Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere - suspicious?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lechmere - suspicious?

    The question I would like to ask is:

    Given the circumstances under which Robert Paul encountered Charles Lechmere in Bucks Row, do you think it would have been appropriate, sensible or indeed a priority for the police in 1888 to regard Charles Lechmere with suspicion and vigorously check him out on the basis that it was suspicious or that he should be regarded as a potential suspect?

    If you think they should have checked him out can you give the reasons and to what degree do you think they should have checked him out?

    If you think it wasn’t necessary to check him out to any sort of stringent degree can you also give the reasons.

    Whether you think the police actually did or did not do this is irrelevant to the question.

  • #2
    Nothing particularly suspicious but I would expect the police to check his name, address, workplace, workplace character and any previous convictions. Also his work clothes.

    Comment


    • #3
      Ditto to what Robert said.
      To Join JTR Forums :
      Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
        The question I would like to ask is:

        Given the circumstances under which Robert Paul encountered Charles Lechmere in Bucks Row, do you think it would have been appropriate, sensible or indeed a priority for the police in 1888 to regard Charles Lechmere with suspicion and vigorously check him out on the basis that it was suspicious or that he should be regarded as a potential suspect?

        If you think they should have checked him out can you give the reasons and to what degree do you think they should have checked him out?

        If you think it wasn’t necessary to check him out to any sort of stringent degree can you also give the reasons.

        Whether you think the police actually did or did not do this is irrelevant to the question.
        Yes, they should have checked him out at home and at work, if for no other reason, at least to establish that it was reasonable for him to have been in Buck's Row at the time. Ditto Paul.

        Beyond that, they should have made a few discreet enquiries among his neighbours and workmates to see if he had any kind of a dodgy reputation.

        Edit: and yes, his work clothes and made enquiries as to whether he carried a knife.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
          Nothing particularly suspicious but I would expect the police to check his name, address, workplace, workplace character and any previous convictions. Also his work clothes.
          It seems the opportunity to check his work clothes disappeared when Mizen was told that another PC was in charge down in Bucks Row.

          Similarly, it seems they failed to check his name out.

          And many a serialist have had excellent workplace characters, as you may be aware.

          I also think it automatically follows that the police will regard you with a degree of suspicion if you have been found at a murder site at the approximate time of the murder, and if you have no corroboration for whatever innocent explanation you offer, unless somebody else is for some reason named the prime suspect. They would be idiots not to do so.
          The appropriate thing to do for the police would be to thoroughly examine this person in order to try and clear him. If he canīt be cleared and if no other suspect is found or if no other information points away from the persons possible guilt, then he must be counted as the prime suspect (although depending on character of the person and the circumstances, the police will entertain varying degrees of suspicion) and much work must be undertaken to - if possible - establish his guilt. If that cannot be achieved, he must walk free.
          "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
            It seems the opportunity to check his work clothes disappeared when Mizen was told that another PC was in charge down in Bucks Row.

            Similarly, it seems they failed to check his name out.

            And many a serialist have had excellent workplace characters, as you may be aware.

            I also think it automatically follows that the police will regard you with a degree of suspicion if you have been found at a murder site at the approximate time of the murder, and if you have no corroboration for whatever innocent explanation you offer, unless somebody else is for some reason named the prime suspect. They would be idiots not to do so.
            So within an hour it has already turned into a Lechmere did it thread.

            That's all we need another one.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
              So within an hour it has already turned into a Lechmere did it thread.

              That's all we need another one.
              It is a thread about whether Lechmere should be regarded with suspicion or not. That is exactly what I am commenting on.

              Can I please ask you not to add more acrimony, and instead follow the intentions of the thread?

              If you do not wish to discuss Lechmere, then feel free to stay away from it.
              "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
                It is a thread about whether Lechmere should be regarded with suspicion or not. That is exactly what I am commenting on.

                Can I please ask you not to add more acrimony, and instead follow the intentions of the thread?

                If you do not wish to discuss Lechmere, then feel free to stay away from it.
                No.
                You are commenting on someone's opinion you don't agree with.
                Edward asked for opinions, yes or no. He didn't ask for a debate against those said no.

                And I will post where I like until Howard says so. If you don't like it, I suggest you complain to him and then do us all a favour by walking under a bus.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                  No.
                  You are commenting on someone's opinion you don't agree with.
                  Edward asked for opinions, yes or no. He didn't ask for a debate against those said no.

                  And I will post where I like until Howard says so. If you don't like it, I suggest you complain to him and then do us all a favour by walking under a bus.
                  Thanks for that, Rob! But I am far too tall to be able to walk under a bus. How about you?

                  I am giving my opinion on how and why I think Lechmere should be regarded with suspicion, and that is what was asked for. You may recognize this sentence:
                  "If you think they should have checked him out can you give the reasons and to what degree do you think they should have checked him out?"

                  Does it sound familiar? It is from Edwards initial post.

                  Making the odd point that it would become a thread about Lechmere being guilty on account of my answer is not very useful. You are welcome to make the point that you donīt think he was suspicious, and thereby you would move the issue in the other direction.
                  Unless, of course, you were still walking under that bus.
                  "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
                    Thanks for that, Rob! But I am far to tall to be able to walk under a bus. How about you?

                    I am giving my opinion on how and why I think Lechmere should be regarded with suspicion, and that is what was asked for. You may recognize this sentence:
                    "If you think they should have checked him out can you give the reasons and to what degree do you think they should have checked him out?"

                    Does it sound familiar? It is from Edwards initial post.

                    Making the odd point that it would become a thread about Lechmere being guilty on account of my answer is not very useful. You are welcome to make the point that you donīt think he was suspicious, and thereby you would move the issue in the other direction.
                    Unless, of course, you were still walking under that bus.
                    He wanted people to say yes or no. That's all. Not for someone to debate that opinion. Otherwise it's just another Lechmere thread. And we all know yours and Edwards opinion. So why repeat them again? Oh because you want another Lechmere is a suspect thread to take off with hundreds and hundreds of posts debating the sane old rubbish you have been spouting for years.

                    Try an airplane then.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                      He wanted people to say yes or no. That's all. Not for someone to debate that opinion. Otherwise it's just another Lechmere thread. And we all know yours and Edwards opinion. So why repeat them again? Oh because you want another Lechmere is a suspect thread to take off with hundreds and hundreds of posts debating the sane old rubbish you have been spouting for years.

                      Try an airplane then.
                      Here we go again:

                      "If you think they should have checked him out can you give the reasons and to what degree do you think they should have checked him out?

                      If you think it wasn’t necessary to check him out to any sort of stringent degree can you also give the reasons."

                      I would have thought that was very easily understood - give your opinion and say why you hold it.

                      I gave my opinion and said why I hold it.

                      I often walk underneath airplanes, Rob. Donīt you?
                      "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
                        Here we go again:

                        "If you think they should have checked him out can you give the reasons and to what degree do you think they should have checked him out?

                        If you think it wasn’t necessary to check him out to any sort of stringent degree can you also give the reasons."

                        I would have thought that was very easily understood - give your opinion and say why you hold it.

                        I gave my opinion and said why I hold it.

                        I often walk underneath airplanes, Rob. Donīt you?
                        Yes but you did it in reply to someone elses post. And not one you did by yourself. So disagreeing with that poster and starting an unnecessary debate.

                        As fir my opinion. I will give Edward it when I am ready.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                          Yes but you did it in reply to someone elses post. And not one you did by yourself. So disagreeing with that poster and starting an unnecessary debate.

                          As fir my opinion. I will give Edward it when I am ready.
                          I used Roberts post to clarify my stance. I am not aware that this was in any way forbidden? As for which debate is necessary and which is unneccesary, Iīd say that the one you are initiating now belongs to the latter category.
                          "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                            The question I would like to ask is:

                            Given the circumstances under which Robert Paul encountered Charles Lechmere in Bucks Row, do you think it would have been appropriate, sensible or indeed a priority for the police in 1888 to regard Charles Lechmere with suspicion and vigorously check him out on the basis that it was suspicious or that he should be regarded as a potential suspect?

                            If you think they should have checked him out can you give the reasons and to what degree do you think they should have checked him out?

                            If you think it wasn’t necessary to check him out to any sort of stringent degree can you also give the reasons.

                            Whether you think the police actually did or did not do this is irrelevant to the question.
                            He should have been the number one suspect until he was firmly ruled out. Further, he should have been on police radar until he was absolutely cleared or the actual perpetrator caught. That is how it would be in modern police work.

                            He had the perfect alibi: I was on my way to work and I found her. If necessary he could have claimed to have found the knife, gotten bloodstains, if any, due to rendering assistance, etc. There were no witnesses to absolutely contradict what he said.

                            I am curious about Cross--and Paul--stopping to render assistance to what was presumed a drunk woman passed out in the street. God bless them for caring but in reality they were walking long distances to work and people passed out drunk on the street, I would think, would not have been a rarity. In rendering assistance they risked being detained and late to work and it seems Victorian bosses took a dim view of workers arriving late. Cross especially could be forgiven if he had simply walked on, assuming the woman would soon wake up or be rescued by a PC doing the knocking up or whatever.
                            The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
                              I used Roberts post to clarify my stance. I am not aware that this was in any way forbidden? As for which debate is necessary and which is unneccesary, Iīd say that the one you are initiating now belongs to the latter category.
                              Why should you use anyones post to clarify your stance?

                              We all know what your stance is. So stick it in a post by itself. So if I give my opinion and you don't agree with it are you going to reply to it and say why you don't agree with it?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X