Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

I sometimes wonder if there are any facts about this case that give you even the slightest pause for doubt on CL’s guilt?

Pick the one detail that you think speaks loudest for his innocence, and we will scrutinize it together. Then we will see how strong an argument you have.

Go ahead, don´t be shy! Which single detail is most out of line with Lechmere possibly being guilty?

[Fisherman]

The point that I was making was an obvious one. You were saying that you’ll continue to support CL’s candidature until someone comes up with a categorical exoneration. I was simply pointing out that at a distance of 130 years such exoneration is unlikely in the extreme. Not because he’s definitely guilty but because it’s unlikely that that kind of conclusive evidence will ever appear.

The same is the case for Hutchinson, Bury, Druitt, Kosminski, Mann, Backert, Lewis Carroll and many, many more. If your criteria for someone being a worthy suspect is “well you cannot categorically exonerate him,” then I’d say the less said about that the better.

I actually didn´t say that I would support Lechmere "until someone comes up with a categorical exoneration", but instead that I will do so until something surfaces that calls upon me to change my mind. Or, at least, that is what I mean.
In fact, anything that comes up to either strengthen or weaken his candidature will be weighed in. It is an ongoing process, and not one where I have locked myself to anything. I think that he was the killer and I think that there is ample evidence to support the suggestion as it stands.

I am not sucha dimwit as to suggest that the best thing he had got going for himself is how he cannot be exonerated, and I frankly resent having it suggested. There are millions of people who cannot be exonerated from having been the Ripper.

One of them only was found close to the body while it was still bleeding.
One of them only disagreed with the police over what was said on the murder night.
One of them only is known to have used an alias that he otherwise did not use in authority contacts.

And so on and so on.

I would have hoped that I would not have to make these points again, seeing as I have already made them a thousand times. But such is the climate out here!

[Fisherman]

No you were being misleading, repeating it in several posts.


Steve

I was pulling your leg. Just as I thought you were pulling mine. How many times must I say that? Ten? Twenty?

How about instead answering my point that the far-reaching differences in the amounts of time that had passed when the bodies of Chapman and Kelly were found would play a very large role in the process of determining TOD?

[Fisherman]

Lets look at those posts.

844: "until such time as you can prove"

Clearly in line with my response that you have not proven the possibility.

Post 972.: different langague but still the same point, the evidence of the carmen is not challenged, therefore you have not proven it is possible

Again in keeping with my view.

I do not say i have proven it is impossible, only that you have not demonstrated that such is possible.

Indeed that seems very clear and nothing else need be said i agree.



Steve

This is what is very clear:

"Therefore it is not possible that Paul was out of earshot."

It should have read "In that context and with these predispositions, it would not have been possible for Paul to have been out of earshot".

But never mind.

The one thing that counts is that we agree that Paul may have been out of earshot.

[harry]

Fis,
Sorry ,I am disqualified from using the full name, fis or should it be fizz,there is ample evidence Nichols was or appeared to be dead before Cross arrived.There is first and foremost the evidence of the witness Cross himself.So witness evidence,which was never disputed at the time,or since, by any other kind of evidence,is all I need.If you would soonr have it another way,then i"ll say the injuries that led to the death of Nichols were made before the arrival of Cross.That better?
If Herlock cannot give a name to the manner in which you replied to an earlier post of mine.I will.It is childish tantrums.You are acting like a juvenile.
Disqualified! What utter chilish rubbish,and you want to be taken seriously.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks.

You're welcome, GUT.

I think pretty much everyone is of the opinion that by using the name Cross rather than Lechmere but giving his correct two forenames, address and place of work the finder (or killer) of Polly was not concealing his identity in any meaningful way. But what his actions did conceal, deliberately or inadvertently, was the name Lechmere itself.

[GUT]

Was this our guy? He was apparently working for Pickfords at the time. If it wasn't him, he surely must have heard of the incident. Pickfords' drivers were notorious for their reckless driving, but the killing of a child by one of them was not an everyday event.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=28333&highlight=Charles+Cross&page=13

Could this have been what he was trying to conceal in 1888, as in 1876, - in relation to the name Lechmere?

Thanks.

[MrBarnett]

Hi gary
I think since he was probably still under the auspices of his stepdad cross when he joined pickfords, that was the name he was going under at the time he joined. Keeping it as his work name after going back to lechmere when old cross died. And since under the circs, a carman on his way to work, and his stepdad cross being a copper, he used that name. Plus he maybe wanted to keep himself and family low profile as not to be bothered by eberyone if he used his more common name.

Now all that being said, yes i do find it odd, that there is no AKA lechmere in the record. And yes i do see it as another potential red flag. Another discrepency that one has to address with lech.

Hi Abby,

I imagine having a copper as a stepdad would have been useful in securing a job at Pickfords. Of course, we shouldn't forget that his mother's marriage to Thomas Cross appears to have been a bigamous one and Lechmere wasn't a common name in the East End at the time. It's not difficult to think of reasons why he chose not to use his 'real' name in the Nichols case and the 1876 incident that don't imply he was the guilty party in either.

Gary

[Abby Normal]

Can anyone offer an 'innocent' explanation of why Charles Lechmere (as he seemingly described himself in every other recorded situation where he had dealings with officialdom) might have used his long deceased stepfather's surname alone when reporting his finding of Polly's body to the police and subsequently appearing at her inquest? Even if he was known by the name of Cross at Pickfords, isn't it just a bit odd that he didn't mention that his real name was Lechmere? Or that if he did, no record of the fact exists?

Could it really have been a simple oversight?

Hi gary
I think since he was probably still under the auspices of his stepdad cross when he joined pickfords, that was the name he was going under at the time he joined. Keeping it as his work name after going back to lechmere when old cross died. And since under the circs, a carman on his way to work, and his stepdad cross being a copper, he used that name. Plus he maybe wanted to keep himself and family low profile as not to be bothered by eberyone if he used his more common name.

Now all that being said, yes i do find it odd, that there is no AKA lechmere in the record. And yes i do see it as another potential red flag. Another discrepency that one has to address with lech.

[MrBarnett]

Was this our guy? He was apparently working for Pickfords at the time. If it wasn't him, he surely must have heard of the incident. Pickfords' drivers were notorious for their reckless driving, but the killing of a child by one of them was not an everyday event.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=28333&highlight=Charles+Cross&page=13

Could this have been what he was trying to conceal in 1888, as in 1876, - in relation to the name Lechmere?

[MrBarnett]

Can anyone offer an 'innocent' explanation of why Charles Lechmere (as he seemingly described himself in every other recorded situation where he had dealings with officialdom) might have used his long deceased stepfather's surname alone when reporting his finding of Polly's body to the police and subsequently appearing at her inquest? Even if he was known by the name of Cross at Pickfords, isn't it just a bit odd that he didn't mention that his real name was Lechmere? Or that if he did, no record of the fact exists?

Could it really have been a simple oversight?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No need for a tin hat.

I never met Scobie, and contrary to what Herlock Sholmes has claimed, I did not supply him with any material. The docu crew did, and they were very professional in what they did, so working from an assumption that he was misinformed does not work with me.

But you agreed in an earlier post that he was presented with a case for the prosecution only. If you say that you weren’t involved in presenting or compiling a case against then of course I wouldn’t call you a liar on that point. I was simply mistaken on that point but I’ll say that it was a fairly reasonable assumption as you are pretty much the star of the documentary as it follows you from Sweden to London to find the ‘truth.’ The more important point though is that ‘someone’ presented him with a case for the prosecution unless you are suggesting that the documentary crew took a month or two to research the case in detail and presented ‘their case without consulting anyone with a prior knowledge of the The Whitechapel Murders?

So to conclude Fish, and not for the first time, I’m not saying that Scobie was misinformed. I’m not saying that Scobie was lied to. I’m not saying that Scobie was biased or in any way dishonest. What I’m saying is....HE ONLY SAW THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION AND NOT AN OPPOSING VIEWPOINT. AN OPPOSING VIEWPOINT WHICH MAY HAVE AFFECTED/CHANGED HIS FINAL OPINION. Just for once Fish can you just accept a point which is absolutely beyond arguement?

Griffiths I met and spoke a lot to. He had the same compilation as i did, with a large number of police reports and articles. He read it extensively, and arrived at his conclusions on his own account. Nobody has, as far as I know, asked him "but exactly why do you think that the team had a good case?"

You choose to accept Griffith’s opinion (obviously it suits your case.) I feel pretty certain that he would be in a minority if you asked a larger number of people though. Especially when considering how dangerous (not just a risky thrill) that CL’s decision to stay and call over Paul would have been for a guilty man. This surely has to be counted as a point that is heavily against a guilty CL.

I sometimes wich somebody had done that, since I believe it could have saved me a lot of time.

I sometimes wish that people wouldn’t get so exasperated when someone dares to disagree with them.

I sometimes wonder if there are any facts about this case that give you even the slightest pause for doubt on CL’s guilt?

[Herlock Sholmes]

A suspect can only become a suspect on factual grounds, Herlock. And regardless of how rewarding and satisfying you find it to say "he is not a suspect", that does not change matters.

The point that I was making was an obvious one. You were saying that you’ll continue to support CL’s candidature until someone comes up with a categorical exoneration. I was simply pointing out that at a distance of 130 years such exoneration is unlikely in the extreme. Not because he’s definitely guilty but because it’s unlikely that that kind of conclusive evidence will ever appear.

The same is the case for Hutchinson, Bury, Druitt, Kosminski, Mann, Backert, Lewis Carroll and many, many more. If your criteria for someone being a worthy suspect is “well you cannot categorically exonerate him,” then I’d say the less said about that the better.

[Elamarna]

Steve, in a context where reality is turned on end by a suggestion that Kelly´s both TOD:s must be accepted, I am quite likely to turn things on end myself.


hang on a minute, that was never said.
It was never said you must accept the Kelly TOD'S was it!

I was answering a "Behind the mirror" point with another point from the same venue.

No you were being misleading, repeating it in several posts.


Steve

[Elamarna]

I refer you to your post 844, where you commented on my statement that Paul could have been out of earshot:

Until such time as you can prove the carmen both lied, your theory is dismissed by them.
Your statement is incorrect.


And to post 972, where this is said:
I will say again.*
There is nothing in the acvount of Mizen which challenges the account of the Carmen, that they were together and both spoke to Mizen.*
Therefore it is not possible that Paul was out of earshot.

I don´t think more needs to be said on the point.

Lets look at those posts.

844: "until such time as you can prove"

Clearly in line with my response that you have not proven the possibility.

Post 972.: different langague but still the same point, the evidence of the carmen is not challenged, therefore you have not proven it is possible

Again in keeping with my view.

I do not say i have proven it is impossible, only that you have not demonstrated that such is possible.

Indeed that seems very clear and nothing else need be said i agree.



Steve