Blood on Charles Lechmere

[Fisherman]

fisherman you say he played the bluff option(wouldn't liked to have played Cross at poker) as surely he double bluffed.(1) with Paul (2)then with PC Mizen.After what he had just 'done' he certainly was one cool killer

Yes he was, Dixon. No doubt about that!

What we should not do is to ask ourselves "How would I have acted, what would I have done?". That will lead us wrong. We would not have killed people in the open street to start with, would we?

This is why I say that we need to accept that he was a psychopath if he was the killer. And psychopaths are not easily scared. They are the ones who collect medals in wars by walking straight into the bullet rain and killing their enemies. We celebrate them for their courage, but we should instead celebrate them for their inability to panick. If, that is, we should celebrate them at all. But such is the human creature!

[Sam Flynn]

I did say in my post, Fisherman, what if Lechmere had speckles of blood when he first arrived at work, before he started hauling the meat around (if that is indeed what he did.)

Even if he did, Rosella it is highly unlikely that any of the animal blood - actually, myoglobin by that point - would have got onto Lechmere and, if it did, it would have been practically invisible unless he were clothed head-to-foot in white. My father was a slaughterer and a meat delivery man, and he confirms this, as I have told pro-Lechmerites on a number of occasions.

The idea that Lechmere's (possibly) delivering meat for Pickfords would give him a ready excuse for having blood on his person* is a complete non-starter and should be put to bed.

(* or whatever other convoluted "significance" it might be used to imply.)

[Fisherman]

Even if he did, Rosella it is highly unlikely that any of the animal blood - actually, myoglobin by that point - would have got onto Lechmere and, if it did, it would have been practically invisible unless he were clothed head-to-foot in white. My father was a slaughterer and a meat delivery man, and he confirms this, as I have told pro-Lechmerites on a number of occasions.

The idea that Lechmere's (possibly) delivering meat for Pickfords would give him a ready excuse for having blood on his person* is a complete non-starter and should be put to bed.

(* or whatever other convoluted "significance" it might be used to imply.)

I was wondering when you would show up, Gareth, "putting things to bed"!
And here you are!

Of course, your father was not a Pickfords carman and he did not work at the Broad Street depot in 1888. And of course, you have no idea to what extent Lechmere came in contact with blood. And of course, the "pro-Lechmerites" have answered this before. Otherwise, you have an eminent point.

And, once again, there is no need for Lechmere to have been bespattered with blood to have been the killer. If that is of some little interest?

[caz]

Regardless of which post-Nichols victim we speak of, it would be quit revealing if Charles Lechmere stayed put and tried to bluff his way out one more time, Dixon.
It can be done one time only, which you may appreciate.

Not for a psychopath who did it for the sheer fun of it in Buck's Row; had no 'panic' button; had no ability to fear the hangman. But clearly this psychopath did have a working and healthy 'flight' function, which he used for all his subsequent crimes, knowing he'd be done for if he tried having the same fun a second time.

Again, it was lucky he didn't bump into Robert Paul as he emerged into Hanbury Street after killing Annie Chapman.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

I was wondering when you would show up, Gareth, "putting things to bed"!
And here you are!

Of course, your father was not a Pickfords carman and he did not work at the Broad Street depot in 1888. And of course, you have no idea to what extent Lechmere came in contact with blood. And of course, the "pro-Lechmerites" have answered this before. Otherwise, you have an eminent point.

And, once again, there is no need for Lechmere to have been bespattered with blood to have been the killer. If that is of some little interest?

If the above in bold is accurate, which it is, then why argue the point Fisherman...or why use it to bolster your theory?

[miss marple]

Carman did not load frieght, that was not part of their job. They were drivers and a part of the job was spent hanging around waiting for their freight. Carman were also responsible for the care and feeding of their horses. So first thing in the morning would be attending to the horses.

Miss Marple

[caz]

It seems we may be able to agree that meat was a major commodity of the Broad Street depot. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect the carmen there to quite frequently freight meat. Ergo, they all would risk to get blood on their clothes.

It really isn´t rocket science.

Nor is it rocket science that none of these things can be conclusively proven. Maybe there were carters who did not freight meat. Maybe there was not.

As it stands, I think it is realistic to suggest that the carmen could all have had more or less specks and smears of blood, fresh or old, a little or a lot, on their clothes.

We can go on discussing this for years, or we can just leave it for what it is - a topic impossible to describe in any detail. And like I said, it is of little consequence for the theory as such.

All you can use it for is to try and lead on that Ingram is wrong (unproven) and somehow exploit that for a wish to damage the theory in any wy you can.

And that is of course your prerogative, should it be your wish.

This is all very well, Christer, but you only have your precious theory thanks to the sheer lack of information available to support or refute it.

If he was only known as Lechmere at work and never as Charlie Cross...

If he handled fresh unpackaged meat on a frequent enough basis...

If he was a psychopath who could switch his fun button off and his flight function on when push came to shove...

You don't have a list of 'coincidences' that add up to a case against Lechmere; you have a bunch of 'ifs', which add up to a case of wishful thinking.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Of course, your father was not a Pickfords carman and he did not work at the Broad Street depot in 1888.

Neither did I, but I too have delivered meat and - amazingly - "meat" behaves just like "meat", as it has done for millions of years. And it does so wherever on the Ordnance Survey map you may happen to be.

Slaughtermen get bloodied, butchers get less bloodied, and by the time it gets to the delivery-man, there's scarcely any blood left in the meat at all. Meat delivery-men do not get bloodied, in the sense that it could be used to explain away a murder-victim's blood on the delivery-man's person... which, after all, is the only reason this Pickfords "meat-delivery" connection is being trotted out apropos Lechmere. Well, it's a dud reason, and should be dropped.

And, once again, there is no need for Lechmere to have been bespattered with blood to have been the killer.

Then why perpetuate this misleading "he delivered meat for Pickfords" canard, then? Apart from being a complete red-herring, it comes across as a desperate over-egging of the argument; you'd be better off without it on both counts.

[Sam Flynn]

Carman were also responsible for the care and feeding of their horses. So first thing in the morning would be attending to the horses.

So, no danger of being covered in blood, but there was a risk of getting covered in...

[Fisherman]

If the above in bold is accurate, which it is, then why argue the point Fisherman...or why use it to bolster your theory?

I don´t. But the people on Blink Films, who made the documentary did. And it is therefoee completely legal to shoot the messenger - me.

I don´t care much as such.

[Fisherman]

Not for a psychopath who did it for the sheer fun of it in Buck's Row; had no 'panic' button; had no ability to fear the hangman. But clearly this psychopath did have a working and healthy 'flight' function, which he used for all his subsequent crimes, knowing he'd be done for if he tried having the same fun a second time.

Again, it was lucky he didn't bump into Robert Paul as he emerged into Hanbury Street after killing Annie Chapman.

Love,

Caz
X

Being bold is not the same as being stupid, Caz.

It was lucky for Rodney Alcala that he did not bump into a policeman after having killed his second victim, for Joel Rifkin that he was not pulled over earlier in his carreer and for Gary Ridgway that he did not fall into the Green River and drown.

Quality, Caz. Please?

[Sam Flynn]

If he handled fresh unpackaged meat on a frequent enough basis...

It's not even a case of "fresh", Caz. He'd practically have to have been standing next to the slaughterman, ready to hoist a still-warm, pulsating slab of cow onto his shoulders.

(I say "cow", but he might have been delivering poultry, for all we know.)

[Fisherman]

Carman did not load frieght, that was not part of their job. They were drivers and a part of the job was spent hanging around waiting for their freight. Carman were also responsible for the care and feeding of their horses. So first thing in the morning would be attending to the horses.

Miss Marple

Not sure what you are trying to say, Miss Marple. Or well, I know what you are saying as such, but I was more kind of wondering that point you are making...?

[Fisherman]

Caz: This is all very well, Christer, but you only have your precious theory thanks to the sheer lack of information available to support or refute it.

I could say that Kozebrodsky was the killer and the same would apply. But Kozebrodsky was not found alone with a victim, he did not give the wrong name to the police, he had no reason we know of to pass the murder sites and he is not on record as haing disagreed om major points with the police.

Can you see the difference?

If he was only known as Lechmere at work and never as Charlie Cross...

If he handled fresh unpackaged meat on a frequent enough basis...

If he was a psychopath who could switch his fun button off and his flight function on when push came to shove...

Yes, and IF he was the killer. Has it - by chance - occurred to you that this is what a theory is like...? No?

You don't have a list of 'coincidences' that add up to a case against Lechmere; you have a bunch of 'ifs', which add up to a case of wishful thinking.

How odd - James Scobie said the exact opposite: that "when the coincidences mount up - and they DO in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many".

Bite the bullet. Or do you want to be the first on my ignore list? I am fearing to dislocate my jawbone from all the yawning owing to your repetitions....

[Patrick S]

I once knew a man who insisted that a carrot was an apple.

He would walk about all day, holding a carrot, telling anyone at the marketplace who would listen that it was an apple. Most people simply ignored the man.

Some would approach him, see that he was holding a carrot, shake their heads, and walk away without saying a word.

A few would attempt to engage the man. "Sir", they'd say. "You are holding a carrot. That is not an apple." The man would then launch into a seemingly nonsensical diatribe. “This is an apple”, he’d tell them, and only he had the intellect and knowledge required to see that plain, simple truth.

Fewer still tried to actually understand what the man was on about. They heard his arguments and hypotheses. They listened intently as he told them that orange was red and that carrot-shaped was actually apple-shaped. And when they disagreed, they were subjected to a barrage of insults. The man would rant. "What do you know of carrots?" He'd shout. "Or apples for that matter! I have done the research! I’ve thought of nothing but apples and carrots these past thirty years……and I know a green grocer who agrees with me! Me! Not you pathetic, ignorant, insufferable fools!"

Finally, I met the man myself. I heard what he had to say. Now, by nature, I like to debate, to argue, if you will. I also have quite a long attention span and a keen, lifelong interest in apples. Thus, I went home. I read everything I could get my hands on about apples. I read everything I could find about carrots, vegetables and fruits of all types, really. "This chap may be on to something", I thought, as I kept digging. Months went by. I found that I'd compiled stacks of notes. I worked diligently toward my own conclusions. “Could he be right?” I put everything I had on paper. I checked every nuance, each seemingly insignificant detail. And in the end I found, to my shock and surprise, to my abject horror.......that the man was holding a carrot and telling everyone it was an apple.

And now he won't talk to me.