Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

[rjpalmer]

While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement."

It's easier to imagine Paul accidently touching her breast if the clothing were hiked up above her waist (ie, with his elbow) than if the clothing was down just above the knee.

I can't quite imagine how his arm would have contacted her chest while he's mucking around with her skirts, unless Fish imagines Paul bending clear over the top of her body, while kneeling near her head.

This detail is possibly why Yost, Honeycomb, etc., claimed the skirts were hiked up above the waist.

[Fisherman]

Yes, the Times is where Paul is reported as touching her hands, facr and breast. It also says he put his head near to her mouth (presumably) to try and hear breathing. So either one of them (at least) is lying or misremembering, or they both touched her face at some point;

Times 18 Sept
Robert Baul (Paul): "Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen. While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement."

You are correct about the blood though!

As I pointed to, all the other sources have Lechmere, not Paul, feeling the face and hands. I think the Times got it wrong, and they may have gotten it wrong along the same lines as the Daily Telegraph did, also using the term "Witness". As you may know, the DT wrote "Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her" when quoting Lechmere, and it all became wrong. It was Paul, not Lechmere, who suggested the propping up, and all the other papers have it right. We may have another example of this mistake here, along the exact same lines.
As you can see, there is a contradiction involved in the Times report hinting at this exact thing. It is first said that "the witness" touched no other part of her body except the hands and face - but then it goes on to say that Paul touched the breast! I believe that it was Lechmere who touched only hands and face - and then refused to touch the body any further, denying the proposal to prop her up.

[Fisherman]

It's easier to imagine Paul accidently touching her breast if the clothing were hiked up above her waist (ie, with his elbow) than if the clothing was down just above the knee.

I can't quite imagine how his arm would have contacted her chest while he's mucking around with her skirts, unless Fish imagines Paul bending clear over the top of her body, while kneeling near her head.

This detail is possibly why Yost, Honeycomb, etc., claimed the skirts were hiked up above the waist.

Once again, there is zero evidence that the clothing was up around the waist, and so nobody should make such a claim, least of all as the result of internal guesswork! We have the facts, and the facts are that the clothing was between the knees and the abdomen, somwehere over the thighs. Letīs accept this, please!

You are absolutely correct about how it is an awkward suggestion that Paul should have simultaneously felt her chest and pulled down her dress. The articles make it clear that this was never the case, the chest-feeling was earlier in time and the clothes-pulling came last, as the men prepared to leave.

[Trevor Marriott]

As I pointed to, all the other sources have Lechmere, not Paul, feeling the face and hands. I think the imes got it wrong, and they may have gotten it wrong along the same lines as the Daily Telegraph did, also using the term "Witness". As you may know, the DT wrote "Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her" when quoting Lechmere, and it all became wrong. It was Paul, not Lechmere, who suggested the propping up, and all the other papers have it right. We may have another example of this mistake here, along the exact same lines. None of the other papers have Paul touching the face and hands, but they have Lechmere doing so.
As you can see, there is a contradiction involved in the Times report hinting at this exact thing. It is first said that "the witness" touched no other part of her body except the hands and face - but then it goes on to say that Paul touched the breast! I believe that it was Lechmere who touched ony hands and face - and then refused to touch the body any further, denying the wish to prop her up.

Another evidential fiasco caused by conflicting newpaper reports, which goes to show they are unsafe to totally rely on as I have said many times before, yet we still see researchers using whatever newspaper report suits their own theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Another evidential fiasco caused by conflicting newpaper reports, which goes to show they are unsafe to totally rely on as I have said many times before, yet we still see researchers using whatever newspaper report suits their own theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, I remember a poster using newspaper articles to try and point to Carl Feigenbaum as the killer, so you may have a point there!

As an aside, it is only when newspaper reports endorse your theory that you can use them to strengthen that theory. When they donīt, itīs the other way around.

[Kattrup]

As you can see, there is a contradiction involved in the Times report hinting at this exact thing. It is first said that "the witness" touched no other part of her body except the hands and face - but then it goes on to say that Paul touched the breast!

no contradiction; it is not first said that he touched no other part, but that he did not feel any other part.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I remember a poster using newspaper articles to try and point to Carl Feigenbaum as the killer, so you may have a point there!

As an aside, it is only when newspaper reports endorse your theory that you can use them to strengthen that theory. When they donīt, itīs the other way around.

Might I suggest that you take time to read the chapter in my book on Feigenbaum then you will see that I obtained more evidence than the use of newspaper reports to categorise him as a likely suspect

all I have seen on this thread is you posting extracts from newspaper reports to negate newspaper articles others have posted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Might I suggest that you take time to read the chapter in my book on Feigenbaum then you will see that I obtained more evidence than the use of newspaper reports to categorise him as a likely suspect

all I have seen on this thread is you posting extracts from newspaper reports to negate newspaper articles others have posted

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, I am using a whole lot more than newspaper reports to make my case against Lechmere. The gist of the matter is that we nevertheless, me and you alike, do use newspaper reports too when making our respective cases. And that is as it should be, because these reports are by far and away the backbone of the case.

You are correct that I am posting extracts that negate what others say. Why wouldnīt I, when things are posted that have no anchoring in the facts? Plus, of course, when I make my case against Lechmere, the paper reports are of vital importance - not because they are all in line but because there is a logical sequence of events that is supported by part of the press material, all the way through. And that is the best you can hope for. If we demand that all the press reports must unanimously endorse a suspect, we may just as well find ourselves another hobby. There are contradictions in the material, sometimes it is easy enough to rule the faulty parts out, other times it is harder or impossible, but thatīs the way it goes. We must make as logical sense as possible of the material when endorsing a suspect, and that is what I am doing.

[Fisherman]

no contradiction; it is not first said that he touched no other part, but that he did not feel any other part.

I FEEL you are wrong here again, Kattrup. When Paul toched the breast he FELT a movement. He did not touch the movement. People (in the real world) do not take the trouble to say that they only touched the hands and face, nothing else, before moving on to saying that they detected a movement inside the chest.

Itīs semantics at itīs silliest.

[Fisherman]

After all this dancing around in the boxing ring, it remains that the wounds were hidden from Pauls sight by the clothing, that the legs were stretched out instead of drawn up and akimbo. These are facts.
And they are facts that endorse the exact point I am making; it tells the murder apart and it is in perfect line with a scam on Lechmereīs behalf.

And now Iīm off for tonight. Thereīs a day tomorrow too, you know!

[Kattrup]

I FEEL you are wrong here again, Kattrup. When Paul toched the breast he FELT a movement. He did not touch the movement. People (in the real world) do not take the trouble to say that they only touched the hands and face, nothing else, before moving on to saying that they detected a movement inside the chest.

Itīs semantics at itīs silliest.

You're missing the point. As I said, Paul in the source did not say that he only touched the hands and face. He said he only felt the hands and face. So now you've had it pointed out twice.
Touch and feel are not synonyms. Do the uses of "felt" and "feel" in the source have the same meaning, do you think? Oops, semantics again.


What's actually silly is engaging in conversation with someone who first scolds other for poor research, e.g.:

If people interpret the events like that, they are interpreting things from a vantage point that has no anchoring in the sources. Ergo, they will be distorting the evidence and creating a picture that cannot be created from the existing, true evidence.

and then immediately after goes on to construct a "contradiction" based on misreading the source in order to prop up his spurious theory.

[Fisherman]

You're missing the point. As I said, Paul in the source did not say that he only touched the hands and face. He said he only felt the hands and face. So now you've had it pointed out twice.
Touch and feel are not synonyms. Do the uses of "felt" and "feel" in the source have the same meaning, do you think? Oops, semantics again.

Yes, semantics again - and you are perhaps not missing, but seemingly avoiding my point. Who would state categorically that he did not feel any other part of a body than the face and hands, no Sir!, only to then say that he touched the breast and felt a stirring movement inside it? Furthermore, we know that Lechmere started out enthusiastically about examining the woman, but suddenly lost that enthusiasm and said that he would not touch the body any further, so it is perfectly in line with Pauls words about only feeling the hands and face.
There is also the example from the DT where this exact mistake was made by the reporter, so there is nothing earthshattering about suggesting it happened here too, not least because it would be in line with the known facts.
At some stage, logic needs to enter our thinking.

What's actually silly is engaging in conversation with someone who first scolds other for poor research, e.g.:

and then immediately after goes on to construct a "contradiction" based on misreading the source in order to prop up his spurious theory.

If you canīt tell a sound theory from a spurious one, then donīt go through the trouble, Kattrup.

PS. My "scolding" the passage about Nicholsīs clothes being up around the waist could also be described as a "correction" - it all hinges on who describes it and the intentions of the describer, I guess. And semantics.

[Fisherman]

What needs to be said is that regardless if Paul touched the face and/or listened for breath coming from Nichols, Lechmere had taken up a position leaning down by the head as per his own testimony. It was never as if he could deny Paul to touch the face, and so the best he could do was to control matters as best as he could, and to that end, positioning himself by the head would be the clever thing to do.
This is what all the hoo-haah seems to be about right now, and at the end of the day, it matters not a iot. What DOES matter is that we now know that any suggestion that the clothing was up around the waist of Nichols is totally baseless. We also know that Nicholsīs legs were stretched out and not far apart as opposed to the other eviscerated canonical victims. So those parts of my "spurious" (meaning false, deceitful) theory seem to be perfectly correct.
Factual.
True.
Instead of false or deceitful.

And still, when I point out the total lack of factual anchoring of the statement as a fact that Nicholsīs clothing was up around her waist, I end up being accused of "scolding" other peopleīs research and having my own, factually based, picture of things called "spurious".

If nothing else, it is obvious that Charles Lechmere has some people freaking out rather badly.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=

If nothing else, it is obvious that Charles Lechmere has some people freaking out rather badly.[/QUOTE]

The only freaking out being done by researchers is with your misguided belief that Lechmere Killed Polly Nichols and was Jack the Ripper

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The only freaking out being done by researchers is with your misguided belief that Lechmere Killed Polly Nichols and was Jack the Ripper

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Some posts back, Dr Strange wrote that nobody has said that my theory cannot be correct. But actually, you have done precisely that, claiming that my theory has been "debunked". I think you are the only one who has gone public with that particular lie. And that is very helpful when it comes to gauging what kind of value one should ascribe to your posts.

Now, if you donīt mind, Trevor, maybe you could step aside and let those with a better grip on the case discuss it? All the rest of us, that is.