Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Trevor Marriott]

I cannot for the life of me remember when I said that two cases are the same, Trevor.

Apart from that smallish interlude, what I am pointing to in the Black case lies in the circumstantial evidence that was deemed "hard" enough to convict him, against his denial.

No conclusive evidence was ever found, tying Black to the abductions and murders, but the police felt they were sure they had their man anyhow (something for Harry to ponder). What it took to get Black convicted was a number of petrol receipts, confirming that he had been in the neighbourhood when the three or four girls that were abducted disappeared.

Of course, anybody ELSE could have been the killer, and a lot of OTHER people were living close to the abduction sites. But it was neverthless quite, quite enough for the judge and jury to make a call on circumstantial evidence and send Black down for life.

That is the importance of the geography issue. It serves as a litmus paper when there is suspicion against anybody. If it can be confirmed that such a suspected individual has been close to (not necessarily at) the murder spots at the relevant hours, then the corroboration looked for will be at hand.

In Lechmereīs case, we cannot say that we know that he was close to the murder sites at the relevant hours. But we CAN establish that it would be completely logical if he was, and that he had reason to pass these spots.

There we go.

But of course he was arrested after having been seen at a location away from his home address to abduct a young girl and was found soon afterwards with the girl still alive in the back of his van. So the evidence was fairly strong to support the evidence of the petrol receipts and to show the court a course of conduct on his part !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

No two cases are the same !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Robert Black was a van driver who travelled the UK in a Van, thus giving him the opportunity to seize and abduct any young child that he encountered who were on their own.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I cannot for the life of me remember when I said that two cases are the same, Trevor.

Apart from that smallish interlude, what I am pointing to in the Black case lies in the circumstantial evidence that was deemed "hard" enough to convict him, against his denial.

No conclusive evidence was ever found, tying Black to the abductions and murders, but the police felt they were sure they had their man anyhow (something for Harry to ponder). What it took to get Black convicted was a number of petrol receipts, confirming that he had been in the neighbourhood when the three or four girls that were abducted disappeared.

Of course, anybody ELSE could have been the killer, and a lot of OTHER people were living close to the abduction sites. But it was neverthless quite, quite enough for the judge and jury to make a call on circumstantial evidence and send Black down for life.

That is the importance of the geography issue. It serves as a litmus paper when there is suspicion against anybody. If it can be confirmed that such a suspected individual has been close to (not necessarily at) the murder spots at the relevant hours, then the corroboration looked for will be at hand.

In Lechmereīs case, we cannot say that we know that he was close to the murder sites at the relevant hours - but for one such spot, where we know that he was found alone with a freshly killed victim. But we CAN establish that it would be completely logical if he was at the other spots too, and that he had reason to pass these spots.

There we go.

[Trevor Marriott]

Harry D!

Hereīs a little homework for you. Look up Robert Black, a convicted child molestor and -killer who did in prison this year.

Find out how the investigation proceeded, how Black came to become a focal point for the investigation, how the police entertained grave suspicions against him, and why and how he could finally be convicted.

I makes for an interesting parallel to the Lechmere case in many a respect.

Enjoy.

No two cases are the same !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Robert Black was a van driver who travelled the UK in a Van, thus giving him the opportunity to seize and abduct any young child that he encountered who were on their own.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Harry D!

Hereīs a little homework for you. Look up Robert Black, a convicted child molestor and -killer who did in prison this year.

Find out how the investigation proceeded, how Black came to become a focal point for the investigation, how the police entertained grave suspicions against him, and why and how he could finally be convicted.

I makes for an interesting parallel to the Lechmere case in many a respect.

Enjoy.

[Fisherman]

So what hard evidence do you have as we speak that wasn't available to the police in 1888, which had it have been would have made him a suspect.?

By hard evidence I dont mean your experts opinions, or the blood flow issue, both you seem to heavily rely on in your contemporary theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

Then what DO you mean by hard evidence, Trevor? A knife with prints and blood on it?

By the way, where did I say that I do have "hard evidence" (is that a euphemism for proof?) that would have made him a suspect?

It was hard enough for Scobie, please keep that in mind.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: It doesn't however make him the prime suspect you keep thinking he is

Have you noticed how there IS no definitive prime suspect? How people have their OWN prime suspects?
Lechmere is the only candidate who has an abundance of caserelated evidence pointing his way. Thatīs why I favour him over, say, Feigenbaum.

It negates your theory that there may have been some suspicion against him from some source that was never acted upon, but you cant identify the source can you? and in the absence of anything from 1888 or thereafter we rightly have to assume there was no suspicion.

Are you completely bonkers? I donīt think and I have never thought that he was suspected back in 1888. So it will be hard to negate...

So what hard evidence do you have as we speak that wasn't available to the police in 1888, which had it have been would have made him a suspect.?

By hard evidence I dont mean your experts opinions, or the blood flow issue, both you seem to heavily rely on in your contemporary theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

[Fisherman]

Where's the evidence that Lechmere's work route "dovetailed" with all of the murder sites?

All over the boards.

To be fair, what I say is that there is logical reason to suggest that Lechmere could have been at all of the murder sites at the relevant hours.

Others, like Bury (just to offer one small example), are completely baseless in this respect.

[Fisherman]

Yes that was my mistake

Typing too fast?

I can think of a few other mistakes on your behalf...

[Fisherman]

Louis was surprisingly young, in his mid-twenties.


Holy crap, you two type fast.

Yes, and one of us do so on a factual basis.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: It doesn't however make him the prime suspect you keep thinking he is

Have you noticed how there IS no definitive prime suspect? How people have their OWN prime suspects?
Lechmere is the only candidate who has an abundance of caserelated evidence pointing his way. Thatīs why I favour him over, say, Feigenbaum.

It negates your theory that there may have been some suspicion against him from some source that was never acted upon, but you cant identify the source can you? and in the absence of anything from 1888 or thereafter we rightly have to assume there was no suspicion.

Are you completely bonkers? I donīt think and I have never thought that he was suspected back in 1888. So it will be hard to negate...

[Harry D]

Where's the evidence that Lechmere's work route "dovetailed" with all of the murder sites?

[Trevor Marriott]

Louis was surprisingly young, in his mid-twenties.


Holy crap, you two type fast.

Yes that was my mistake

[Joshua Rogan]

Then you look at Diemschultz and say it couldnt have been him he was an old man going about his business

Louis was surprisingly young, in his mid-twenties.


Holy crap, you two type fast.

[Trevor Marriott]

Lechmere was, however, never arrested or suspected. If you think that exonerates him, think again.

It doesn't however make him the prime suspect you keep thinking he is

It negates your theory that there may have been some suspicion against him from some source that was never acted upon, but you cant identify the source can you? and in the absence of anything from 1888 or thereafter we rightly have to assume there was no suspicion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: When you look at suspicion from a police perspective in 1888 and these murders. Look at all the incidents we have seen of males being arrested/detained, simply because they wore similar clothing to that described by witnesses, or were of similar description, or were found acting suspiciously.

Eh... yes? And...?

Yet Cross was found with a body. that`s bit different to the above examples is it not.

I dare say. But there are those who say that somebody has to find a body. You, for example. Somehow, you seem to have recovered a bit on the score - good!

Yet despite all the verbal conflicts etc and the isue with regards his name he was never arrested.

The name was in all probability never checked. And as for the verbal conflicts, just as I say, not a soul remarked upon it before I did so. That leads me to think it was not very easy to spot, and/or easily overlooked.

You are not suggesting that the police never ever gave it a thought are you? because if you are you need a reality check.

I am suggesting that the police never actively investigated the carman, and I am saying that the name issue corroborates that suggestion to a very large degree.

They may not all have been the brightest sparks in the fire but I am sure they would have looked at him in detail.

So how did they miss his real name, Trevor? And as you may have noticed, a large number os serialists have been overlooked by the police, although the implications were in hindsight found to have been there. Were THEY looked at in detail too? Plus the Victorian police were not as up to scratch as todays force is - who nevertless sometimes fail to find dead bodies in attics they search a couple of times. Maybe they did not search the attic in detail in Tia Sharpeīs case, I donīt know.

Any suspicion that anyone had about Cross would have been realised into an arrest.

And what does that tell you? It tells me that the carman was never suspected.

From a police perspective once a person is in custody the police are playing on home territory, whereas speaking to a suspect at his home is in the favour of the suspect, and besides when arrested the person being arrested may believe that perhaps the police have more evidence against him than they actually have.

Lechmere was, however, never arrested or suspected. If you think that exonerates him, think again.