Lechmere validity

[Abby Normal]

He is recorded as being excitable at times and takes up a chair at least once. ( it mentioned once , but as an example, not that it's the only occurrence)

The main issue of course is that very few records of his time in the asylums remains, so it is not possible to say how violent he was.

We do know of course that he did threaten his sister( or sister in law) with a knife.

And of course he need not show any violence anyway, it's just an assumption that many make.

Steve

bingo el
that Koz had zero violence on his record, is one of the biggest myths in ripperology. he did clearly.

also to the point of physical connection-its alleged he was near murder scene and with a murder victim by the police with the possible ID but it is not certain it was him.
with Lech and hutch we know it is certain.

[The Baron]

Hi Pierre,

No I don't think Lechmere is a viable suspect because:

He will not take the only witness who spotted him by the victim, and the bloody Knife he killed with, and go searching for a policeman!

End of it.

This is an alternativ reality, not rational, but please feel free to continue favoring him, it is all opinions after all.


The Baron

[Patrick S]

Hi Pierre,

No I don't think Lechmere is a viable suspect because:

He will not take the only witness who spotted him by the victim, and the bloody Knife he killed with, and go searching for a policeman!

End of it.

This is an alternativ reality, not rational, but please feel free to continue favoring him, it is all opinions after all.


The Baron

Baron... I think Pierre has been off the boards for a few years now. But, I think we must add you to the ledger of those - including myself - who initially found the "Lechmere Theory" intriguing and perhaps even possible... and upon further examination (and explanation from those crafting it) now feel quite the opposite. This places you in the solid majority among those with more than rudimentary knowledge of the Whitechapel Murders. Welcome and congratulations.

[Abby Normal]

hi Patrick
many think pierre has resurfaced. see the from hell letter decoded thread-classic pierre.

re lech-i was exactly the opposite I hadn't even considered lech before-but now I do. I was one of the biggest critics initially and slammed fish and ed pretty hard in the beginning. fish had been a passionate critic against me and on others on hutch, my favored suspect, and things had gotten heated. but I put any personal issues aside and being that lech and hutch had many similarities (and I came to see that lech had every opportunity to be Pollys killer) I couldn't honestly just disregard him because I disliked fish at the time. and by the way, yes the majority still don't consider lech valid, but a growing number that do have "more than a rudimentary Knowledge" do find he is a valid candidate. and well they do IMHO.

I have also noted that fish tends to escalate the personal stuff with people that go along-and I cant help to think that a lot of peoples negative view on lech as a valid suspect may have something to do with how they feel about fish. I know I did in the beginning I think its natural, but unfortunate.

that being said, I still don't have lech on my top tier of favored suspects but hes close and I Think hes exactly the type of candidate that we should be looking at-people with known close physical connections to the case, who had the opportunity to be one of the victims killer. but was overlooked by police or fooled. bowyer, Richardson, maybe crow, schwartz. I don't go much for the bogeyman ripper. his name is amongst us.

[barnflatwyngarde]

There are many factors relating to Cross/Lechmere that mitigate against him being the killer.

In fairness to Fisherman, it can be said that there are factors relating to Cross/Lechmere that make him a person of interest.

My main problem with him being responsible for the murder of Polly Nichols is why did he say that he approached the body because he thought that it was an old tarpaulin?
Surely it would have been more advantageous for him, if he was the killer, to say that he saw the body of a woman and went to see if he could help?

If he said that he went to help her, he would have an explanation for any blood stains on his person.

Also bear in mind that Robert Paul wanted Cross/Lechmere to help him move the body, but Cross/Lechmere refused.

Once again, if he was indeed the killer, this was another ideal opportunity to explain the presence of any bloodstains later found on his clothing.

[Patrick S]

hi Patrick
many think pierre has resurfaced. see the from hell letter decoded thread-classic pierre.

I saw that thread... and I avoid it. Although, I'm hoping for the best... i.e. not another "I think I have found him".

re lech-i was exactly the opposite I hadn't even considered lech before-but now I do. I was one of the biggest critics initially and slammed fish and ed pretty hard in the beginning. fish had been a passionate critic against me and on others on hutch, my favored suspect, and things had gotten heated. but I put any personal issues aside and being that lech and hutch had many similarities (and I came to see that lech had every opportunity to be Pollys killer) I couldn't honestly just disregard him because I disliked fish at the time. and by the way, yes the majority still don't consider lech valid, but a growing number that do have "more than a rudimentary Knowledge" do find he is a valid candidate. and well they do IMHO.

I don't begrudge anyone their opinions. I think we all view things differently. Personally, I feel confident in saying that I've looked very hard at Cross/Lechmere, the events in Buck's Row, Paul, Mizen, Neil, Thain, etc., and I've seen ONLY things that have driven me further from any idea that Cross/Lechmere killed Nichols.. or was Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, et al. I'm sure you may have stumbled upon one or two of my treatises posted here, so I won't get into detail. But, obviously, I do not mandate anyone share my thoughts and opinions. I have no "suspects", although, I like to think I'm open to all possibilities.


I have also noted that fish tends to escalate the personal stuff with people that go along-and I cant help to think that a lot of peoples negative view on lech as a valid suspect may have something to do with how they feel about fish. I know I did in the beginning I think its natural, but unfortunate.

Mine has nothing to do with my personal feelings for Christer. Frankly, I don't know him personally so I've not idea of his actual character (as opposed to his "virtual" character). If he's much like his posts... then I'd probably not like to spend much time around him. But, to each his own. I'm not everyone's best friend, either. My experience with this was probably like others': I was initially receptive, posted a few questions, agreement that things did indeed seem damning with respect to Lechmere as the Ripper. As we've seen him do with others, Christer was very complimentary of me, giving me kudos for my agreement and intellect and apparent acceptance of the theory. And then I took a step back, posted very little about it for months, did research into Lechmere, a lot of reading about Buck's Row, the inquest, statements by those involved, spoke with some friends who know quite a bit about the Whitechapel murders, some in law enforcement....and came back with something like the view I have today. I THEN became exposed to Christer's insults and got myself suspended for a week or something along those lines.

that being said, I still don't have lech on my top tier of favored suspects but hes close and I Think hes exactly the type of candidate that we should be looking at-people with known close physical connections to the case, who had the opportunity to be one of the victims killer. but was overlooked by police or fooled. bowyer, Richardson, maybe crow, schwartz. I don't go much for the bogeyman ripper. his name is amongst us.

I understand that perspective. I don't share it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were someone like Hutchinson (although I'd be shocked if it was Lechmere, I don't think we can "prove" he wasn't). I don't think he was the bogeyman. But I do think he was a man whose name we don't know and likely never will. But then, I'd love to be wrong.

Above bold, Abby. Thanks!

[Sam Flynn]

Frankly, I don't know him personally so I've not idea of his actual character

Reading between the lines, he seems to be a caring father and a dedicated working man. Applying Crossmere Theory logic, that's a rather dangerous combination

[Fisherman]

As is so often the case, the question about Lechmere´s validity as a suspect suddenly becomes linked to what people think about me and speculations about who I really am - the devil himself or a "caring father".
I put it to you that the theory as such cannot be evaluated by speculating about me. The two are not linked in any shape or form. The name issue is not something that hinges on whether I "insult" people or not, the possible connection between Lechmeres job trek and the murders is not something that changes if people find me somebody they would not want to hang out with and the Mizen scam is in no way dependent of whether I can or cannot stand people who disagree with me.
They are all entities that must be looked upon as parts of a historical case, not as figments of my imagination.

In the latter case, let's not forget that we have a poster, Patrick S, who has called the Mizen scam "laughable". That is what the discussion out here is allowed to descend into. Easily.

Can it be laughable? Yes, it can.
What does that predispose?
In this case, it predisposes that the suggestion that suspicion must adhere to Lechmere, who is involved in a murder case, and who is recorded as having disagreed with a serving PC in a manner that is entirely consistent with having served a tailor-made lie to take him past the police, must be in some way totally wrong.

Do we know that the suggestion is in any way totally wrong? No, we don't.

Of course, if we can prove that the serving PC made the story up or misheard what was said, we can perhaps also call the suggestion laughable.

Otherwise, we cannot do that. It would be totally bonkers, in terms of evidence evaluation. And still, such things are allowed to pass out here.

Regardless of which "truth" applies; that Lechmere lied to Mizen, that the PC misheard or that he made the story up himself, this one item is of a character that immediately must sound the alarm bells with anybody who has any sort of insight. I would propose that as factually based evidence goes, no other suspect has anything at all as damning pointing to guilt as this one matter, when it comes to factually and proven caserelated matters. This disagreement DID occur, and we do know how the two parts described their respective views.
According to Lechmere, Mizen was told about the severity of the errand, that he thought the woman could well be dead, and Lechmere claims not to have said anything about any second PC.
Mizen, on the other hand, tells a story where he was only told that there was a woman on the flat of her back in Bucks Row, that he was wanted by another PC, and he claims he was not informed that the carman was the true finder.

In other words, the information furnished according to the PC was of a kind that seems to have been shaped with the intention to allow the carmen to pass the police by.
The implications are therefore extremely grave. And that has nothing at all to do with how we can think up innocent alternative explanations - the very reason we need to engage in that sport is BECAUSE the implications ARE extremely grave.

This, Patrick S - always keen to tell us how he took it upon himself to study the case in depth, allowing himself to arrive at the conclusion that the Lechmere theory is a house of cards, realizing on the way to enlightenment that I am the one abusing people out here - calls "laughable". Straight off the bat - "laughable".

Make the effort of not thinking about me. Try and forget about whether I am a caring father or not. Look away from your personal takes on my person and ask yourself:

Is it laughable to point to the disagreement between Mizen and Lechmere as a possible pointer to guilt? Is it laughable to say that IF Mizen told the truth, then Lechmere is very likely a liar who tried to hide his guilt by making up the Mizen scam?

Mind you, this time over you are NOT called upon to produce as many alternative innocent explanations as possible for the disagreement. This is not about serving up suggestions of Mizen having misheard, nor is it about producing stories about Mizen sensing that he could be at risk to get a hiding from his superiors for not detaining the carmen.
It is only about one question: Is it laughable to suggest that the Mizen scam can be a pointer to guilt on Lechmere´s behalf, and that if Mizen heard correctly and told the truth, it seemingly spells disaster for the carman?

Let's hear your thoughts on this one isolated question. And to those responsible for choosing to discuss my personal life instead of the theory, adding winking smilies to it - would you mind explaining to me on what grounds you find it viable to do so?

[Fisherman]

There are many factors relating to Cross/Lechmere that mitigate against him being the killer.

In fairness to Fisherman, it can be said that there are factors relating to Cross/Lechmere that make him a person of interest.

My main problem with him being responsible for the murder of Polly Nichols is why did he say that he approached the body because he thought that it was an old tarpaulin?
Surely it would have been more advantageous for him, if he was the killer, to say that he saw the body of a woman and went to see if he could help?

If he said that he went to help her, he would have an explanation for any blood stains on his person.

Also bear in mind that Robert Paul wanted Cross/Lechmere to help him move the body, but Cross/Lechmere refused.

Once again, if he was indeed the killer, this was another ideal opportunity to explain the presence of any bloodstains later found on his clothing.

Three things:

There are not many factors mitigating against Lechmere being the killer. There are only different interpretations of the surrounding facts. Some say nobody would ever kill en route to work, others say that this is the kind of thing an opportunist could well do. That does not result in a verdict of how the matter mitigates against him being the killer, does it?

As for the blood, he DID examine Nichols, he DID touch her, he DID kneel at her side. That would have been quite enough of an alibi for any blood on his person. He did not have to help prop her up after that, and if he was the killer, he would likely be very unwilling to participate in such an exercise for obvious reasons.

The tarpaulin thing is something I have never understood why it would make him look innocent. It would be a perfect way to persuade the inquest into accepting that he had a reason for stopping and not passing by. In that respect, I think it wounds like a shifty lie, very befitting a killer intent on fooling people. And what does that mean? It means we interpret differently, not that the matter mitigates against Lechmere being the killer.

[Patrick S]

As is so often the case, the question about Lechmere´s validity as a suspect suddenly becomes linked to what people think about me and speculations about who I really am - the devil himself or a "caring father".

An absolutely ridiculous and arrogant view. Insulting to everyone who's ever offered their thoughts. I couldn't care less who you really are.

In the latter case, let's not forget that we have a poster, Patrick S, who has called the Mizen scam "laughable". That is what the discussion out here I allowed to descend into.
Can it be laughable? Yes, it can. What does that predispose? It predisposes that the suggestion that when a person who is involved in a murder case is recorded as having disagreed with a serving PC in a manner that it entirely consistent with having served a tailor-made lie to take him past the police must be in some way totally wrong.
Do we know that the suggestion is totally wrong? No we don't.
Of course, if we can prove that the serving PC made the story up or misheard what was said, we can perhaps also call the suggestion laughable.

The Mizen scam is unfortunate. And laughable. I've explained why. Here. Many times. The machinations required for it to work, on any level, are myriad, less than credible, absurd, and laughable. All because you MUST maintain that Mizen was the ONLY one in Baker's Row who told truth. Even as HE was the only one who had a reason to lie (if we do NOT presuppose Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, of course) in that we KNOW that Neil was allowed to testify that he and he alone had found Nichols. That testimony wasn't true and had to be corrected because Paul's Remarkable Statement. It is clear Mizen told NO ONE of his having met Paul and Cross before Neil testified. Even though he was PRESENT IN BUCK'S ROW. He said nothing to his superiors. Nothing in the press. This can be inferred because we KNOW that Neil testified as he did. Your Mizen Scam is inferred only because you say Cross was Jack the Ripper! Yes...LAUGHABLE. Created to fit a scenario YOU invented. It's laughable also that anyone could argue otherwise because in order for it to be true Cross must lie to Mizen, either in front of Paul or out of his earshot. No one says this happened, yet Paul and Cross say NOTHING of Mizen being told he was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. Further, Cross and Paul appear to have been believed... since the matter wasn't followed up upon. You created this Mizen Scam. Out of nothing.


Regardless of what applies, that Lechmere lied to Mizen, that the PC mishear or that he made the story up himself, this one item is of a character that immediately must sound the alarm bells with anybody who has any sort of insight.

Ah. Alarm bells. That sound only if we believe Mizen. The only one of three who's testimony doesn't agree. The one man of the three who we know had reason to lie (if we do NOT - as you have instructed - view the matter with the equally laughable idea that Cross was Jack the Ripper) because we know Neil testified without mention of Mizen, Cross, Paul, et al.


I would propose that as factually based evidence goes, no other suspect has anything at all as damning pointing to guilt as this one matter, when it comes to factually and proven caserelated matters - this disagreement DID occur, and we do know how the two parts described their respective views. According to Lechmere, Mizen was told about the severity of the errand, that he thought the woman could well be dead, and Lechmere claims not to have said anything about any second PC. Mizen, on the other hand, tells a story where he was only told that there was a woman on the flat of her back in Bucks Row, that he was wanted by another PC, and he was not informed that the carman was the true finder. In other words, the information furnished according to the PC was of a kind that seems to have been shaped with the intention to allow the carmen to pass the police by.

I see. I'll leave out the fact that we must have Paul as police-hating "big upper" who either allows Cross to excuse himself to lie to Mizen, or sits by, hears the lie, and then doesn't admit to it because of the whole police hating bit that's corroborated by your "colleague" Ed "Stow". Instead I'll simply point out the silliness of this plan you have Cross executing: He waits for Paul. Stops him as he tries to walk on. Enlists him to find a PC. Finds Mizen. Lies to him about another PC while either duping Paul into allowing a private conversation without finding it odd or without his mentioning it at the inquest or relying upon his (unknown to him) anti-police bias to keep that little bit of info confidential because, you know, he hated the police and all and Cross somehow knew it.... He does all this to GET AWAY. He DOES get away. Asked no name. Gives no identifying information. No description of him appears anywhere. And he shows up at the inquest to... LIE... about a policeman?! And why would he do this? Because, you say, he wanted to keep walking through Buck's Row to work and would have been recognized. Again. Laughable. I have to admit. It's more laughable than I thought. I hadn't described it as such in quite some time. Thanks for reminding me.

The implications are therefore extremely grave. And that has nothing to do with how we can think up innocent alternative explanations - the very reason we have to do so is BECAUSE the implications ARE extremely grave.

Laughable. In the extreme. Grave. The implications are apparent. And they've nothing to do with Cross as the Ripper.

This, Patrick S - always keen to tell us how he took it upon himself to study the case in depth, allowing himself to arrive at the conclusion that the Lechmere theory is a house of cards, realizing on the way to enlightenment that I am the one abusing people out here - calls "laughable".

I've never had a cross word with another poster here. Can you say the same?

Make the effort of not thinking about me. Try and forget about whether I am a caring father or not. Look away from your personal takes on my person and ask yourself:

WE DON'T THINK ABOUT YOU! YOU ARE NOT RELEVANT TO HOW WE PERCEIVE THIS... MUCH AS THAT MAY TROUBLE YOU.

Is it laughable to point to the disagreement between Mizen and Lechmere as a possible pointer to guilt? Is it laughable to say that IF Mizen told the truth, then Lechmere is very likely a liar who tried to hide his guilt by making up the Mizen scam?

How do I put this..... YES! It's LAUGHABLE.

Mind you, this time over you are NOT called upon to produce as many alternative innocent explanations as possible for the disagreement. This is not about serving up suggestions of Mizen having misheard, nor is it about producing stories about Mizen sensing that he could be at risk to get a hiding from his superiors for not detaining the carmen.
It is only about one question: Is it laughable to suggest that the Mizen scam can be a pointer to guilt on Lechmere´s behalf.

Absolutely. Yes. It is laughable. It did not happen. No one at the time, clearly, thought it happened. It's clear what happened and it wasn't your little scam. Why? Because Paul was there. He doesn't corroborate Mizen. He doesn't mention hearing Cross say a PC was in Buck's Row and he doesn't mention that Cross left him out of earshot while he spoke with Mizen, which would have been quite odd, conspicuous, and worth mentioning. It's clear because Neil says nothing about the carmen in his testimony. He said HE FOUND THE BODY. Mizen's testimony was quite clearly crafted to refute Paul's statement in Lloyd's, describing his reaction, a reaction corroborated by Cross.

Let's hear your thought on this one isolated question. And to those responsible for choosing to discuss my personal life instead of the theory - would you mind explaining to me on what grounds you find it viable to do so?

I have not discussed your personal life. Ever. Give an example. I said I don't know you personally. I don't care what your true character is. I know what I describe as your "virtual" character and it's...well...it's what we see above. I'll leave it at that.

[Kattrup]

Hilarious exchange

And to those responsible for choosing to discuss my personal life instead of the theory, adding winking smilies to it - would you mind explaining to me on what grounds you find it viable to do so?

"those responsible" - who exactly are you referring to? Could you point to the posters, plural, who have chosen to discuss your personal life?

[Fisherman]

I only have to point out how Patrick begins his post - he claims it is "absolutely ridiculous and arrogant" of me to point out that I do not think that it is a good idea to scrutinize my person instead of discussing the value of the Lechmere theory.
Personally, I disagree. Discussing posters instead of what they post is an intellectual low-wear mark, regardless if it is about that posters care about his children or about how it is perceived that he only can discuss amiably with people who fully agree with his views and avoid to criticize him in any way - which is a picture that Patrick enjoys painting.

I will not go much further into the rest of his post, but for one thing: we can all see that he actually insists that it is laughable to regard the Mizen scam as suspicious. And he motivates that take on things like this: "Absolutely. Yes. It is laughable. It did not happen." To cement how he cannot be wrong, he for example insists on knowing where Robert Paul was during the meeting with Mizen.

So maybe he is right to point out how deeply he has studied the case, not least since he has been able to find facts that have eluded the rest - or perhaps I should say the more discerning - of us.

I have two kinds of discussions out on Casebook. One is the kind that Patrick and a few others offer. The other type is conducted in the company of serious and discerning posters like, say, Cris Malone, Gary Barnett, Debra Arif, Jon Smythe and Frank van Oploo (who do not agree with me about Lechmere, any of them, but who are amazingly able to partake in amiable discussions with me nevertheless). To imagine them descending into discussing whether I am a caring father or not instead of commenting on the aspects of the case I am discussing, and into calling the Mizen scam laughable, is something I find very hard to do.

That is, I would suggest, because they are out here on account of a genuine interest in the case and not in me - and much less in themselves.

That, I believe, covers all I want to say.

[Fisherman]

Hilarious exchange
"those responsible" - who exactly are you referring to? Could you point to the posters, plural, who have chosen to discuss your personal life?

I have been called a bad journalist, I have been made fun of for being Swedish, I have had my relationship to my children commented on, as well as my working ethics, I have been accused of making money from relatives of war time casualties - and that's off the top of my head. I have furthermore been called a liar, a misleader and so on. If you think that is hilarious, I can only disagree. I find it sad and telling in equal amounts.

Don´t misunderstand me - I am not whining about this, I am saying that those who descend into such behavior are unfit to partake in public discussions.

[Kattrup]

I do not think that it is a good idea to scrutinize my person instead of discussing the value of the Lechmere theory.

I’m just wondering who you believe thinks it’s a good idea, I know it’s late but surely you can point to just a few examples? I mean, judging from your previous post it seems pretty widespread.

[Fisherman]

I’m just wondering who you believe thinks it’s a good idea, I know it’s late but surely you can point to just a few examples? I mean, judging from your previous post it seems pretty widespread.

You have had a number of examples. There should have been none. By the way, have you noticed how you are now concentrating on me instead of on the case? No?