The Mizen scam

[curious]

Curious:

"that's right none of us know, including you even though you insist you do"

Read again, Curious. Please, please, PLEASE read again: "He was either or and NONE OF US KNOWS what applies."

When I express myself like that - how in the name of God can you say that I insist that I DO know? What does it take to make you understand that when I say "I donīt know" then I mean that I just donīt know? In how many ways can I admit that we are BOTH at a loss in this respect?

I am PROPOSING that Lechmere was the killer. I am PROPOSING that he - as well as scores of serial killers - may have been able to do the deeds. How does that get me cornered in a position where I have "insisted that I know", although I have never done so? Please tell me that, Curious!

Do you want it in any other language than English? Should I sign off all my posts with "I honestly donīt KNOW that Lechmere was the killer, but I THINK that he probably was"? How do I free myself of your reoccurring accusations of having somehow insisted that I know? How?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi, Fisherman,

well, I had no intention of commenting further (while knowing full well I would sneak back to look ), but you've made me laugh -- and feel guilty.

THANK you was saying you don't know. Your posts are so long that perhaps my eyes and brain have glazed over.

Unfortunately, the more someone argues one way, the more I lean in the opposite direction.

I apologize for having been unfair.

While you propose Lechmere as the Ripper and while I eagerly followed the possibility at the beginning, I gotta tell you, I am completely turned off of him by now.

I truly hope you (or someone) find something convincing.

curious

P.S. There really are times when less is more.

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"THANK you was saying you don't know. Your posts are so long that perhaps my eyes and brain have glazed over."

Sorry about that - but a lot more happy that weīre on level now

"Unfortunately, the more someone argues one way, the more I lean in the opposite direction."

I can relate to that. So please donīt tell me too many times youīve been unfair!

"While you propose Lechmere as the Ripper and while I eagerly followed the possibility at the beginning, I gotta tell you, I am completely turned off of him by now."

Thatīs your prerogative. I respect that.

"I truly hope you (or someone) find something convincing."

I truly behave that has been achieved already. But I wonīt mind finding more.

See you out there, Curious!
Fisherman

P.S. There really are times when less is more."

[Lechmere]

If I am being honest I would not even go so far as to say Cross/Lechmere was probably the Ripper. I would say that he is the best suspect I have seen - that he fits the crimes and that there is nothing, no odd story or report, to rule him out ( unlike many so called suspects), and unlike most suspects he was 'on scene'.
Most anti positions are based on such things as 'I think the culprit would have been drunk' or 'I think he should be a butcher or doctor' or 'he wouldn't do it on the way to work' or ' he doesn't have a criminal revord' or at best a positive (for his innocence) reading if all the inconsistent or questionable acts involved in the Nichols case involving him.
If I was writing a book about him I would have 'case solved' on the cover however.

[Rubyretro]

duplicate

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"If I am being honest I would not even go so far as to say Cross/Lechmere was probably the Ripper. I would say that he is the best suspect I have seen..."

We differ in this respect, since I WOULD say that Lechmere probably WAS the Ripper. When we look at the many details that speak of potential guilt, we find a tantalizing case, and when we couple it with the geographical outcome of the Ripper (or Whitechapel) murders and the timings of these, I really think that the chance for all of this being coincidental is smaller than the chance for it not being so. This, in essence, is what makes me opt for Lechmere.

I am, though, the first one to concede that no court of law would even for a split second consider convicting Lechmere on the existing evidence! But that was only to be expected at this remove in time - the more amazing thing is that we can make such a rich and full case against him in spite of the time that has passed.

My hope is that a growing number of people will find it worthwhile to research Charles Lechmere and thus hopefully clear him (not very probable, if you ask me) or find more evidence speaking against him (absolutely to be expected, to my mind).

Thanks to everybody who has added to, discussed, questioned, criticized or welcomed this discussion so far!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

A question..

Do we know where Crossmere was living in 1887? And if we don't actually know, what's the best guess?

[Fisherman]

Hi Sally!

"Do we know where Crossmere was living in 1887? "

Yes, I think we do. Lechmere lived in 20 James Street - which is today known as Burslem Street - up til the time he moved do Doveton Street in June 1888. James Street was situated not very far east of Berner Street. I believe he was in place at the James Street address as early as at the 1881 census listing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Thanks Fish.

Se we know that he was living in James Street in 1881, yes - do we know that he was there until he moved in 1888? In other words, is it known that he moved from James Street directly to Doveton Street? Or is that an educated guess based on available sources? It doesn't matter if it is, address information in the records is often scanty outside of the census returns.

[Fisherman]

Sally!

The research as such is not mine, but yes, he moved from James Street to Burslem Street. Prior to James Street, I think he had lived in Mary Ann Street, in the same general vicinity.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ooops!

Sorry about that, Sally. He of course moved from James Street to DOVETON STREEET, not Burslem Street; that is the modern day name of the former James Street. Sorry about the confusion!

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

We know for a fact that Cross/Lechmere lived at James Street until mid June 1888 and moved directly to Doveton Street. We know almost to the exact day that he moved. There are a myriad of sources available to an enterprising researcher - if you know where to look.
Before he moved to James Street he did indeed live at Mary Ann Street (which intersected with Berner Street i seem to think - I don't have a map in front if me) and before that Thomas
Street which was later renamed Pinchin Street ...
His house in James Street was probably 300 yards from Duffields Yard.

[Limehouse]

Hi Fisherman and all,

I think this is a very interesting and sensible suspect proposition. It appeals to me because:

a) It panders to my strong belief that the killer was local
b) The suspect was seen in the immediate vacinity of a victim
c) There are questions to be asked concerning the suspect's version of events that morning

It's almost perfect - and infinitely more sensible than crazed artists and/or their doctors hopping across the channel, playing tribute to their mothers/exacting revenge on syphillitic prosititues and concealing dead dogs in victims' rooms and dead women in paintings of flowers.

[GregBaron]

Shouldn't have crossed the road Cross....

GregBaron:

" Cross was on the way to work and sober "

Ouch - thatīs another devastating blow to the Lechmere theory. Two of them have surfaced, therefore: Lechmere was tired AND sober.

How I am supposed to clear that double hurdle, I wil never know. Why did I not think of that myself...?

Thanks, Greg. The case is finally moving forward!

Fisherman

No need for sarcasm master Fisherman, most know I was
committing the sin of speculation. I still think it a
solid one however as many/most serial killers first get
lubed with alcohol before committing their atrocities...

While I admire you and Lechmere's tenacity, I find the few odd circumstances
to be less than convincing. My objections are more visceral.

I think it unlikely the killer would be standing over the victim as another
approached. I would expect the murderer to eviscerate until he was compelled
to leave and then skedaddle post haste...Standing above peering over sounds
very much like a pedestrian discovering something...

And although I doubt the killer to be covered in blood I would expect
some blood and some flush of recent exertion. Maybe even the outline
of a long knife. You would think Paul or Mizen would notice something or have the idea that
perhaps this fellow was the perp. Neither did.

I know these objections can be dismissed but when you do a visualization of a
fiend that just strangled, nearly decapitated and gutted a woman and then
splice on the actions of Cross, they don't complete the scene. At least for me. Perhaps I need a Hammer film....

I'm not suggesting any of this is evidence obviously except perhaps the evidence
of common sense. While all of us welcome anything substantive you and Lechmere come up
with, I currently remain (with most others) outside the Cross camp.

And although you name other serial killers that were family men or went long periods without
evidence of crime, it's highly unlikely that the family carman
ripper wouldn't eventually hang himself after 30 years(figuratively),
these types nearly always do...

I currently rank Cross #24, just below the Cat's meat man....



Greg

[Sally]

Ooops!

Sorry about that, Sally. He of course moved from James Street to DOVETON STREEET, not Burslem Street; that is the modern day name of the former James Street. Sorry about the confusion!

Fisherman

Not to worry, Fish, I knew what you meant. Thanks anyway.

All this cordiality...

Makes a change from arguing, eh?

[Fisherman]

Limehouse:

"I think this is a very interesting and sensible suspect proposition. It appeals to me because:

a) It panders to my strong belief that the killer was local
b) The suspect was seen in the immediate vacinity of a victim
c) There are questions to be asked concerning the suspect's version of events that morning

It's almost perfect - and infinitely more sensible than crazed artists and/or their doctors hopping across the channel, playing tribute to their mothers/exacting revenge on syphillitic prosititues and concealing dead dogs in victims' rooms and dead women in paintings of flowers."

Good to hear, Limehouse! Yes, Lechmere makes for a very "tangible" suspect - he is unique in that respect, Iīd say.

All the best,
Fisherman