Evidence of innocence

[drstrange169]

According to Booth, Doveton and James were pretty much on par.

The family rented, but there has been a suggestion that they may have rented Doveton from the Bostock's (Mrs L's family). Whether that's true or not I don't know.

[Mark J D]

I couldn't agree more, Mark. Why would CAL risk being seen around Berner Street by people who knew him, chatting up and then killing a prostitute, when he could do it more safely almost anywhere else?

Things like this really don't constitute the problem that your posts, with all their ill-concealed nastiness, try to paint them as.

M.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Things like this really don't constitute the problem that your posts, with all their ill-concealed nastiness, try to paint them as.

M.

Please explain how the "ill-concealed nastiness" of my posts constitute problems.

[Mark J D]

Please explain how the "ill-concealed nastiness" of my posts constitute problems.

That tactic doesn't work either.

M.

[Doctored Whatsit]

That tactic doesn't work either.

M.

It isn't a "tactic". I wish to clearly identify the "ill-conceived nastiness" of my various posts. I want to debate the implications of known facts fairly, openly and honestly. You don't think that I do this.

[Mark J D]

It isn't a "tactic". I wish to clearly identify the "ill-conceived nastiness" of my various posts. I want to debate the implications of known facts fairly, openly and honestly. You don't think that I do this.

This correspondence is closed.

M.

[drstrange169]

>> your posts, with all their ill-concealed nastiness <<

Says the poster who wrote variously,

"This is junk underserving of an adult's attention".

"It works like clockwork, folks: mention Lechmere's name, and someone, somewhere immediately feels the uncontrollable need to fabricate an objection to something..."

"I really, genuinely, can't be bothered with coppers' fantasies about what the police 'would have' done"

"literally every time I find an anti-Lechmerian bouncing on the furniture"

"Simply staggering. This is just 'response for response's sake', and it is pitiful. think Christer doesn't need to reply to this endlessly repeated garbage -- which, to be frank, no longer seems honest"

"My view is that anyone who wants it so much that they'll embarrass themselves in public should just be left to enjoy it..."

"You really were ... a policeman...? I'm right, aren't I...? I mean ... you actually *were*...? A real copper...?"

"<*boggle*...>"

"A measure, there, of Hallie Rubenhold's impact on both the methods and the ethics of Ripperology."

"... serious..." LOL"

[drstrange169]

It seems when the cracks appear in the Lechmerian theory, Lechmerians disappear, like cockroaches in a torch beam.

But that doesn't stop the reasonable questions being asked.

[JeffHamm]

According to Booth, Doveton and James were pretty much on par.

The family rented, but there has been a suggestion that they may have rented Doveton from the Bostock's (Mrs L's family). Whether that's true or not I don't know.

Ah, thanks for that. I should have thought to consult Booth, but areas of similar economic status might still viewed by locals as being of different qualities (good neighborhood vs bad neighborhood of similar economic value, or noise levels, etc). If his wife's family owned the previous property there are so many possible reasons for a move and not all would indicate an internal problem, such as something like he could afford a better place now (bigger maybe), and the family would charge a larger rent to a stranger bringing more money into the family - a win for all. Of course, that would depend upon it being correct that her family owned the place, which as you say, we don't know was the case.

- Jeff

[Mark J D]

It seems when the cracks appear in the Lechmerian theory, Lechmerians disappear, like cockroaches in a torch beam. But that doesn't stop the reasonable questions being asked.

I am easily able to distinguish a 'reasonable question' from an attempted time-wasting attack posing as a question.

M.

[drstrange169]

That's good to hear.

So, when someone says there are "100 or so" documents signed Lechmere, but will not produce evidence of their existence, is it reasonable to ask for proof?

Have you seem them?

Those seem reasonable questions to me, standard reasonable research practice I would have thought.

[drstrange169]

It seems that despite demanding that we should believe unconditionally in some of their claims, the Lechmerians posting here have now realised they don't even know whether the those claims are true.

We've finally reached a break though!

[drstrange169]

Evidence of innocence?

How about the fact that, despite years of trying, nobody can find anything guilty about him so some feel the need to "create" guilt.

[Fisherman]

Ah, but not only did Lechmere remain at the scene of crime, he approached the first witness on the scene, who was trying to avoid him, and took him to inspect the body! He also pulled some smoke & mirrors to make sure Paul never saw the freshly-made mutilations or the throat gash of his latest prey before agreeing to go and look for a copper.

I've never heard of anything so stupid in my life.

However, a retired leader of a murder squad, also an academic scholar in the filed of criminology, believes what you consider the stupidest things you have heard in your life are instead part ov a very good theory.

So it becomes a question of who is the more stupid judge, does it not? And who would be the more experienced fellow when it comes to looking at the behaviour of criminals.

Iīll leave it there.

[Fisherman]

“ And once the murders left Whitechapel, they instead took place in two other spots that he could be closely linked to. On a Saturday nIshtar.

what is the close link and the supporting evidence/opinion to confirm the close link.

thanks

Letīs dissect this post and see where it goes wrong in my humble opinion:

1. You claim that I "advertise" my book on these pages. Does that mean that thosw who have written a book must always be looked upon as people whose incentive to debate out here is to sell the book? Of course not - the suggestion is rude.

2. Once you add that suggestion to the claim that I have an agenda, it becomes even ruder.

3. The overall suggestion that I have an agenda for posting out here, is something that goes for all of us. We all have "the agenda" of making our respective stances known, but thatīs as far as it goes. That does not mean that you should claim that I would in any way be less morally justified to post out here that you are. You have just as much of an agenda as I have in this respect. I could also claim that your agenda is to try and vilify my stance by writing that it is led on by my having a agenda.
The agenda crap is just silly.

4. You write that I expect people to embrace my argument while I am not ready to embrace yours. Can you prove how I am in any way worse that yourself on this count?
If I expect anything from you, it is not that you will embrace my argument. It is instead that you will prtest against it, using argunets that are designed to make me look like the bad guy and you like the good one. Just like the "agenda" business and the "embracing my argument" ditto.

5. You claim that Abberline had evidence that Lechmere did not lie to Mizen, and that this is"a fact". That is in itself a lie. You are welcome to prove me wrong if you can.

6. You say that the evidence against Lechmere is not as trong as "some will claim it to be". Is that another "fact" or your own perception only?

7. You claim that there is something called "official evidence", but it seems to me that what you are talking about is an officially accepted view - that may be wrong, as has often been the case for officially accepted views over the years.

Apart from this, I find nothing wrong with the post. But I am not telling you to embrace that view of mine. You may be more inclined to call it an example of my agenda, perhaps?