Criteria for plausibility

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"Both quotations are contained within post 254 of your Lechmere thread"

To begin with, that thread is not my Lechmere thread. It was started by Versa.

As for the quotation "So in all probability, we are not holding on to the same end of the stick after all! But we are apparently placing the noose around the same neck ...", it points to the fact that both me and Mr Lucky apparently finger the same man for the deeds. Others will try and fit that noose around other necks - it is a manner of speaking, and it is not the same as saying "I have conclusive proof".
The fact that it is a manner of speaking is perhaps best shown by the fact that the neck spoken about is no longer there. We actually cannot today "hang" somebody who was in his thirties back in 1888, Garry.

But letīs look at the post that set off this silly exchange!

My words:
"Finally, I do hope that you are not of the opinion that I have dubbed Lechmere the Ripper at this stage. I have not."

Your much upset answer:
"That's odd, Fisherman. I distinctly recollect your recent assertion that you were just about to place a noose around Cross's neck."

Now you know what I ACTUALLY said and what I ACTUALLY meant. So letīs move on to your next item of evidence for my guilt!

"And yes, Lechmere did kill Nichols, in all probability, the way I see things too."

Hmmm, letīs see here - do I think that Lechmere killed Nichols? Yes, I do. Do I find it probable that he did so? Well, yes - otherwise I would not have thought he was the killer, would I? Am I qualifying my hunch that others may disagree by stating that this is how I specifically see things? Absolutely, I do. Am I at liberty to hold this belief? I would think so.

No, nein, njet, sorry - I canīt spot the problem here.

If, Garry, you need a very specific answer to the question how much I invest in Lechmere being the killer, so that you have something more substantial to lean against the next time over, then why donīt you just ask?

All the best,
Fisherman

[harry]

None of the murder sites were such ,that to be suspect,a person had to be shown to have a direct personnel familiarity with all.The only criteria that I think needs to be established,is that a person have a good basic knowledge of the Whitechapel area,and to have abided at a distance which gave reasonable time to get into safe cover before a proper coverage by the police could be mounted..Most serious suspects comply with that criteria.The least plausible,(IMO.)idea,is that Cross was both seeking a victim,and intent of going to work that morning,and if killing Nicholls,did everything but seek safety.When I state seeking a victim,it is because generally,that is what he did.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"None of the murder sites were such ,that to be suspect,a person had to be shown to have a direct personnel familiarity with all."

Well, Harry, the Hanbury Street backyard and the Millerīs court room would take at least some sort of knowledge, I think. But that does not detract from the sensibility in what you say - just about anybody who knew the Whitechapel area fairly well could have been aquainted with the sites.

That, however, does not mean that just about anybody who knew the Whitechapel area fairly well stands an equally good chance to have been the Ripper as Lechmere does. And there are three reasons for this.
1. One East-ender and one East-ender only was found at the side of Polly Nichols, and that was Lechmere. This means that he has the upper hand on all other East-enders in this respect. He was in place at one of the murder spots at the exact time the murder took place.
2. In spite of the amount of East-enders that would have been aquainted with the murder sites, not very many would have have reason to habitually move along the paths they made up. Lechmereīs way to work tallies very nicely with just about all of them, for some reason - and the Stride murder site is the icing on the cake in this respect.
3. The timing. Not only did the victims die along the paths that Lechmere would have used going to work. They also died at the approximate time he would have been there, for some peculiar reason. And once again, the Stride killing is a very compelling reason to point a finger at Lechmere. When a victim for once did not fit in with his working route and -time, what happens? Lo and behold, the victim is found along the ONLY other route we can link to Lechmere! She did not die up north, not way out west, not far east, no - she died, for some reason, in the exact area where Lechmere had his mother and daughter staying, where he had lived for many years and was accustomed to the premises, and where he would reasonably visit on weekends. And did the murder take place on such a weekend? I mean, if we count to eight potential Ripper deeds (Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly, the Pinchins Street victim and MacKenzie), we can easily deduct that it would have been one chance out of eight that this particular victim died on a weekend. One out of eight, Harry, to make her a good bid for being killed by Lechmere. And she nailed it!

So, Harry, what does this all tell you? That any East-ender is as good a bid as Lechmere for the killings?

"The least plausible,(IMO.)idea,is that Cross was both seeking a victim,and intent of going to work that morning"

Please, Harry - we do not KNOW his intentions, do we? Of course he said to the police that he was en route to work, but if he was the killer and had made other plans (he could, for example, have made a deal with his employers to arrive later that day - just saying), do you really believe that he would have told the police about it? Do you think that, if he was the killer, he would have laid all his cards on the table, or do you think he would have avoided doing so? How do killers function? Do they feel hindered to tell anything but the truth to the police?

I am treating Charles Lechmere as a killer and a liar, a man that wanted to stay away from the attention of the police. You should try it too, and see what it produces. You will be amazed, Harry!

"When I state seeking a victim,it is because generally,that is what he did."

That is what you THINK he did, Harry. It is also what I think he did, by the way. But there can be no certainty, so maybe we need to be careful with the phraseology.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

"I've never understood the perception that someone changing their name or taking on an alias is an indicator of homicidal guilt."

Whoa there! Letīs not move too fast here. I canīt recall having said such a thing.

Hi Fish. As Garry pointed out, as well as countless others over the last few years, you’re not entirely consistent.

Druitts aquaintances thought HE was the Ripper. Scores of people contacted the police, naming scores of other people the Ripper. If we cmpare this detail to the name-swop Lechmere furnished the police with, I think the latter is a lot more compelling as relating to guilt, to be honest.

There you go with the name-change guilt thing. And if we want to compare aliases, Le Grand’s got Cross beat. So with even MORE aliases, and genuine suspicion against him to boot, are you now going to drop Cross for Le Grand? Of course not. And yes, Druitt’s acquaintances thought him the Ripper. Or at least one did. Which is why HE’S agreed upon to have been a suspect. That’s what we’re talking about here, isn’t it? What makes a suspect? Contemporary suspicion is a key factor in that. It’s certainly not the be all, end all, but it’s a pretty good start.

"I'm not going to talk any more about Le Grand. "

No?

What I mean is that I’d rather hear what others have to say about what they feel makes a good suspect, a bad suspect, and a non-suspect. Jonathan and us flexing our suspects is probably polarizing the debate.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"you’re not entirely consistent."

Everybody who favours a suspect is exactly as consistent as everybody else, Tom, and you know it: Nobody will say "I found him" whereas they all will say "I MAY have found him". That, none too surprising, goes for Lechmere too, in my case.
Actually, I find some of the "consistency" on the boards boardering on pigheaded defence for useless theories, and if that is the consistency you find me lacking of, then Iīm happy to accomodate you on that score.

"There you go with the name-change guilt thing. And if we want to compare aliases, Le Grand’s got Cross beat. So with even MORE aliases, and genuine suspicion against him to boot, are you now going to drop Cross for Le Grand? Of course not."

I donīt think it would be very useful to work from the assumption that the more aliases you use, the better bid you become for the Ripperīs role. I think we need to keep in mind that as long as nobody is on to you, you donīt need to use more than the one alias. Which of course seemingly implies that Le Grand wasnīt the brightest bulb in the box.
I am more kind of saying that the use of an alias as such is what tells the Charles Lechmereīs from the, say, Caroline Maxwells, law-abiding and witnessed-about honest people who would never dream of using aliases. Aliases were mainly for the underworld. I think you will find it hard to gainsay that.


"And yes, Druitt’s acquaintances thought him the Ripper. Or at least one did. Which is why HE’S agreed upon to have been a suspect. That’s what we’re talking about here, isn’t it? What makes a suspect? Contemporary suspicion is a key factor in that. It’s certainly not the be all, end all, but it’s a pretty good start."

Long as one remembers that there is a home straight after the start, Iīm fine with that.

"What I mean is that I’d rather hear what others have to say about what they feel makes a good suspect, a bad suspect, and a non-suspect. Jonathan and us flexing our suspects is probably polarizing the debate."

Maybe so - but I think that a thread like this will be hard to entertain without using examples. I actually thought so yesterday too, and I suspect I will do so tomorrow.

Thereīs consistency for you, Tom!

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Okay, then, Fisherman. Let’s look at what you wrote.

Finally, I do hope that you are not of the opinion that I have dubbed Lechmere the Ripper at this stage. I have not.

Yet we have your prior assertion to the contrary:-

And yes, Lechmere did kill Nichols, in all probability, the way I see things too.

And this subsequent confirmation of you position:-

Hmmm, letīs see here - do I think that Lechmere killed Nichols? Yes, I do.

As well as this response to a point made by Harry:-

I am treating Charles Lechmere as a killer and a liar, a man that wanted to stay away from the attention of the police.

So do you still maintain that you have not ‘dubbed Lechmere the Ripper at this stage’?

[Tom_Wescott]

Everybody who favours a suspect is exactly as consistent as everybody else, Tom, and you know it

"WHOOOOSSSSH'! That's the sound of half the stuff you say going right over my head.

I'm starting to feel bad, like we're ganging up on you, so I'm gonna back off, because that's not my intention. And I was joking about the aliases. I frankly don't believe taking on an alias makes you a murderer. If that were the case, the victims themselves would have to be looked at with suspicion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

""WHOOOOSSSSH'! That's the sound of half the stuff you say going right over my head. "

So elevate!

"I'm starting to feel bad, like we're ganging up on you, so I'm gonna back off, because that's not my intention."

Why thanks - but Iīm really not too intimidated, Tom, honestly!

"I frankly don't believe taking on an alias makes you a murderer."

Nor do I - I only think that it points to living a shady life on the shady side of society.

"If that were the case, the victims themselves would have to be looked at with suspicion."

Yes - because they lived shady lifes on the shady side of society! Prostitutes, thieves, murderers, con artists, pimps, people who owned loan sharks money ... that kind of people used aliases. An upstanding, honest carman did not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

because they lived shady lifes on the shady side of society! Prostitutes, thieves, murderers, con artists, pimps, people who owned loan sharks money ... that kind of people used aliases. An upstanding, honest carman did not.

I think you'll find that, when talking to the authorities, almost every denizen of the East End used an alias or lied on general principles...How can I explain to you the immense distrust East-Enders (particularly in Whitechapel/Wapping) felt for the authorities (especially but not exclusively the rozzers) right up into the nineteen fifties and sixties...Phil Carter (and doubtless others) will tell you...For the majority of people the police weren't a reassuring presence...in the mid to late 19th century they were still the enemy...

My great great grandfather was a McCarthy ...there's no particular proof he was any more or any less crooked than his neigbours...but when he felt like it and when he came up against authority, (even on his marriage certificate for example), he was suddenly Carty...

Be careful when you make sweeping statements like that!

Dave

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"So do you still maintain that you have not ‘dubbed Lechmere the Ripper at this stage’?"

Garry, you are much too clever for me! Listing them quotes really point to me being of the meaning that Lechmere was the killer, I have to give you that!
And what a fascinating discussion it makes for - Iīm sure that all and sundry are very happy to have me dissected instead of engaging in Ripperology!

Would it be okay with you if I make a slight distinction here? I do think that Lechmere was the Whitechapel killer, yes. Unfortunately, that does not mean that he must have been so. You see, I am not saying that he WAS the killer - I am saying that I personally BELIEVE that this was the case.

Of course, if my belief is all it takes to dub Charles Lechmere the Ripper, then we can all go home. Somehow, however, I suspect that this will not be enough.

A wide variety of people have done the exact same thing that I do. They have investigated a suspect, and come to the conclusion that their man would probably have been the Ripper. Almost all of them - the exceptions are few - have refrained from saying "I must be correct". This is due to an insight that the evidence involved is not enough to convict their suspects. I differ in no way on this point - I am of the meaning that Lechmere was the killer, but I cannot prove it conclusively since there is not enough evidence. This is why I say "the way I see things", "I think Lechmere killed Nichols" and things like that. What I do NOT say is that I can be certain that he was the killer.

Would you like me to say that, Garry? That I am certain of it? I canīt help but feel that you are after me personally here. Tom Wescott hinted earlier at the possibility that some people seem to prefer attacking the theorist instead of the theory. I realize what he means.
In your case, some time back, you could have chosen to ask why I did not mention some sources. Instead you chose to imply that I had disregarded these sources in favour of the ones that fit my reasoning.
Now you are campaigning to point me out as untruthful about my convictions.

I would, if you donīt much mind, respectfully ask you to try and refrain from such things. If you want to discuss the case, fine. If you have useful criticism, so much the better - it will advance our knowledge and insights.

But if you only wish to make condescending personal remarks, I think you are doing the purpose of the boards an injustice.

Finally, letīs not leave you in any doubt: I think that Charles Allen Lechmere killed Polly Nichols in the early morning hours of the 31:st of August 1888, and lied his way out of the situation. When/if you read my upcoming dissertation, you will have me stating that I think that Lechmere is the best bid by far for the Ripperīs role, you will have me suggesting that we (well) may finally have run the killer to the ground, and you will have me saying more or less outright that what we are left with after a thorough investigation of Lechmere is the Ripper.
So, Garry, three different levels of accusations, sort of. How will you deal with that, I wonder? By giving my theory a long good afterthought, after which you bring up caserelated details only - or by accusing me of inconsistency? Only one approach will make for a useful discussion, mind you.

All the best, Garry!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"Be careful when you make sweeping statements like that!"

I canīt. It is impossible to make sweeping statements and be careful at the same time.

"almost every denizen of the East End used an alias or lied on general principles."

Be careful when you make sweeping statements like that!

"How can I explain to you the immense distrust East-Enders (particularly in Whitechapel/Wapping) felt for the authorities (especially but not exclusively the rozzers) right up into the nineteen fifties and sixties..."

Well, Dave, the good news is that you donīt have to - I already know that, just as I know that the police was very positive about the useful response and helpfulness the self-same East-enders awarded them during the Ripper scare.

It is not a "sweeping statement" to claim that people who had something to hide were more likely to use an alias than people with nothing to hide. It was true back then, and it is true today. No disrespect towards your great great grandfather, Dave, but I am not speaking of him here - I am speaking of a generalized picture in a case where we may allow ourselves to generalize.

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Semantics, Fish...You're very clever at it (as befits a good journalist)...but pure semantics all the same...and yes I expect you to persist in arguing on the same track...so carry on showboating by all means!

All the best

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

I must agree that Garry Wroe is the biggest cyber bully the Casebook has ever seen, second only to Robert Charles Linford. You should be careful, Fish, because I'm wondering that 'Garry Wrote' might just be....wait for it.....

An alias!!!!

And if that's the case, none of us are safe.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

'Garry Wrote' might just be....wait for it.....

An alias!!!!

Hi Tom

Just so long as it's not another bloody anagram!

All the best

Dave

[Garry Wroe]

You should be careful, Fish, because I'm wondering that 'Garry Wrote' might just be....wait for it.....

An alias!!!!

Okay, Tom, you've got me bang to rights. In reality I'm the internationally recognized expert in feminine hygiene, Fanny Reeks.