Lawende was silenced

[Fisherman]

Heh! Very true Columbo.

Yes! So the POLICE knew who he was and could identify him. And the inquest knew who he was and could indentify him.

But could an aquaintance on the street, who did not read the Star, do so?

[Fisherman]

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

If Lechmere heard Paul as the latter turned into the street, he would himself quite probably be heard as he took off - Lechmere said that he would have noticed anybody moving down by the body as he himself turned into Bucks Row.
After that, the carman would have a short time to start moving away from the murder site. If he took care to cover up the wounds, that time would have become markedly shorter, and he would be quite close to the site as Paul came upon the body. If not, then Paul would immediately see what had happened.
In either case, he would be faced with the risk of sharing the street with a PC as the alarm was raised, and he could easily be stopped in his track.
This is what Andy Griffiths suggested - he said that the carman would never have run, and I can see his point.
However, if Lechmere was the killer but not a psychopath, I believe there is every chance that he would have run for it.
But I do think that he must have been a psychopath if he was the killer, and that changes the game totally. Psychopaths do not have the physical ability to panick, their reflexes do not tell them to run - and they can actually enjoy bluffing it out very much.
It was a very cool thing to do, if he was the killer - but if there is anything at all that marks a psychopath, then it is coolness.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

Unfortunatly, as far as common sense and logic are involved, filling in the gap of whatever it's missing by stating "he is a psychopath and of course he was going do to daring things" is as good as stating "there is a conspiracy that involved the head of the police cause why the police should have not tried to save it's reputation by letting a serial killer walk away?".

About the rest: as far as i know i can't say whatever any witness was indeed and precisely asked to state the address as part of the deposition, and if he was going to be reminded about that in case he neglected to do so. What it seems to me, however, is that quite a good deal of newspapers seems to have reported the exact text of the inquest without bothering to add or subtract anything, so there's no indication that there was an active effort from anyone to get that address, or anything else, during the inquest itself. There are a lot of other possibilities: that the address was not added to the inquest text, or that indeed Lechemere did not state it and none asked him to do it. The fact that the Sun included it, however, can't not rule out the chance that Lechmere did tell his address and that a reporter of the Sun was there to take note of it.

However, there are other interesting things: for example the fact that Lechmere mentioned his workplace and that he worked there for 20 years, a detail that in the great scheme of "i'm going to carefuly sift trough anything i'm saying to make sure none can identify me" made of course perfect sense. But, after all, we have already decided for some reason that Mrs. Lechmere did know COMPLETELY NOTHING about his husband, so there was absolutely no risk that she known that he was a carman and that worked there for so long .

[Fisherman]

CommercialRoadWanderer: Unfortunatly, as far as common sense and logic are involved, filling in the gap of whatever it's missing by stating "he is a psychopath and of course he was going do to daring things" is as good as stating "there is a conspiracy that involved the head of the police cause why the police should have not tried to save it's reputation by letting a serial killer walk away?".

Itīs not that easy, Iīm afraid. Sure enough, there is no confirmation that Lechmere was a psychopath, and that allows you to have a merry time dealing with the suggestion. However, a theory is a theory since it is not a proven thing, and in that respect, the part about psychopathy fills it role. It is also a fact that very many of the serial killers ARE psychopaths, so the suggestion is in no way an outrageous one. It rests on solid ground in that respect.

About the rest: as far as i know i can't say whatever any witness was indeed and precisely asked to state the address as part of the deposition, and if he was going to be reminded about that in case he neglected to do so.

I know. And I have known it for a long time.

What it seems to me, however, is that quite a good deal of newspapers seems to have reported the exact text of the inquest without bothering to add or subtract anything, so there's no indication that there was an active effort from anyone to get that address, or anything else, during the inquest itself.

How do you know that they tried to get "the exact text of the inquest"? The inquest files are missing, and the articles vary a lot in what they write, so you are on very thin ice here, CRW. And how would an indication of how a papaer made an active effort to get the address look? Would anybody comment on how a reporter during an intermission asked a desk clerk for the address? I think not.

There are a lot of other possibilities: that the address was not added to the inquest text, or that indeed Lechemere did not state it and none asked him to do it.

As I said, the inquest text is lost. So there can be no checking that way. There are a few options as to why the Star only had the address:
1. It was never mentioned by Lechmere, and the Star reporter obtained it from the coroners witness list.
2. None of the other reporters heard it stated clearly enough to write it down, whereas the Star reporter had a very keen ear and got it perfectly. It should be added that the reporters generally wrote down the address even of they had not heard it clearly - they winged it, so to speak. But not in this case!
3. The reporter from the Star knew Charles Lechmere personally, and so was able to tell where he lived.
4. The other reporters deemed Lechmeres address uninteresting for whatever reason. But not the Star reporter.

Thatīs about it. Take your pick.

The fact that the Sun included it, however, can't not rule out the chance that Lechmere did tell his address and that a reporter of the Sun was there to take note of it.

The Star. Not the Sun. And where where all the other reporters at that stage...? Out for refreshments, but only during the seconds it took for the carman to state his address? They got the rest, name and working place!

However, there are other interesting things: for example the fact that Lechmere mentioned his workplace and that he worked there for 20 years, a detail that in the great scheme of "i'm going to carefuly sift trough anything i'm saying to make sure none can identify me" made of course perfect sense.

Thatīs a better point - but overall, there were hundreds and hundreds of carmen working for the depot. Many of them would have been there for many years - and how was Mrs Lechmere to know these things...?

But, after all, we have already decided for some reason that Mrs. Lechmere did know COMPLETELY NOTHING about his husband, so there was absolutely no risk that she known that he was a carman and that worked there for so long

No, no, no, no! You were being perfectly comprehensible, making useful arguments - and now this? Who says that Mrs Lechmere knew nothing about her husband? Not me!
But you have to take in that nobody knows that she was the part he wanted to keep out of the loop - if he DID want to keep anybody out of that llopp. It may have been somebody else who knew his movements, and who he did not want to get any knowledge about his involvment in the case.
Or, as I have also put forward as a suggestion, he may have wanted to leave his name out for another reason altogether. Make, if you will, the assumption that he had been accused under his real name of sexual abuse by somebody who could not prove her case, making the police drop it. In such a cse, there would be no legal proceedings recorded, but the carman would have been known to the police and his name would have been in circulation within the force. In such a case, and with that knowledge, he could have chosen not to stir any unwelcome memories as he took the stand at the inquest.
You must keep in mind that I am not stating as a fact that he wanted to keep his wife out of the loop - I am looking for explanations to why he did not use the name he otherwise used when in contact with authoritites. The name swop is the fact, the suggestion about his wife is a suggested explanation where other explanations (including innocent ones) may apply.

[Robert]

Oh well, Fish, you have another instance to add to your impressive list : Charles Lechmere used his name on more than 100 official occasions - and once when he attacked a child.

[Fisherman]

Oh well, Fish, you have another instance to add to your impressive list : Charles Lechmere used his name on more than 100 official occasions - and once when he attacked a child.

And you have another misinterpretation to add to YOUR impressive list! Who woud have thought it?
Answer: I would.

And itīs not even a new suggestion on my behalf, Robert, so you haved missed out on playing the jester here!

[Columbo]

If Lechmere heard Paul as the latter turned into the street, he would himself quite probably be heard as he took off - Lechmere said that he would have noticed anybody moving down by the body as he himself turned into Bucks Row.
After that, the carman would have a short time to start moving away from the murder site. If he took care to cover up the wounds, that time would have become markedly shorter, and he would be quite close to the site as Paul came upon the body. If not, then Paul would immediately see what had happened.
In either case, he would be faced with the risk of sharing the street with a PC as the alarm was raised, and he could easily be stopped in his track.
This is what Andy Griffiths suggested - he said that the carman would never have run, and I can see his point.
However, if Lechmere was the killer but not a psychopath, I believe there is every chance that he would have run for it.
But I do think that he must have been a psychopath if he was the killer, and that changes the game totally. Psychopaths do not have the physical ability to panick, their reflexes do not tell them to run - and they can actually enjoy bluffing it out very much.
It was a very cool thing to do, if he was the killer - but if there is anything at all that marks a psychopath, then it is coolness.

Quite possible of course, we just don't know. I personally find it strange how that scenario played out if he is the killer, but that doesn't exclude Lechmere as a viable suspect.
I think we also should consider that he may not have been calm and cool but it very well could've been an act of desperation if the suggested scenario is what happened. It could've be strictly a move of panic and he didn't know what else to do.
In either case we'll never know and I think the continued argument about Lechmere has become very redundant. Time to move on to something else until new information arrives on the Lechmere theory.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Quite possible of course, we just don't know. I personally find it strange how that scenario played out if he is the killer, but that doesn't exclude Lechmere as a viable suspect.
I think we also should consider that he may not have been calm and cool but it very well could've been an act of desperation if the suggested scenario is what happened. It could've be strictly a move of panic and he didn't know what else to do.
In either case we'll never know and I think the continued argument about Lechmere has become very redundant. Time to move on to something else until new information arrives on the Lechmere theory.

Columbo

I donīt think panick was ever on the schedule, Columbo. Panick makes you run and yell, and this killer was silent and careful.
The measured steps Mrs Mortimer heard in Berner Street may well have been him.
Nobody heard or saw a running person leaving any of the murder spots.

So panick does not enter my picture of what happened. We are dealing with a cool, composed man, going by the sings of things.

[Columbo]

Heh! Very true Columbo.

Having said that, and in light of the fact I just said I'm moving on to a different subject, It doesn't clear Lechmere of any wrong doing.

Since we don't have the official inquest papers this is all theory and speculation, but let's say Lechmere purposely used Cross at the inquest. In all due respect to the pro-lechmere crowd, to give a different name and a true address is not really the signs of an intellectual sociopath, simply because it opens him up to suspicion if he is found to be lying. I believe that's been stated before.
To say he did it because he was playing some game with the police or he was hoping to throw them off the trail is hard to take because in order for him to win that game he would have to move from that address, which he didn't.
You absolutely cannot give a false name and true address and expect not to get caught if they decide to investigate you. Why? because if they went to your house and asked your wife for a Charles Cross, and she said she didn't know who Cross was, but we have a Charles Lechmere who lives in the house, the cops are going to stake out that house and find out who is really living there and then they're going to catch you in your lie.
Again, my opinion, I think if we had the investigative papers from the PC's (not the inquest papers) we would find they did track down Cross/Lechmere and knew his address before the inquest. He would have to be on a witness list before the inquest started. I believe that standard operating procedure.
If for some reason he just showed up at the inquest without being interviewed by police or no one knew who he was before his testimony at the inquest then that certainly isn't the mark of an intelligent man, which I believe Lechmere was.
So I think everyone playing this name game is reading way too much into it and should focus on other areas. It's a small piece of the puzzle. An interesting piece no doubt but a small piece.

Columbo

[Columbo]

I donīt think panick was ever on the schedule, Columbo. Panick makes you run and yell, and this killer was silent and careful.
The measured steps Mrs Mortimer heard in Berner Street may well have been him.
Nobody heard or saw a running person leaving any of the murder spots.

So panick does not enter my picture of what happened. We are dealing with a cool, composed man, going by the sings of things.

You may very well be right, we just can't prove it either way. Again I personally think Lechmere is at the top of viable suspects, but in my opinion, some of his actions do require a little forgiveness if they're to be believed.

Case in point is Stride. People for decades have felt the Ripper was hiding behind the gate when she was found. This to me is nonsense because I don't feel the entryway to the yard was wide enough to hide a man behind a gate and get the horse and cart through, but I can't prove it either way. It may very well have happened.

So on some Lechmere actions I'm skeptical behind the suggested reasons he did them but again that's not enough to discount him. It's also not enough to convict him either.

Columbo

[Abby Normal]

Having said that, and in light of the fact I just said I'm moving on to a different subject, It doesn't clear Lechmere of any wrong doing.

Since we don't have the official inquest papers this is all theory and speculation, but let's say Lechmere purposely used Cross at the inquest. In all due respect to the pro-lechmere crowd, to give a different name and a true address is not really the signs of an intellectual sociopath, simply because it opens him up to suspicion if he is found to be lying. I believe that's been stated before.
To say he did it because he was playing some game with the police or he was hoping to throw them off the trail is hard to take because in order for him to win that game he would have to move from that address, which he didn't.
You absolutely cannot give a false name and true address and expect not to get caught if they decide to investigate you. Why? because if they went to your house and asked your wife for a Charles Cross, and she said she didn't know who Cross was, but we have a Charles Lechmere who lives in the house, the cops are going to stake out that house and find out who is really living there and then they're going to catch you in your lie.
Again, my opinion, I think if we had the investigative papers from the PC's (not the inquest papers) we would find they did track down Cross/Lechmere and knew his address before the inquest. He would have to be on a witness list before the inquest started. I believe that standard operating procedure.
If for some reason he just showed up at the inquest without being interviewed by police or no one knew who he was before his testimony at the inquest then that certainly isn't the mark of an intelligent man, which I believe Lechmere was.
So I think everyone playing this name game is reading way too much into it and should focus on other areas. It's a small piece of the puzzle. An interesting piece no doubt but a small piece.

Columbo

Hi Columbo
I think the point fish is trying to make is that he used the other name, cross, to keep his more commonly used name, Lechmere, out of the public eye, perhaps to not let his friends, coworkers, family or wife know that he is involved in the murder investigation in any way.

if they had any suspicians or thought there was anything odd about him or his behavior, his name coming out might add fuel to that suspicion and could lead them to perhaps going to the police if they knew or suspected anything nefarious about him.

IF he normally went by Lechmere and IF all his family, friends etc. knew him as Lechmere and IF he had anything to hide, I don't really find it that outrageous an idea.It would allow him to help keep his family/friends out of the loop,while at the same time not flat out lying to the police.

I would be remiss, though, if I didn't add that IMHO he used the name cross with police, because that's what he was known as at work, having started working there when his name was still cross, and the whole discovery of the body and his subsequent information to police was in terms of finding the body on the way to work.

[Fisherman]

You may very well be right, we just can't prove it either way. Again I personally think Lechmere is at the top of viable suspects, but in my opinion, some of his actions do require a little forgiveness if they're to be believed.

Case in point is Stride. People for decades have felt the Ripper was hiding behind the gate when she was found. This to me is nonsense because I don't feel the entryway to the yard was wide enough to hide a man behind a gate and get the horse and cart through, but I can't prove it either way. It may very well have happened.

So on some Lechmere actions I'm skeptical behind the suggested reasons he did them but again that's not enough to discount him. It's also not enough to convict him either.

Columbo

The gates at Dutfields yard swung up all the way onto the walls of the buildings to their sides, so there was no space there for a killer to hide. Personally, I have always believed that the killer was long gone when Diemschitz and his pony arrived.

I donīt know why the Stride killing should speak against Lechmere being the culprit. Of course, there was only the one cut to the neck, but that may owe to the killer having been unsettled before Diemschitz arrived.

The murder as such went down in the exact midst of the many houses where the carman grew up as a kid, and his mother was living in 1 Mary Ann Street at the time, so he had both a comfort zone to work in and a reason to be there. It does not prove that he was, but the mere fact that Lechmere fits all the killings geographically is to me strongly suggestive of a connection.

[Columbo]

The gates at Dutfields yard swung up all the way onto the walls of the buildings to their sides, so there was no space there for a killer to hide. Personally, I have always believed that the killer was long gone when Diemschitz and his pony arrived.

I donīt know why the Stride killing should speak against Lechmere being the culprit. Of course, there was only the one cut to the neck, but that may owe to the killer having been unsettled before Diemschitz arrived.

The murder as such went down in the exact midst of the many houses where the carman grew up as a kid, and his mother was living in 1 Mary Ann Street at the time, so he had both a comfort zone to work in and a reason to be there. It does not prove that he was, but the mere fact that Lechmere fits all the killings geographically is to me strongly suggestive of a connection.

Hey Fisherman,

Well the Stride thing I was using as an example of the tenacity of people's beliefs in how things had to happen and not taking into account possible other scenarios. Let's face it if Stride was a Ripper victim that was the sloppiest one to ever happen if the witnesses are to be believed.

I've always thought people give Jack too much credit for being smart, simply because he was not "officially" caught (Kosminski anyone?). In my mind I don't picture a very clever man with the calm and coolness of a Ted Bundy, but more of someone who, when the time or opportunity came upon him he killed. I believe he was more lucky then clever and probably his knowledge of the area helped him a great deal, and he had the ability to calm himself quickly after the act was done.

If it was Lechmere I think, given his employment, his killings were opportunistic and he wasn't "on the hunt" so to speak but on a few occasions his job availed him to those moments. In a few cases we of course make the assumption he was stalking since it was outside his usual work hours but he very well could've been out for a walk and the opportunity arose.

I just don't know enough about Lechmere to form an opinion on his abilities or what he was thinking etc. You're much more informed on that subject then I am.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Hi Columbo
I think the point fish is trying to make is that he used the other name, cross, to keep his more commonly used name, Lechmere, out of the public eye, perhaps to not let his friends, coworkers, family or wife know that he is involved in the murder investigation in any way.

if they had any suspicians or thought there was anything odd about him or his behavior, his name coming out might add fuel to that suspicion and could lead them to perhaps going to the police if they knew or suspected anything nefarious about him.

IF he normally went by Lechmere and IF all his family, friends etc. knew him as Lechmere and IF he had anything to hide, I don't really find it that outrageous an idea.It would allow him to help keep his family/friends out of the loop,while at the same time not flat out lying to the police.

I would be remiss, though, if I didn't add that IMHO he used the name cross with police, because that's what he was known as at work, having started working there when his name was still cross, and the whole discovery of the body and his subsequent information to police was in terms of finding the body on the way to work.

Hi Abby,

My problem is that is alot of IF's. What we don't know for sure is why he was at the inquest to begin with. The simplest, easiest way to avoid this was to disappear. I think somewhere it was written that Paul would recognize Cross at work or something so he felt it necessary to go, but that's really a bit of a stretch. In all probability Lechmere only needed to change his route to work and he might never have seen Paul again, or run across Mizen and Neil for months, and that would've been the end of his involvement with Nichols.

Theoretically he actually screwed himself by going to the inquest because he not only used a different name from which he was known but gave his real address, so the idea he was trying to shield anyone is one that is very weak.

I think he attended the inquest because he was identified during the police investigation and he gave them the name Cross during the interview before being called to the inquest, so if anything he lied to the police before the inquest testimony. They're not going to allow just anyone to walk into an inquest and testify. It just doesn't work that way.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

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?

[B]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.

The second "false" in my sentence was an unfortunate typo. I meant to say:

"Why is he not "more smoked than a kipper" if the cops checked him out to discover he had given a false name?"

But it doesn't matter because the effect of your answer absolutely confirms what I said at the very start of this discussion. It was such a weak form of deception that Cross would not be "more smoked than a kipper" if the police discovered it.