Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by harry View Post
    It was not a case of concealing his identity.
    You have a nasty habit of trying to elevate your own murky ideas to facts.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by harry View Post
      It was not a case of concealing his identity. It's maybe that he(Cross) was concerned only that he had to give some identification,and if the police wished to question him at a later time,the best place would be at his works where he was known by the name Cross.Why at work?,well that was the location where most of his daytime was spent,and was a usual time for police to conduct enquiries.
      This is from someone who can’t bring himself to call the man by his real name.

      Lechmere’s decision to conceal his name is still having an impact today.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        ... if the police wished to question him at a later time,the best place would be at his works where he was known by the name Cross.Why at work?,well that was the location where most of his daytime was spent...
        Having worked now and then in logistics, I find myself roaring with laughter at the idea that a delivery driver 'spends most of his daytime at his works'.

        Outraged resistance to Lechmere's candidacy has to be the single most brain-destroying obsession ever seen on these boards. I am, frankly, stunned to see the things people come out with.

        Folks, look. If you are really, really committed to Druitt, Sickert and 'Probably We Shall Never Know', then *you keep them*. Seriously, they're yours. it's *no problem*.

        M.
        Last edited by Mark J D; 10-30-2021, 10:30 AM.
        (Image of Charles Allen Lechmere is by artist Ashton Guilbeaux. Used by permission. Original art-work for sale.)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

          Having worked now and then in logistics, I find myself roaring with laughter at the idea that a delivery driver 'spends most of his daytime at his works'.

          Resistance to Lechmere's candidacy has to be the single most brain-destroying obsession ever seen on these boards. I am, frankly, stunned to see the things people come out with.

          M.
          I don’t think he thought it through before he pressed ‘post’ Mark.


          His ‘works’ were a horse and cart which could have been anywhere in London from when his shift started to when it finished. His home address would have been the best place to find him. Except perhaps on a Saturday night when he might be down Berner/Pinchin Street Way.

          Of course, his horse would have known him as Mr Cross, so that was probably why he used that name.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            The thing is, we donīt know that Lechmere said that she was drunk. Mizen says nothing about that either, he only (oops!) says that he was informed that there was a woman lying in Bucks Row. And so the reason for her doing so was not revealed, if we are to beleive the PC.
            I included the part about the woman probably being drunk, because up until only very recently, you’ve always claimed that Mizen was told about how the woman was likely drunk. In fact, (oops!) I was the one who had to point you to how Mizen never stated that Lechmere told him anything of the kind.

            Indeed it wouldnīt. But he was sent to fetch an ambulance ASAP by Neil, and so whatever resoning he may or may not have done would have taken place along the lonesome walk to the police station.
            Your “Indeed it wouldn’t” will suffice. If he really wished to get the contradiction cleared up, then he’d have had ample opportunity while bringing the ambulance together with Neil and Kirby to the morgue.

            When it comes to Mizens stance about what he was told, we do not know how he reasoned about it.
            What was there to reason about? The contradiction between what Mizen stated and what Lechmere stated is clear. If Mizen paid all of his attention to what Lechmere told him on the morning of the murder, then he shouldn’t be confused or uncertain about it after discovering the woman’s actual state, after learning that Neil didn’t send any two men for assistance or after learning Lechmere’s flat-out contradiction.

            After all, it wasn’t as if Lechmere told him a long and complicated story. According to Mizen it was:
            Lechmere: “You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).
            Mizen: “What’s the matter?”
            Lechmere: “A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there."
            And that was it. Wouldn’t be too difficult to remember that.

            He was told that another PC was present in Bucks Row and the implication was that this PC was the finder of the body. Then the press wrote that Neil had rejected the idea that two men had been the original finders of the body, stating than he himself was.
            That was exactly what Mizen had been told too, so why would he object?
            If Mizen was the copper who did everything right, he knew exactly what Lechmere had told him, i.e. that there was a woman lying in Buck’s Row and that the carmen were sent for his assistance by another PC. and, so, sooner or later after the murder, there were a couple of things that Mizen knew about to clear up.
            1. The contradiction between what he was told about the state the woman was in and the actual state he found her in arriving at the crime scene.
            2. The fact that Neil never talked about two (car)men who he’d sent to alert a fellow-copper. It’s very clear that Neil didn’t see any two (car)men before Mizen arrived at the scene and didn’t send any men for another policeman at any stage.
            3. The contradiction between what Mizen stated that Lechmere told him and what Lechmere stated he told him.
            Why would Mizen ask the carmen for more information?
            Perhaps because, other than telling him there was a woman lying in the street, they didn’t tell anything about the state the woman was in, they didn’t tell why the fellow copper needed his help, but they were still calling him away from his beat. As he, obviously, couldn’t ask the PC in question, it wouldn’t have been odd at all if he’d asked a couple of questions of the carmen to get a better picture of the situation and the reason why his colleague needed his help/why he should leave his beat.

            Why not just say "Got it!" and go to Bucks Row? Which was what he did.
            Although “Got it” would already have been much better than the apathic “Alright”, it’s not what he did then. What he did was walk to the next house and knock up there.

            Mizens observations would have gone into his notebook and he revealed what Lechmere had told him at the inquest.
            Unless Mizen had buried his head in the sand for some 3 days directly after the murder, it’s quite unlikely that, when he made his inquest appearance, he didn’t know that Neil hadn’t sent any men for assistance. Or as you yourself said it not too long ago: “He would likely have noted Neils claim on the first day of the inquest to be the finder of the body and the denial he made public on the evening of the 2nd.” As a consequence, at that point, he also already knew that Lechmere had lied to him. He must have been very aware of what Lechmere had told him and the fact that Neil hadn't sent any men for help. Of course, he may also have thought that he’d misheard what Lechmere had said. Yet, he still claimed before the coroner that Lechmere had told him a policeman wanted him at the crime scene.
            "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
            Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman
              The thing is, we donīt know that Lechmere said that she was drunk. Mizen says nothing about that either, he only (oops!) says that he was informed that there was a woman lying in Bucks Row. And so the reason for her doing so was not revealed, if we are to beleive the PC.
              I included the part about the woman probably being drunk, because up until only very recently, you’ve always claimed that Mizen was told about how the woman was likely drunk. In fact, (oops!) I was the one who had to point you to how Mizen never stated that Lechmere told him anything of the kind.

              I am not a very possessive person, so Iīm happy to accept what you are saying here - the one important thing to keep in mind is not who said what first, but instead that Mizen said nothing at all about being informed that Nichols was either dead or drunk.

              Indeed it wouldnīt. But he was sent to fetch an ambulance ASAP by Neil, and so whatever resoning he may or may not have done would have taken place along the lonesome walk to the police station.
              Your “Indeed it wouldn’t” will suffice. If he really wished to get the contradiction cleared up, then he’d have had ample opportunity while bringing the ambulance together with Neil and Kirby to the morgue.

              What suffices for you may not do so for me, Frank; I think it is important that Mizen was sent for an ambulance ASAP, not least because it removed any chance for him to go into any discussion about the carmen with Neil. Maybe the moment passed there - if it was ever in place.

              When it comes to Mizens stance about what he was told, we do not know how he reasoned about it.
              What was there to reason about? The contradiction between what Mizen stated and what Lechmere stated is clear. If Mizen paid all of his attention to what Lechmere told him on the morning of the murder, then he shouldn’t be confused or uncertain about it after discovering the woman’s actual state, after learning that Neil didn’t send any two men for assistance or after learning Lechmere’s flat-out contradiction.

              After all, it wasn’t as if Lechmere told him a long and complicated story. According to Mizen it was:
              Lechmere: “You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).
              Mizen: “What’s the matter?”
              Lechmere: “A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there."
              And that was it. Wouldn’t be too difficult to remember that.

              After Lechmere had testified, there would have been lots of things to reason about for Mizen - he had served the inquest an entirely different version of what was said than Lechmere did. And so the PC could have reasoned along a few different paths. He could have reasoned "I donīt get it", he could have reasoned "Maybe heīs the killer!", he could have reasoned "I must have misheard him" or he may have reasoned in other fashions.

              It may look very simple when we look at it, but it will all depend on how Mizen reasoned.


              He was told that another PC was present in Bucks Row and the implication was that this PC was the finder of the body. Then the press wrote that Neil had rejected the idea that two men had been the original finders of the body, stating than he himself was.
              That was exactly what Mizen had been told too, so why would he object?

              If Mizen was the copper who did everything right, he knew exactly what Lechmere had told him, i.e. that there was a woman lying in Buck’s Row and that the carmen were sent for his assistance by another PC. and, so, sooner or later after the murder, there were a couple of things that Mizen knew about to clear up.
              1. The contradiction between what he was told about the state the woman was in and the actual state he found her in arriving at the crime scene.
              2. The fact that Neil never talked about two (car)men who he’d sent to alert a fellow-copper. It’s very clear that Neil didn’t see any two (car)men before Mizen arrived at the scene and didn’t send any men for another policeman at any stage.
              3. The contradiction between what Mizen stated that Lechmere told him and what Lechmere stated he told him.
              On point 1, there really is no contradiction, is there; a woman who has been ferociously killed by way of knife can of course be described as a woman lying in the street. It leaves out important information, but is not a contradiction per se. And Mizen did not know to what extent the carmen had been informed about the gravity of the errand by the phantom PC.
              On point 2, we cannot know if Mizen thought that Neil had left the carmen out of his story because they were not part of the drama, but just messengers. I understand if you think he MUST have mentioned the carmen, but looking at it from Mizens point of view, I am less certain of it - once he saw Neil in place with the body, he must have felt certain that Neil was the PC the carmen spoke of, and so why would he question the rest of the information? He may well have thought it odd that Neil did not speak of the carmen, but thatīs perhaps as far as it goes.
              On point 3, it may be that Mizen simply believed that he had misheard the message. If you read what many posters out here say, Mizen would almost be expected to make that mistake...


              Why would Mizen ask the carmen for more information?
              Perhaps because, other than telling him there was a woman lying in the street, they didn’t tell anything about the state the woman was in, they didn’t tell why the fellow copper needed his help, but they were still calling him away from his beat. As he, obviously, couldn’t ask the PC in question, it wouldn’t have been odd at all if he’d asked a couple of questions of the carmen to get a better picture of the situation and the reason why his colleague needed his help/why he should leave his beat.

              You must keep in mind that Mizen was under the impression that another PC had sent the carmen to him. And so he would logically think that if that other PC told the carmen to convey to Mizen that the woman was possibly the victim of murder, they would have done so. He had been called to assist, there was nothing suggesting that it was a grave errand and so he stood to choose between asking the carmen a number of time consuming questions or just getting himself to Bucks Row.
              I am not suggesting that it would be odd if he did ask a number of questions from the carmen, Iīm merely pointing out that the opposite is not necessarily odd either.


              Why not just say "Got it!" and go to Bucks Row? Which was what he did.
              Although “Got it” would already have been much better than the apathic “Alright”, it’s not what he did then. What he did was walk to the next house and knock up there.

              "Alright" entails "Got it", though, does it not? And yes, he did complete a knocking up errand before setting out for Bucks Row. The importance of that factor ies in how it more or less proves that Lechmere never conveyed the gravity of the errand to Mizen. It is a point much in favour of Mizen being the truthful source and Lechmere being the liar.

              Mizens observations would have gone into his notebook and he revealed what Lechmere had told him at the inquest.
              Unless Mizen had buried his head in the sand for some 3 days directly after the murder, it’s quite unlikely that, when he made his inquest appearance, he didn’t know that Neil hadn’t sent any men for assistance. Or as you yourself said it not too long ago: “He would likely have noted Neils claim on the first day of the inquest to be the finder of the body and the denial he made public on the evening of the 2nd.” As a consequence, at that point, he also already knew that Lechmere had lied to him. He must have been very aware of what Lechmere had told him and the fact that Neil hadn't sent any men for help. Of course, he may also have thought that he’d misheard what Lechmere had said. Yet, he stillclaimed before the coroner that Lechmere had told him a policeman wanted him at the crime scene.

              Yes, I find it likely that he would have noted how Neil consistently denied that the carmen had been the finders of the body. However, I donīt think that Mizen would have thought that Neil denied their existence as such - he simply stated that he, not they, was the finder of the body.
              Of course, Neil knew nothing about any carmen at these stages, and so he WOULD have denied them specifically if asked. But from Mizens perspective, where the carman had proven his veracity by telling him about the phantom PC, interpreted as Neil by Mizen, the information would likely have read in another fashion. Whereas Neil actually meant "No, there were no carmen there, I was alone in finding her", this was not clearly established by what he said. At the inquest, he leaves the carmen out, and that is not the same as actively denying their existence, and in the interview on the 2nd, he simply says that it is not true that two men showed him to the body, becasue he found it himself. That does not actively deny that there WERE two men involved either - although not as the finders, according to Neil. And that is where I think Mizen was at, agreeing with Neil; HE was the finder, the carmen were mere messengers and not involved in any other capacity.
              Last edited by Fisherman; 10-30-2021, 12:01 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                Yes, I find it likely that he would have noted how Neil consistently denied that the carmen had been the finders of the body. However, I donīt think that Mizen would have thought that Neil denied their existence as such - he simply stated that he, not they, was the finder of the body.
                Of course, Neil knew nothing about any carmen at these stages, and so he WOULD have denied them specifically if asked. But from Mizens perspective, where the carman had proven his veracity by telling him about the phantom PC, interpreted as Neil by Mizen, the information would likely have read in another fashion. Whereas Neil actually meant "No, there were no carmen there, I was alone in finding her", this was not clearly established by what he said. At the inquest, he leaves the carmen out, and that is not the same as actively denying their existence, and in the interview on the 2nd, he simply says that it is not true that two men showed him to the body, becasue he found it himself. That does not actively deny that there WERE two men involved either - although not as the finders, according to Neil. And that is where I think Mizen was at, agreeing with Neil; HE was the finder, the carmen were mere messengers and not involved in any other capacity.
                The Lloyd’s of 2 September wrote:
                It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street.

                The first sentence is indeed in line with what how you suggest Mizen might have read it. However, the second leaves no room for what you suggest.

                If we then take a look at the newspapers carrying Neil’s inquest statement, we see that they all said something very similar to:
                I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and, seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance.

                Again, very little room, if any at all, to think that Neil send any men for assistance.

                And the Daily News of 3 September, for instance, wrote:
                There was a slaughterhouse near, in Winthorpe (sic) street, and two men who had been working there all night, and whom he knew well, came into Buck's row while the body was being put on the ambulance. They made no observation. With the exception of a man who had passed down Buck's row while the doctor was present, they were the first of the general public to arrive. They had just finished work, and were on their way home

                While others wrote:
                The first to arrive on the scene after I had discovered the body were two men who worked at a slaughter-house opposite.

                The Daily News makes it very clear that:
                1. The two men from the slaughterhouse were the first to arrive from the general public after Neil had found the body
                2. That they arrived after Mizen first arrived at the scene, as they arrived while the body was being put on the ambulance.
                Of course, it’s possible that Mizen hadn’t read these articles (with any great interest) and in so doing might have seen things the way you suggest he did, but – although not impossible either - I find it a bit hard to believe.


                "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                Comment


                • Hi Mark, all,

                  Originally posted by Mark J D View Post
                  Outraged resistance to Lechmere's candidacy has to be the single most brain-destroying obsession ever seen on these boards. I am, frankly, stunned to see the things people come out with.

                  Folks, look. If you are really, really committed to Druitt, Sickert and 'Probably We Shall Never Know', then *you keep them*. Seriously, they're yours. it's *no problem*..
                  Is this your first day on casebook?

                  It's what all theories have to go through for a couple of years or sometimes decades, gives them a good shake and helps to refine, revise or even revoke them, depending on the ability of the theorists to stop frowning and follow the discussion with open eyes to separate the wheat from the chaff. Not all of what gets posted is just stubborn opposition for opposition's sake, after all.

                  About the suspect status of Crossmere, I think that there are strong points worth following but also a considerable amount of weak points that need clarification, and this is what it's all about. I've been following the development of the Crossmere theory for some years now and actively took part in the discussion but even though I don't believe in a Jack The Carman yet, I will keep at it because the stronger points of the theory seem a bit more weighty to me than those of most other suspects.

                  Still, wasp's nest and all...mene mene tekel...

                  Grüße,

                  Boris
                  ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                    The Lloyd’s of 2 September wrote:
                    It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street.

                    The first sentence is indeed in line with what how you suggest Mizen might have read it. However, the second leaves no room for what you suggest.

                    The inquest testiminy is a bit different, though:
                    I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex Wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at her side, close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and, seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance.
                    Here, what seems tio be a continuous flow in the Lloyds article is divided up in quite another fashion. For example, it seems Neil flagged down Thain firt and Mizen afterwards - and we know that the two did not arrive at the same time, which they should have done if called simultaneously.
                    Of course, you are referring to what Mizen would have thought if he did read the specific wording you use. And I donīt think that he would think that there was no room for the carmen, becasue he KNEW that he and Thain were not signalled to the spot at the same time.
                    The sentence as such is not conclusive either. It only says that two policemen answered the signaling, but it does not say when. So although I see your point, it is once again about perspective.


                    If we then take a look at the newspapers carrying Neil’s inquest statement, we see that they all said something very similar to:
                    I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and, seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance.

                    Again, very little room, if any at all, to think that Neil send any men for assistance.

                    Again, that room is not defined. It seems small, but would Mizen have concluded that it was impossible?

                    And the Daily News of 3 September, for instance, wrote:
                    There was a slaughterhouse near, in Winthorpe (sic) street, and two men who had been working there all night, and whom he knew well, came into Buck's row while the body was being put on the ambulance. They made no observation. With the exception of a man who had passed down Buck's row while the doctor was present, they were the first of the general public to arrive. They had just finished work, and were on their way home

                    While others wrote:
                    The first to arrive on the scene after I had discovered the body were two men who worked at a slaughter-house opposite.

                    The Daily News makes it very clear that:
                    1. The two men from the slaughterhouse were the first to arrive from the general public after Neil had found the body
                    2. That they arrived after Mizen first arrived at the scene, as they arrived while the body was being put on the ambulance.
                    Of course, it’s possible that Mizen hadn’t read these articles (with any great interest) and in so doing might have seen things the way you suggest he did, but – although not impossible either - I find it a bit hard to believe.
                    You make an important point yourself here: How do we know that Mizen read the Daily News? We donīt. But even if we did know that, there of course remains the possibility that Mizen thought that Neil was speaking about the first members of the hyena crowd, if you take my meaning. Of course, that ws not what he said, but if we have a Jonas Mizen who had the carmans veracity corroborated by Neils presence at the murder site, then there is good reason to think that he interpreted the text so as to fit what he believed to be the facts. If he read it, that is.

                    Good points all over, but I think they can and must be countered.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by bolo View Post
                      Hi Mark, all,



                      Is this your first day on casebook?

                      It's what all theories have to go through for a couple of years or sometimes decades, gives them a good shake and helps to refine, revise or even revoke them, depending on the ability of the theorists to stop frowning and follow the discussion with open eyes to separate the wheat from the chaff. Not all of what gets posted is just stubborn opposition for opposition's sake, after all.

                      About the suspect status of Crossmere, I think that there are strong points worth following but also a considerable amount of weak points that need clarification, and this is what it's all about. I've been following the development of the Crossmere theory for some years now and actively took part in the discussion but even though I don't believe in a Jack The Carman yet, I will keep at it because the stronger points of the theory seem a bit more weighty to me than those of most other suspects.

                      Still, wasp's nest and all...mene mene tekel...

                      Grüße,

                      Boris
                      I have been here a good few years too, and I must say that I have never seen anything like the criticism directed towards the Lechmere theory. Donīt get me wrong; in a sense I like it, because it tells me that very many posters feel very threatened by it. However, to say that the treatment the theory is subjected to is par for the course is not true, if you ask me.

                      Then again, Iīm such a sensitive creature... (lol)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                        We might also add that if he was only known to the police as Mr Cross from MEOT, and the sheds were occupied by someone named Lechmere, his connection to it might not be immediately apparent.
                        This is speculation on your part. We do not even know if the sheds were occupied when the Pinchon Street remains were deposited. Charles Lechmere worked as a carman and later a grocer, so he had no need of a cats meat vendor shed. Police searched the whole neighborhood - if there was anything suspicious about either shed, they missed it.

                        There is no evidence that the Torso Killer used either of the nearby cats meat vendor sheds. If he did, renting them under his real name, especially if it was an unusual name, would have been stunningly stupid.



                        "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                        "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          You have a nasty habit of trying to elevate your own murky ideas to facts.
                          You win a lifetime achievement Irony Award for this post.

                          "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                          "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            I have been here a good few years too, and I must say that I have never seen anything like the criticism directed towards the Lechmere theory. Donīt get me wrong; in a sense I like it, because it tells me that very many posters feel very threatened by it.


                            Theories receive more criticism when they are bad theories.

                            Yours is a bad theory.

                            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                            "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                              This is speculation on your part. We do not even know if the sheds were occupied when the Pinchon Street remains were deposited. Charles Lechmere worked as a carman and later a grocer, so he had no need of a cats meat vendor shed. Police searched the whole neighborhood - if there was anything suspicious about either shed, they missed it.

                              There is no evidence that the Torso Killer used either of the nearby cats meat vendor sheds. If he did, renting them under his real name, especially if it was an unusual name, would have been stunningly stupid.


                              Of course it’s conjectural - that’s the nature of Ripperology.

                              We have a press article that speaks of a cats meat shop on the corner of Backchurch Lane and Cable Street on the day after the torso was found.

                              The Lechmere family were in the cats meat business for decades from - at least - 1891. The idea that the first time they ever handled the commodity was on the day the 1891 census was taken is taking speculation to ridiculous lengths.

                              CAL’s son was also a carman. He carried catsmeat on his cart.








                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                I have been here a good few years too, and I must say that I have never seen anything like the criticism directed towards the Lechmere theory. Donīt get me wrong; in a sense I like it, because it tells me that very many posters feel very threatened by it. However, to say that the treatment the theory is subjected to is par for the course is not true, if you ask me.

                                Then again, Iīm such a sensitive creature... (lol)
                                Fish, I think that you should acknowledge that it is possible to reject the Lechmere/Cross theory simply because some people honestly don't think that the evidence stacks up.

                                It has nothing to do with feeling "threatened" by your theory.

                                By saying that a large proportion of posters who publish postings criticising or rejecting your theory "feel very threatened" by it, simply gives your theory a certain gravitas that many folks genuinely don't think that it merits.


                                Last edited by barnflatwyngarde; 10-30-2021, 03:54 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X