The Lechmere trail - so far

[caz]

If all that is required is that a conjured up scenario is not impossible, we may even be able to bring a polar bear, Paul Cézanne and a bunch of lewd Transsylvanian dwarfs on the stage.

Ah, I'm beginning to see how the Lechmere theory works now. You conjure up a scenario that is not (quite) impossible - for instance the ripper attending an inquest he has no need to, simply because he is a psychopath - and hey presto!

You may as well apply the same principle to almost anyone - human, that is. The polar bear was just silly.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Cross would certainly have told his employers the reason he needed to be absent from work,and a good employer w ould assist a good employee.

Yes Harry, I can't see how anything else could realistically have been the case. And calling himself Charles Allen Cross, if his employers only knew him as Charles Allen Lechmere, would surely not have gone unnoticed by them, even if everyone else missed it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

As Patrick has pointed out, though, Lechmere wasn't really 'seen' was he? Not in the sense of 'seen, never to be forgotten'. The first time he was seen properly, in good light and for any length of time, was when he went voluntarily to the authorities, claiming to be 'the man' described as 'the man', not by PC Mizen, not by PC Neil, but by Robert Paul, a stranger and fellow carman, who clearly put 'the man' in the role of trying to get help for the woman, and just as clearly put Mizen in the role of a copper who couldn't have cared less.

I can see why Mizen was forced into admitting how he first heard about the woman, and not knowing any names initially he may have assumed the newspaper interview (where Paul put himself in the star role) featured the man he later found was called Cross.

What I can't see is why a guilty Lechmere felt any need at all to come forward as a result of Paul's story, since the bluff had worked so perfectly and nobody knew him from Adam. He had apparently done nothing wrong; nobody was looking for him or suspected him; and PC Neil had claimed first 'discovery' anyway (and everyone knows a copper's word is to be trusted before a cop-hating carman's ). The worst that could happen was Mizen being forced out of the woodwork to explain his continuing to knock up; his failure to take details from either man; and his initial silence when asked if he had seen anyone coming from Buck's Row. This could have led to Mizen describing 'the man' and the police searching for both, but by the time they managed to find Lechmere as well as Paul (if they found Lechmere and he admitted to being 'the man'), there would have been no more evidence against one than the other.

And don't tell me psychopathic killers thrive on all this unnecessary attention, because you claimed to be 'sure' he'd have preferred not to be seen in Buck's Row in the first place, but **** happens, which is presumably a bad thing - unless Lechmere had one more perversion I'd sooner not hear about.

Love,

Caz
X

You are just rehashing old points here, Caz. Plus you are guessing away.

The body was covered, down to over the knees. This implicates that Lechmere had already taken the decision to bluff it out the moment he heard Paul.

Whether Paul saw him good enough to ID him is hard to tell but we know that Mizen did, on the exact same night.

And saying that he could have stayed away predisposes that Lechmere was able to know that not a soul would step forward and say "But that sounds like Charlie Lechmere - HE walks that route to work at that time".
If anybody did, he would be a lot better served by being proactive than by leaving it to the police to conclude why the man who was found alone with the body would not come forward.

Is there nothing new at all you can produce?

[Fisherman]

Ah, I'm beginning to see how the Lechmere theory works now. You conjure up a scenario that is not (quite) impossible - for instance the ripper attending an inquest he has no need to, simply because he is a psychopath - and hey presto!

You may as well apply the same principle to almost anyone - human, that is. The polar bear was just silly.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, because no polar bear was found with the body, a body that was still bleeding from the neck wounds around six minutes after Lechmere had left it. And no polar bear changed his name in combination with the inquest. And no polar bear had a working route that took him past a number of the murder sites.

So no, it was not the polar bear who dun´it.

[Fisherman]

Yes Harry, I can't see how anything else could realistically have been the case. And calling himself Charles Allen Cross, if his employers only knew him as Charles Allen Lechmere, would surely not have gone unnoticed by them, even if everyone else missed it.

Love,

Caz
X

"... calling himself Charles Allen Cross, if his employers only knew him as Charles Allen Lechmere, would surely not have gone unnoticed by them..."

There is not a shred of evidence that he ever used the name Cross. not a iot. Nothing. If I may remind you?

The mere suggestion is completely baseless and amounts to nothing at all but sheer conjecture. A figment of fantasy. Makebelieve.

There are heaps of evidence showing us that he DID use the name Lechmere.

Sandcastles, Caz, are washed out into the sea with the tide.

[Harry D]

There is not a shred of evidence that he ever used the name Cross. not a iot. Nothing. If I may remind you?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Why wouldn't he call himself 'Joe Bloggs' or some other completely made-up name? Now that WOULD set the alarm bells ringing.

[Fisherman]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Why wouldn't he call himself 'Joe Bloggs' or some other completely made-up name? Now that WOULD set the alarm bells ringing.

Then maybe he did not call himself Joe Bloggs because he actually wanted to avoid to have the alarm bells ringing, Harry...?

[Harry D]

Then maybe he did not call himself Joe Bloggs because he actually wanted to avoid to have the alarm bells ringing, Harry...?

Not if the point of giving a fake name was to deflect attention away from himself.

Giving up his first-name, his address, and place of work suggests that he made little attempt to conceal his identity, or he's not the evil genius you purport him to be.

[Patrick S]

"... calling himself Charles Allen Cross, if his employers only knew him as Charles Allen Lechmere, would surely not have gone unnoticed by them..."

There is not a shred of evidence that he ever used the name Cross. not a iot. Nothing. If I may remind you?

The mere suggestion is completely baseless and amounts to nothing at all but sheer conjecture. A figment of fantasy. Makebelieve.

There are heaps of evidence showing us that he DID use the name Lechmere.

Sandcastles, Caz, are washed out into the sea with the tide.

Let us point out also that your assumption that he used the name 'Cross' to the exclsion of all other names comes from (wildly inaccurate and careless) reporting in the papers. All who consider this 'theory' should be reminded - again - that the case files have never been examined. Therefore, the "mere suggestion" that Lechmere gave ONLY the name "Cross" "is completely baseless and amounts to nothing at all but sheer conjecture. A figment of fantasy. Makebelieve." Your 'THEORY" that he did is based on primarily two reports. One (the Telegraph) called him "Chas. Andrew Cross". The other (Times) calls him "George Cross". Yet, you consider their reporting rock-solid when it comes to the name 'Cross', because it SUITS you. His middle name was Allen. Not Andrew. His first name was Charles, not George. Therefore, could he not have given his name as "Charles Allen Lechmere, also known as Cross"? That would be the proper reply had he been asked, "Are you known by any other names?"

The reporting called Paul, "Baul'. They call Jonas Mizen, "G. Mizen", they call Thain, "Thail". They mis-spell COUNTLESS names, Nichols, Spratling, many others. Yet this is your Lechmere the Ripper bible? Please....

It has become embarassingly clear that your little fantasy has germinated by the seeds planted by this name issue, one that we have no proof, not one IOTA, even existed.

Come to Baltimore for the North American Convention in April. Sell some DVDs or pamphlets. It will be worth your while. I will spring for a venue and I will debate you on this issue. It will be civilized and fun. Agreed?

[Patrick S]

Then maybe he did not call himself Joe Bloggs because he actually wanted to avoid to have the alarm bells ringing, Harry...?

If he wanted to avoid alarm bells ringing why did he:

1. Approach Paul rather than simply WALK away? When he heard him approach from "30-40 yards off" even as he didn't know who Paul was (a cop, a watchman, the victims husband or pimp)

2. Ask Paul to view the body? Even though he didn't know what Paul would do. You say he would not help Paul 'give her a prop' because that would reveal the cuts to the throat. Yet, if was worried about concealing these injuries, why did he approach Paul at all? Did he KNOW Paul would not try to 'give her a prop' on his own? Did he KNOW Paul did not have a match with which to light the scene and see the injuries he NOW so wanted to conceal? Again...this works only with Lechmere's crystal ball.

3. Go with Paul to find a policeman? He was there before Paul. Paul didn't know which way he was headed. They BOTH agree they didn't want to be late for work. Why didn't Lechmere GO THE OTHER WAY? He knew what direction Paul was headed. WHY GO WITH HIM? Why not say, I go this way, you go that way. We'll send a PC when we find one. Come on.......

The absurdities mount. And you won't respond because I hurt your feelings, even as you insult everyone who dares question you. I'll say it again.....

DEBATE ME IN BALTIMORE. I'll pay for the venue. I'll pay for your beer! We'll have a fine time. I'm a wonderful guy! You can even charge admission and keep the gate. I don't care. ARE YOU IN?

[Fisherman]

Not if the point of giving a fake name was to deflect attention away from himself.

Giving up his first-name, his address, and place of work suggests that he made little attempt to conceal his identity, or he's not the evil genius you purport him to be.

There´s that evil genius thing again! I never said he was an evil genius, I said he seems to have been a resourceful and cool psychopath. That´s a far cry from Moriarty.

I have also said that he would be anxious to be as truthful as possible to the police, since they could check him out.

He would be less truthful to the press, since they could give him away.

The fact that it seems he kept his real name and address from the press is highly indicative of him wanting to stay incognito with people who knew him.

[Patrick S]

Ah, I'm beginning to see how the Lechmere theory works now. You conjure up a scenario that is not (quite) impossible - for instance the ripper attending an inquest he has no need to, simply because he is a psychopath - and hey presto!

You may as well apply the same principle to almost anyone - human, that is. The polar bear was just silly.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi, caz. I've made this point before and I'm glad you bring it up again here. Several things are very clear and very inconvenient for Christer's theory. If he were the killer, his behavior in Buck's Row was...erratic, to say the least. The obvious explanation is that he was acting as anyone with no consciousness of guilt would act. Yet, Christer invents an elaborate ruse that has the killer avoid capture...by TRYING to be captured.

With respect to the point you make about the inquest.... Now we are asked to believe that his courting capture, yet eluding it, as we are assured by Christer he was desperate to do (thus the Mizen Scam, etc.), was not enough. No, he had to submit himself to the police again. He escaped. He was unnamed. Paul doesn't describe him in 'Lloyd's'. He's simply, 'a man'. We don't know if he's old, young, short, tall, skinny, fat, bearded, clean-shaven...we don't know where he worked, where he lived, what kind of clothes he wore. In fact, Paul minimized him. The reader is led to believe that Paul left him behind while he went in search of the police (this leads Christer the relatively new 'Paul the Liar' component). Recall also that Mizen doesn't mention EITHER man. TO ANYONE. He allows Neil to testify that he and he alone found the body. So, before Lechmere comes forward we have this:

1. He escaped capture in Buck's Row, again in Baker's Row
2. He was not detained, searched, suspected
3. His campanion (Paul) gives a statement that appears in Lloyds on Sunday. He doesn't describe him. Doesn't name him. Downplays his role.

I don't know about you. But if I'm a serial killer and I want to go on serial killing.....I figure this worked out pretty well, right? I mean, no one knows my name, where I live, where I work, what I look like. I was in Buck's Row at 3:45am. So, I'll walk to work a different way for next few weeks. But that's not was he does. Next day, he gets dressed for work (as a man who has to work may - although Christer sees THIS as an idictment, too) and goes to the INQUEST! "Hey! Excuse me? Hi...you don't KNOW me! Yeah. I'm Charles, aka George, aka Allen, aka Andrew, aka Cross, aka....well never mind. Anyway, I was there. In Bucks Row. Me. Can I testify? Please? I have..uh....nothing to hide....yeah....nothing....."

Hey, Christer! If you read this....Come to Baltimore for the North American Convention in April. Sell some DVDs or pamphlets. It will be worth your while. I will spring for a venue and I will debate you on this issue. It will be civilized and fun. Agreed?

[Pierre]

Hi,

When exactly did he move to Doveton Street? Since you consider that a trigger.

The coroner said the murderer should have blood on him ("Coming to a consideration of the perpetrator of the murder, the Coroner said: It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person." Source: http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

Why doesn´t anybody say anything about blood being found on Lechmere?

Regards, Pierre

[Patrick S]

Hi,

When exactly did he move to Doveton Street? Since you consider that a trigger.

The coroner said the murderer should have blood on him ("Coming to a consideration of the perpetrator of the murder, the Coroner said: It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person." Source: http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

Why doesn´t anybody say anything about blood being found on Lechmere?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

It's all here. Fisherman (Christer Holmgren), has all the details and he'll likely fill you in. However, I will tell you that he contends that the killer did not have blood about his person, even though he hid the murder weapon ON his person seconds after administering the cuts to Nichols' throat that nearly decapitated her.

Please encourage Christer to come to Baltimore to debate this subject in April. A good time will be had by all. Later we'll go to an Orioles game and the loser will buy he winner a hot dog and a beer. And then we'll yell at the umpires, Chris Davis, and Boog Powell (if he screws up our ribs out there in right field).

[Fisherman]

Pierre:

When exactly did he move to Doveton Street? Since you consider that a trigger.

Mid June, Pierre. And I consider it a possible trigger...

The coroner said the murderer should have blood on him ("Coming to a consideration of the perpetrator of the murder, the Coroner said: It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person." Source: http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

Why doesn´t anybody say anything about blood being found on Lechmere?

Many people say a lot about it. Jason Payne-James, the forensic expert who commented on the case in the documentary we made, said that the killer would not necessarily have much - or indeed any - detectable blood on his person.

We must also keep in mid that it was dark, and the probability is that Lechmere wore dark clothes (which most people did), so the odd speck or two on the cuffs would perhaps not be very easy to spot.