Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, thanks for describing the picture you see in your head when you interpret data from the Nichols case:

"Being found alone with a freshly slain woman..."

I fight all the time against making up my own pictures. I do it by examinig them and comparing them to data.

Data must rule, not oneīs own bias! Data must be allowed to kick back even if it hurts.

Please try and look at this picture you have imagined, put it beside the data, compare it and then draw at least three conclusions about your suspect from it.

Then try to analyze the conclusions starting with data, one by one.

What is the critical core that makes you want to draw the conclusion that your suspect is a murderer, and not any murderer, but the murderer of at least five women in London (Whitechapel and the city) in 1888?

Is it in really in the data or is it in your head?

I know you are an honest person looking for truth.

Regards Pierre

"Wants to"? Who says I "want to" think that Lechmere was the killer?

You must analyze your conclusions starting with the data, one by one. Data must rule, not your bias!

When you have a suspect of your own to offer, come back to me and we will look at that suspect together, Pierre. Until that happens, it still applies that Charles Lechmere was found all alone in a dark East End street in the middle of the night, standing close by a woman who had had her neck cut and who had been ripped open in the gut.

If it hurts your delicare ears to hear it - donīt listen. If you think it is factually wrong - prove it. If you donīt like the way I express it - so sorry, but that is not going to change.

When it has gotten so hard to hear and accept the truth that people are trying to nullify or deny it, you know you have a great case. Being found all alone in a dark East End street in the middle of the night, standing close by a woman who had had her neck cut and who had been ripped open in the gut is not in any way criminal, by the way. It is only if you caused the damage or helped another part to cause it, or if you deny knowledge about what happened in spite of having such knowledge that you become a criminal.

[Harry D]

Did Paul find Lechmere standing in the street or did he not?

Was Nichols freshly slain or was she not?

To claim that Lechmere did the finding is asinine. He was the part that stood still and Paul was the part moving. Lechmere could therefore not find Paul, it was only Paul who could find Lechmere.

As for the blood evidence, can you please point out to me when I - or anybody else - said that it was conclusive? It seems to me that you are nagged by something that never existed.

But I am eternally grateful to you, Harry, for amplifying what I just told Pierre. You are a prime example of just how blind and ignorant people can be when judging things.

I could not have been happier about your ill founded contribution!

They do say ignorance is bliss, Fish.

You know as well as I do that Paul 'found Crossmere standing in the street' is a little different than what you actually said, and the connotations that come with it.

If it wasn't for Crossmere, we'd be talking about Paul finding a freshly slain victim and no doubt someone would be building a tenuous case against him based on the fact he found a corpse on his way to work.

[Fisherman]

They do say ignorance is bliss, Fish.

You know as well as I do that Paul 'found Crossmere standing in the street' is a little different than what you actually said, and the connotations that come with it.

If it wasn't for Crossmere, we'd be talking about Paul finding a freshly slain victim and no doubt someone would be building a tenuous case against him based on the fact he found a corpse on his way to work.

Probably, yes. And such a case would - as for Lechmere - hinge on the rest of the implications. Was "Robert Paul" a name he gave the police and that was not his real one? Did he have a reason to pass all the murder sites? Did the one/s who found him by the body hear or see him arrive there? Was he recorded by the police to have claimed things that were not in line with what he afterwards said himself? Was the blood evidence pointing to him being the killer?

As for how I describe the incident, I am very much on the money. In fact, I could have been a lot more explicit and STILL I would have been right:

As Robert Paul walked down Bucks Row on the early morning of August the 31:st 1888, he found a man standing still, all quiet in the darkness. Close to where the man stood, there was a woman lying on the ground, her neck having been slit and her abdomen having been ripped open, the bowels protruding from the wound. But the wound to the abdomen were not visible, since the dress was down over them.
It was an eerie situation and Paul felt distinctly uncomfortable. The area was a rough one, with many violent crimes on itīs rap sheet.
Apart from the freshly slain victim, there was not a soul about, but for the silent man standing close to the body in the darkness. While Robert Paul was thinking about how to get out of the situation unscathed, the warm, fresh blood from the womans body was flowing down onto the pavement and seeping into her clothing.

That is a description of what happened. It is true in all parts, as witnessed about by Robert Paul and as evidenced by the police.

It may not be to your liking, Harry, but this is what we are dealing with.

[GUT]

Except the blood "evidence" as you so delicately put it, isn't conclusive and still allows for a killer before Lechmere.

Saying that Paul FOUND Lechmere with a 'freshly slain victim' is also deliberately misleading and neglects to mention that Lechmere was standing in the middle of the road and approached HIM.

No no no Lechmere was crouched over the body, saw that in a documentary

[Fisherman]

No no no Lechmere was crouched over the body, saw that in a documentary

You are making the exact same type of arguments my kids made when they were small. Very small.

A law man, was it? A grown-up, discerning, thinking, mature law man?

[drstrange169]

>>Was "Robert Paul" a name he gave the police and that was not his real one? <<

Fair point.


>>Did he have a reason to pass all the murder sites? <<

As a carman, in all probability, yes.


>>Did the one/s who found him by the body hear or see him arrive there? <<

I don't understand that one.


>>Was he recorded by the police to have claimed things that were not in line with what he afterwards said himself? <<

By the police? we don't know, by the press, most definitely yes.


>>Was the blood evidence pointing to him being the killer?<<

There was no blood evidence.


>>... the dress was down over them.<<

When Paul arrived? No evidence to support that.


>>It was an eerie situation and Paul felt distinctly uncomfortable. <<

Paul felt uncomfortable for one reason only, he was worried about being mugged.
Nothing to do with murder.

[Fisherman]

Hello Dusty. Here goes!

>>Was "Robert Paul" a name he gave the police and that was not his real one? <<

Fair point.

It is, rather.


>>Did he have a reason to pass all the murder sites? <<

As a carman, in all probability, yes.

As a carman working at Pickfords and living in Doveton Street - a rare combination indeed. And we cannot say that it is cheating to suspect a carman since it makes things simple, can we...?


>>Did the one/s who found him by the body hear or see him arrive there? <<

I don't understand that one.

Paul never saw or heard Lechmere en route down Bath Street or Bucks Row. Or so it seems. It was not until he saw him in the middle of the street that he became aware of his presence.


>>Was he recorded by the police to have claimed things that were not in line with what he afterwards said himself? <<

By the police? we don't know, by the press, most definitely yes.

The mental recording was done buy the police and written about by the press. Mizens testimony tells us that it was not something the press made up.


>>Was the blood evidence pointing to him being the killer?<<

There was no blood evidence.

There is. In any case, where a witness speaks about the blood, there is blood evidence present. If there was no blood evidence, there was no blood.


>>... the dress was down over them.<<

When Paul arrived? No evidence to support that.

Even Lechmere says that the dress was over the knees as he himself found the body, so I think there is really good evidence. Unless he said "over the knees" and meant "around the neck".


>>It was an eerie situation and Paul felt distinctly uncomfortable. <<

Paul felt uncomfortable for one reason only, he was worried about being mugged.
Nothing to do with murder.

The muggings were normally associated with physical violence. Physical violence will affect the ohysical status of the victim. If there is too much physical violence, the victim runs a risk to die.

I concur that Paul in all probability did not feel he was at risk to get killed. Then again, I never said he did. I said that he " felt distinctly uncomfortable", nothing else.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Charles Letchmere as I will choose to call him, lied to the cops about his name and was alone with the body of Nichols for at least 8 minutes before Robert Paul arrived on the scene. Eight minutes is ample time to do something to at least attempt to come up with a legitimate reason for being there with the. Letchmere lived within at least one mile of the murder scene, Yes I am aware that he was alleged to have been on his way to work at the time, but if you are just on your way to work and have nothing to hide why the deuce do you lie to a policeman about you name?

Regards
Mr Holmes

[drstrange169]

Hello Sherlock H,

>>Charles Letchmere ... lied to the cops about his name<<

Possibly, possibly not.

>>... was alone with the body of Nichols for at least 8 minutes before Robert Paul arrived ..<<

Supporting evidence?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hello Sherlock H,

>>Charles Letchmere ... lied to the cops about his name<<

Possibly, possibly not.

>>... was alone with the body of Nichols for at least 8 minutes before Robert Paul arrived ..<<

Supporting evidence?

Lied about name- Check 1861 census, you'll find him listed as Charles Allen Cross

Regards
Mr Holmes

[drstrange169]

Sorry, I don't follow what you mean?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Lied about name- Check 1861 census, you'll find him listed as Charles Allen Cross

Regards
Mr Holmes

If you check census of 1861 you will find Mr Lechmere listed as a Mr Cross instead of Lechmere. Lechmere was the name on his birth certificate if the information I have is correct

Regards
Mr Holmes

[GUT]

If you check census of 1861 you will find Mr Lechmere listed as a Mr Cross instead of Lechmere. Lechmere was the name on his birth certificate if the information I have is correct

Regards
Mr Holmes

I presume you mean as Master Cross, while he was a kid living with his mum and step dad?

[Pcdunn]

I presume you mean as Master Cross, while he was a kid living with his mum and step dad?

I think Charlie was about 12 or so.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I presume you mean as Master Cross, while he was a kid living with his mum and step dad?

I'm sure I saw "Mr Charles Cross" but thank you I will re-check my information on the subject and let you know what I find

Regards
Mr Holmes