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:
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 3 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Sam Flynn 4 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by Steadmund Brand 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (64 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Only one suspect can be shown to have carried a knife. - (16 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (8 posts)
Witnesses: Packer and the Pinchin Street torso - (5 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (4 posts)
Visual Media: New play about Jack the Ripper (Denver, CO) - (3 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
  #891  
Old 06-27-2017, 01:45 PM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Lechmere was never a suspect. And he is no suspect now. He is your brain model.
You don't get to decide who is and is not a suspect.

You might think you do. But you don't.

Hope that helps clarify things for you.
__________________
What should I do at Rome? I have not learnt
The art of lying


Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis - Satire III
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #892  
Old 06-27-2017, 01:46 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow View Post
In Alice Mackenzie's inquest , Dr. George Baxter Phillips said:




As I stated, breathing will stop very very soon because the death in this case will happen very fast after almost severing the head from the body, almost in one minute, therefore I conclude two things:

- If Paul had detected breathing, that means only one thing, Charles Allen Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

- The throat cut may very will happened next, when Lechmere noticed Paul coming, and I think, from this event, Lechmere had learned to start by cutting the throat first in his next murders.

Ok let's be very clear here.

That does not say when breathing stops, do you not see that?

That report gives no timings at all and advances us no further.

Comments from 1888 about medic matters are often less than accurate and so we still need modern medical opinion.

Do you not realise that if the timing is very short it actually precludes Paul from detecting any breathing at all!

So I am not sure why you appear to be celebrating, which in itself is somewhat distasteful.
Given this is a murder case, with real victims and a real man being accused, it needs real evidence. Yet this still does not have sufficient evidence to take an informed view. However the most astounding thing is that there appears to be no actual grasp what an instantaneous cessation of breathing means in this case.

This real must stop.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #893  
Old 06-27-2017, 01:50 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
You don't get to decide who is and is not a suspect.

You might think you do. But you don't.

Hope that helps clarify things for you.
Itīs not a decision but well known established facts.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #894  
Old 06-27-2017, 01:57 PM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Itīs not a decision but well known established facts.
*yawn*
__________________
What should I do at Rome? I have not learnt
The art of lying


Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis - Satire III
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #895  
Old 06-27-2017, 02:16 PM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Ok let's be very clear here.

That does not say when breathing stops, do you not see that?

That report gives no timings at all and advances us no further.

Comments from 1888 about medic matters are often less than accurate and so we still need modern medical opinion.

Do you not realise that if the timing is very short it actually precludes Paul from detecting any breathing at all!

So I am not sure why you appear to be celebrating, which in itself is somewhat distasteful.
Given this is a murder case, with real victims and a real man being accused, it needs real evidence. Yet this still does not have sufficient evidence to take an informed view. However the most astounding thing is that there appears to be no actual grasp what an instantaneous cessation of breathing means in this case.

This real must stop.


Steve
Rainbow, if you want us to take Phillips at his word, let's do that. Once Nichols' throat was cut and her carotid divided, death from syncope would've been 'almost instantaneous'. My Cambridge English Dictionary defines instantaneous as 'happening immediately, without any delay'.

So you're agreeing with Steve that Paul was mistaken when he thought he felt a movement and interpreted it as breathing. That would've been impossible if she had died almost instantaneously.

So that's progress of a sort.

Or would you prefer a more precise, modern scientific take on the actual timing of these things, after all?

You would? Splendid!
__________________
What should I do at Rome? I have not learnt
The art of lying


Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis - Satire III
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #896  
Old 06-27-2017, 02:22 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
*yawn*
*Zzzzzzzzz....*
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #897  
Old 06-27-2017, 02:27 PM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
*Zzzzzzzzz....*
Wake up Christer! Pierre is back, with his magic Bias Detector!

__________________
What should I do at Rome? I have not learnt
The art of lying


Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis - Satire III
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #898  
Old 06-28-2017, 05:35 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
What I dislike very much is when things are claimed on my behalf though - if I should exemplify, I can take the recent post from Caz, where she portrays me as inconsequent by saying on the one hand that Lechmere - if the killer - was fearless, and on the other hand that he was easily scared.
Inconsequent, Fishy? Did you mean inconsistent? If so I humbly apologise because I genuinely misunderstood your reasoning on this. I may have been thinking of the Hutchinson arguments Ben used to make, where his ripper could be both a brazen risk taker and a worried risk dodger at the same time. To me this always seemed like having it both ways. He came forward because he dared not run the risk of staying away, lest Sarah Lewis saw too much and he was dragged in as a suspect. If anyone challenged this view, okay then, he came forward for the pure thrill of being right under Abberline's nose and leading him a merry dance. In fact, Ben used to argue, it could have been a bit of both.

If this is nothing like your own reasoning regarding Lechmere's motivation for coming forward, on reading Paul's account, that can only be a good thing. But I genuinely thought I had read at least one post of yours arguing that it was Paul, blabbing to the press about the 'man' who was first at the scene, who left Lechmere with little choice but to identify himself as that man and try to clear himself of any suspicion that might otherwise come his way. To me, that would suggest he weighed up the risks and decided that coming forward gave him the better chance of remaining free to kill again. If you were actually arguing that he chose to brazen it out with the police and at the inquest because he enjoyed the greater risk involved in doing so, compared with staying well out of it, again that's fine, but he could have done that anyway, with or without Paul's supposed trigger. That's what I'm still confused about. Did Paul's article coax Lechmere out into the open [like some believe Lewis's testimony did for Hutch] or didn't it? By the same token, was it brazen of him to give his name as Cross, or did he do that as a precaution against certain people learning of his encounter with the dead prostitute? Change fearless/fearful to daredevil/dare not, and I think I may still have a point here about wanting it both ways.

Quote:
She made a rot of a post, falsely claiming that I had said that Lechmere was spooked by Pauls interview, something I have not done. Plus I regard it as brazen, not cowardly, if a person comes forward to face the police and an inquest in spite of being guilty.

Such things are predestined to confuse people, to distort the debate and to make me a less friendly poster. The debate must be cleansed from things like these before it can become truly useful.
A tad harsh, because there was no intent on my part to falsely accuse you of anything, to confuse others, to distort the debate or to make you 'a less friendly poster', whatever that means. Maybe I am just too thick to grasp some of the subtleties of your arguments. And I'd sooner be called thick than dishonest.

Quote:
Of course, I could turn the other cheek, but Caz has a long tradition of being spiteful in her exchanges with me. It can only be compared to how I have just as long a tradition of mocking her for it.
So I'm 'spiteful' to you while you are merely 'mocking'? You should demand a refund of those charm school fees.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #899  
Old 06-28-2017, 07:56 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,360
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Inconsequent, Fishy? Did you mean inconsistent? If so I humbly apologise because I genuinely misunderstood your reasoning on this. I may have been thinking of the Hutchinson arguments Ben used to make, where his ripper could be both a brazen risk taker and a worried risk dodger at the same time. To me this always seemed like having it both ways. He came forward because he dared not run the risk of staying away, lest Sarah Lewis saw too much and he was dragged in as a suspect. If anyone challenged this view, okay then, he came forward for the pure thrill of being right under Abberline's nose and leading him a merry dance. In fact, Ben used to argue, it could have been a bit of both.

If this is nothing like your own reasoning regarding Lechmere's motivation for coming forward, on reading Paul's account, that can only be a good thing. But I genuinely thought I had read at least one post of yours arguing that it was Paul, blabbing to the press about the 'man' who was first at the scene, who left Lechmere with little choice but to identify himself as that man and try to clear himself of any suspicion that might otherwise come his way. To me, that would suggest he weighed up the risks and decided that coming forward gave him the better chance of remaining free to kill again. If you were actually arguing that he chose to brazen it out with the police and at the inquest because he enjoyed the greater risk involved in doing so, compared with staying well out of it, again that's fine, but he could have done that anyway, with or without Paul's supposed trigger. That's what I'm still confused about. Did Paul's article coax Lechmere out into the open [like some believe Lewis's testimony did for Hutch] or didn't it? By the same token, was it brazen of him to give his name as Cross, or did he do that as a precaution against certain people learning of his encounter with the dead prostitute? Change fearless/fearful to daredevil/dare not, and I think I may still have a point here about wanting it both ways.



A tad harsh, because there was no intent on my part to falsely accuse you of anything, to confuse others, to distort the debate or to make you 'a less friendly poster', whatever that means. Maybe I am just too thick to grasp some of the subtleties of your arguments. And I'd sooner be called thick than dishonest.



So I'm 'spiteful' to you while you are merely 'mocking'? You should demand a refund of those charm school fees.

Love,

Caz
X
Yes, you were completely wrong in claiming that I have ever said that Lechmere was spooked by the interview, and I am relieved to hear that you have now understood that.

As you know, I am of the meaning that if Lechmere was the killer, then he was also a psychopath. Psychopaths do not spook, simple as.

Sadly, you persist by saying: ". But I genuinely thought I had read at least one post of yours arguing that it was Paul, blabbing to the press about the 'man' who was first at the scene, who left Lechmere with little choice but to identify himself as that man and try to clear himself of any suspicion that might otherwise come his way."

I have said that more than one time - but it does not mean that I think that Lechmere was in any way spooked. He was instead seemingly careful and proactive and willing to take great risks.

I sincerely hope we are done with this miscomprehension of yours. I donīt mind being heavily criticised for what I think, but I am quite opposed to having what I DONīT think pointed to as weaknesses in my theory.

Maybe you could ask before posting next time? It would help.

Thank you.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #900  
Old 06-28-2017, 08:07 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,068
Default

Quote:
I donīt mind being heavily criticised for what I think, but I am quite opposed to having what I DONīT think pointed to as weaknesses in my theory.
Christer, I personally think the weakest element of your argument is the idea that Cross/Lechmere murdered Nichols because he had prematurely ejaculated over her abdomen and then been forced to pay up anyway by Nichols, who mocked his anger by saying, "Don't be so cross, Cross!"

It's an absurd idea unsupported by any evidence, and the fact that you've never claimed to believe it is simply no defense!
__________________
What should I do at Rome? I have not learnt
The art of lying


Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis - Satire III
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 05:14 PM.


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