Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Elamarna]

The few facts are clear and indisputable: its just that the interpretations differ.,

1. Neither Lech/Paul mentions hearing (or seeing) the other during the walk down Bath/Brady/Buck's row,
while O'Neil testifies to having heard Mizen's footsteps from twice/thrice the distance.

It would help with debate if peoplr got the basic facts correct.

For instance

Who is O'Neil?

It was PC John Neil.

Neil was in need of asdistance, he KNEW Thain was due to pass the Brady st, and so was probably actively listening for his footsteps.

And yes it's Thain, not Mizen.

[Abby Normal]

Bury is a far better suspect than Lechmere.

yes agree, john. you know that ive always had bury up there at the top. I was talking about those suspects that some posters on this thread have said are better suspects than lechmere... hardiman, mulshaw, mann, endacott and another lechmere even LOL! all the while attacking lechmere as a valid suspect. its absolute insanity.

And Wulfy, you and others have provided alot of continuing and interesting research and info on Bury.

[Elamarna]

i blame both of them one could have gone and looked for help while the other stayed with her.

Abby, times were different to how, attitudes too.
Both went to get help, yes maybe one could, should have stayed but who was going to volunteer to probably loose wages.

Btw, my full admiration for you on your own action.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Darryl,

my point about that is if you want to establish the latest in which JtR slashed the throat of Polly Nichols, without it being Lech, you have to take into account Lech's testimony: that he could hear to the top of Buck's row, and heard nobody's footsteps leaving.

That would add more minutes to the time: JtR having left Buck's row before Lech entered.

Could you quote where in Lechmere's testimony he says he could hear to the junction of Brady Street?

Of course I know you cannot, because he doesn't say that.

[Abby Normal]

Abby, times were different to how, attitudes too.
Both went to get help, yes maybe one could, should have stayed but who was going to volunteer to probably loose wages.

Btw, my full admiration for you on your own action.

Steve

he el
if i was someone else i might accuse you of playing the times were different back then card. lol jk. but seriously i disagree. morals and empathy dont change. just look at mary kelly letting destitutes stay with her helping to cost her her relationship and endangering her having a roof over her head.

And no they both went on to work, with the idea IF they ran into a copper.

thank you for the kind words el, but i think i was merely doing what any normal person would do.

im bowed out of the discussion , i only hopped in here because i had that experience which i thought was relevant, and people are responding which is sucking me back in. lol. peace out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What is the difference between calling an opponent 'ignorant' and 'absurd/ridiculous/pathetic' ? .... very little.

It doesn’t bother me at if Fish calls me ignorant, he’s done it before, I was merely pointing out the irony of his criticism of me.

I read the 'civil' debating styles of those opposing Crister before getting involved: deplorably rude.

Then you can’t have read far back into older debates at some of the comments coming the other way.

The kind of rudeness that comes from any gang opposing an individual, or heretic in this case:
numbers breeds insolence in humans, evidently.

Far too much time is spent on this victim mentality. It’s simply a distraction tactic.

You fly too often into rage mode Herlock, labeling the opposition as dishonest, tricky, ridiculous or stigmatizing that entity with group labels for me not to do anything but laugh when you complain of incivility.

I haven’t complained of in incivility.

And then you go into this act again: absent any specifics about these charges.

And talking of facts….

You have edited evidence.

In Cutting Point and in the documentary when seeking to show that there was an unexplained gap of time for Cross in Bucks Row the word ‘about’ was consciously omitted in favour of an exact time. This is, by definition, editing.

You have manipulated evidence.

The above is also a manipulation of the evidence to which we can add Fish’s claim about Baxter’s ‘time’ for the discovery of the body. A claim to know how long it was after Cross left that Neil arrived is also manipulation. It’s turning an unknown into a known. There are other examples too.

You have twisted the English language to suit your needs.

Numerous examples over the years as Steve will confirm. The interpretation of Baxter is just one more.

You have exaggerated and claimed unknowns as either knowns or likely’s.

The examples of claiming unknown times as knowns are obvious.

The few facts are clear and indisputable: its just that the interpretations differ.,

Yes, but you can’t say - x might be true and y might be true therefore z has to be the case. Which is what happens in the case of Cross.

1. Neither Lech/Paul mentions hearing (or seeing) the other during the walk down Bath/Brady/Buck's row,
while O'Neil testifies to having heard Mizen's footsteps from twice/thrice the distance.

- nothing edited, manipulated, twisted, exaggerated about it

- my comment is that they should have heard one or the other (an exaggeration? twisting?), and their failure to mention it is significant

- your comment is what? It's not significant? They heard each other all along - despite Lech saying otherwise? Not even this much - you just get indignant and froth at the mouth about lies and verbal gymnastics.

No, I just don’t get over-excited over trivialities. Look at the evidence. If you’re claiming that there was an even bigger gap between Cross and Paul than Cross claimed then the question “why the hell was Cross still there when Paul arrived?” hits home even harder.

2. Lech testifies to finally hearing Paul when walking towards the body, when placed in the middle of the street.

- nothing edited, manipulated, twisted, exaggerated about it.

Exactly, nothing at all. It only gets seen in the light that you propose if you make an assumption - that Cross and Paul must have heard each other if they weren’t further apart. Which you just can’t know. So you too are making an unknown into a known into an assumption and then you are trying to make a point based on it.

- my comment is that this fact has the appearance of convenience:

That doesn’t make it untrue. It doesn’t even make it look remotely dishonest. Your on a fishing exercise Newbie.

if Lech came from the body, and stood in the middle of the street waiting, this is what he would have said.

So because Cross does and says exactly what an innocent witness would have done it’s too convenient and indicative of a lie? Surely you can see how unbelievable this is. Cross can’t win. He acts normally and it’s proof of an act.

It would be nice if there was a fact that gave one some assurance that Lech acted differently from the killer.

He absolutely did. He stayed put - the killer would have fled the scene.

- your comment is what? A big coincidence? Again, you don't even say that; you just act indignant (in your rude way) as to anyone who would ever make the previous suggestion.

The Justice system would have huge problems if acting as an innocent witness should is considered ‘convenient’ and therefore indicative of guilt.

3. PC Mizen's impression that an official was waiting for him besides the body

- again, my comment is that it is significant: people typically are clear and precise to the police in that situation: why wasn't Lech? Why use 'you are wanted' with its implicit lack of clarity? Most wouldn't. And why did he include the dead - drunk bit?

Dead or drunk. Because they didn’t know which she was.

I’m a bit surprised that you can say things like “people are typically clear and precise to the police!” Try read about the JFK assassination - take all the miscommunications and discrepancies in this case and then multiply them by a thousand.

Why do you assume that the fault was Cross and Paul’s? Why couldn’t Mizen have misheard as he may have been more focused on his knocking up duties?

And remember…..any lies that you might accuse Cross of you have to explain how he could have told them with Paul standing next to him and without Paul calling him a liar at any point?

- your comment? Well, you don't give one. Instead, you insist he's innocent and we're nit-picking. Suddenly, your main mode of argumentation about how people are likely to act goes down the toilet, and you don't attempt to explain why Lech 'inadvertently' mislead a policeman. In fact, in only a few cases do you employ the typical pattern of behavior argument: you mostly ignore it.

Ive told you before Newbie. Unlike some I don’t duck questions. If I miss one you only have to repeat it. Stick to the subject and stop whining.

I can go on and on about your tendency to lurch into indignation mode, instead of attempting to give an alternate explanation for how these indisputable actions, or inactions, are reasonable for an innocent man.

Yes, I get indignant. I get indignant because like many I’ve been interested in this case for 40 years and I’m annoyed to see it degenerate into a case of people picking a suspect then defending him with their last breath as if their defending their mothers honour. There are lots of excellent, honest, unbiased researchers involved in this case. And there are some who think it’s an ‘I’ve got it right’ cause. That’s why I like posts by Jeff (as one example) knowledgeable and unbiased. There are many more and I’m not going to name them all.

It comes down to two things:

1. You don't believe that Lech was just ahead of Paul because of accoustics, and who heard what when

Have you considered that when Cross estimated 40 yards it might have been longer?

Have you considered the nature of the inquest testimony? The inquest testimony that we have isn’t verbatim of course. And you’ll be aware that when transcribing a word or two can make all the difference. We also know that reporters can mishear things because we have reports of this. So why, instead of, “He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away.” might he not have been “He then heard the footsteps of s man going up Buck’s-row, then saw him from about 40 yards away.” So that he heard him before he came into view.

Also, how do you know what footwear they were wearing. Or how loud they were compared to a Constable’s boots. Or how good was Cross’s hearing or Paul’s or Neil’s. You need to consider things as a whole including all factors not just the one’s that you find suspicious.

2. You don't believe that Lech was just ahead of Paul because of the observation by PC Mizen that, once arriving, blood was still flowing out of the neck wound ... which would have not been possible if someone else had killed Polly Nichols, so many minutes earlier.

The blood argument has been done to death. You clearly haven’t read it properly.

On the 2nd point, if you go by Lech's testimony (not hearing a soul on Buck's row), you'd have to add 1 - 2 minutes for JtR to have cleared the street, before Lech enters Buck's row. That's a minimum of 1 - 2 more minutes, after the throat gets slashed, for the blood to leave the body.

But then again, the anti-Lechmerites happily avoid testimony when it suits there purpose.

Try actually reading the blood evidence. Read what Steve and Jeff have written. Lose the irritation and read what Fiver is saying. Read David Orsam’s article. In fact read everything Orsam has written on Cross. Don’t just read research from one side.

[Sam Flynn]

Bury is a far better suspect than Lechmere.

I totally agree, John. And as you know, I'm by no means a William Bury advocate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I totally agree, John. And as you know, I'm by no means a William Bury advocate.

As I live and breathe.

Hello Gareth, how are you?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s no prescribed way of reacting when finding a body so we can’t say that someone reacted suspiciously unless they did something really weird. Which Cross didn’t.

He’s on his way to work probably wishing that he was still in bed. He sees what he thinks might be a tarpaulin but as he gets closer he can make out that it’s a person lying there. Now instantly, and very normally, he’s stopped in his tracks. Maybe a second or two of hesitation? In that situation, if we apply it to today, some would have gone straight over to help, some would have walked straight on not wanting to get involved. We’ve all seen cctv footage of people walking past people lying in the street. It happens. But just as Cross becomes aware that it’s a body he hears someone approach from, he estimates, around 40 yards away. So what’s suspicious about him waiting a very few seconds for Paul to arrive? Perhaps Cross was a bit timid; easily spooked and wanted someone with him. Perhaps he initially thought “probably a drunk or a rough sleeper, I’ll leave it.” Perhaps he’d have walked on if Paul hadn’t showed up? Perhaps he though that it might have been a drunk who might spring up and attack him and so he felt safer having someone with him?

I genuinely see nothing remotely suspicious in his behaviour.

[John Wheat]

yes agree, john. you know that ive always had bury up there at the top. I was talking about those suspects that some posters on this thread have said are better suspects than lechmere... hardiman, mulshaw, mann, endacott and another lechmere even LOL! all the while attacking lechmere as a valid suspect. its absolute insanity.

And Wulfy, you and others have provided alot of continuing and interesting research and info on Bury.

Fair enough. Thanks Abby. Cheers John

[John Wheat]

I totally agree, John. And as you know, I'm by no means a William Bury advocate.

Hi Gareth. I just don't get Lechmere as a suspect. I don't see anything suspicious about him finding a body. Cheers John

[Aethelwulf]

yes agree, john. you know that ive always had bury up there at the top. I was talking about those suspects that some posters on this thread have said are better suspects than lechmere... hardiman, mulshaw, mann, endacott and another lechmere even LOL! all the while attacking lechmere as a valid suspect. its absolute insanity.

And Wulfy, you and others have provided alot of continuing and interesting research and info on Bury.

The way I see it there is one excellent suspect, a few moderate, majority of piss poor and another load of joke suspects whose advocates should just do one and naff off. I'd put lech in the moderate bracket. My issue with lech is that Nothing is always turned into Something. He found a body, no evidence of owt else, but because he is observed alone in the street near the body, that deserves a closer. Closer look shows nothing.

Going off topic here but what happened to the main man Wiggins/Boggles? He really knew his Bury stuff and had been up to scotalnd to get a lot of the docs and done some sound research. Shame he's not on here anymore by the look of things as there are some points i'd like to discuss as no fun talking to just myself most the time on here!

[Elamarna]

Could you quote where in Lechmere's testimony he says he could hear to the junction of Brady Street?

Of course I know you cannot, because he doesn't say that.

The closest we get in fact is

"Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle"

That's not the same as footsteps

And

"and believed that had any one left thebody after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him."

He believed he would have heard someone leaving after he got into Bucks Row.

That's an assumption on Lechmere's part is it not. Again its not the same as he COULD hear from the junction, ONLY that he believed he would.

An assumption shown to be inaccurate by his failure to hear Paul.

[Newbie]

No inflammatory wording?! Like calling me ‘ignorant’ perhaps (not for the first time by the way) After that bit about my original comment on your book. Get real Fish. You continue to plough the same depths. Steve, myself and others have tried god-knows how many times to have a civil debate with you but it always goes the same way. Whenever we get to points of disagreement that we can’t get over you move into condescending mode with the odd snide dig thrown in. Then when a response is given you get on your high horse. I know that Steve will back me up on this because it’s just a fact. And now you come back on here and try and set the agenda by playing the wounded soldier who always acts with honour with everyone else as the villains of the piece when you’ve spend years talking down to everyone that questions you or disagrees with you. Then there’s the way that you and Stow have slated Steve’s transparently honest research.

And talking of facts….

You have edited evidence.

You have manipulated evidence.

You have twisted the English language to suit your needs.

You have exaggerated and claimed unknowns as either knowns or likely’s.

Basically you’ve committed some of the most egregious shoehorning that I’ve ever known in this case Fish. Instead of simply showing an interest in a subject you and Stow have created some kind of strange bandwagon. It’s like a cottage industry or even a religious movement…book, documentary, tv channel (I’m waiting for the Lechmere T-Shirts to go on sale or the boxes of Lechmere Shortbread)


Weak arguments.

Weak suspect.

Too much water under the bridge to even bother asking anymore which evidence has been maligned.

I believe that I have clearly and carefully separated evidence from speculation.

I've asked many times for corrections: I just get sweeping generalizations.

That there should have been noticeable blood spots on Lech's person is not evidence;
That it is alleged that no one kills on their way to work is not evidence;
That Lech would have fled if guilty is not evidence;
That Lech did everything an innocent man should have done is not evidence;
That Lech was a family man is evidence, but it's extension to him being a good guy is not evidence: like everything here, it's speculation.
What Lech said at the inquest are only facts in the sense that someone presents what he said: by themselves, his statements are not facts.

In short, most anti-Lechmerians seem to base pretty much base all their arguments towards innocence on speculation,
and pretend that they are fact minded.

Now, the argument heads towards rate of blood loss.

Someone here scolded me for claiming that Polly Nichols was almost decapitated.
Actually, the coroner closes with the statement that her head was almost cut off (his words);
was it an exaggeration on my part saying that that almost constitutes decapitation?

I would guess that a decapitated person loses an awful lot of blood at a very fast rate.

No?

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C,

many respond here to responses that weren't directed to them. Just ask Christer ..... they practically line up to do so.
Do you intend on policing everyone on the matter? Fiver would be devastated.

Herlock has directed repeatedly the same accusations of dishonesty and lack of accountability regarding 'facts' to my posts,
with the same rude insolence.

I'm merely belatedly responding to his accusations.

Besides, I won't have much time to visit here for quite a while.

That wasn't my point. From the way that you quoted Herlock and responded to him, it looked to me that you were implying that Herlock was saying something about you that he was actually saying about Fish. Your whole post looked to me like you were defending yourself against something that Herlock hadn't said about you. If that wasn't what you meant, then I'm glad that you clarified that.