Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Abby Normal]

I presume you mean Carl Feigenbaum? and he by reason of what is known about him makes him more of a viable suspect than Lechmere. but as there was never a jack the ripper he can only be considered as perhaps being responsible for one or more of these murders

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"...one or more of these murders."

so that means he could be responsible for all 5? 7? all the whitechapel murder victims in the file?

but there was never a Jack the ripper even though someone could be responsible for all of them???


I mean, really, only you Trevor could come up with such a nonsensical idea in just one sentence.

your a master with the English language, a regular Yogi Berra.

I'm naming it another classic trevorism.

[Trevor Marriott]

"...one or more of these murders."

so that means he could be responsible for all 5? 7? all the whitechapel murder victims in the file?

but there was never a Jack the ripper even though someone could be responsible for all of them???


I mean, really, only you Trevor could come up with such a nonsensical idea in just one sentence.

your a master with the English language, a regular Yogi Berra.

I'm naming it another classic trevorism.

In the absence of any killer being identified, an open mind must be kept, but of course you have proved time and time again that you dont have a mind to open.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Henry Flower]

Wow, Trevor. You're wasted on this site. You should be on Have I Got News For You or something. Such biting satire!

Something I've often wondered about the boorish and humourless - is it something you can master with practice or do you have to be born with it, Trevor?

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: He was not only found by a victim, but seen committing the murder !!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear ME! What a scoundrel! Which of the C5 was it? Or was it somewhere else in Whitechapel or the East End?

The long bladed knife which he used he dropped and was recovered by the police after he ran off.

Oh, so he dropped his knife? Thatīs uncharacteristic, is it not? But it was a longbladed knife, so it was probably him anyway. They are rare, longbladed knives.

Oh and not forgetting that he was later convicted of the murder and executed.

Comes with a posthumous Ripper title as a general rule, I know.

Based on that, which one do you think is likely to have been a cold blooded killer who used a knife ?

"Based on that"? Why would I base my take on Lechmere on what Mr Figtree did?
Or are you saying that every contemporary knife killer was the Ripper?

Rule number one when looking for a killer is to establish opportunity. And it is not established by positing that since we have no idea where X was, he had opportunity. It is established by determining that X was in such a proximity to the murder spot so as to enable him to have been the killer.

Thatīs a hurdle Mr Figtree will never get over.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: He was not only found by a victim, but seen committing the murder !!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear ME! What a scoundrel! Which of the C5 was it? Or was it somewhere else in Whitechapel or the East End?

The long bladed knife which he used he dropped and was recovered by the police after he ran off.

Oh, so he dropped his knife? Thatīs uncharacteristic, is it not? But it was a longbladed knife, so it was probably him anyway. They are rare, longbladed knives.

Oh and not forgetting that he was later convicted of the murder and executed.

Comes with a posthumous Ripper title as a general rule, I know.

Based on that, which one do you think is likely to have been a cold blooded killer who used a knife ?

"Based on that"? Why would I base my take on Lechmere on what Mr Figtree did?
Or are you saying that every contemporary knife killer was the Ripper?

Rule number one when looking for a killer is to establish opportunity. And it is not established by positing that since we have no idea where X was, he had opportunity. It is established by determining that X was in such a proximity to the murder spot so as to enable him to have been the killer.

Thatīs a hurdle Mr Figtree will never get over.

And you will never be able to comprehend the fact that when someone is murdered, someone has to find the body in the case of Nicholls it just happened to be Lechmere, but that doesn't make him a suspect, or the killer.

You cant cherry pick those who found the bodies, and say that one was the killer. In fact it is so unlikely that a killer would ever put himself in such a situation as you suggest Lechmere did

Come back when you have some proper evidence that does implicate him

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Wow, Trevor. You're wasted on this site. You should be on Have I Got News For You or something. Such biting satire!

Something I've often wondered about the boorish and humourless - is it something you can master with practice or do you have to be born with it, Trevor?

Its a natural gift, which I only use when replying to comments posted by numpties

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Trevor Marriott: He was not only found by a victim, but seen committing the murder !!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear ME! What a scoundrel! Which of the C5 was it? Or was it somewhere else in Whitechapel or the East End?

The long bladed knife which he used he dropped and was recovered by the police after he ran off.

Oh, so he dropped his knife? Thatīs uncharacteristic, is it not? But it was a longbladed knife, so it was probably him anyway. They are rare, longbladed knives.

Oh and not forgetting that he was later convicted of the murder and executed.

Comes with a posthumous Ripper title as a general rule, I know.

Based on that, which one do you think is likely to have been a cold blooded killer who used a knife ?

"Based on that"? Why would I base my take on Lechmere on what Mr Figtree did?
Or are you saying that every contemporary knife killer was the Ripper?

Rule number one when looking for a killer is to establish opportunity. And it is not established by positing that since we have no idea where X was, he had opportunity. It is established by determining that X was in such a proximity to the murder spot so as to enable him to have been the killer.

Thatīs a hurdle Mr Figtree will never get over.

figtree was a killer. not too many of those around! he must have been the ripper! The Master Detective has solved another case!

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: And you will never be able to comprehend the fact that when someone is murdered, someone has to find the body in the case of Nicholls it just happened to be Lechmere, but that doesn't make him a suspect, or the killer.

You should try and read my posts every once in a while. Iīll spell it out to you and Iīll do a George Bush Senior: Read my lips, Trevor:
I-am-not-saying-and-I-have-never-said-that-finding-a-murder-victim-makes-you-a-suspect.
Did you get that? Iīll say it one more time, so we make certain that you wonīt stumble over this again. God knows you have comprehending problems as it is! Okay, here goes:
I-am-not-saying-and-I-have-never-said-that-finding-a-murder-victim-makes-you-a-suspect.

It makes you a person of interest if the murder victim died close in time to when you were there, but thatīs about all.

However, Trevor! Anybody who is found at a murder site within such a space of time so as to allow for having been the killer, must be cleared before they can be let go, especially if no other person can be pointed to as the killer.
And if there are other circumstances pointing to the finder of the body being the killer, such as inconsistencies or lies in his testimony, then he may well - on account of these inconsistencies/lies TOGETHER with the fact that he was found by the body - find himself a suspect or even the prime suspect.

Now, Trevor, are we good on this? Have you finally understood what I am saying? Can I bank on you not making the same moronic claim on my behalf again? Please let me know! If I have to keep hammering it home, then hammer it home I will, make no mistake about it.

You cant cherry pick those who found the bodies, and say that one was the killer. In fact it is so unlikely that a killer would ever put himself in such a situation as you suggest Lechmere did.

Is it improbable that a killer is found alongside his victim? Does it happen? Or is it "unlikely"? How many times in history have killers been caught, or been very nearly caught, red-handed, Trevor? Is it unique?

Come back when you have some proper evidence that does implicate him

I AM back, Trevor. I never went away.

[Fisherman]

figtree was a killer. not too many of those around! he must have been the ripper! The Master Detective has solved another case!

Impressive all over!

Trevor even tried to detail the accusation points, which was a lot of fun.

True to form, he thoroughly missed the one point that is of interest in Mr Figtrees case.

Oh, well...

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: And you will never be able to comprehend the fact that when someone is murdered, someone has to find the body in the case of Nicholls it just happened to be Lechmere, but that doesn't make him a suspect, or the killer.

You should try and read my posts every once in a while. Iīll spell it out to you and Iīll do a George Bush Senior: Read my lips, Trevor:
I-am-not-saying-and-I-have-never-said-that-finding-a-murder-victim-makes-you-a-suspect.
Did you get that? Iīll say it one more time, so we make certain that you wonīt stumble over this again. God knows you have comprehending problems as it is! Okay, here goes:
I-am-not-saying-and-I-have-never-said-that-finding-a-murder-victim-makes-you-a-suspect.

It makes you a person of interest if the murder victim died close in time to when you were there, but thatīs about all.

However, Trevor! Anybody who is found at a murder site within such a space of time so as to allow for having been the killer, must be cleared before they can be let go, especially if no other person can be pointed to as the killer.
And if there are other circumstances pointing to the finder of the body being the killer, such as inconsistencies or lies in his testimony, then he may well - on account of these inconsistencies/lies TOGETHER with the fact that he was found by the body - find himself a suspect or even the prime suspect.

Now, Trevor, are we good on this? Have you finally understood what I am saying? Can I bank on you not making the same moronic claim on my behalf again? Please let me know! If I have to keep hammering it home, then hammer it home I will, make no mistake about it.

You cant cherry pick those who found the bodies, and say that one was the killer. In fact it is so unlikely that a killer would ever put himself in such a situation as you suggest Lechmere did.

Is it improbable that a killer is found alongside his victim? Does it happen? Or is it "unlikely"? How many times in history have killers been caught red-handed, Trevor? Is it unique?


Come back when you have some proper evidence that does implicate him

I AM back, Trevor. I never went away.

Shame, I guess I will still have to keep throwing coins in the wishing well

[Fisherman]

Shame, I guess I will still have to keep throwing coins in the wishing well

Forget about the coins and the well, it wonīt work anyway. Instead, sit yourself comfortably down and read this:

I-am-not-saying-and-I-have-never-said-that-finding-a-murder-victim-makes-you-a-suspect.

Itīs more useful, see?

[Trevor Marriott]

Forget about the coins and the well, it wonīt work anyway. Instead, sit yourself comfortably down and read this:

I-am-not-saying-and-I-have-never-said-that-finding-a-murder-victim-makes-you-a-suspect.

Itīs more useful, see?

You need to direct that towards Fisherman he thinks that it does in the case of Lechmere. Me, I think the suggestion is as nonsensical as some of your posts.No, let me rephrase that, all of your posts

[Columbo]

I presume you mean Carl Feigenbaum? and he by reason of what is known about him makes him more of a viable suspect than Lechmere. but as there was never a jack the ripper he can only be considered as perhaps being responsible for one or more of these murders

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, so now there never was a Jack the ripper? When was that proposed? Did I miss that in your last book? Interesting.

Columbo

[Columbo]

And you will never be able to comprehend the fact that when someone is murdered, someone has to find the body in the case of Nicholls it just happened to be Lechmere, but that doesn't make him a suspect, or the killer.

You cant cherry pick those who found the bodies, and say that one was the killer. In fact it is so unlikely that a killer would ever put himself in such a situation as you suggest Lechmere did

Come back when you have some proper evidence that does implicate him

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Actually Fisherman did bring evidence. What you're asking for is proof. I agree not everyone who finds a body is murderer but as others have said they are at least extensively questioned. And they do become suspected if there are discrepancies in their story.

As a former policeman how would you have approached the discrepancies in Lechmere's case as put forth by Fisherman and Co.?

Columbo

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually Fisherman did bring evidence. What you're asking for is proof. I agree not everyone who finds a body is murderer but as others have said they are at least extensively questioned. And they do become suspected if there are discrepancies in their story.

As a former policeman how would you have approached the discrepancies in Lechmere's case as put forth by Fisherman and Co.?

Columbo

What did Lechmere say in his statement (paraphrasing)

I work as a carman at ------ I start work every day at ------------. I leave home at---------- I walk the same route to work every day. My route takes me along Bucks Row. On the morning of ------ I left home at the same time. As I walked along Bucks Row I saw what I believed to be a tarpaulin just off the road. On closer examination I saw it to be the body of a female. Moments later I heard footsteps coming towards me it was the witness Paul. I stopped him and we had a conversation.

Robert Paul corroborates that part of Lechmeres story

Where are there any discrepancies in that statement to warrant him being looked upon as a suspect, then or now?

The police may have checked it out with his wife re times leaving for work. His employers as to his work and start times etc. There was never any suggestion made that this part of his statement was untrue.

What other discrepancies were there ?

The different name used? We know he was entitled to use the other name. Its not as if he gave a totally false name.

Conversations with the police, these took place after the he found the body, They didn't effect or alter or bring into question the part of his statement about finding the body.

If there were ever any discrepancies, which needed clarifying, they were done so, either before the inquest, or at the inquest, because again there is never any suggestion made by the police or the coroner that Lechmere was anything other than truthful.

What else does Fisherman seek to rely on? Well the doctor who says that when he arrived death had occurred only 30 mins before. We now from what a modern day forensic pathologist tells us that this was guesswork.

Fisherman also seeks to rely on blood flow, well again this is nothing more than guesswork. Different bodies subjected to different wounds lying in different positions will all bleed from the wounds differently so no expert modern day or otherwise can categorically state how long it would have taken for a body to bleed out.

For Fishermans suspicions to be confirmed he has to rely on the aforementioned and clearly they do not stand up to close scrutiny.

The real cruncher is that if Lechmere had been the killer he had more than enough time to escape, unseen when he heard Paul coming down the road.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk