The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[David Orsam]

He left home at around 3.30, should have been at the murder site at around 3.37

How does one get to a timing of 7 minutes though?

What route does this involve?

I seem to recall a recent documentary which timed an unspecified route at 7 minutes but no information has ever been given about the route taken.

Are you sure it wasn't timed along a modern route that did not exist in 1888?

[David Orsam]

In his paper interview, Paul said that he was hurrying along.

No he didn't! That was a word the journalist attributed to him.

But that same report attributed to him the following sentence:

"I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw."

Did Paul say that he went on from Bucks Row without Cross and told Cross that he would send the first policeman he saw?

If not (or even if he did) how can we trust the word "hurrying"?

[Fisherman]

Well. You said this: "In a sense, I have a lot more trouble accepting a raging alcoholic having the kind of facade Lechmere had."

The operative word here is obvious: "façade". You feel that Lechmere wasn't a "raging alcoholic" because he of the complex, well executed "façade" that allowed him to kill unabated for decades, come in close contact with the police, dupe them with a fake name and invented story, and then disappear into the ether with them none the wiser. I agree! Well...I agree that he probably wasn't a raging alcoholic, that is. Alas, I base my reasoning on the facts that we both know about him: Raised 11 kids, 20+ years at Pickfords, opened a "general shop" late in life, married 50+ years......

I see what you mean - but to my mind, everybody has a facade. It´s a bit Shakespearian - all the world is a stage... and as you know, many serialists have been succesful, thriving people, been married, have had kids etcetera.

By the way, once again famous FBI profiler Robert Resslers definition of a serial killer: A man living what seems to be an ordinary family life, with a steady job and in his mid to late thirties...

[Fisherman]

His theory is that he didn't stop killing. He continued killing with different MO 'till he dropped.

Not til he dropped, no. I am pretty confident that the torso killer and the Ripper are one and the same man, though - so that takes us up until 1889. And then there are another couple of deaths that I think are very interesting in relation to Lechmere, later on. But I won´t bother you with them right now.

My personal belief is that if every serial killer was allowed to stay free and live to be a hundred years, they would more or less all stop killing long before they died.

[David Orsam]

I think the man following would probably notice at 40 yards, maybe not at 60 yards, and probably not at 80 yards.

so I have actually resolved basically nothing.sorry. carry on.

You shouldn't put your findings down Abby because you've managed to disprove the hypothesis that both men should have seen each other prior to Bucks Row!

But can I nevertheless ask you about your underlying assumptions?

Earlier in this thread you told me that 20-30 seconds was a possible range for Lech to stop walking and notice the body. Now it's come down to 5-20 seconds. How has this happened in 24 hours?

Secondly, why are you treating 40 yards as the maximum possible distance that Paul could have been away from Lechmere when he first heard him? You seem to be saying that Lechmere could not possibly have underestimated the distance. Yet he says that at this distance he could only hear footsteps. Please tell me how it's possible for a human being to accurately estimate distances by sound.

Surely if we are using a distance of 40 yards to consider whether he is guilty of murder we must surely use a margin of error greater than zero.

[John G]

His theory is that he didn't stop killing. He continued killing with different MO 'till he dropped.

Thanks Patrick. Frankly this makes little sense to me. In any event, if serial killers really did "retire" for such long periods there would surely be plenty of evidence to support such an argument, particularly as modern forensics, i.e. DNA, can reveal perpetrators many years after the crimes were committed.

[Patrick S]

I see what you mean - but to my mind, everybody has a facade. It´s a bit Shakespearian - all the world is a stage... and as you know, many serialists have been succesful, thriving people, been married, have had kids etcetera.

By the way, once again famous FBI profiler Robert Resslers definition of a serial killer: A man living what seems to be an ordinary family life, with a steady job and in his mid to late thirties...

By, God! That's Lechmere! I think you've found him! Wait...that phrase may be trademarked. Forget I said anything.

[David Orsam]

Secondly, why are you treating 40 yards as the maximum possible distance that Paul could have been away from Lechmere when he first heard him? You seem to be saying that Lechmere could not possibly have underestimated the distance. Yet he says that at this distance he could only hear footsteps. Please tell me how it's possible for a human being to accurately estimate distances by sound.

Surely if we are using a distance of 40 yards to consider whether he is guilty of murder we must surely use a margin of error greater than zero.

It's interesting to note that I have the authority of none other than Christer Holmgren in saying that Paul could have been more than 40 yards down Bucks Row when Lechmere first heard his footsteps. For in the documentary, 'Jack The Ripper: The Missing Evidence', Mr Holgren is quoted as saying:

"What I think is that he [Lechmere] heard Paul from a much longer distance."

[Fisherman]

By, God! That's Lechmere! I think you've found him! Wait...that phrase may be trademarked. Forget I said anything.

Yes, we can make fun of most anything posted out here. But since it is often proposed that a tidy and respectable man like family father Charles Lechmere would NEVER ...!

... I think that Resslers words are a good way to sober up.

[Elamarna]

We know he was late for work.

We know he mentioned this to Lechmere, so as to be able to leave the murder spot.

We know that in his paper interview, Paul was quoted as saying that he was late for work and hurrying along.

No reason to think he was walking at an above average speed, Steve?

No evidence that he he was walking above normal speed, None at all my friend, supposition like so much of your argument.

Of course ignoring the other issues mentioned, which we know from previous experience you are unwilling to address.

.

steve

[Patrick S]

Yes, we can make fun of most anything posted out here. But since it is often proposed that a tidy and respectable man like family father Charles Lechmere would NEVER ...!

... I think that Resslers words are a good way to sober up.

Just thought I'd toss in some humor. Either way, I'm plenty sober, Fish. I haven't been drinking the Lechmere cool-aid, intoxicating as it is.

[Fisherman]

Just thought I'd toss in some humor. Either way, I'm plenty sober, Fish. I haven't been drinking the Lechmere cool-aid, intoxicating as it is.

You should. Mixed with a drop of truth-serum, it´s irresistible.

[Fisherman]

No evidence that he he was walking above normal speed, None at all my friend, supposition like so much of your argument.

Of course ignoring the other issues mentioned, which we know from previous experience you are unwilling to address.

.

steve

Evidence? If he said in a paper interview that he was hurrying, that IS evidence.

Like I say, this place sometimes is the Land behind the mirror...

As for my "argument" it is a theory - and theories are always to a larger or smaller degree supposition.

[David Orsam]

Another quote from the documentary:

"Aware of Paul’s approach, Lechmere had a full minute to cover his work..."

I think this must mean that Lechmere first heard Paul when he was 60 seconds away (according to the documentary).

[drstrange169]

>>You are lying, Dusty, as always.<<

Excellent, so you are finally going to give examples of "always" lying.

Pause ... tuneless whistle ... thumb twiddle.. cricket chirps.. tumbleweed blows down the street ... ah, I thought not.


>>I have not broken any promise at all.You are welcome to produce a list of questions, as I said - you have so far not done that<<

So far about six unanswered questions and still counting since your "I'll answer everything" post.

Yeah I'd say that it is officially a fact that you broke your promise.


To begin with: No effort from somebody like you could ever make me run. I could loathe it, of course, and stay away from answering for that reason. But run? The idiocy of that suggestion is unsurpassed.

Looking at your record, you seem to reply to personal posts, like this one, but avoid the on topic posts. I'm sure you do "loathe" being caught out on such a regular basis, who wouldn't? Here's a tip, be honest in your posts and the loathing will go away. After all it isn't just me is it? So many people keep picking on poor old you.



>>You say I ran from your posts 614 and 615. I took a look, and they are both my posts, not yours. <<


Um, isn't that the very point I was making?
Those posts should have answered the questions by me, cited in them. You know, the questions you started this post by saying don't exist?



>>A mere trifle, of course, but it would be nice if you could at least manage to get such things right.<<

It's not a mere trifle, it's a bloody disaster for you.



>>Now, here is the deal:You can deposit one (1) post out here, containing any questions you have previously asked on this thread, and which you feel have gone unanswered. Reference the post(s), and then ask the exact question(s) yo want an answer to.<<

Wow you really are delusional! Do you really think you are so much more important than anyone else on this site that you can order people around?

This site is set up for debating, if you are not prepared to debate anybody anytime, go away.



>>Do not lie again about me breaking any promise - if you do, I shall withdraw my offer immediately.<<

!!! ;-)

Here a reasonable and normal attitude to take, how about you answer the questions I've already asked since you made your "promise", first?

How about responding to on-topic posts in future instaed of just selecting off topic subjects??