Lechmere validity

[Fisherman]

Of course, I should have said, "cart before horse". Getting my idiom mixed up! For the record, Christer, we often disagree but I don't think you're dishonest. Passions are clearly running high on this thread, but any suggestion to the contrary are clearly unfortunate.

Thanks for that, John. Have you preordered Grays book yet? I have - I am intrigued to see who he casts in the killerīs role.

[John G]

Thanks for that, John. Have you preordered Grays book yet? I have - I am intrigued to see who he casts in the killerīs role.

No problem, Christer. Haven't yet pre ordered it yet, but I'll definitely purchase the book when published. Identifying a single killer will, undoubtedly, be sufficient in itself to guarantee the book will be controversial! Frankly, I can't make a convincing case for C5 suspect, or even a convincing case that the C5 were killed by the same hand, let alone including the Torso murders into the mix!

[drstrange169]

>>On this thread it has (among other things) been stated that:

- the theory about how the carman may have lied to Mizen is something that I have personally "made up". (Patrick S)<<

Surely by it's very definition a theory is "made up" by someone, I don't get the problem?

theory/ˈθɪəri/noun a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something
(my emphasis)




>>- experts in a documentary will always adjust to what the ones presenting a theory in that documentary claims or suggests. (same source)<<

Interestingly, I've just finished reading David Canter's, "Mapping Murder" in which he says much the same thing.




>>- when a theory involves layers of speculation, that promotes/invites dishonesty. (Steve)<<

In the field of jtr researcher alone, dozens of books published "solving" the case, prove this statement to be true.




>>- disagreeing with a PC the way Lechmere did is consistent with innocence. (Gut)<<

But, Gut never said that did he? In reply to your question,

"Do you still think that disagreeing with a PC is a good indicator of innocence, by the way...?"

Gut wrote,

"I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent with innocence"

And therein lies the problem, you alter what people write. Which brings us to ...




>>- it is a proven thing that Jonas Mizen was either a liar or a misleader. (Dr Strange)<<

Of course, I have never written that here or anywhere else, EVER!

In fact, you have already admitted in post #359 that you were wrong in claiming this. Yet here you are stating it again.



>>The reason I mention this is because I intend to avoid debating with people who express these kinds of things in the future. Not because they need no correction but because correcting them is a waste of time.<<

Sadly, as just demonstrated you DO need to correct your mistakes and you Do need to apologize to the readers of this thread for your abusive and/or incorrect posts.

Now, would you like to discuss the case rather than yourself?

[GUT]

>>On this thread it has (among other things) been stated that:

- the theory about how the carman may have lied to Mizen is something that I have personally "made up". (Patrick S)<<

Surely by it's very definition a theory is "made up" by someone, I don't get the problem?

theory/ˈθɪəri/noun a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something
(my emphasis)




>>- experts in a documentary will always adjust to what the ones presenting a theory in that documentary claims or suggests. (same source)<<

Interestingly, I've just finished reading David Canter's, "Mapping Murder" in which he says much the same thing.




>>- when a theory involves layers of speculation, that promotes/invites dishonesty. (Steve)<<

In the field of jtr researcher alone, dozens of books published "solving" the case, prove this statement to be true.




>>- disagreeing with a PC the way Lechmere did is consistent with innocence. (Gut)<<

But, Gut never said that did he? In reply to your question,

"Do you still think that disagreeing with a PC is a good indicator of innocence, by the way...?"

Gut wrote,

"I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent with innocence"

And therein lies the problem, you alter what people write. Which brings us to ...




>>- it is a proven thing that Jonas Mizen was either a liar or a misleader. (Dr Strange)<<

Of course, I have never written that here or anywhere else, EVER!

In fact, you have already admitted in post #359 that you were wrong in claiming this. Yet here you are stating it again.



>>The reason I mention this is because I intend to avoid debating with people who express these kinds of things in the future. Not because they need no correction but because correcting them is a waste of time.<<

Sadly, as just demonstrated you DO need to correct your mistakes and you Do need to apologize to the readers of this thread for your abusive and/or incorrect posts.

Now, would you like to discuss the case rather than yourself?

Thank you for correcting that. I have only ever said that the disagreement isn’t inconsistent with innocence, if we prove Cross lied it is a question mark, but if the possibility is open that Mizen got it wrong, on purpose or otherwise, it cannot be inconsistent with innocence, it is one reason I try to keep out of Cross threads now, because what you say us so often misunderstood or misrepresented.

[Fisherman]

Thank you for correcting that. I have only ever said that the disagreement isn’t inconsistent with innocence, if we prove Cross lied it is a question mark, but if the possibility is open that Mizen got it wrong, on purpose or otherwise, it cannot be inconsistent with innocence, it is one reason I try to keep out of Cross threads now, because what you say us so often misunderstood or misrepresented.

"Correcting"? What you said, and it is on print in post 229 on this thread, is "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

So it is not as if you "have only ever said" that the disagreement "isnīt inconsistent" with innocence. Is it, Gut? Maybe that was what you meant to say, but it seems that something stood in the way of it coming out correctly.

I think this post is an appropriate send-off to you and the ones with whom you take side on a reoccurring basis, like for example Dr Strange, who in his post comments on this matter like this: "Gut wrote, "I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent with innocence". And therein lies the problem, you alter what people write.

Of course, being consistent with innocence means being in line with innocence, and therefore the expression as such is normally used to point to how innocence is suggested. Now, Dr Strange wants to claim that I am tampering with the truth for pointing that out, while he has no problems at all claiming that it is proven that Jonas Mizen either lied or misled the inquest. One has to ask oneself how he can put these two things together and add it up to a reason to say that I am the one making factually questionable statements...

I really could not have hoped for a more clear example of what is going on and who are the ones altering what has been said and/or written.

This, Gut, is the precise reason why I am by and large bowing out of any further discussion with the knee-jerk naysayers in this case - because of the combination of posting factually questionable material, followed up by a subsequent refusal to admit to having done so.

It will be nice not to engage with you gentlemen in the future other than when I choose to. I have made my point and you have helped me prove it, and that will have to suffice for me. I have little doubt that more of the same will be presented along the exact same lines, but I have chosen to let it go uncommented by me to as large as degree as I find possible. Life is too short to spend it on such matters. I look forward to discussing with other posters, less set on inflaming and more on debating factually.

Before you pass comment on this post, please read again: "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

Now that I leave this discussion, let me take the opportunity to say that I donīt regard you personally as the worst culprit in the misrepresentation business, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are others who have made much more far-reaching efforts in that department. I actually think you have quite a few interesting and worthwhile things to say every now and then. I only used your post because it tells us that regardless of that, it always comes with a risk to say things like this - and not admitting to it in retrospect only make things worse.

Whatever comment you may choose to make about all of this, you - and not least Dr Strange - will find that it goes unanswered by me. Now you know why.

[GUT]

"Correcting"? What you said, and it is on print in post 229 on this thread, is "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

So it is not as if you "have only ever said" that the disagreement "isnīt inconsistent" with innocence. Is it, Gut? Maybe that was what you meant to say, but it seems that something stood in the way of it coming out correctly.

I think this post is an appropriate send-off to you and the ones with whom you take side on a reoccurring basis, like for example Dr Strange, who in his post comments on this matter like this: "Gut wrote, "I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent with innocence". And therein lies the problem, you alter what people write.

Of course, being consistent with innocence means being in line with innocence, and therefore the expression as such is normally used to point to how innocence is suggested. Now, Dr Strange wants to claim that I am tampering with the truth for pointing that out, while he has no problems at all claiming that it is proven that Jonas Mizen either lied or misled the inquest. One has to ask oneself how he can put these two things together and add it up to a reason to say that I am the one making factually questionable statements...

I really could not have hoped for a more clear example of what is going on and who are the ones altering what has been said and/or written.

This, Gut, is the precise reason why I am by and large bowing out of any further discussion with the knee-jerk naysayers in this case - because of the combination of posting factually questionable material, followed up by a subsequent refusal to admit to having done so.

It will be nice not to engage with you gentlemen in the future other than when I choose to. I have made my point and you have helped me prove it, and that will have to suffice for me. I have little doubt that more of the same will be presented along the exact same lines, but I have chosen to let it go uncommented by me to as large as degree as I find possible. Life is too short to spend it on such matters. I look forward to discussing with other posters, less set on inflaming and more on debating factually.

Before you pass comment on this post, please read again: "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

Now that I leave this discussion, let me take the opportunity to say that I donīt regard you personally as the worst culprit in the misrepresentation business, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are others who have made much more far-reaching efforts in that department. I actually think you have quite a few interesting and worthwhile things to say every now and then. I only used your post because it tells us that regardless of that, it always comes with a risk to say things like this - and not admitting to it in retrospect only make things worse.

Whatever comment you may choose to make about all of this, you - and not least Dr Strange - will find that it goes unanswered by me. Now you know why.

Which you chose to change to “good indicator of innocence don’t you get the difference between not inconsistent with innocence, consistent with innocence and a good indicator of innocence, glad to see you are sending us off rather than continuing to twist what we say.

[GUT]

"Correcting"? What you said, and it is on print in post 229 on this thread, is "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

So it is not as if you "have only ever said" that the disagreement "isnīt inconsistent" with innocence. Is it, Gut? Maybe that was what you meant to say, but it seems that something stood in the way of it coming out correctly.

I think this post is an appropriate send-off to you and the ones with whom you take side on a reoccurring basis, like for example Dr Strange, who in his post comments on this matter like this: "Gut wrote, "I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent with innocence". And therein lies the problem, you alter what people write.

Of course, being consistent with innocence means being in line with innocence, and therefore the expression as such is normally used to point to how innocence is suggested. Now, Dr Strange wants to claim that I am tampering with the truth for pointing that out, while he has no problems at all claiming that it is proven that Jonas Mizen either lied or misled the inquest. One has to ask oneself how he can put these two things together and add it up to a reason to say that I am the one making factually questionable statements...

I really could not have hoped for a more clear example of what is going on and who are the ones altering what has been said and/or written.

This, Gut, is the precise reason why I am by and large bowing out of any further discussion with the knee-jerk naysayers in this case - because of the combination of posting factually questionable material, followed up by a subsequent refusal to admit to having done so.

It will be nice not to engage with you gentlemen in the future other than when I choose to. I have made my point and you have helped me prove it, and that will have to suffice for me. I have little doubt that more of the same will be presented along the exact same lines, but I have chosen to let it go uncommented by me to as large as degree as I find possible. Life is too short to spend it on such matters. I look forward to discussing with other posters, less set on inflaming and more on debating factually.

Before you pass comment on this post, please read again: "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

Now that I leave this discussion, let me take the opportunity to say that I donīt regard you personally as the worst culprit in the misrepresentation business, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are others who have made much more far-reaching efforts in that department. I actually think you have quite a few interesting and worthwhile things to say every now and then. I only used your post because it tells us that regardless of that, it always comes with a risk to say things like this - and not admitting to it in retrospect only make things worse.

Whatever comment you may choose to make about all of this, you - and not least Dr Strange - will find that it goes unanswered by me. Now you know why.

Maybe you struggle with English consistent with and not inconsistent with may be taken as the same thing but are far removed from good indicator of.

[GUT]

Glad to see your bowing out if all you can do is twist words andcresortvto 8nsults.

[GUT]

Amazing how willing you are to change people’s words to try and support an totally unsupportable argument.

[GUT]

Fish said

Now that I leave this discussion, let me take the opportunity to say that I donīt regard you personally as the worst culprit in the misrepresentation business, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are others who have made much more far-reaching efforts in that department. I actually think you have quite a few interesting and worthwhile things to say every now and then. I only used your post because it tells us that regardless of that, it always comes with a risk to say things like this - and not admitting to it in retrospect only make things worse.

no ants a title you holll to resell when you chanecosistent with innocence to a good indicator of innocence

[Elamarna]

On this thread it has (among other things) been stated that:

- the theory about how the carman may have lied to Mizen is something that I have personally "made up". (Patrick S)

- experts in a documentary will always adjust to what the ones presenting a theory in that documentary claims or suggests. (same source)

- when a theory involves layers of speculation, that promotes/invites dishonesty. (Steve)

- disagreeing with a PC the way Lechmere did is consistent with innocence. (Gut)

- it is a proven thing that Jonas Mizen was either a liar or a misleader. (Dr Strange)

The reason I mention this is because I intend to avoid debating with people who express these kinds of things in the future. Not because they need no correction but because correcting them is a waste of time.



This is not to say that I am not going to partake in the debate forthwith. I will, arguably beginning with the upcoming book by Drew Gray, since it makes a case I believe must be made - the one of a common originator in the two murder series of the Ripper and the Torso killer. I bank upon how many debaters of an entirely different ilk than the ones mentioned above will participate, mainly because no other issue at hand has such an importance for our overall understanding of the events in victorian London.

I hope Mr Gray is anticipating that it will be claimed that his theory is something he quite simply has made up, and that whatever experts he may or may not have employed are of no interest at all since they will all have been told to agree with himself about whatever he may say in the book. Equally, I hope he is prepared for having his honesty questioned if he presents a thinking that involved more than one layer of speculation, that it will be claimed that whatever detail he chooses to point to that cannot be conclusively proven to point to guilt will instead be described out here as being "consistent with innocence" and that he is prepared for having it claimed that those he believe are the good guys of the drama will all be pointed out was liars and/or misleaders if they have - accidentally, unimportantly or not - left something out of their respective testimonies.

Drew's work, of which he is only part author, will be treated with whatever respect its contents demand of it.
it is not being prejudged and the arguments for a common killer are awaited with anticipation.

What you continually fail to grasp, be it because you cannot or will not, is that the arguments put forward regarding Lechmere as presented by yourself are NOT personal.

My prediction is that he is not likely to become a frequent poster on these boards. The fewest are, when it comes to Charles Lechmere. It is as if those who do not produce the kind of breakthrough thinking elucidated above avoid the company offered on many - or most - of the Lechmere threads.

Why should he be commenting on Lechmere, I gather that is not the name in his work, I could be wrong of course.

Myself, I will not avoid the threads. Whenever I find it of importance to parttake, I will. But I will be choosy when it comes to who I find it worthwhile discussing with. My favorite opponents would be those who disagree with me and who are able to intelligibly express logically based criticism in a friendly manner.

I look forward to that.

Oh. dear, portraying oneself as the victim yet again!!


Steve

[Kattrup]

Before you pass comment on this post, please read again: "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

It’s perfectly true and straightforward:

Charles Cross was an innocent witness and every bit of evidence we have regarding him is consistent with him being innocent.

I’m not sure why you find the statement so shocking or damning?

[Elamarna]

"Correcting"? What you said, and it is on print in post 229 on this thread, is "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

So it is not as if you "have only ever said" that the disagreement "isnīt inconsistent" with innocence. Is it, Gut? Maybe that was what you meant to say, but it seems that something stood in the way of it coming out correctly.

I think this post is an appropriate send-off to you and the ones with whom you take side on a reoccurring basis, like for example Dr Strange, who in his post comments on this matter like this: "Gut wrote, "I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent with innocence". And therein lies the problem, you alter what people write.

Of course, being consistent with innocence means being in line with innocence, and therefore the expression as such is normally used to point to how innocence is suggested. Now, Dr Strange wants to claim that I am tampering with the truth for pointing that out, while he has no problems at all claiming that it is proven that Jonas Mizen either lied or misled the inquest. One has to ask oneself how he can put these two things together and add it up to a reason to say that I am the one making factually questionable statements...

I really could not have hoped for a more clear example of what is going on and who are the ones altering what has been said and/or written.

This, Gut, is the precise reason why I am by and large bowing out of any further discussion with the knee-jerk naysayers in this case - because of the combination of posting factually questionable material, followed up by a subsequent refusal to admit to having done so.

It will be nice not to engage with you gentlemen in the future other than when I choose to. I have made my point and you have helped me prove it, and that will have to suffice for me. I have little doubt that more of the same will be presented along the exact same lines, but I have chosen to let it go uncommented by me to as large as degree as I find possible. Life is too short to spend it on such matters. I look forward to discussing with other posters, less set on inflaming and more on debating factually.

Before you pass comment on this post, please read again: "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

Now that I leave this discussion, let me take the opportunity to say that I donīt regard you personally as the worst culprit in the misrepresentation business, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are others who have made much more far-reaching efforts in that department. I actually think you have quite a few interesting and worthwhile things to say every now and then. I only used your post because it tells us that regardless of that, it always comes with a risk to say things like this - and not admitting to it in retrospect only make things worse.

Whatever comment you may choose to make about all of this, you - and not least Dr Strange - will find that it goes unanswered by me. Now you know why.

Comments which do not agree with your viewpoint, will go unanswered one suspects because you are aware of the many faults in the theory, which can no longer be answered to indicate Lechmere as the killer convincingly.


Steve

[harry]

Can we take it then,that Cross is not a suspect,there is no evidence to substanciate it.What is he then? This is the 464th post,surley his status should be known.

[JeffHamm]

Can we take it then,that Cross is not a suspect,there is no evidence to substanciate it.What is he then? This is the 464th post,surley his status should be known.

Well, that opens up a can of worms. In the field of JtR, Cross will be listed as a suspect because he is "suspected and put forward by someone", this is not the way the term is used by police of course, but we're in a different context here (I mean really, some still consider Lewis Carroll viable and Cross/Lechmere is at least better than that). Also, the focus on Cross/Lechmere has been very productive, it has led to some very worthwhile focus on the evidence that we do have, and it has been discussed, sometimes heatedly, from just about every angle. On the whole, the evidence does not support any suspicion against him, and is far more easily understood from the hypothesis of his innocence than from the hypothesis of his guilt, and so the result of the research into him indicates that he's best seen as extremely improbable. Given that other murders occurred at a time when he should have been at work (i.e. Chapman was probably murdered around 5:30 am; some evidence to suggest Kelly was murdered around 4:00 am; and Cross/Lechmere had to be at work by 4:00 am), if evidence of him being at work were to be uncovered at either of those murders then he could be considered exonerated (provided one believes Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly were all murdered by the same person - if so, cleared for one, cleared for all). At the moment, though, while all the evidence is strongly in favor of his innocence, there is nothing that makes it absolutely impossible (impossible requires proof that he was elsewhere at the time or proof of someone else's guilt, and we don't have either - maybe he wasn't at work when Chapman was killed, for example? we don't know, or I should say, I don't know).

For those who wish to use the suspect in the way that police would use the term, then no, I don't think from the evidence available they would consider him a suspect. I think, though, he would have been looked into given the circumstances, and his whereabouts determined. As the series progressed, there would be more opportunity for him to clear his name (as Pizer was able to); unless, of course, one ascribes to the "the murders were all separate, and not linked" line of thought. Cross/Lechmere would probably be seen as someone whom the police would look into in order to prove that line of investigation was closed (as if they don't close off all avenues, if things go to trial that's a line open to the defense - "but person x was never looked into and what if ...").

- Jeff