Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 20 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 23 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Elamarna 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Debra A 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Debra A 4 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (36 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (8 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - (4 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (1 posts)
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: Mob Town by John Bennett - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #311  
Old 06-19-2017, 09:37 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Elamarna: I have answered. The fact the answer is something you do not want is not my problem.

But the answer is exactly what I want, Steve - a recognition that you are unable to fix a distance. Itīs totally in line with what I am saying: "together" and "in company" do not carry any sort of fixed distance implications.

No I am presenting the facts of the witness statements, there is no attempt to mislead. You are presenting a theory based on your own views and it seems mainly on semantics, not on the sources.

The fewest present theories based on other peopleīs views, Steve. Didnīt you know? Ann in my case it is very firmly based on the sources, since they tell me that Mizen did not meet and discuss with two men but instead just the one.
It is a question of which sources we use. And I am pointing to how there are sources that support my view, making it a viable one.
Donīt lie about that, if you please.

Thats very strange; I am the one who is using the witness statements and what they contain. It is you who is not using the data sources and presenting ideas which are not supported.

You are falsely inferring that what was said must mean that Paul heard what Lechmere told Mizen. That is twisting the facts into something that was never there.
I am using the sources - it is not me who is suggesting what Mizen said, we have it on record. There is therefore support for my take, although I am quite aware that mine is not the common interpretation of the sources - then again, that is the very idea; I believe the sources have been misinterpreted, and I present an alternative take on it. Which, like I said, is the same as you presenting the alternative take that Lechmere called himself Cross at work.
Where are the sources for THAT, Steve?

So now you as well as having the ability to know what Mizen meant in his testimony you now know what all the members of this forum think. You truly are blessed.

A total misfiring; two misunderstandings baked into one.
I am SUGGESTING what I think Mizen meant. I am stating that I think you look silly. Me. Not "all the members of the forum.
You really need to read a bit more comprehensivel if you are to discuss interpretations. I wil put it down to ignorance instead of lying, but Iīm not sure thatīs a better thing ...

I have not lost the debate as I can present witness statements which say Paul heard the conversation. You however have not offered any evidence that those statements are wrong.
This post is a classic example of the style you use. Say that the other side of the debate has failed but offer no evidence to support your view.

You may have missed out on it, but you have lost the debate. You - for some exotic reason - said that I was the one who needed data to support my view. And all the while, you were clinging on to the demonstrably faulty thesis that "together" and "in company" must mean "in close proximity".
Itīs a beginners mistake and a beginnerīs reaction to being exposed. And if you think saying that is typical for my "style" too, you may want to consider that I may just be correct. In fact, I am.

I am saying can you provide any data which renders the statements of Lechmere And Paul as being faulty. Do that and we will see what developers.

But I have never claimed that I can do that, Steve. I have claimed that I can present a viable scenario in which it applies.

As a small aside, it is common knowledge that all Paul said CAN NOT be true, so we can laeve hom unconsidered in this respect. Lechmere is another thing, and I am saying that i THINK he lied, which is just as good a suggestion as any idea that he told the truth.

I am not going to get on the Kindergarten train and ask you to provide proof that renders Lechmere and Paul correct.
We all, all of the posters, all of the world, everybody KNOWS that it canīt be proven either way. So letīs not get too childish about it.

The one pertinent question - and so far you have avoided it - is this: Can you prove that Paul was not out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen? Once that question has itīs answer, this debate will be over.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 06-19-2017, 09:41 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
If I am welcome to comment therecis no issue is there? And if I am not the discussion should be by PM.


STEVE
The problem is that you ar speaking of a lack of evidence in a post that was never intended to provide evidence. You are therefore making a contribution to the discussion that is completely irrelevant and worthless.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 06-19-2017, 09:42 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Me too Patrick.


Steve
Well, then you can have such a debate together, canīt you? In person and all.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 06-19-2017, 10:03 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,969
Default

It's incredible that all a man has to do to be diagnosed a psychopath is give his stepfather's surname at an inquest. Only in Ripperology!
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 06-19-2017, 10:10 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
It's incredible that all a man has to do to be diagnosed a psychopath is give his stepfather's surname at an inquest. Only in Ripperology!
Harry! You're not viewing things with "an eye on Lechmere being guilty!" Obviously, Lechmere was a psychopath because he was Jack the Ripper. And Jack the Ripper was clearly a psychopath because....well.....all that killing and ripping stuff. And since Jack was a psychopath since Lechmere was Jack then his actions make TOTAL sense! He was a psychopath! Oh, yeah. And stop being so RUDE!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 06-19-2017, 10:20 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Once again, the killer was in all probability a psychopath.

It therefore applies that if Lechmere was a killer, he was in all probability a psychopath.

What is it you gentlemen have problems with on that account?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 06-19-2017, 10:21 AM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
I've made this exact argument for years. So, I know where this is headed. We will get examples of serial killers who were married (although, I've yet be provided an example of one who was married for fifty years, to the same woman). Examples of serial killers who had kids (although, I'm not sure I've gotten an example of one who had 11 kids, all with the same woman). We'll get examples of serial killers who maintained steady employment (although, I'm not sure we'll see one who managed it in a time a place when so many tried and failed to do so).

In the end, its a pretty simple equation: Fisherman himself tells us that in order to have been Jack the Ripper Charles Lechmere HAD to have been a psychopath. Okay. So. Do we have any evidence that Lechmere WAS a psychopath? Anything? Anything at all? No? Alright. Then we have our answer. Charles Lechmere was NOT Jack the Ripper.
Patrick, that's beautifully argued and I am, to put it mildly, not an ardent enthusiast of the Lechmere theory. However, there is always the possibility that Fisherman was wrong to conclude that Lechmere had to be a psychopath. As you have pointed out, unless an 'argument from self' is employed, there is no evidence whatever that Lechmere was a psychopath.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 06-19-2017, 10:25 AM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Once again, the killer was in all probability a psychopath.

It therefore applies that if Lechmere was a killer, he was in all probability a psychopath.

What is it you gentlemen have problems with on that account?
There is no problem.

Put simply, there is no evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath, unless you start with the assumption that he was a serial killer. The killer was, as you say, 'in all probability a psychopath'. There is no evidence that Lechmere was a psychopath; therefore there is no likelihood that Lechmere was the killer.

I know you don't accept that, but such is the argument presented here as I understand it to be.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 06-19-2017, 10:26 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
Patrick, that's beautifully argued and I am, to put it mildly, not an ardent enthusiast of the Lechmere theory. However, there is always the possibility that Fisherman was wrong to conclude that Lechmere had to be a psychopath. As you have pointed out, unless an 'argument from self' is employed, there is no evidence whatever that Lechmere was a psychopath.
Fisherman never concluded that Lechmere had to be a psychopath, however. What Insay is that THE KILLER was in all probability a psychopath (something numerous experts agree with), and thus I say that IF Lechmere was the killer, he was in all probability a psychopath.
I also say that if it can be proven (but it of course canīt) that Lechmere was not a psychopath, then he will not have been the killer to my mind.

We really need to get these things correct, or I will be grossly misrepresented. I do not wish for that to happen.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 06-19-2017, 10:31 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Once again, the killer was in all probability a psychopath.

It therefore applies that if Lechmere was a killer, he was in all probability a psychopath.

What is it you gentlemen have problems with on that account?
If that seems reasonable to you...well.... I don't really know what to say.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.