathic tendencies. I'm no psychologist but thrill seeking, sensation seeking, risk taking and a lack of empathy are commonly associated with psychopathic behaviour. A person such as this could very well behave as Fisherman has outlined.

However, we do not know that Lechmere did have psychopathic tendencies, it is a theory. I know little of Lechmere's life and behaviour. I think we would need to look into Lechmere's life more closely to try and establish whether these traits were manifested in areas of his life. I would also suggest we need to look at the other Ripper murders to try to establish if the murderer generally displayed psychopathic tendencies. Fisherman knows far more about Lechmere than most, and certainly much more than me, he may very well be able to point to such evidence.

[Fisherman]

He didn't just come forward, he stood in front of the coroner and the jury in a murder case, and denied telling Mizen that a policeman wanted him in Bucks Row, rising all the red questions marks upon himself, and went killing in 5 days!

If I was the police, I will not only suspect him, I will watch the mother of him and her dog too.

This is not only taking unnecessary risk, this is suicide.


finitio.


The Baron

But as you can see, the police never even took enough interest in him to secure his name. And psychopathy is to a very large degree about taking risks. We are dealing with a man who killed and eviscerated in the open streets, donīt forget that.

You may not like it, but it all fits.

[The Baron]

I think the only instance that truly cannot be reconciled is the fact Lechmere came forward when it wasn’t necessary. To bring attention to himself that early in the game just doesn’t make sense. Again this is all theory and no matter what your opinion this man is innocent as are all the suspects until proven otherwise, but coming forward is definitely a point in favor of innocence. I know Fisherman has explained why he came forward but to me it’s just too complicated to be plausible.

He didn't just come forward, he stood in front of the coroner and the jury in a murder case, and denied telling Mizen that a policeman wanted him in Bucks Row, rising all the red questions marks upon himself, and went killing in 5 days!

If I was the police, I will not only suspect him, I will watch the mother of him and her dog too.

This is not only taking unnecessary risk, this is suicide.


finitio.


The Baron

[Columbo]

I think the only instance that truly cannot be reconciled is the fact Lechmere came forward when it wasn’t necessary. To bring attention to himself that early in the game just doesn’t make sense. Again this is all theory and no matter what your opinion this man is innocent as are all the suspects until proven otherwise, but coming forward is definitely a point in favor of innocence. I know Fisherman has explained why he came forward but to me it’s just too complicated to be plausible.

[Fisherman]

If Paul started at 4:00 a.m. and Cross was late, no reason they should normally meet. Had Cross not stopped, they wouldn't have met that night either.

Exactly so. It seems probable that Lechmere told the inquest that he normally started his trek at 3.20 but on the murder morning, he was late and started only at 3.30. If he ordinarily started at 3.20, then he ordinarily passed Bucks Row at around 3.26-3.27. Paul too claimed to have been late on the murder morning, and said that he arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45. If he ordinarily passed Bucks Row ten minutes earlier, we would have 3.35, almost ten minutes after the ordinary Lechmere schedule.

There is nothing at all odd about the two never having met, not least because Lechmere had only moved to Doveton Street in June, leaving perhaps only some 60-70 working days when he had used the Bucks Row passage to work from.