Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Put up or shut up, Steve. It is your credibility (well...) that is on line here, so think long and hard.

Steve has worked from scratch, on his own, to produce a book which he’s had to finance which I have absolutely no doubt will appear soon. Without the publicity of a documentary and without the ‘selling point’ of a suspect.

Yet where is the Lechmere book? Yes I know that this is down to Ed Stow but nevertheless. The vast bulk of the research has already been done. The case against Lechmere is in place. What else is there to find out? How long will it take? Has a Lechmere Diary appeared?

Despite the Lechmere book having a massive head start I have far more confidence in Steve’s book appearing sooner rather than later.

[Fisherman]

A list of factors pointing to Lechmere’s guilt compiled by you.

My point.

If Paul re-arranged the clothing and not Lechmere how does this increase the likelihood of Lechmere’s guilt?

My suggestion is that if Lechmere had done the cutting and was through with it as Paul arrived, then he would probably have covered both the abdominal wounds and the neck ditto. It would be strange if he covered the abdominal wounds only and left her with a gaping wound to the neck in full view.
What I think may have happened then is that Paul, when pulling the clothes down over her knees, actually uncovered the neck wound as he left.

To my mind, it does not increase or decrease Lechmere´s viability as the killer.

[Fisherman]

Steve has worked from scratch, on his own, to produce a book which he’s had to finance which I have absolutely no doubt will appear soon. Without the publicity of a documentary and without the ‘selling point’ of a suspect.

Yet where is the Lechmere book? Yes I know that this is down to Ed Stow but nevertheless. The vast bulk of the research has already been done. The case against Lechmere is in place. What else is there to find out? How long will it take? Has a Lechmere Diary appeared?

Despite the Lechmere book having a massive head start I have far more confidence in Steve’s book appearing sooner rather than later.

Why ask me where the Lechmere book is?

Why would anybody want to rush a Lechmere book?

Has it dawned on you that the ongoing discussion has opened the door wide (more than ninety per cent ) for treating the torso murders as having been perpetrated by the same originator?

All good to those who wait. And if you are looking for constructive criticism against the Lechmere theory, maybe you are looking in the wrong place when you compare writing speeds inbetween Steve and Edward. It´s an odd criticism to fault somebody for not responding to your wishes about publishing dates, Herlock.

[Fisherman]

If you insist, a few examples

Shall we start with the Mizen's testimony, which was not just wrong as presented by yourself a few months ago, but highly disingenious.

And of course we have general press reports, presented as Interviews with named police officers.

And the less said about the documentary the better I think.


While I may from time to time speculate on some issues, I do not base an entire theory on nothing but speculation.

All that the pro Lechmere camp have is the "name" issue.

And even that may fade away, if he used the name Cross at Pickfords, which recent research suggests is certainly a very real possibility.

My credibility is fine according to those who matter.



Steve

Oh, you are resorting to the misspelling category. And you want me responsible for the documentary - that was a success that has gotten much acclaim as one of the best Ripper documentaries ever.

Of course.

What I am saying is that you have not proven me wrong when it comes to the many things pointing to Lechmere.

I could offer how I said that Lechmere´s mother lived in Cable Street at the time of the Stride murder - that was incorrect too, and it has later emerged tnhat she lived even closer, in Mary Ann Street.

From me to you - I was wrong there. Champagne!

[Fisherman]

Promise the boggy man won't come and get you Christer, and even if he did guarantee it won't be Mr Lechmere.

Nighty night

I thought he was called Steve...?

[Fisherman]

If I or anyone else believes that someone’s opinion on any aspect of the case might be coloured by their support of a certain suspect then that opinion should be spoken. A few examples.

In an earlier post, which you have not addressed, I mentioned the fact that you have used the fact that the abdominal wounds on Nichols were covered by her clothing (unlike in the other murders) as a point of evidence in favour of Lechmere being guilty. The inference being that he heard Paul approach, decided to engage with him and therefore needed to cover up the fact that she was very obviously dead. My point was that as it was Paul that re-arranged the clothing how can this be used as a point to incriminate Lechmere?

Next, you continue to use the name issue as a point in favour of Lechmere’s guilt. Despite the fact that he used his stepfather’s surname, his own Christian names and his own address. Surely the worst attempt to deceive the police in the history of crime?

We have modern day, multiple expert medical testimony that TOD estimation can be wildly wrong due to a myriad of factors. Even more so in the 19th century. Yet despite this you still refuse to accept that Philips could have been wrong and that Chapman might not have been in the yard when Richardson was there.

These are three of the reasons that lead myself and others to the view that some
of your reasoning is skewed in favour of suiting the ‘Lechmere is guilty’ viewpoint.

I have no suspect to support. The Ripper’s identity may or may not be discovered one day. I have no inclination to prevent that discovery either to keep a ‘hobby’ alive or because of any personal feelings towards you. I don’t believe that Walter Sickert was Jack The Ripper but not because I have an agenda with Patricia Cornwall. I re-entered this thread a while ago with the intention of not getting into a ‘slanging match’ as you have termed it. I’ve re-read my posts and am confident that I had been polite and respectful until you changed the tone with a condescending and insulting post. So I can say that some of us don’t have some deep seated issue with being disagreed with. And that if anyone has in ‘issue’ with anyone it appears to be you that has an issue with me.

If I disagree with you I’ll continue to say so.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Fisherman]

If you feel the former post of mine was long, Herlock, here is a shorter one:

To claim that I am infatuated with Lechmere to a degree where my take on him becomes invalid, you must prove that I am very much in conflict with the facts in some instance, promoting Lechmere against all logic.

And there ends this discussion.

[Fisherman]

One more for Steve:

"All that the pro Lechmere camp have is the "name" issue."

First: what qualifications do you have to conclude what is and what is not of value in an investigative process relating to a crime?

Second: In the docu, Jame Scobie says "The fact that there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, which is linked to him geographically and physically... you add all those points together, piece it all together, and the prosecution has the most probative, powerful material for a court to use."

... and ...

"When the coincidences add up, mount up - and they do in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many".

He says nothing, however, about the name issue.

Now, I am not saying that cannot possibly be Gods gift to a cold case investigation, but I must say that much as I am not certain about your qualifications in this respect, I AM certain that Scobie is qualified to judge a material and see where it is strongest from an accusation viewpoint.

And it seems to me he is making mincemeat of your proposition that the name issue is all there is against Lechmere.

Maybe you should send him a copy of your forthcoming opus major?

[Trevor Marriott]

If you feel the former post of mine was long, Herlock, here is a shorter one:

To claim that I am infatuated with Lechmere to a degree where my take on him becomes invalid, you must prove that I am very much in conflict with the facts in some instance, promoting Lechmere against all logic.

And there ends this discussion.

The facts are there for all to see, but it is how you interpret them. However as has been pointed out to you many time there are major conflicts in the witness testimony, which cast doubts about some of those facts you seek to rely on.

You in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others clearly have interpreted the facts, and have manipulated them in a way which suits your theory that Lechmere was the killer. You have no "concrete" evidence to back up your theory

Furthermore, despite all that has been put forward by many on here which highlights the flaws in your theory, you still will not accept that you are wrong about Lechmere, and that he was a man simply going to work on the morning he found Nicholls, and not a homicidal serial killer as you would portray him.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The facts are there for all to see, but it is how you interpret them. However as has been pointed out to you many time there are major conflicts in the witness testimony, which cast doubts about some of those facts you seek to rely on.

You in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others clearly have interpreted the facts, and have manipulated them in a way which suits your theory that Lechmere was the killer. You have no "concrete" evidence to back up your theory

Furthermore, despite all that has been put forward by many on here which highlights the flaws in your theory, you still will not accept that you are wrong about Lechmere, and that he was a man simply going to work on the morning he found Nicholls, and not a homicidal serial killer as you would portray him.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, Trevor, the facts are there for all to see. I could not agree any more.

You say that there are conflicts in the witness testimony, and there is no denial of that. There is.

You say that it casts doubt over my theory, but I would like to amend that viewpoint. We don´t know wich side is true and which is to be doubted and so all we can say is that there are alternative explanations to the sinister ones.

What cannot be denied is that - as you colleague Andy Griffiths put it - that Lechmere is "completely relevant" as a suspect.

So far so good. But then you overstep the line. You say that I have manipulated the evidence. Please either take that back or prove your point. It is a very foul accusation and it really does not belong to a fair debate. It´s much the same as Herlocks claiming that I only point to matters because I wish to incriminate Lechmere - it does not belong to a serious discussion.

So what you need to do is to exemplify that I have at any time manipulated (that is to say tampered with) the evidence. Basically, you are saying that I am lying, and I will not tolerate that, so evidence, please!

The statement that I will not accept that Lechmere was innocent is absolutely correct. As long as there is evidence pointing in his direction it would be stupid to do so. That is not to say that I will not accept that Lechmere MAY have been innocent, which is another question entirely.
As long as he has not been conclusively proven to be Nichols´killer, the possibility that he was not must remain. That, however, should not rule that I would in any way be bound to accept that he WAS innocent.

As the evidence has it, he was in all probability nothing of the sort.

But let´s not loose focus on the most important matter - you have accused me of manipulating the evidence, and you either corroborate that or you will end up being caught with your trousers down.

Do the honourable thing, Trevor!

[Fisherman]

From a recent docu on Joseph DeAngelo, district attorney Tony Rackaukas of Orange County speaking:

"The apparent normalcy of his life otherwise is certainly different from what you might anticipate from a serial killer."

A remarkable statement, and sadly in line with the misconception that serialists are maniacs, frothing at the mouth. Nothing much has changed from 1888 in many respects. The same misconceptions and misunderstandings about what a erial killer is about still thrives, even in district attorney´s offices.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, Trevor, the facts are there for all to see. I could not agree any more.

You say that there are conflicts in the witness testimony, and there is no denial of that. There is.

You say that it casts doubt over my theory, but I would like to amend that viewpoint. We don´t know wich side is true and which is to be doubted and so all we can say is that there are alternative explanations to the sinister ones.

What cannot be denied is that - as you colleague Andy Griffiths put it - that Lechmere is "completely relevant" as a suspect.

So far so good. But then you overstep the line. You say that I have manipulated the evidence. Please either take that back or prove your point. It is a very foul accusation and it really does not belong to a fair debate. It´s much the same as Herlocks claiming that I only point to matters because I wish to incriminate Lechmere - it does not belong to a serious discussion.

So what you need to do is to exemplify that I have at any time manipulated (that is to say tampered with) the evidence. Basically, you are saying that I am lying, and I will not tolerate that, so evidence, please!

The statement that I will not accept that Lechmere was innocent is absolutely correct. As long as there is evidence pointing in his direction it would be stupid to do so. That is not to say that I will not accept that Lechmere MAY have been innocent, which is another question entirely.
As long as he has not been conclusively proven to be Nichols´killer, the possibility that he was not must remain. That, however, should not rule that I would in any way be bound to accept that he WAS innocent.

As the evidence has it, he was in all probability nothing of the sort.

But let´s not loose focus on the most important matter - you have accused me of manipulating the evidence, and you either corroborate that or you will end up being caught with your trousers down.

Do the honourable thing, Trevor!

The honorable thing to do, and all others should consider doing this is not to engage in any further discussion on this topic with you, and hope that this misguided belief you have drifts into oblivion. These exchanged on this topic are becoming boring,repetitive, and tiresome..

You are clearly not prepared to accept the comments and observations that have been put forward in respect of your theory, and also the question of the evidential value of those "experts" used in the documentary.

Take another break, go back to Iceland, they are looking to hire shop staff a change of vocation would be good for you

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The honorable thing to do, and all others should consider doing this is not to engage in any further discussion on this topic with you, and hope that this misguided belief you have drifts into oblivion. These exchanged on this topic are becoming boring,repetitive, and tiresome..

You are clearly not prepared to accept the comments and observations that have been put forward in respect of your theory, and also the question of the evidential value of those "experts" used in the documentary.

Take another break, go back to Iceland, they are looking to hire shop staff a change of vocation would be good for you

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I want your explanation to why you said that I manipulated the evidence and I want it now. You either explain it to me or to the administrators of the boards, and I would prefer if you had the stature to say it to my face.

[Fisherman]

Another point made in the docu about DeAngelo is that as the Visalia Ransacker was active in the early seventies, DeAngelo lived in Exeter, just a few minutes away. Then, as the Visalia Ransacker disappeared, the East Area Rapist appeared in Sacramento. At that stage, DeAngelo had moved to Auburn, 250 miles away from Exeter and Visalia, but only half an hours car ride from Sacramento.
This point has been crucial to the investigators. Although DeAngelo - as far as I know - has not been placed on the exact streets where the rapes took place, the information that he had close proximity to both crime series geographically is a point that tends to confirm to the investigators that they have the right man.

That´s how it works in reality: point to a geographical pattern where the killer fits in, and you have a very good case.
When it comes to Lechmere, this does not apply.

Does anyone know why? Can anyone provide a sensible explanation? Because others may have walked those streets too? As if nobody but DeAngelo walked the Exeter, Visalia, Auburn and Sacramento streets?

[harry]

As far as is known,no involvement in the killing of Nichols was ever ascribed by the police to anyone.Cross discovered the body while on his way to work.That is his sworn evidence,and it was accepted.I believe him(Cross),as no one has provided evidence that Cross was ever in the company of Nichols prior to,or at the moment she was killed.Of course he could have been,as could a number of other persons,but could have been can never be considered as incriminating evidence,so there is no suspect,and never was,in her killing.Cross is innocent,untill proven otherwise.

And Richardson can also be believed.The reason I say that,is because it was the one statement that could have been tested by a police officer sitting on the steps and my belief is that this was done,hence no official rejection of his(Richardson) claim,under oath,that he would have seen a body had there been one to see.