Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Patrick S]

Perhaps because, in Cross's case, the geographical pattern is that he lived nearly a mile away from the easternmost victim (Nichols), and that subsequent murders occurred further away still. Attempts to fit the murders with Cross's "work-trek" (or mummy's address) become increasingly tenuous from Chapman onwards, with the only undisputed correlation having been in Bucks Row - which is by no means proven as the place where Nichols actually picked up her killer (or vice versa).

In terms of geographical profiling, a killer resident in the heart of Spitalfields fits better with the distribution of murders than one who lived in Doveton Street, Bethnal Green.

I agree Sam. Here's an interesting article, one you've likely read, that discusses this topic:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...d-experts.html

As well this issue was discussed last year:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...d-experts.html

When I visited London last year I was struck by how Goulston Street seemed quite central to the murder sites of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddows, Kelly. I took a few measurements and found that was indeed the case. I can't locate those posts or my notes. I'll keep looking because I think this is a key point/topic.

[Patrick S]

So you reason that the name swap is the major argument for Lechmere as Nichols´ killer?

You really have not grasped much, have you?

Of course, as you well know, Elamarna is completely correct here. Everything springs from this "name swap" idea. As many have said here before, it's interesting... until you look further and realize it's not. There is, quite simply, nothing else. Nothing factual, that is to say. Nothing that's not some interpretation of someone's actions and words viewed the the prism of a "false name" was given because the person giving said "false name" killed Polly Nichols. Without this supposition, your suspect becomes what he his and always has been: a man who found a body on his way to work.

[Patrick S]

Too dumb to deserve an answer, Caz. Try again. Or better still, don´t.

Hold on... just want to make sure I get it right... Is THIS an example of how we debate? Again, just want to makes sure I follow your rules of engagement.

[Patrick S]

We of course know nothing of the sort. What we know is that Thomas Cross signed him Cross in the 1861 census, but whether he himself used that name other than in combination with cases of sudden and violent death - that we do not know and ought not pretend as if we did.

Wait... Is this a lesson on how to argue respectfully? Just want to make sure I follow your rules.

To be fair, we know that he WAS called Cross around time... because he was called just that, by the person (likely either Thomas Cross or his mother) who answered the 1861 census.

[Elamarna]

I am responsible for what I say, but not for what they say and how they present the material. That´s the way it goes.

The "factual inaccuracies" you speak of are either not explained or so very minor that you should be ashamed to mention them. But you are a hard man to shame.

While i am prepared of course to accept that some may have been beyond your control, as the lead participant and the one put forward as the "man with the theory", there is a high degree of collective responsibility for all that is said and portrayed in the production.

The inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the Documentary are certainly not minor, a look at the comments on Facebook after every repeat showing, highlight that people take what is said as being major points in the case.

Why should i be ashamed of truth?


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course I understand you. And you are dead wrong. That is where the main lack of understanding enters the picture.

Are you seriously suggesting that Nichols lay on the ground, wounds uncovered and bleeding, the abdomen a mess of cuts and the neck a gaping wound - and Paul didn´t se that in the dark? And that he later covered all the wounds in the abdomen but not the one in the neck, when he pulled the clothes down...?

That´s one of the saddest and most hilarious posts I have read on the subject. Really..!

When you so obviously twist the meaning of my post just try and score a point you really do yourself, or your case, no favours.

Of course I wasn’t suggesting that the wounds were on view. I’m suggesting that as Paul did pull down her clothing this has to mean that the clothing was up. Either to her thighs or up near her genitals. It’s therefore not I,possible or unlikely that the killer, either when he’d finished or when he heard someone approach, dropped her dress down which covered the abdominal wounds. In addition, as this was likely to have been his first kill, he might yet have come to the idea of fully displaying the wounds.
You choose to interpret this as Lechmere deliberately trying to hide the wounds from Paul. If this was Lechmere’s reasoning how could he have been anything like confident that Paul wouldnt have checked for a pulse in her neck thus discovering her neck wounds.

[Sam Flynn]

Of course I understand you. And you are dead wrong. That is where the main lack of understanding enters the picture.

That´s one of the saddest and most hilarious posts I have read on the subject. Really..!

Why? Herlock made a perfectly cogent point.

[Sam Flynn]

But that is not the issue here, is it? We are not discussing whether we think it is more likely that she was picked up here or there

That has a significant bearing on the matter, so why shouldn't it be taken into consideration?

we are discussing the fact that Lechmere reasonably passed through the killing fields in the early morning hours and that he had ties to the Stride and Eddowes murder sites.

So would many, many other people living in Spitalfields and its immediate vicinity. In contrast to Cross, however, none of these "others" would necessitate family or work ties to explain their presence at any of the Canonical murder sites, because they're within easy walking distance of one another. That's more than can be said of someone living in Doveton Street, Bethnal Green, who would need such devices as family/work ties to exist in order to bring them into the "killing fields" in the first place.

So his links to the murder sites are much clearer than the links DeAngelo had to his crime sites.

That is only definitely known in ONE case; the others are tenuous at best.

[Fisherman]

When the killer killed Nichols he dropped the skirt down, possibly because he heard Lechmere approach, her skirts we’re near her middle just obscuring the wounds, Paul pulled them down for decency’s sake. If Lechmere had killed her and wanted to insure that no one suspected abdominal wounds he would have expended the extra 0.437 seconds of effort to pull the skirts down fully.

But he didn’t!!

Did he

The clothes would not even come down to the full. So what would be the priority? To pull at them as hard as he could or to hide the wounds?

How about thinking before you write? It takes all of 0.437 seconds.

[Fisherman]

Does anyone else see the problem with Fish’s statement? I cant seem to make him understand.

He’s saying in one breath that if Lechmere was the killer he’d have rearranged the clothes to cover the wounds and yet, in the next breath, he says that Paul pulled her clothes over her knees?!

Robert Paul at the Inquest:



Paul pulled the clothes down, after Lechmere arrived. Therefore they were up when Paul got there. Therefore Lechmere hadn’t covered the abdominal wounds. Therefore..........

Of course I understand you. And you are dead wrong. That is where the main lack of understanding enters the picture.

Are you seriously suggesting that Nichols lay on the ground, wounds uncovered and bleeding, the abdomen a mess of cuts and the neck a gaping wound - and Paul didn´t se that in the dark? And that he later covered all the wounds in the abdomen but not the one in the neck, when he pulled the clothes down...?

That´s one of the saddest and most hilarious posts I have read on the subject. Really..!

[Fisherman]

Take You,Fisherman? I already have,with a pinch of salt.Must have been an effort to admit it is only beliefs you are peddling.Beliefs manipulated into an imaginable bogey man named Cross,without a single piece of genuine evidence that points to him as a killer.

Wrong again. Waste of time. Ignorance.

[Fisherman]

[/B]

Then why do you persist in putting this point on ‘why Lechmere was guilty’ lists?

There is no "Why Lechmere was guilty" list. There is a "Why it seems very probable that Lechmere was guilty" list. And the things you mentioned very much belong there.

What would you have me do? Say that I think that he was guilty and then deny saying why I think so...?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is up to you if you want to loose credibility by accusing me of being infatuated with Lechmere. All I can do is to point you to how a debate should be done, and after that, if you can´t manage it, that´s your problem, not mine.

You now list three examples that you mean must be conclusive in proving that my take on matters is skewed beyond trustworthyness. Let´s see what kind of water it holds!

You ask that if Paul did the rearranging of the clothes, then how could Lechmere be incriminated.

Problem - the clothing will FIRST have been rearranged by Lechmere. Evidence: If it had NOT been, then Paul would have seen the large open wounds to the abdomen and neck, but he saw nothing when he leant in over her.
Conclusion: The wounds, all of them, must have been hidden from Pauls sight. Further conclusion: Lechmere will have been the one who did the hiding if he was the killer.

Value of your point: None.

Point dealt with in posts 746 and 747

Next: You say that I "use the name" as a point of guilt on Lechmere´s behalf. What I say, and have said repeatedly, is that none of the many points against him are conclusive evidence of guilt, but the collected weight of the evidence pushes him past "reasonable doubt" in my view. James Scobie, a queens counsellor said that since the coincidences mount up in his case, it becomes a coincidence too many. So we are saying the same thing in that regard. As for the name specifically, I have on various occasions said that it may be that he used the name Cross at times, but that this is not a proven thing and the evidence that DOES exist tells us that he invariably used the name Lechmere in all the authority contacts that we know of - apart from in combination with violent death.
I am saying that the name matter is an anomaly, and that until we know for sure why he used the name Cross at the inquest, that anomaly must be added to the tally of matters that do not seem altogether correct.

Conclusion: Far from saying that the name business must be indicative of guilt, what I DO say is that it is something that we must keep track of since it is a deviation from what we have on record.

Value of your point: none.

The fact that we know that he gained no advantage from using Cross should end this nonsense. That is the point.

Next: You say that I refuse to accept that Phillips may have been wrong on the TOD of Chapman.

To begin with, even if Chapman was alive when Richardson was in the backyard, Lechmere could still be her killer. To carry on, you are just as unwilling to accept that she was dead as I am unwilling to accept that she was alive, so what does that say about you? That you are the better judge? I am not saying that it is impossible for Phillips to have been wrong, but I am saying that I find it very unlikely based on how all three parameters are in sync in his verdict. That means that an extremely logical case can be built for how the medical verdict offered by Phillips was likely correct.
Look at this in this manner: If Long, Cadosch and Richardson had never surfaced, how would you treat Phillips´ information? As if he was probably wrong?
The idea of him being wrong is a byproduct of believing in three witnesses who either changed stories as they went along or offered timings that are impossible to fit together.
The official line was one where the police favoured Phillips over these witnesses.
So I am in sync with the official line, and the three parameters offered by Phillips are in sync with each other. Meaning that there is ample reason to opt for Phillips´view.
Therefore, I cannot be said to break any laws of logic or something such when I say that I think Phillips is more likely to be correct than the witnesses are. And consequently, it can never be said that I only say so because I think Lechmere was the killer. It would be like saying that I only say that Lechmere disagreed with the police about what was said on the murder night because I think he was the killer.
It certainly points to the possibility that he WAS the killer, but it is nevertheless a fact on record, and that brings us back to my comparison between you and R J Palmer:

Once somebody points to a fact, we can look at it in one of two ways:

1. That somebody points out a completely relevant fact, or
2. That somebody only does that because he wants to be correct on something.

Option 1 is the sound thing to accept and the one to use in any sound debate.
Option 2 is the Kindergarten version. "Boo-hoooh, he took my toy!", sort of.

Value of your point: none.

More drivel. The chances are higher percentage wise that Philips could have been in error (as per experts) than Richardson (who we have no reason to believe was either mentally subnormal or a man with severely impaired spatial awareness) wouldn’t have been aware, in a small yard, whether a body could have been out of view to him. Especially when we know that he actually saw the body later on.

I do try to point to how it is likely that Lechmere was the killer. But that is because I think that there are many facts surrounding him that point to his guilt, not because I have a personal grudge against him.

Personal grudges and fair debates do not mix very well, see.

I agree. It’s often difficult to conclude otherwise tha your tone and attitude toward me speaks of a personal grudge. I certainly have no personal grudge against you.

And those of us on the other side of the debate don’t tend to feel strongly that Lechmere was innocent because we’re Lechmere ‘fans’ or Fish ‘haters.’ We feel as we do because we’ve also looked at the facts and can’t understand your level of confidence. Personally I’d say that we all have to accept that Lechmere has to be considered because he was alone with the body for a period. Apart from that fact I see nothing that makes me suspect him in the slightest.

[Fisherman]

Where does misspelling come into it?
The examples i gave are about factual inaccuracies.
Claiming things as fact when they are not is not about misspelling.


One of the best production wise agreed, factually all over the place, and as you are the lead, you have to take a degree of responsibility surely even if the final call was not yours


Steve

I am responsible for what I say, but not for what they say and how they present the material. That´s the way it goes.

The "factual inaccuracies" you speak of are either not explained or so very minor that you should be ashamed to mention them. But you are a hard man to shame.

[Fisherman]

Neither was Cross, apart from ONE instance - Bucks Row, which is by no means proven as the place where Nichols' killer actually picked her up. If anything, it's arguably more likely that she was picked up elsewhere, i.e. away from Cross's route to work.

But that is not the issue here, is it? We are not discussing whether we think it is more likely that she was picked up here or there, we are discussing the fact that Lechmere reasonably passed through the killing fields in the early morning hours and that he had ties to the Stride and Eddowes murder sites.

So his links to the murder sites are much clearer than the links DeAngelo had to his crime sites. So why would we not accept that this is a tremendeous boost for anybody who entertains suspicion against him?

Because we don´t want to?