Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

And the thing that often gets forgotten, the series of murders in Whitechapel and Spitalfields seemingly began within a few weeks of Lechmere moving to a new home which required him to walk through Whitechapel and Spitalfields in the early hours.

Lechmemre had been living in a home that required him to walk through Whitechapel and Spitalfields in the early hours since he first started employment at Pickfords, about 20 years before the Ripper murders started.

[FrankO]

"Alright" entails "Got it", though, does it not?

To me, “Got it” means “I understood it” while “Alright” means just “Okay”, “Good” or “Fine” and as a reply/reaction to what was said, “good” or “fine” doesn’t mean anything, the way I see it.

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.

Wasn’t there a regulation that could get police officers in trouble if they neglected to call up the local residents that morning?

[Mark J D]

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.

I know I can't leave the scenarios alone; but I'm genuinely torn between a Lechmere who pulls his dead stepfather's name out of the hat on the odd occasions when he needs a bit of teflon, and a Lechmere who carefully, consciously, slyly maintains a 'second identity' as 'Cross', under which all kinds of untraceable things can be done... After all, that one issue of The Star is not going to be widely traceable once it's gone for chip papers...

M.

[bolo]

Hey Fish,

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. Don´t 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, I´m such a sensitive creature... (lol)

I think Crossmere and your book get more attention because you developed parts of it in discussions in here so a great many members actively or passively took part in it and consequently have something to say about it.

Maybe the overall slightly more stinging tone is partly due to some comments in your book about Ripperology and what you perceive as a sober view of things.

Ah well, how does the old German saying go, viel Feind, viel Ehr'.

Grüße,

Boris

[Fisherman]

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.

If you by "rejected" mean "disliked" or "disbelieved in", I´d say that yes, all theories can be disliked or disbeleived in. The grounds for it will vary in quality.

You reason that people do not feel threatened by the theory.

I reason that many people do.

Very likely, one of us is correct.

[rjpalmer]

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. Don´t get me wrong; in a sense I like it, because it tells me that very many posters feel very threatened by it.

If this was true, then Ripperologists are also very threatened by the Maybrick Diary, Hallie Rubenhold, and the theories of Patricia Cornwell (though those once brutal criticisms have dried up since she never posts).

Sometimes people pick the low-hanging fruit for the simple reason that it is low-hanging.

[Fisherman]

To me, “Got it” means “I understood it” while “Alright” means just “Okay”, “Good” or “Fine” and as a reply/reaction to what was said, “good” or “fine” doesn’t mean anything, the way I see it.

Okay. Me, I think that when Mizen said "Alright!", it was a confirmation that he had got the message Lechmere conveyed.

Wasn’t there a regulation that could get police officers in trouble if they neglected to call up the local residents that morning?

Mizen denied that he proceeded to knock people up, he said that he only finished an errand that was already underway. That seems to tell us that he had more customers waiting to get knocked up, where he disobeyed that regulation you mention, if it was in place. The way I see things, Mizen reacted in a way that very much suggests that he had not been told that he could have a murder on his hands, and so I tend to think that this is in line with the suggestion that Charles Lechmere told Mizen lies.

[rjpalmer]

Hey Fish,

I think Crossmere and your book get more attention because you developed parts of it in discussions in here so a great many members actively or passively took part in it and consequently have something to say about it.

I think part of the appeal of the Lechmere theory is that the 'evidence,' such as it is, is on the table. Theorists can discuss the alleged blood evidence, the geography, Crossmere's testimony, etc. It tries to be a circumstantial case, and, in this sense, deals with the knowable and the concrete.


By contrast, even though a perfectly respectable person might want to argue that Kosminski or Druitt or Cutbush or the City suspect are more compelling suspects, the cases against them are largely abstractions. In the case of Kosminski, for instance, we have no idea what his movements were in 1888, nor what the 'evidence' against him may have been. How do you get worked up over an abstraction, even if it might be the right answer?

[Fisherman]

Hey Fish,



I think Crossmere and your book get more attention because you developed parts of it in discussions in here so a great many members actively or passively took part in it and consequently have something to say about it.

Maybe the overall slightly more stinging tone is partly due to some comments in your book about Ripperology and what you perceive as a sober view of things.

Ah well, how does the old German saying go, viel Feind, viel Ehr'.

Grüße,

Boris

As you may have gathered, I am not one to be easily stung, Boris. But I do think - and many have aired the same impression over the years - that there is a hysteria involved in the Lechmere debated that is rather unique.
There is also a tendency to claim the strangest things in the efforts to try and dismantle as much as people possibly can (which is nothing at all, but ...) of the Lechmere bid. Currently, this is shown by how people claim on this very thread that the carmans true name was not concealed by him...? No answer to whether it concealed itself or whether it was something somebody else did for him is given.

I consequently take your point on viel Feind, viel Ehr' as a very promising proverb indeed - I just wish that the quality of the Feinderei was sometimes a tad better...

[MrBarnett]

If this was true, then Ripperologists are also very threatened by the Maybrick Diary, Hallie Rubenhold, and the theories of Patricia Cornwell (though those once brutal criticisms have dried up since she never posts).

Sometimes people pick the low-hanging fruit for the simple reason that it is low-hanging.

Are you really comparing the resistance to The Five on here to that to the Lechmere theory?

[Fisherman]

I think part of the appeal of the Lechmere theory is that the 'evidence,' such as it is, is on the table. Theorists can discuss the alleged blood evidence, the geography, Crossmere's testimony, etc. It's tries to be a circumstantial case, and, in this sense, deals with the knowable and the concrete.


By contrast, even though a perfectly respectable person might want to argue that Kosminski or Druitt or Cutbush or the City suspect are more compelling suspects, the cases against them are largely abstractions. In the case of Kosminski, for instance, we have no idea what his movements were in 1888, nor what the 'evidence' against him may have been. How do you get worked up over an abstraction, even if it might be the right answer?

If you ask me, I don´t. What I can be envious of is how the Kosminkiites, Druittists and Cutbushers need not go through the trouble of proving anything at all. It´s all so very lofty: Anderson said it, so it must be right, MacNaghten said it, so who are we to doubt a MET bigwig, it was in the Sun, so it must be true. And then there is no need to even show that any of these gentlemen were within a mile of any of the murder sites.

Lechmere was at a murder site. Alone. With a victim. Who was freshly dead. The forensic pathologists tell me that she would likely have ended bleeding at around 3.48-3.50 if she was cut at 3.45. She bled until around 3.54. And Lechmere passed right through the killing fields on a daily basis. In the early mornings. On the Saturday evenings, he probaly didn´t - he was more likely to visit his old stomping grounds in St Georges then.

But he was not named by Anderson. He was not pointed to by MacNaghten. And he was not championed by the Sun.

He only has a shitload of very weighty circumstantial case-related evidence pointing in his direction, nothing more (see Scobie, James). Whereas the REAL suspects have nothing of the sort.

[Fisherman]

If this was true, then Ripperologists are also very threatened by the Maybrick Diary, Hallie Rubenhold, and the theories of Patricia Cornwell (though those once brutal criticisms have dried up since she never posts).

Sometimes people pick the low-hanging fruit for the simple reason that it is low-hanging.

Basically, I think ripperologists do feel queasy about the idea that their favourite riddle could one day be unriddled. Not that I find it likely that it will become so by the Maybrick nonsense, by Rubenholds misguided feminism or by Walter Sickerts anal problems.
But the fear certainly seems to be there on many hands. And of course, if you´ve been telling all and sundry that it is ridiculous to believe in a solution so long after the events, it will perhaps hurt if that prophecy is ... you know: threatened.

But the topic as such is a difficult one, not least since reliable numbers and statistics are as hard to come by as confessions...

[Mark J D]

If this was true, then Ripperologists are also very threatened by the Maybrick Diary, Hallie Rubenhold, and the theories of Patricia Cornwell (though those once brutal criticisms have dried up since she never posts).

Sometimes people pick the low-hanging fruit for the simple reason that it is low-hanging.

Anyone feel like showing me the posts where people have shrieked about "putting a noose around the neck of the innocent [Maybrick]!" or "throwing the [post-impressionist cosmopolitan artist] class under the bus!"...? Anybody...?

M.

[Fisherman]

Anyone feel like showing me the posts where people have shrieked about "putting a noose around the neck of the innocent [Maybrick]!" or "throwing the [post-impressionist cosmopolitan artist] class under the bus!"...? Anybody...?

M.

I don´t think you are going to get any response to that one, Mark. The kind of indignation that has followed upon the declaration that Lechmere was probably Jack the Ripper seems not to have been any prominent inclusion in these cases. And indeed, that heartfelt outrage seem not to have been a common inclusion in the criticism against any suspect - until Lechmere took the stage. I´m prepared to stand corrected on the matter, though.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Anyone feel like showing me the posts where people have shrieked about "putting a noose around the neck of the innocent [Maybrick]!" or "throwing the [post-impressionist cosmopolitan artist] class under the bus!"...? Anybody...?

M.

Well actually I have never believed in the so called diary from the start and have said so in the past on various Maybrick threads . As for Sickett another non starter .