Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by GUT View Post
    And to me therein lies the answer. Davis sees it off the top step, Richardson doesn’t, most logical reason being ???
    Not only that, GUT, but Davis was not a young man and his eyesight was probably not wonderful. He was about 56, but was described as 'an elderly man with a decided stoop' and as 'an old and feeble man with a slightly humped back'.

    In contrast, Richardson was twenty years younger and could easily spot in the darkness whether a padlock was closed and keeping the cellar secure. Yet we are being asked to believe that while Davis saw Chapman's body 'directly' on opening the door, Richardson could well have missed it.

    Richardson would have known if he had kept his eyes and body turned strictly to the right, in the direction of the padlock, from the moment he began opening the door, and would have known if it had failed to open fully and stay put, all the while he was there. But in that case, he'd also have known how he could - just possibly - have innocently missed seeing the body, which, as he later learned, was on the ground to his left, possibly obscured by the partially open door. Why he didn't simply say so, if this accurately reflects his experience, is for Fish to explain. There would have been no shame in saying he couldn't be 100% certain the woman wasn't there, because his attention was all focused in another direction.

    The obvious explanation is that Richardson, like most people on the planet, including Davis, was looking straight ahead as he opened the door and, like Davis, would have seen the body immediately had it been there.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Question away. I cannot say more than this: it is a sad thing when criticism must start from a point of how something presented by an expert in a docu should not be believed, especially when no evidence whatsoever can be presented that this was so.

      It goes hand in hand with the allegations of me not being truthful or only pointing to different matters because I am infatuated with lechmere.

      If you can´t shoot down the message, shoot the messenger instead. If you do not like what an expert says, lead on that he or she has been misinformed, bribed or threatened.

      That´s how we work out here, right?
      No, we expect an expert to base an opinion after hearing both sides.

      Now you might find that unfair of course......
      Regards

      Herlock






      "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

      Comment


      • Lechmere is a joke candidate up there with VanGough and Dr Barnardo etc.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          So, a passage from a 1904 text, where the originator states that "the wicked flee".
          The originator was actually quoting the Bible: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion" (Proverbs 28:1, King James Version).
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            Why? Herlock made a perfectly cogent point.
            Indeed - and he should not be mocked for doing so.
            Regards, Bridewell.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              The originator was actually quoting the Bible: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion" (Proverbs 28:1, King James Version).
              "Unleff they be pfycopathf" it says in my copy.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                Lechmere is a joke candidate up there with VanGough and Dr Barnardo etc.
                Yeah, there's not a fag-paper between Lech and Van Gogh. (???)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                  "Unleff they be pfycopathf" it says in my copy.
                  Ah, the wifdom of Folomon.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                    Yeah, there's not a fag-paper between Lech and Van Gogh. (???)
                    HI Gary,

                    John is i feel over the top in his view.

                    Lechmere is in my humble opinion a viable person for a suspect.

                    1.He lived in the area, during the entire period of the murders.
                    2.He discovered a body, at the very least, a few seconds before Paul also came across it.

                    However that is a different thing from saying that he is a likely killer. The evidence which would support this view is either incomplete or non existent.

                    And because of this neither can he be dismissed entirely.



                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                      1.He lived in the area, during the entire period of the murders.
                      Well, he lived "next door" strictly speaking, in Bethnal Green as opposed to Whitechapel. Although only a 12 minute walk away from the Nichols murder, make that 20 minutes for Chapman, 22 minutes for Stride, 28 minutes for Eddowes and 25 minutes for Kelly (approximate timings based on Google Maps). Not insurmountable times or distances by any means, but not particularly conducive for a killer on foot, either.

                      If he was prepared to venture West for up to 28 minutes in search of a victim, one has to wonder why nothing remotely like the Ripper murders happened within a similar radius to the North, East or South of Doveton Street. Unless he only felt the urge to kill whilst en route to work or his mother's residence; rather unlikely on both counts, I'd suggest.

                      On the contrary, someone confident enough to kill whilst a fair distance to the West of his home could easily have struck at any time and in any direction - particularly given the fact that, once at work and sat behind his horse, he could have extended his reach so much further.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Now, it can of course be discussed whether he sat like this, whether he moved like this or that, whether he stooped down, whether the light was enough, whether he looked to his left and so on in eternity.

                        But it cannot be discussed whether he could see the body if the positions of him and Chapman were like in my drawing.

                        And basically, that is all this thread has ever been about - does the props involved in the scene allow for him having not been able to see Chapman? The answer to that question is yes.
                        Actually, Fish, no. This thread is called 'Lechmere was Jack the Ripper' - not 'Richardson may have missed Chapman's body at 4.45am, allowing for Lechmere to have ripped her up on his way to work before 4am'.

                        In fact, Hanbury Street hardly featured until I posted the following on page 15 - #146:

                        Originally posted by caz View Post
                        I think a point to make here is that a guilty Lechmere could have had no idea that the police did not find this of interest, and were not going to keep an eye on him and his movements over the coming days, in case any other 'anomalies' arose in connection with this witness. After all, he had seen the victim but had then shown an apparent unawareness of her extreme and fatal injuries, when reporting the matter to PC Mizen and falsely claiming another PC wanted his assistance.

                        How could he have dared do the same and more just days later, in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, when once again on his way to work, with the police possibly watching his movements on account of his having demonstrably lied not once but twice, to Mizen on the morning of the murder and then at the inquest - not to mention that a simple discreet enquiry at Pickfords would have led to his rather sudden change of name being discovered?
                        I presume you would say he 'dared' to do this because he was a psychopath, who couldn't grasp the concept of being caught, even within days of having lied to PC Mizen, lied again at the inquest and having given a surname to the authorities, which none of his associates would recognise him by.

                        Then, on page 17 - #164, Herlock posted this:

                        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        One of the problems with timings for me is the murder of Annie Chapman. I think that’s it’s reasonable to say that the vast majority of working men had to be at work at the same time every day. Therefore it’s reasonable to assume that Lechmere’s start time was 4am. If memory serves I think Fish goes for 4.30ish as the time of her death (I think as per one of the doctors.) This does contradict Long and Cadosch though. Even if we say between 4.30 and 5.30 it’s still after the time that we would expect Lechmere to have been at work. Not conclusive of course but a doubt that we have to make an assumption to overcome.
                        The above triggered a response from you on page 18 - #173, concerning your touching faith in the ability of a Victorian doctor to determine TOD in a case like Chapman's [when it couldn't be done even today], and it all went tits up from there really, whenever anyone has dared to question a single argument or interpretation you favour, which, by amazing coincidence, all help rather than hinder your quest to make a case for Lechmere being Jack the Ripper: Richardson was a crap witness, so we should all shut up and accept that Chapman's body could have been there when he opened the door to the yard; Phillips was 130 years ahead of his time, so we should all shut up and trust his opinion that Chapman was killed early enough for Lechmere to have done it and still got to work on time; and as for who Long and Cadoche saw and heard, they may have had nothing to do with the murder, so we should all shut up and not ask who else they could have been seeing and hearing.

                        And so on and so on and so on, until the conditions are 100% perfect for Lechmere to enter the frame.

                        You can squirm all you like, Fish, but we weren't all born yesterday, and it will all happen again like clockwork if someone decides to stroll over to Mitre Square.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          He does not join any list in respect of evidence viability - on that score, he is alone, actually.

                          But we can go on saying this forever: Best suspect, no suspect, best suspect, no suspect...

                          It is a kind of debate that I abandoned fiftyfive years ago, and I am not about to reenter it now.

                          You are welcome to your misgivings. In the end, they will not matter a iot.

                          Will! Will not. Will! Will not. Will! Will not.Will!....
                          That's fine. Just one thing. Uh... you abandoned this kind of debate fifty-five years ago? So... the 17,000 posts on these boards... Those are mostly... what? You're favorite recipes and song lyrics? I know its fun to make outrageous claims... but come on.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            He was asked to assess the case for the prosecution and found it excellent. I´m sure though, that if you had been around to tell him that you don´t think Lechmere did it, he would have changed his mind pronto.
                            Likely he would. Clearly there's some very basic information that he's not been provided. Then again... it really is too bad haven't entered into these kinds of debates for fifty-five years. Think of the fun you'd have!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              Well, he lived "next door" strictly speaking, in Bethnal Green as opposed to Whitechapel. Although only a 12 minute walk away from the Nichols murder, make that 20 minutes for Chapman, 22 minutes for Stride, 28 minutes for Eddowes and 25 minutes for Kelly (approximate timings based on Google Maps). Not insurmountable times or distances by any means, but not particularly conducive for a killer on foot, either.

                              If he was prepared to venture West for up to 28 minutes in search of a victim, one has to wonder why nothing remotely like the Ripper murders happened within a similar radius to the North, East or South of Doveton Street. Unless he only felt the urge to kill whilst en route to work or his mother's residence; rather unlikely on both counts, I'd suggest.

                              On the contrary, someone confident enough to kill whilst a fair distance to the West of his home could easily have struck at any time and in any direction - particularly given the fact that, once at work and sat behind his horse, he could have extended his reach so much further.
                              I would say he is only 7 minutes from Browns Yard Gareth, but it does depend on the route he took, if he stopped to talk to anyone and the pace he walked at.

                              your points are however valid to my to my way of thinking.



                              Steve
                              Last edited by Elamarna; 09-11-2018, 06:05 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                Question away. I cannot say more than this: it is a sad thing when criticism must start from a point of how something presented by an expert in a docu should not be believed, especially when no evidence whatsoever can be presented that this was so.

                                It goes hand in hand with the allegations of me not being truthful or only pointing to different matters because I am infatuated with lechmere.

                                If you can´t shoot down the message, shoot the messenger instead. If you do not like what an expert says, lead on that he or she has been misinformed, bribed or threatened.

                                That´s how we work out here, right?
                                You're purposely twisting the overall point in order to impugn the poster's intent and imply motives that don't exist. The overall point, I think, is not that Scobie and Griffiths are liars or incompetent men. The questions you've been asked center around the scope of information these men were provided, how much did they study the crime(s) and Cross/Lechmere prior to and during filming? Were they provided an opposing view, details not seen in the program? We understand these men were invited to participate in this production in order to allow a presentation of the case that's as believable as possible, for the viewer's entertainment. Both men certainly understood that this is 130 year old case and that a documentary is not a court of law. Having some connection and understanding of productions of this type I think it's likely that both men asked to consider only the view presented in the documentary without an opposing view or mountains of evidence (beyond the facts presented by you and others in the Lechmere camp). Thus their opinions are true based on the information they were given. In this respect, this is no different from a detective or DA finding suspicion upon initial investigation or the presentation of the case, respectively, only to find conflicting facts and evidence that either explains or invalidates what had initially appeared as reason for suspicion.

                                If that's off-base and these men were provided full details and counter arguments against Lechmere as JtR, that's fine, too. I think that many posters - like myself - understand the case you've presented (thus far) and find it does not, IN THEIR VIEW, seem believable... and they'd be surprised if Scobie and Griffiths do find it believable. But, that's not to say that it's impossible that that they do. This is not some ploy to upset you, some ruse targeting you as a charlatan... its just the reality of how posters to these threads feel.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X