Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Geddy2112]

Fisherman has a point, so what was Lechmere doing since he left home 3:20-3:30 ?!

Meditating?!

Holmgren is of course cherry picking the evidence to fit his theory. Paul's exactly 3:45am is from the Remarkable Statement which ironically on p66 of Cutting Point Holmgren states -

"The Lloyd's article contains material that needs to be treated with caution.”

However he completely relies on it to make his theory fit... trust Holmgren at your peril bonny lad.

Lechmere said he left home about 3:30am and he should then have been at the crime scene about 3:38am which is completely in line with the three Policemen's statements, Abberline's report and the Doctors estimated time of death. Really Baron you should know all of this.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Fisherman has a point, so what was Lechmere doing since he left home 3:20-3:30 ?!

Meditating?!


The Baron

No, we have covered this issue so many times! Clocks were not synchronized in 1888, and whereas the police, the railways and government depts used GMT, others did not, and therefore there was some variance in perceived times according to the source. What is absolutely clear from the evidence is that PC Neil found the body at 3. 45 am, and Mizen met Lechmere and Paul at 3. 45 also. Allowing for paul's estimate of four minutes to find Mizen, and at least 1 minute for Paul and Lechmere to examine the body, Lechmere found the body at, or just belore 3. 40 am. This is pertfectly plausible, as Paul and Lechmere were totally out of Neil's sight and earshot by 3. 45 am. Paul was using a different time source for his estimation, as was Lechmere when he estimated that he left home about 3. 30 am.

The Coroner was quite clear in his summing up of the evidence, Ellen Holland saw Nichols at 2. 30 am, and in less than one and a quarter hours she was found dead. That is, before 3. 45 am. Abberline accepted 3. 40 am as the likely time that Lechmere found Nichols, and that is a reasonable estimate based on the known evidence. Any other times, used by any other persons will contradict the known evidence. Taking Paul's non-GMT estimate instead of the probable GMT times quoted by two police officers is to invent a discrepancy which does not exist. There is no evidence whatever from the sworn statements to support the claim that Lechmere had lots of time to commit a murder. He could have, but there is only speculation to support this.

Ooops! didn't see #1516 above before I wrote this!

[FrankO]

Fisherman has a point, so what was Lechmere doing since he left home 3:20-3:30 ?!

Meditating?!


The Baron

Fisherman also stated that "timings are crucial". Since we know that it's certainly not a given that each & every timing was based on the same clock/time, there's no reason whatever to put stock in particularly Paul's timing. I don't have much doubt that he saw a clock that indicated some minutes before 3.45 around the time he left his house, but that by no means means that it was the correct hour, nor that it had to be in line with the 3 PC'S. Each of the timings may well have been 5 minutes or more off. And David Orsam already explained why Swanson's 3.45 shouldn't necessarily be taken at face value or to mean that he had found reason to no longer believe/go with Abberline's timing of 3.40.

[The Baron]

All the above doesn't take away from Fisherman's approach. Nothing at all.

Lechmere left home 3:20-3:30, Paul reached Buck's Row 3:45.

Between those two timings there are some 15-25 minutes, how much time does Lechmere need to be in Buck's Row?! 5.. 6.. 7.. Minutes ?! What the hell was he doing alone there?!

Yes, they may have been not extremely accurate, we know that, we are not hanging Lechmere based on this if you are afraid so, but Fisherman's point is solid, whether you like it or not, and the common illusion that Fisherman's argument was refuted is just like that, an illusion.

The question remains, what was Lechmere doing all that time?!


The Baron

[rjpalmer]

Holmgren is of course cherry picking the evidence to fit his theory. Paul's exactly 3:45am is from the Remarkable Statement which ironically on p66 of Cutting Point Holmgren states -

"The Lloyd's article contains material that needs to be treated with caution.”

However he completely relies on it to make his theory fit... trust Holmgren at your peril bonny lad.

Lechmere said he left home about 3:30am and he should then have been at the crime scene about 3:38am which is completely in line with the three Policemen's statements, Abberline's report and the Doctors estimated time of death. Really Baron you should know all of this.

Another aspect of the Lechmere theory that doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense is Ed Stow's belief that Lechmere was only flushed out of hiding after reading Robert Paul's interview in Lloyd's on Sunday night, 2 September.

Mr. Stow argues that the evidence suggests that Lechmere remained below the radar, with everyone wrongly believing that PC Neil had discovered the body, but Paul "ran to the press," thus forcing Lechmere's hand.

The dirty bastard!

But hold on a minute.

If such were the case, then Lechmere would have also known Robert Paul's own estimated time of arrival in Buck’s Row was 3.45.

Indeed, Paul stressed this in the interview. He insisted on it.

Thus Lechmere, the murderer, was in the rare and wonderfully lucky position of already knowing what the only important witness against him was going to tell the police.

Did he take advantage of this?

Did he heck.

Knowing that his own walk from Doveton Street only took 7-9 minutes, why on earth wouldn't a guilty Lechmere have pushed his own time of departure as far forward as possible, thus leaving no time for him to have committed the murder?

"Hell, it must have been nearly 3.40 when I left home, maybe slightly earlier...."

Instead, he sticks to the 'about 3.30' estimate, thus setting himself up to be compromised by Robert Paul.

It doesn't have the 'feel' of what a guilty person would do, or what a liar would say.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As Geddy has pointed out, and as others have pointed out again and again and again Cross said that he left home at about 3.30.

But ok, let’s pretend that he left home at 3.20 He gets to Bucks Row around 3.28. Clearly he wouldn’t have left home at 3.20 with the intention of searching around for a victim to kill and mutilate before 4.00 so obviously the suggestion has to be that he ran into Nichols by chance and just couldn’t help himself. Ok..how much persuading would a desperate for cash Polly have required? None. What would be the chances of them standing around chatting about the weather? None. Ok…so they run into each other at around 3.28 and he killed and mutilated her. Even Fisherman admits that this could have taken no more than a couple of minutes or so. Therefore the deed is done 3.31/3.32.

Perhaps The Baron or anyone else can let us know why Cross loitered around for another 8/9/10 minutes until Paul arrived?

Talk of what time Cross got there is a waste of time because none of us can claim to know. Of course Fisherman ‘thinks’ that ‘about 3.30’ can only mean 3.30 or 3.31. He even once claimed that if you estimate ‘about 3.30’ then 3.30 is the likeliest time that it was. There’s a word for this. It’s called ‘bias.’ The only way that Cross can be turned into a suspect is to begin from a position of total bias. Then they take every single aspect of the case and twist it without scruple to try and shape a case against Cross. They then deliberately misuse the evidence and misinform people. They twist and bend the English language to try and make it do their bidding. They take witness evidence and spin it to suit.

The so called case against Cross doesn’t exist. He can safely be eliminated as a suspect. It’s not just that the evidence doesn’t point toward him but it categorically points against him. For a few years Ripperology has been subject to an utter con job. A thoroughly, disgraceful, embarrassing agenda perpetrated by those seeking to gain. Obviously those people are too committed to admit what they’ve done. Others are too embarrassed to admit that they were clearly wrong. And some just argue pro-Cross just for the sake of it without really believing it themselves.

Prediction - there will be a yawning silence and no answer to my question.

[The Baron]

I’m going to try and avoid any talk of Cross from now on. He clearly wasn’t the ripper and should be regarded as irrelevant to the investigation apart from as a witness.

And two days later he is back !


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another aspect of the Lechmere theory that doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense is Ed Stow's belief that Lechmere was only flushed out of hiding after reading Robert Paul's interview in Lloyd's on Sunday night, 2 September.

Mr. Stow argues that the evidence suggests that Lechmere remained below the radar, with everyone wrongly believing that PC Neil had discovered the body, but Paul "ran to the press," thus forcing Lechmere's hand.

The dirty bastard!

But hold on a minute.

If such were the case, then Lechmere would have also known Robert Paul's own estimated time of arrival in Buck’s Row was 3.45.

Indeed, Paul stressed this in the interview. He insisted on it.

Thus Lechmere, the murderer, was in the rare and wonderfully lucky position of already knowing what the only important witness against him was going to tell the police.

Did he take advantage of this?

Did he heck.

Knowing that his own walk from Doveton Street only took 7-9 minutes, why on earth wouldn't a guilty Lechmere have pushed his own time of departure as far forward as possible, thus leaving no time for him to have committed the murder?

"Hell, it must have been nearly 3.40 when I left home, maybe slightly earlier...."

Instead, he sticks to the 'about 3.30' estimate, thus setting himself up to be compromised by Robert Paul.

It doesn't have the 'feel' of what a guilty person would do, or what a liar would say.

It certainly doesn’t Roger. Another good point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And two days later he is back !


The Baron

I posted yesterday. More than once?

[Geddy2112]

If such were the case, then Lechmere would have also known Robert Paul's own estimated time of arrival in Buck’s Row was 3.45.

Indeed, Paul stressed this in the interview. He insisted on it.

Thus Lechmere, the murderer, was in the rare and wonderfully lucky position of already knowing what the only important witness against him was going to tell the police.

Did he take advantage of this?

Did he heck.

Fabulous, absolutely fabulous. Another nail in the coffin for the Lechmere Theory. The whole 'dobbing in' is bull anyway. There is no evidence Lechmere read the article and there is nothing in the article to identify Lechmere - no name or description. Also please bear in mind according to Michael Connor in his Ripperologist Article claimed Charles Lechmere was indeed illiterate so could not have read the Newspaper. Not sure how he knew that one however...

So yes since Lechmere the killer was pre-warned he had time to make up his alibi which he did not so I guess that means he done nothing wrong. Would love to have known what Paul and Cross discussed after meeting with Mizen. Either way I bet Lechmere never would have thought some 130 odd years later his movements down to the last 7m7s would be scrutinised.

[Geddy2112]

Perhaps The Baron or anyone else can let us know why Cross loitered around for another 8/9/10 minutes until Paul arrived?

That is the beauty about inventing evidence to suit you are left with it being criticised from both sides. By inventing the time gap Holmgren and Stow have inadvertently make Cross look more innocent.

The more time you gave Cross the more time he had to escape - he did not.
The less time you give Cross means he could not have had time to do the deed.

Buggered either way... but in other news a new HoL is out giving credence to Lechmere being the Torso killer. I think I made it 3 mins through and got bored off. Unfortunately you get belter replies like -

"Thank you for this fascinating video. It makes sense that Jack never stopped killing, and Lechmere fits the bill."

"Yet another excellent investigation and film. The evidence against Lechmere just keeps getting more and more obvious."

"I still think about that fact that no one in his (Lechmere's) family had any inkling he was involved in the Whitechapel case, and in a major way... " I found the first Jack the Ripper victim on my way to work" is quite the story and definitely should have become family lore that was handed down."

"Every victim that 'was found involves Lechmere. For instance he was the only person to be seen next to a victim just after she had died ? A body was found in a railway arch on Pinchin street guess who used to live on Pinchin street. Rose Mylett Found across the road from a Pickfords depot guess who worked for Pickfords."

"The similarities to the likes of Gary Ridgeway and Dennis Radar in terms of development as a serial murderer are telling. The fact that Lechmere no doubt had premises at this time that he could use to dismember bodies without suspicion is very telling in the way that these murders and corpses were carried out. Especially after Mary Kelly. It all feels like a progression and obsession to take it further and crucially not get caught."

Christ on a bike...

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is the beauty about inventing evidence to suit you are left with it being criticised from both sides. By inventing the time gap Holmgren and Stow have inadvertently make Cross look more innocent.

The more time you gave Cross the more time he had to escape - he did not.
The less time you give Cross means he could not have had time to do the deed.

Buggered either way... but in other news a new HoL is out giving credence to Lechmere being the Torso killer. I think I made it 3 mins through and got bored off. Unfortunately you get belter replies like -

"Thank you for this fascinating video. It makes sense that Jack never stopped killing, and Lechmere fits the bill."

"Yet another excellent investigation and film. The evidence against Lechmere just keeps getting more and more obvious."

"I still think about that fact that no one in his (Lechmere's) family had any inkling he was involved in the Whitechapel case, and in a major way... " I found the first Jack the Ripper victim on my way to work" is quite the story and definitely should have become family lore that was handed down."

"Every victim that 'was found involves Lechmere. For instance he was the only person to be seen next to a victim just after she had died ? A body was found in a railway arch on Pinchin street guess who used to live on Pinchin street. Rose Mylett Found across the road from a Pickfords depot guess who worked for Pickfords."

"The similarities to the likes of Gary Ridgeway and Dennis Radar in terms of development as a serial murderer are telling. The fact that Lechmere no doubt had premises at this time that he could use to dismember bodies without suspicion is very telling in the way that these murders and corpses were carried out. Especially after Mary Kelly. It all feels like a progression and obsession to take it further and crucially not get caught."

Christ on a bike...

I didn’t think that they had internet access in asylums?

[FrankO]

Lechmere left home 3:20-3:30, Paul reached Buck's Row 3:45.

Between those two timings there are some 15-25 minutes, how much time does Lechmere need to be in Buck's Row?! 5.. 6.. 7.. Minutes ?! What the hell was he doing alone there?!

Please tell us again, Baron: why do we have to believe Lechmere’s clock and Paul’s clock were in sync with each other? And why is it that we should believe Lechmere said he left home ‘at 3:20-3:30’?

[Geddy2112]

I didn’t think that they had internet access in asylums?

That is what we are up against I'm afraid and that is why Lechmere is not going to go away.

The internet has given a voice to people who would have been considered the village idiot.

To which a reply was "A cursory glance at any YouTube comments section would confirm this as fact."

[The Baron]

Please tell us again, Baron: why do we have to believe Lechmere’s clock and Paul’s clock were in sync with each other? And why is it that we should believe Lechmere said he left home ‘at 3:20-3:30’?

Frank, you don't have to 'believe' those timings, and equally no one has the right to say that Fisherman was inventing things and fabricating evidence either, just because they don't like them or don't put too much value in them.

This is a theory, it is based on some solid inferences, neither you nor I can say that Lechmere must have been just another witness as the anti-Fisherman camp like to protest.

If the police at the time searched him on the spot and watched him further, then all good, if not, then Lechmere and the hook may have to get used to each other.


The Baron