Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

[Fisherman]

>>Now, to establish what I say, I offer you the option to present any genuine piece of evidence there is that I left out that speaks of innocence on Lechmereīs behalf.<<

I refer you to my post #79 and what I actually wrote, as opposed to your interpretation of it.

I am going to say that this tells us that you cannot point to a single piece of genuine evidence that I left out in my book. That way, we won’ t have to wriggle around speaking of ”interpretations”, but you are instead offered a chance to produce such evidence if you think it exists. It is a simple enough matter.

[drstrange169]

>>Now, to establish what I say, I offer you the option to present any genuine piece of evidence there is that I left out that speaks of innocence on Lechmereīs behalf.<<

I refer you to my post #79 and what I actually wrote, as opposed to your interpretation of it.

[drstrange169]

>>Iīd say that it was only if Paul did not look ahead that he could have missed Lechmere visually.<<

In Buck's Row? I'd agree.

[drstrange169]

>>I'd prefer a book that has analysis and a conclusion to a simple regurgitation of existing known facts.<<

You just described Steve's book perfectly.

Unparalleled detailed analysis that can't be found in ANY oer book on the subject to date. Steve has copped some criticism from certain people for drawings conclusions in the book, so it is the perfect book for you.

[Fisherman]

Thank you Steve for correcting the misleading "facts". Sadly, I think your efforts are in vain.

As are yours. As always. Recommended reading: Any dictionary that explains the word "fact".

[Fisherman]

>>They were mounted on the facade after 1884, when a storm brought down the old facade.<<

The article specifically says Bath Street? A facade is the front of a building, Bath Street was a brick wall at the back.

I'd be very interested to know. As I and Steve have already pointed out, it makes no difference to the who could see who debate, I'd just be interested too know out of curiosity. Could you cite where it says the lights shone on Bath Street?

Actually, it was me, not you, who said it makes no difference. I also said that this is the reason I will not use it as evidence that Paul must have seen Lechmere, and that is what stands. Any research aboout the position of the wall and lights, you shall have to undertake yourself, since I consider it a waste of time no matter where they were.

[Fisherman]

>>I for one never believed that a thick book is always going to be better thatrn a less thick one.<<

As I've told women all my life, size does not matter.

I hope they listened?

Steve's book presents all the evidence and whist he draws conclusions the reader has the ability to choice because all the evidence pro and con is there. Your book, in common with 90% of suspects books, naturally, because that's what you genuinely believe, presents evidence biased in favour of Lechmere being guilty and avoids evidence that suggests his innocence.

If there had been any evidence that genuinely suggested his innocence, I would have used it, Dusty. But there is not. What there is, is alternative innocent explanations that can always be conjured up; maybe he wanted to honour his old PC stepfather, maybe Mizen misheard Lechmere, maybe the clothing bles up over the wounds in a gust of wind, maybe the clocks were unsynchronized and so on. And yes, I have left these things out, because I would have to write a 3000 page book to cover half of the excuses provided out here for Lechmere.
However, if there had been a genuine piece of evidence, like for example someone saying that Lechmere played cards with him or her on the night of September 8 1888, I would have printed it.

Now, to establish what I say, I offer you the option to present any genuine piece of evidence there is that I left out that speaks of innocence on Lechmereīs behalf. It should not be one of a zxillion alternative innocent explnations, it should be agenuine piece of evidence tht stands on itīs own.

Once we can see that there is no such thing - or once you can show us that there IS such a thing - we should be in a better position to see whether I left out important evidence in my book.

[Fisherman]

There was not much moonlight that night - it was a waning crescent moon. And Victorian street lamps were not especially powerful.

Lechmere and Paul walked on the same very narrow pavement (or so they said), and there was a lamp down at Schneiders that would have been behind Lechmere from Pauls point of view. You may try that with a candle and it would make the carman visible. Iīd say that it was only if Paul did not look ahead that he could have missed Lechmere visually.

[Fisherman]

This is incorrect about what both Lechmere and Paul said.

According to Lechmere - "He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from."

According to Paul - "...as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road."

They were 30-40 yards apart, according to Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere was on his way to work in his work uniform, which would make him easier to identify. This is another reason he is unlikely to have killed Nichols.

He didnīt have a work uniform. He had clothing that made Mizen reason that he was probaly a carman, not a uniform that said "Pickfors carman".

[Fisherman]

Being well aware that there were 3 beat cops in this area is a good reason for Lechmere not to be the murderer.

Being aware that murder is a capital offence is reason for everybody never to kill. And what happens?

[Fisherman]

I'm not sure if you're claiming that JtR is the same person as the torso killer. But assuming you are, and therefore that meaning Lechmere is the man, the torso killer had transport. Is the suggestion that he used his company car ? If so, why would he risk the JtR approach when the torso transportation method seems so much more successful and safer ?

Yes, I do mean that the Ripper and the Torso killer simply must have been one and the same. There are many and very rare similarities, the perhaps most telling one how the Ripper cut away the abdominal wall in large sections from both Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly, just as the Torso killer did so with Elizabeth Jackson. There are numerous other similarities too. What there is not, however, is any case of two eviscerating serial killers active in the same area and time, as far as I know of.

The question therefore becomes the very question you ask: why two approaches?

I think the anser partly lies in how the Torso victims were probably killed in a place that could be linked to the killer. He therefore could not leave the victims there, but had to get rid of them, so he dismembered them and dumped them. And Lechmere was in the transport business, so it is not unlikely that he had access to carts, perhaps not only via his work.

The JTR murders were riskier. So why do them? My suggestion is that the killer wanted maximum attention. He dumped the Torso murder parts in the Thames to a large degree, and he did so in the West, mainly, assuring that the body parts were washed ashore along the banks of the epicentre of power, close to the houses of parliament, to Whitehall, to the mightiest buildings in the world of 1888. But it was not until he started killing out in the open streets that he got maximum media coverage. If you read my book, you will see that I think he may well have favoured the Torso murder method because it gave him more time and space to do what he wanted to do to the bodies, and if I am correct, these murders spanned the gap between 1873 and 1889 at least. The Ripper murders were a shortish fling of ten weeks only, but they were the murders that got him out there. And in September of 1889, he grows tired of how people do not understand that he is the sole originator of the murders, and so he kills a woman and dismembers her to show that it is a Torso murder. But he also cuts a shallow incision all the way down the belly to tell the world that it is ALSO a Ripper murder. And he dumps the body in Pinchin Street, in the midst of Riper territory, to make it abundantly clear that there is just the one killer.

And still, the police and press do not get it!

[Kattrup]

Just when I was going to go.

Not far off 3.45 is NOT 3.45.

Not far off could be anytime between 3.40 to 3.50.
Baxter was I suggest aware that timings were not exact, and could not be taken as set in stone, and so he allowed for such.

You don't accept the police as the independent data, because it does not fit your theory.
There was no other data given by anyone at the inquest which Baxter could be refering to, unless you count Purkiss.


Swanson, did not write the 1st report, he merely signed it off. Abberline was the author of the 1st report.

So now we have to use your favourite terms, phantom independent reports.

Those are not facts, merely your intrrpretation of them

Sadly your manipulation of facts never changes.

Bye

Thank you Steve for correcting the misleading "facts". Sadly, I think your efforts are in vain.

[Fisherman]

I wonder whether the use of his police officer stepfather's name was intentional, to increase his credibility and avoid suspicion due to the relationship.

It must be kept in mind that from all we know, Thomas Cross was an ordinary PC who had been dead for 19 years in 1888. Therefore, if Lechmere wanted to use him as a pawn of credibility, he would probably have had to inform the police about how he had once had a police stepfather. He may of course have done so, but if he did, there is no evidence for it. I think he simply wanted to keep his identity from the public and needed a name to which he was indeed connected, if the police looked into the matter and found out about his real name.

[Fisherman]

Just when I was going to go.

Not far off 3.45 is NOT 3.45.

Not far off could be anytime between 3.40 to 3.50.
Baxter was I suggest aware that timings were not exact, and could not be taken as set in stone, and so he allowed for such.

Actually, 4.15 is not far off 3.45 either. But what Baxter did was to try and get as close as possible to the time at which the body was found. That is what coroners and inquests do. If he had thought that 3.40 was the closest he could get, he would arguably have said that the body was found at a time not far off 3.40. It is an easy enough thing to understand. 3.45 was as close as they could get, given the data available. If we start tampering with these things, we will mislead. And we donīt want to mislead.

You don't accept the police as the independent data, because it does not fit your theory.

That is a very comfy approach, Iīm sure. But it is very evident that YOU are the one twisting the information. I am not the one detracting five minutes to suit my theory becasue I donīt have to do so. Baxter tells me that 3.45, the time I favour as the likeliest, is the time HE favours as the likeliest too. And Swansons October report says 3.45 too. So how does that turn ME into somebody who do not accept the data and YOU into some saint who does?
This is where ripperology never seizes to astound me. Abra-Kadabra!

There was no other data given by anyone at the inquest which Baxter could be refering to, unless you count Purkiss.

What you know is what is in the inquest paper reports. How do we know that there were not other findings and indicators that did NOT make it into those reports? Baxter tells us that independent data fixes the time around 3.45, the PC information points to 3.40 instead - and you say that 3.40 or 3.45 does not matter, they are so close that Baxter said 3.45 but meant 3.40?
I donīt do my ripperology like that. I donīt want to and I donīt need to and so I donīt.

Swanson, did not write the 1st report, he merely signed it off. Abberline was the author of the 1st report.

And Swanson signed it. To me, that means that he concurred - at that stage. In October, he did not concur with the 3.40 assessment. In my book, he has changed his mind, in your book, we need not listen to Swanson at all, becasue Abberline had already made the correct call.
I donīt do my ripperology like that either.

So now we have to use your favourite terms, phantom independent reports.

No. What we have is an amendment.

Those are not facts, merely your intrrpretation of them

Sadly your manipulation of facts never changes.

Bye

My manipulation of facts? What you are sad about is that I go by what we have, what Baxter said at the inquest and the fact that Swanson in his October report decided to make the call that the body was found at 3.45 and not as 3.40 as had been suggested in the earlier report. What you are actually sad about is that you have a take on things that is NOT supported by the facts. You instead try to support it by saying that "Yes, both Baxter and Swanson SAID 3.45, but they MEANT 3.40 - or Swanson did not understand that Abberline had been corrected and so he got it wrong".

That is what we have. The sources say 3.45, you say that this is wrong and that agreeing with the facts on my behalf is actually manipulating them, because the facts stated by Baxter and Swanson are not the REAL facts. The REAL facts are the ones you would have preferred but was never handed.

This is all that can be said, but for three things:

1. It is a very, very sad business when somebody distorts the facts and accuses their counterpart of being the guilty part in that respect.

2. Quoting reports ad verbatim can never be manipulating them. Claiming that they must be wrong and that we can look away from them - now that is another matter.

3. I donīt need to have the body found at 3.45 at all to allow for my theory. The important matter is the time that passed between Lechmereīs presence at the murder site and Neils and Mizens respective arrivals there. So one may ask why I am so persistent in saying 3.45. The answer is that I do not wish to see the facts stolen an remolded by anybody, regardless of who that anybody is.

Bye, Steve. Read my post twice. It seems to be hard digesting for you, so that should be a good idea. And repeat after me: 3.45. 3.45. 3.45. Baxter. Swanson. 3.45.

There you go.