Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

No, it is not. It IS the known facts.

Paul found him outside Browns.

He was alone there - but for the slain body of Nichols.

Yes, but Paul did not find Cross "with" the slain body of Nichols which is where the misrepresentation in your earlier post lies.

[David Orsam]

You canīt imagine...? Thatīs a serious lack of fantasy, David.

Yes, I can't imagine why every single witness at the inquests was required to state his or her name and address but not Lechmere.

[David Orsam]

Thatīs on account of your attitude, David. You see, you are every bit as much of a psychological puzzle yourself, being well read up and intelligent, but time and again not being able to take in the possibility that you may be wrong.

It's got nothing to do with my "attitude" as to why I can't understand how you can take pleasure in not giving out relevant information.

I can only assume it is, in fact, a complete misunderstanding on your part of my attitude because you think I actually care about what comprises these 100+ examples. I don't. I have no interest other than in trying to understand your argument.

[David Orsam]

As for ommitting to provide relevant information, I believe you stated a long while back that you had found a detail in the timings given by the carman that seemingly pointed to guilt on his behalf.

But that was perhaps not relevant information?

The issue I raised was that you said (for some weird reason) that you enjoy not providing relevant information so even if it was true that I was refusing to provide relevant information that would be a totally different point unless I was actually enjoying doing so.

In any event, I haven't refused to provide anything to you. I said back in April: "I believe I have noticed a new point in favour of Lechmere's candidacy as JTR (on the timing issue of all things!) It was posted on this forum but I think Fisherman might have missed it so if he wants to know that it is he only has to ask". You never asked me what it was so I figured you weren't interested. As I made clear, the information itself is already on the forum.

[Columbo]

Although the name game is fascinating, I don't think that's even the most important piece of evidence against Lechmere.

Mizen's remark about being told that a policeman is already on site ranks way above that, but we still have the fact that Lechmere was sighted with the body of a victim who most likely was killed within 4-5 minutes before Paul arrived.

And as Fisherman points out, the crime scene is different from other ripper scenes in that she was mutilated but was covered up.

Although it's interesting it's obvious that it didn't matter what name he gave at the inquest because they had all the other pertinent information about him, i.e. his real address.

Here's few questions I think need to be addressed to help un-muddy the waters(if that's possible).

1. If Lechmere wasn't the killer and he came upon the body without seeing or hearing someone else, does that mean JTR was done with his work and that was as much as he needed for satisfaction?

2. If it was Lechmere, why didn't he run the second he heard Paul coming? the reasoning that he was so involved in his work he didn't hear him doesn't really make sense because he apparently had enough time to put a weapon away, wipe his hands and pull down the skirt. it was too dark according to Paul, that they couldn't even see the blood. So why didn't he just run? He had the time.

3. Why not just kill Paul? A quick slice to the throat and it's done. Or just ignore Paul altogether. They didn't know each other and it was so dark Paul probably wouldn't have seen Nichols anyway, since he was giving Lechmere a wide birth.

Just questions that I feel have not been properly explored with clear logic.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

Although it's interesting it's obvious that it didn't matter what name he gave at the inquest because they had all the other pertinent information about him, i.e. his real address.

Heh! Very true Columbo.

[GUT]

Although the name game is fascinating, I don't think that's even the most important piece of evidence against Lechmere.

Mizen's remark about being told that a policeman is already on site ranks way above that, but we still have the fact that Lechmere was sighted with the body of a victim who most likely was killed within 4-5 minutes before Paul arrived.

And as Fisherman points out, the crime scene is different from other ripper scenes in that she was mutilated but was covered up.

Although it's interesting it's obvious that it didn't matter what name he gave at the inquest because they had all the other pertinent information about him, i.e. his real address.

Here's few questions I think need to be addressed to help un-muddy the waters(if that's possible).

1. If Lechmere wasn't the killer and he came upon the body without seeing or hearing someone else, does that mean JTR was done with his work and that was as much as he needed for satisfaction?

2. If it was Lechmere, why didn't he run the second he heard Paul coming? the reasoning that he was so involved in his work he didn't hear him doesn't really make sense because he apparently had enough time to put a weapon away, wipe his hands and pull down the skirt. it was too dark according to Paul, that they couldn't even see the blood. So why didn't he just run? He had the time.

3. Why not just kill Paul? A quick slice to the throat and it's done. Or just ignore Paul altogether. They didn't know each other and it was so dark Paul probably wouldn't have seen Nichols anyway, since he was giving Lechmere a wide birth.

Just questions that I feel have not been properly explored with clear logic.

Columbo

Perhaps not explored but certainly asked many times.

[Columbo]

Perhaps not explored but certainly asked many times.

I know I've seen them on other posts, and I apologize for the redundancy but it's sometimes very tedious to try to find the answers to questions between all the long winded posts that include more insult then information(as good natured as they are). I'm not picking on anyone in particular because alot of people do it.

I've asked this question earlier as well and recieved no responses:

Lechmere was seen in the very near vicinity of a victim who was in fact murdered just minutes before Paul got there. Why do you think he doesn't deserve more investigation as a suspect?

Throwing away everything else, (the name game, timing, blood etc), does this in itself at least warrant a closer look at him? I think he is just a good a suspect as any other.

Columbo

[GUT]

I know I've seen them on other posts, and I apologize for the redundancy but it's sometimes very tedious to try to find the answers to questions between all the long winded posts that include more insult then information(as good natured as they are). I'm not picking on anyone in particular because alot of people do it.

I've asked this question earlier as well and recieved no responses:

Lechmere was seen in the very near vicinity of a victim who was in fact murdered just minutes before Paul got there. Why do you think he doesn't deserve more investigation as a suspect?

Throwing away everything else, (the name game, timing, blood etc), does this in itself at least warrant a closer look at him? I think he is just a good a suspect as any other.

Columbo

Well what are the answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 that you posed above, why didn't he just take off, why didn't he add Paul to his list. The blood and timing have been done to death, those who disagree won't change those who believe they incriminate Cross won't change.

You say she was muredered just minutes before Oaul got there, ignoring the blood, how is that established?

And again someone had to find the body, if Cross hadn't seen the bundle and examined it and stopped Paul, and Paul spotted the body wouldn't we be asking the same questions about Paul?

To me the hurdle that really seems un jumpable is why didn't Cross let Paul just walk on by like he wanted to, if Cross was the killer?

[Columbo]

Well what are the answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 that you posed above, why didn't he just take off, why didn't he add Paul to his list. The blood and timing have been done to death, those who disagree won't change those who believe they incriminate Cross won't change.

You say she was muredered just minutes before Oaul got there, ignoring the blood, how is that established?

And again someone had to find the body, if Cross hadn't seen the bundle and examined it and stopped Paul, and Paul spotted the body wouldn't we be asking the same questions about Paul?

To me the hurdle that really seems un jumpable is why didn't Cross let Paul just walk on by like he wanted to, if Cross was the killer?

Very good points. I do believe if Paul had been the one to find the body we would be asking the same questions and looking at him as a suspect, except we probably would not have as many "discrepancies" (Mizen, the name, etc) so he might have been a suspect only a small while.

If we discount the blood we can say she was killed somewhere in the 20-25 minute range(based on the PC route estimate) so not as fresh as I described, but still within what I would think a good time range for Lechmere to come across, talk and kill her. That's a stretch on my part but my opinion only. But to be fair also in the time frame for someone else to kill her as well.

So I can see when you have a man discovered with a victim, he should be checked out(and he may have been, we just don't know). and then when you add the discrepancies with blood, Mizen, name changing etc. He starts to look better and better as a suspect. Lechmere's a good suspect. I don't know if he did it, but he could have.

Columbo

[Columbo]

To me the hurdle that really seems un jumpable is why didn't Cross let Paul just walk on by like he wanted to, if Cross was the killer?

That one's a problem. It would've been the easiest thing to do instead of dragging himself into the investigation, which I think is the biggest flaw in the Lechmere theory. Why not just walk away? Why go to the cops? Lechmere didn't have to unless he felt trapped. We'll never know.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: But why is he not "more smoked than a kipper" if the cops checked him out to discover he had given a false false name?

You did not suggest a false false name, did you? You suggested that heīd give a false address and a false working place too. And if he did, my hunch is that the police would settle for the idea that they were dealing with the probable perpetrator. Thatīs why heīd be smoked.

On your case, as I understand it, Lechmere gave the police a false name but believed that if the police discovered this deception he would be able to give them an explanation as to why he had used a false name which would satisfy them (or at least prevent him being more smoked than a kipper).

I regard any name but the real name as a false name. Lechmere would probably have claimed that Cross was not a false but an alternative name. Personally, I donīt think the police would have been "satisfied" with it - I think that they would take an interest in him on account of it - but I have no idea as to what degree the carman would have banked on being able to persuade the police that the name was okay.
In this context, I weigh in how psychopathic serialists are often very confident that they will be able to con every- and anybody. At any rate, if he wanted to stay "clean" with the police, and if simultanelusly had decided to try and avoid being ID:d by the paper articles, there was little else he could do.

What I am saying is that Lechmere could have given the police a false name, address and occupation but believed that if the police discovered this deception he would be able to give them an explanation as to why he had used a false name, address and occupation which would satisfy them (or at least prevent him being more smoked than a kipper).

He could have, yes. But he must have realized that it would bring an enlargened police interest with itself, had he done so. And although psychopathic serialists are confident that they will be able to pull off bluffs, they do not necessarily choose the hardest way!
My suggestion is that he did his best to answer to TWO necessities - to give the police truthful information (hoping that he would get the extra benefit of not being checked out, in which case the name swop would be discovered) and keeping someone ( possibly, but not positively his wife).

What you are saying has been said a thousand times before, David. It changes nothing. We are left with a possibly innocent or possibly guilty man, both scenarios work. In my view, too much has to be explaianed away before we can find an innocent man. I therefore think he was guilty.

[Fisherman]

Yes, but Paul did not find Cross "with" the slain body of Nichols which is where the misrepresentation in your earlier post lies.

There is no "but" about it. Lechmere was found with the slain body of Nichols. You donīt have to hold that body in your lap to be with it. People are found in rooms with friends, you can walk the streets of your home town with a chum and you can go to Croydon with your mum, none of which predisposes that you are within any certified distance of or in direct contact with these people.

Lechmere was found alone with the body of the freshly slain Polly Nichols. Quibbling about semantics wonīt change the possible implications in any way at all.

[Fisherman]

Yes, I can't imagine why every single witness at the inquests was required to state his or her name and address but not Lechmere.

Donīt be stupid, please. Nobody is saying that he was not asked to state his name and address. I am saying that he did not comply with the question, and was not taken to task for it.

[Fisherman]

It's got nothing to do with my "attitude" as to why I can't understand how you can take pleasure in not giving out relevant information.

I can only assume it is, in fact, a complete misunderstanding on your part of my attitude because you think I actually care about what comprises these 100+ examples. I don't. I have no interest other than in trying to understand your argument.

If you have no interest in it, why ask about it? What you need to do is to provide an explanation to how the mix of documents would in any way affect the fact that he was known officially as Charles Lechmere and freely chose to use that name when in contact with the authorities.

What is it you do not understand about that?