Favorite suspect/s?

[Robert]

"As for touching, I think you are VERY touching when it comes to your faith in the Victorian police. You seem to think they were up to scratch and practically infallible? Itīs a very nice thought, Robert - but completely unrealistic."

Except for Mizen, of course, who had been graded as 'good.' In fact, he was so good that he couldn't have made a mistake!

[Fisherman]

"As for touching, I think you are VERY touching when it comes to your faith in the Victorian police. You seem to think they were up to scratch and practically infallible? Itīs a very nice thought, Robert - but completely unrealistic."

Except for Mizen, of course, who had been graded as 'good.' In fact, he was so good that he couldn't have made a mistake!

Donīt be pathetic, Robert. Neither you nor me knew the man, but both of us know that nobody is infallible.

So donīt try that kind of feebleminded poppycock, please.

Mizen was graded as a good policeman and all we know about him speaks of an able and honest man. He may have been something else, we donīt know, and you are welcome to cook up - and try and substantiate - a picture of him as a villain.

Then again, it will put you in the same predicament you tried to put me in - you believe the police to be good, able and honest men, never failing to do the right thing, remember?

[Robert]

Not at all, Fish. Anyone can make a mistake - including Mizen. Even yourself.

[Abby Normal]

Mizen made no mistake and did absolutely nothing wrong.

[Kattrup]

5. the fact that Lechmeres work route took him right through the Ripper heartland

I'm wondering about this "fact". You're claiming that it has been established where Charles Cross actually worked.

I must have missed it. Has it been posted here on casebook?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But that was not what we were talking about, was it? If you find me insulting, so be it - but it seems odd to me that you are not pouncing on the chance to teach OTHER posters manners? Why is it just me you are after, and why are you willing to let it slip when other posters do it, Herlock? THAT is the issue here.

Could it be that you are totally biased?

PS. I am no victim at all. Least of all in relation to you. I am instead outraged by how you make yourself out as unbiased when you are no such thing at all, as shown by the above.

Itīs something that victimizes truth and honesty - not me. DS.

Speaking about victims, I donīt think you should be too upset by what I say about your ripperology. Take the geography factor, for instance. Either:

1. You are correct and it is irrelevant
2. I am correct, and it is very relevant
or
3. You are biased, and misrepresent the matter

Once you find us some evidence that any police force any place on earth regards the geography factor as irrelevant, you will have proven yourself partly or wholly right.

I can provide dozens of cases where it has been a major factor, like Robert Black, Russell Williams, Joseph DeAngelo and so on and on and on.

Where is the evidence to back YOUR take up? Well, there IS no such evidence. It is therefore wrong to make the claim you do. And that means that you are either ignorant or biased. There are no other options, Herlock. Itīs a bummer because it means we cannot go on pretending that your view is as viable as mine on the matter.

We can all see that this is the plain and simple truth - but you are complaining about how I point it out. Why? If you can show us that I am wrong, then do so.

Donīt tell me that I cannot be debated with when it instead a case of you having manouvered yourself into a position you cannot possibly win this particular debate from. It is just as impossible as any suggestion that you will own up and accept that fact.

Iīm sorry, but it had to be said.

I will not pursue the ‘insults’ point for 2 reasons Fish. a) it will go around in circles and b) admin will not be pleased. Ill say this though. There is nothing that i can do about the tone of your posts or your attitude towards me. Perhaps i just need to ‘count to ten’ and move on. I tend to ‘react’ but the initial ‘comments’ are yours.

As to the issue of geography. My point is simple and was, i believed, illustrated by my comments about a hypothetical killer being in different parts of the country at the same time as a series of murders. Of course geography is important but not to the extent of saying something like ‘well Miller’s Court was on his way to his Aunty Nelly’s house!’ When crimes are committed over such a confined area by a killer who was very likely a local man who spent his entire life in and around that area then there are going to be very obvious ‘connections’ to be made. The problem is that they mean next to nothing. Unless we are saying that the killer always killed on the way to visiting family or at sites where he used to play as a child what value can we place on these so-called ‘connections.’ I say next to none. No one can dismiss CL as a suspect based on geography. He was around. No doubts. But to try and tie him more specifically to certain murder sites is futile in my opinion.

We can ask other questions of CL though. For eg he was due at work at 4am. Most people went to work at the same time every day unless they were shift-workers which, i suspect, didnt apply to CL. If therefore we take it that he was at work for 4 how do we tie him to Chapman’s murder which took place after 5? Not conclusive proof against CL of course but a question. A doubt.

[Fisherman]

Not at all, Fish. Anyone can make a mistake - including Mizen. Even yourself.

Yes, exactly. I would suggest that the Victorian police was made up of good policemen, bad policemen, talented, stupid, worhtless, intelligent, average bold, nervous, ambitious and uninterested policemen. I think that the whole scale was represented.

Afetr that, I think that these varying policemen did not have the knowledge bais that todays force of good policemen, bad policemen, talented, stupid, worhtless, intelligent, average bold, nervous, ambitious and uninterested policemen have. They did not know more than a fraction about serial killers that is known today. To add, they lived in a society that endorsed criminal anthropology and was outright rasistic withiut even knowing it. And they did not know how to work a case the way todays police does.

They undoubtedly did as best as they could, and they were part of a chronological chain that can take pride in having made policing better and more efficient, but putting the kind of faith in them that you do does not work. Charles Lechmere should have been interrogated and hauled over the coals - but he was in all probability never either of it. He was apparently asked a number of questions that were not enough to reveal his real name, and he was apparently thanked and let go afterwards.

And the reason for that is listed above.

[Fisherman]

Of course geography is important but not to the extent of saying something like ‘well Miller’s Court was on his way to his Aunty Nelly’s house!’ When crimes are committed over such a confined area by a killer who was very likely a local man who spent his entire life in and around that area then there are going to be very obvious ‘connections’ to be made. The problem is that they mean next to nothing. Unless we are saying that the killer always killed on the way to visiting family or at sites where he used to play as a child what value can we place on these so-called ‘connections.’ I say next to none. No one can dismiss CL as a suspect based on geography. He was around. No doubts. But to try and tie him more specifically to certain murder sites is futile in my opinion.

Progress! So now, geography is "of course" important! It is not irrelevant! Hoorah! Yu are no longer ignorant about that part, Herlock - congratulations!

Then you move on to say that it is however of no importance if we know that a killer may have had reason to pass a murder site, if others could also have had reason to do so, and you thereby bog yourself back down in the ignorance swamp again.
Letīs put it as simple as possible: It does not matter how many other people could have had access to a murder site, and it does not matter how tenuous a connection a man may have with a murder site - it nevertheless is important to a case when it can be shown that he DOES have some sort of connection! If it can be shown that the suspect lives nearby a murder site, the importance is VERY large (even if others live in the same street), and if we only know that he used to have his hair cut close by a murder spot, then that too is of interest, because it tells us that the area is not unknown to the suspect - he has a history involving a connection to the spot.
In our case, you claimed that it is irrelevant that Lechmere had grown up in houses surrounding the murder spot and that he had his mother living a stones throw away, together with his own daughter. That means that he knew the area very well and had all the reason in the world to visit it on a regular basis. To call that irrelevant is not a useful thing to do, Herlock!!! Until you understand and recognise that, we cannot have a useful debate.
I am all for recognising that other people also had reason to visit the spot, but that does not mean that the connection on the suspects (Lechmeres) part goes away, does it?
You are getting there, Herlock. Just take the last step and you will be there.

We can ask other questions of CL though. For eg he was due at work at 4am. Most people went to work at the same time every day unless they were shift-workers which, i suspect, didnt apply to CL. If therefore we take it that he was at work for 4 how do we tie him to Chapman’s murder which took place after 5? Not conclusive proof against CL of course but a question. A doubt.

The problem with this is that you accept that Chapman died after five. The police didnīt think she did, apparently, going by what Swanson wrote about Phillipsīs conclusions: "he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

I never bought into the later TOD, because I find it improbable in the extreme. Regardless, though, you must realize that this is not a given, it is something with TWO possible solutions, one of them meaning that Chapman was in line with the others, chronologically.

Even if she was not, we still know that Lechmere is geographically linked to Hanbury Street. And we all know how important that is, donīt we?

[Fisherman]

I'm wondering about this "fact". You're claiming that it has been established where Charles Cross actually worked.

I must have missed it. Has it been posted here on casebook?

You seem to have missed that Charles Lechmere walked down Hanbury Street, East to West, on the morning of the Nichols murder, on his way to work. Unless you are aquainted with the area and the murder spots, I can tell you that Hanbury Street is situated smack bang in the Ripper heartland. Maybe you are trying to suggest that he was truthful about the rest but lied about being on his way to work, I donīt know - so many "points" you make are so very hard to find any sort of an intellectual basis for.
My recommendation to you is to read Karen Trenouth. That way, you can even question whether we have the real Charles Cross.
Or you can read the inquest transcript in the Times: "George Cross, a carman, stated that he left home on Friday morning at 20 minutes past 3, and he arrived at his work, at Broad-street, at 4 o'clock."

Now, you can either remove the quotation marks around "fact", or you can go on thinking that this is an unresolved matter and that we donīt know where Charles Lechmere worked. Suit yourself.

[Robert]

Hi Fish

So Crossmere was late for work on Sept 8th but arrived on time on Aug 31st?

As for Where he worked, I checked the censuses again and unless I missed something, he only gives himself as a carman - doesn't say where he worked.

So unless I'm forgetting something, we only have Crossmere's word that he worked for Pickfords - because the police never checked him out, remember.

Looks as though we don't know where he worked, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish

So Crossmere was late for work on Sept 8th but arrived on time on Aug 31st?

As for Where he worked, I checked the censuses again and unless I missed something, he only gives himself as a carman - doesn't say where he worked.

So unless I'm forgetting something, we only have Crossmere's word that he worked for Pickfords - because the police never checked him out, remember.

Looks as though we don't know where he worked, Fish.

The time window for Lechmeres visit in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street is a wide one, as offered by Phillips. He said that the Chapman had been dead for at least two hour, probably more, when he looked at her at around 6.30. That means that she possibly died as late as 4.30, but probably earlier.

We "only" have Lechmeres own words for where he worked, yes - but since people are willing to accept everything he said otherwise, why would we not accept that too?

I also bears importance that he on the morning on the 31:st of August, after having left Doveton Street and passed through Bucks Row, proceeded along Hanbury Street - which took him in the direction of Broad Street, where he would have arrived at around 4 AM, which coincides with the time he was due there, according to himself.

Iīm actually fine with this type of discussion, since it is very telling when it comes to the quality of your arguments. If THIS is what you resort to, then my case is pretty much a proven one.

Letīs ask you the same question I ask from our Danish friend: Do you predispose that Lechmere spoke the truth about all the rest, but lied about his working place...?

Do you, Robert?

[Kattrup]

you can read the inquest transcript in the Times: "George Cross, a carman, stated that he left home on Friday morning at 20 minutes past 3, and he arrived at his work, at Broad-street, at 4 o'clock."

Thank you. Doesn’t seem like it was such a difficult question to answer.

[Fisherman]

Thank you. Doesn’t seem like it was such a difficult question to answer.

Well, yes - if we are to believe Robert. He is now suggesting that this info is not enough, and that we only have Lechmeres own words for substantiating matters.
So, in essence, Robert is now suggesting that Lechmere may have lied about it. So we may be looking at a new addition to the Wiki entry for Lechmere:

"Renowned ripperologist Robert Linford has suggested that Charles Lechmere lied about his reasons to be present in Bucks Row at the approximate time of the murder on the 31:st of August."

On the whole, I donīt think it is a very good addition to the "Free Lechmere" campaign, but there you are - maybe your quotation marks around my word "fact" actually need to be there? Maybe I was sloppy about it? Maybe it is not a fact that he DID work at Broad Street? Maybe he just saw to it that he was marked down as a carman in the censuses, maybe he just dressed as one to fool policemen like Mizen into thinking he was a carman, and maybe it was just a coincidence - one of MANY - that he seemed to be en route to Broad Street on that fateful morning?

Donīt give up just yet, Kattrup.

At the end of the day, it of course honours Robert, who is a firm believer in the thesis that the police MUST have visited the Broad Street depot and satisfied themselves that the carman was not lying, that he offers up a window for being wrong on that matter.

[Elamarna]

Mizen made no mistake and did absolutely nothing wrong.

Abby,
I fully agree that technically he did nothing wrong according to the Police Code. That is up until Monday 3rd; when he appeared at the inquest, and broke the law.
He was covering not a failing, but a fear of reaction, given that the Police were held in low regard by some sections of the population.

Above all it had absolutely no bearing on the actual murder of Mary Ann Nichols.

Or if i am incorrect, which is of course possible, as only a fool would claim otherwise, he misunderstood what he was told at approx 3.45


Steve

[Fisherman]

Abby,
I fully agree that technically he did nothing wrong according to the Police Code. That is up until Monday 3rd; when he appeared at the inquest, and broke the law.
He was covering not a failing, but a fear of reaction, given that the Police were held in low regard by some sections of the population.

Above all it had absolutely no bearing on the actual murder of Mary Ann Nichols.

Or if i am incorrect, which is of course possible, as only a fool would claim otherwise, he misunderstood what he was told at approx 3.45


Steve

Mizen broke the law? I think you need to expand on that one, Steve! Now, please - not somewhere in the future, if you could be so kind!