All roads lead to Lechmere.

[Elamarna]

Make that statement on Casebook, without mentioning Lechmere's name and a significant number of posters will assume you are talking about Diemshitz. Check it out

This is a Lechmere thread and your comparisons are not useful. That game can be played to exonerate any suspect....it is easy. A significant number of posters make many claims; i'm sure some are convinced Jack the Ripper was a phantasm; again, for the sake of this thread, that is irrelevant. You can either respond to other posters suspicions about Lechmere's actions, or ignore them entirely. Running around and attempting to put a wet blanket over everything related to Lechmere is dull.

Everything about Lechmere's known actions that morning are peculiar. One cannot say that that makes him the killer; one can say that there is quite enough to sway a reasonable person that there was some degree of dishonesty in his actions and testimony. Why did Lechmere testify to first hearing Paul coming, while Paul makes no mention of hearing someone walking half a football field ahead of him for over a minute? Paul gives the sense that he was unaware of someone in front, and then suddenly saw Lechmere. If Lechmere was the killer, his first perception of Paul would have been auditory - but from farther away; it quite possibly would have been fixated in his brain so that he incorporated it into his testimony. He said that he saw the body, stopped, moved leftward towards the center, suddenly heard footsteps and then turned around and saw Paul. It sounds a bit contrived if you ask me....why so much detail? The killer would have purposefully chose a dark morning and would have depended on auditory information for his escape while he made the incisions. Based on the position of Nichols body, his ears would have been aligned parallel to the street and initially would have had no way of knowing from which direction the sounds were coming (sound waves entering both ears simultaneously). His mistake! Which way do you flee? If it was Lechmere, he would have had the added disadvantage of his accoutrements.... which to some degreein identified the killers trade if spotted. Paul, a fellow delivery man would surely know. All the more reason to bluff it and then follow Paul in search of a PC, instead of pretending to remain behind with the body. It wouldn't be that difficult for a half way competent police department to track him down. Everything he did and said about that morning are consistent with what the killer would have done. Consider his testimony about the side of the street from which he approached the body being opposite to the typical flow of traffic. The murder was committed on the left hand side of the street...perfectly consistent with a murderer picking up Nichols on White Chapel, heading down Brady, taking a left on Bucks row, proceeding up Bucks row some bit, strangling her, and then planning to head towards Pickford'd afterwards. If the killer and Nichols came from the other direction (and could find shadows to conduct business), the kiling would have taken place on the right hand side of the street. By itself, not a big deal...but even this little detail is consistent with the notion of Lechmere as the killer. In fact, every little action is consistent with what an intelligent killer might do; and Lechmere was an intelligent guy.

So much speculation, presented as fact, he would do this, he would do that.

But let's look at a few specific points.

Firstly using left and right side of the street is directionally dependent, why not simply say North or South. Small point .

You say if the killer picked Nichols up in the Whitechapel road and entered Bucks Row via Brady street the killing would occurr on the left (south side) but if the killer and Nichols came from the West it would be on the right( north)?

Why do you assume this, because it is simply an assumption.
If they entered Bucks Row from the Whitechapel road via Thomas or Court streets or Woods Buildings they reach Bucks Row from the South, there is no reason to assume when entering Bucks Row they would cross to the northern side, yes they could do, why do you assume they would?


Lechmere was an intelligent guy?

That's simply an ASSUMPTION on your part.
He might have been, but we don't KNOW that.

What is clear is that ever action taken by Lechmere, you view as suspicious.

[Abby Normal]

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long Alfred Crow was alone with Mrs Tabram.

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long Louis Deimshitz was alone with Mrs Stride.

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long PC Watkins was alone with Catharine Eddowes.

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long “Indian Harry” was alone with Mary Kelly.

It would seem that not being able to establish how long the finder was with the body is is standard not unusual. And ALL the named above have been accused of being the killer.

These are all false dichotomies: the inference is that since everyone now considers these people to be innocent, Lechmere should be likewise considered innocent. No one (i hope) is claiming that since Lechmere discovered the body first and that there is no verifiable way to determine how briefly he was with the body, he should be considered a prime Ripper suspect. There is a lot that is dodgy about his actions and statements that should attract interest.

If you have more evidence about Louis Delmshitz's (or the others) suspect behavior shortly after their discovery, or at an inquest, please share it with us. Each should be treated independently.

correct newbie! not only that but none of the above were seen with the victim before raining any alarm. and with some easy research im pretty sure it can be established within good reason how long they were all alone, for example bowyer had been sent to collect marys rent so probably could be verified from mccarthy, watkins on a beat etc.

now that being said, im a big fan of witness suspects, like hutch, lech and richarsdon, because all were alone with the victim near tod, and all have dodgy stories. i think these are the types of people who need more looking into, as opposed to suspects pulled from the air like the mad jew suspects, jacob levy, etc.

[Newbie]

>> ... the inference is that since everyone now considers these people to be innocent, Lechmere should be likewise...<<

It would help if you read some of the posts here over the years, and in some cases threads still going, where all the above have been listed by people as serious, even prime, ongoing suspects.

All, like Lechmere, without any actual proof of guilt. My comparison stands because they are all treated by their modern accusers to the same, "what if's", "could haves", "might have and "should be's" as Lechmere.


>There is a lot that is dodgy about his actions and statements that should attract interest.<<

Make that statement on Casebook, without mentioning Lechmere's name and a significant number of posters will assume you are talking about Diemshitz. Check it out.

Make that statement on Casebook, without mentioning Lechmere's name and a significant number of posters will assume you are talking about Diemshitz. Check it out

This is a Lechmere thread and your comparisons are not useful. That game can be played to exonerate any suspect....it is easy. A significant number of posters make many claims; i'm sure some are convinced Jack the Ripper was a phantasm; again, for the sake of this thread, that is irrelevant. You can either respond to other posters suspicions about Lechmere's actions, or ignore them entirely. Running around and attempting to put a wet blanket over everything related to Lechmere is dull.

Everything about Lechmere's known actions that morning are peculiar. One cannot say that that makes him the killer; one can say that there is quite enough to sway a reasonable person that there was some degree of dishonesty in his actions and testimony. Why did Lechmere testify to first hearing Paul coming, while Paul makes no mention of hearing someone walking half a football field ahead of him for over a minute? Paul gives the sense that he was unaware of someone in front, and then suddenly saw Lechmere. If Lechmere was the killer, his first perception of Paul would have been auditory - but from farther away; it quite possibly would have been fixated in his brain so that he incorporated it into his testimony. He said that he saw the body, stopped, moved leftward towards the center, suddenly heard footsteps and then turned around and saw Paul. It sounds a bit contrived if you ask me....why so much detail? The killer would have purposefully chose a dark morning and would have depended on auditory information for his escape while he made the incisions. Based on the position of Nichols body, his ears would have been aligned parallel to the street and initially would have had no way of knowing from which direction the sounds were coming (sound waves entering both ears simultaneously). His mistake! Which way do you flee? If it was Lechmere, he would have had the added disadvantage of his accoutrements.... which to some degree identified the killers trade if spotted. Paul, a fellow delivery man would surely know. All the more reason to bluff it and then follow Paul in search of a PC, instead of pretending to remain behind with the body. It wouldn't be that difficult for a half way competent police department to track him down. Everything he did and said about that morning are consistent with what the killer would have done. Consider his testimony about the side of the street from which he approached the body being opposite to the typical flow of traffic. The murder was committed on the left hand side of the street...perfectly consistent with a murderer picking up Nichols on White Chapel, heading down Brady, taking a left on Bucks row, proceeding up Bucks row some bit, strangling her, and then planning to head towards Pickford'd afterwards. If the killer and Nichols came from the other direction (and could find shadows to conduct business), the kiling would have taken place on the right hand side of the street. By itself, not a big deal...but even this little detail is consistent with the notion of Lechmere as the killer. In fact, every little action is consistent with what an intelligent killer might do; and Lechmere was an intelligent guy.

[drstrange169]

Correctamondo!

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

[I][B]>>


>There is a lot that is dodgy about his actions and statements that should attract interest.<<

Make that statement on Casebook, without mentioning Lechmere's name and a significant number of posters will assume you are talking about Diemshitz. Check it out.

Hutchinson surely? Hanging about outside Millers Court, not appearing for days after? No, Richardson, with his dubious shoe story! Or Schwartz with his pipe wielding pursuer?

[drstrange169]

>> ... the inference is that since everyone now considers these people to be innocent, Lechmere should be likewise...<<

It would help if you read some of the posts here over the years, and in some cases threads still going, where all the above have been listed by people as serious, even prime, ongoing suspects.

All, like Lechmere, without any actual proof of guilt. My comparison stands because they are all treated by their modern accusers to the same, "what if's", "could haves", "might have and "should be's" as Lechmere.


>There is a lot that is dodgy about his actions and statements that should attract interest.<<

Make that statement on Casebook, without mentioning Lechmere's name and a significant number of posters will assume you are talking about Diemshitz. Check it out.

[Newbie]

>>Therefore, can we please stop reiterating it in the guise of a fact? It is fine to say "Personally, I am disinclined to believe that … but I understand that I may be wrong”<<

And with the above statement Christer wins the “most hypocritical post in this thread” award. Read on.



>>If we could then abstain from claiming things like "Trevor found out that Scobie was misinformed”<<

Note the quotation marks around “Trevor found out that Scobie was mis informed”. Indisputably it's meant to be a direct quote, but who said it? Nobody in this thread did, so why is Christer claiming they did?

In post#4, I wrote,

“But, Scobie, according to Trevor, was misled.” (my added emphasis)

When I wrote it I chose my words very carefully. I did not claim Trevor was correct, because I do not know, just as I don't know whether Christer is correct. I was simply pointing out it is disputed and should be considered a defined fact. My sentence was factually correct as defined by the English Oxford Dictionary,

“a thing that is known to be true, especially when it can be proved” O.E.D.

So can I prove,

“But, Scobie, according to Trevor, was misled.”

is a factual statement?

Yes.
On this site in threads titled “The Lechmere trail so far”, post number 254, also in a "Window of Time for Nichols murder," posts #200, #203, plus "What Makes Aaron Kosminski a Viable Suspect?", posts #62, #82 and numerous other posts on this site.
Ergo, my sentence is indisputably factually correct.

So why did Christer alter the wording to make it appear I was writing something else with a totally different meaning? Where is the phrase he quoted written? Can he prove it to be factually correct?

Accidentally paraphrasing someone is one thing, We’ve probably all done it sometime in our lives, but deliberately misquoting someone to denigrate them, is quite another thing all together.



>>He had been alone in her company for a period of time that cannot be established. That puts him way ahead of any of the so called police suspects of the time - and just about anybody else too for that matter.<<

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long Alfred Crow was alone with Mrs Tabram.

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long Louis Deimshitz was alone with Mrs Stride.

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long PC Watkins was alone with Catharine Eddowes.

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long “Indian Harry” was alone with Mary Kelly.

It would seem that not being able to establish how long the finder was with the body is is standard not unusual. And ALL the named above have been accused of being the killer.

Surely by Christer's requested guidelines he should have written,
"Personally, I am inclined to believe that that puts him way ahead of any of the so called police suspects of the time - and just about anybody else too for that matter, but I understand that I may be wrong”



>>No other suspect has such a correlation with the victims. Nowhere even close. <<

Deimshitz and co: Strong links to Bucks Row, strong links to Hanbury Street, strong links to Mitre Square and THE strongest link of ALL suspects to Berner Street.

Jacob Levy: lived in the street where profilers have named the street most likely to be the ripper’s address.
Aaron Kosminski's relatives lived almost on top of the murder site in Berner St.

If had had more time I could probably think of more.

Surely by Christer's requested guidelines he should have written,

“"Personally, I am disinclined to believe that no other suspect has such a correlation with the victims. Nowhere even close, but I understand that I may be wrong”



>>Apart from this, we have the name change, <<

Again where is Christer's qualifiers? Can you PROVE he “changed” name rather than gave one he used at work? Surely he should have written,

“ Personally, I am inclined to believe that he changed his name, but I understand that I may be wrong”




>>the fact that Nichols bled for many a minute after Lechmere left her<<

Given that only living people bleed whereas dead people leak and there is conflicting expert medical opinion, surely Christer should have written,

“ Personally, I am inclined to believe that Nichols bled for many a minute after Lechmere left her, but I understand that I may be wrong”



>>the fact that Lechmere should not even have been in Bucks Row at 3.40 - 3.45 if his given times were correct, <<

Yet again, shouldn’t that read,

“Personally, I am inclined to believe that Lechmere should not even have been in Bucks Row at 3.40 - 3.45, but I understand that I may be wrong”



>>the correlation between the Goulston Street rag and his home and so on.<<

Jacob Levy’s mother and sister lived in the building, you don’t get a better ”correlation” than that. Actually on second thoughts you do. The man that sent Levy to prison had a shop in Goulston Street and he was Jewish!



>> And that is why we get accusations of foul play when it comes to James Scobie; if, as Scobie said, there is a case good enough to take to court, suggesting that Lechmere was the killer, then of course he can never be a bad suspect. On the contrary, he must be a stellar suspect.<<

Hang on, didn’t I just read Christer rubbishing a highly qualified expect from the F.B.I on a facebook group over claims about their opinion? Isn’t Trevor Marriott an ex-policeman? Did a world renowned scientist claim Kosminski and Catherine Eddowes’s D.N.A. was on a shawl? Didn’t the second in charge of the actual investigation claim the killer’s identity was a known fact to him? Doesn’t just about every suspect have an “expert” to “stellarise” their claim?

Surely Christer should have written .... well, you get it the idea.

Has Christer supplied an exact list of what Scobie was given to judge from? That would certainly end any speculation about the matter.



>>And so, we are ready to slander before we admit the simple truth that Lechmere is with great certainty the killer of Polly Nichols and most likely also a serial killer.<<

Surely it’s a claim of libel not slander and surely it’s just your opinion, not a fact that, “Lechmere is with great certainty the killer of Polly Nichols and most likely also a serial killer.”



>>Of course, the only thing to do when faced with such matters is to demand proof.<<

BINGO!!!
Can and will Christer’ provide “proof” to all the above? I'm betting he won't and he'll come up with one of his normal excuses and/or diversions to avoid doing so.



>>Which has been done, of course. Several times, and - of course - with nothing produced in return.<<

Christer has not and cannot “prove” that Lechmere was a serial killer and nobody else can “prove” he wasn’t.



>>Does that mean that the slander goes away? <<

He means libel, but facts and details have always been Christer’s weakness.



>>I say that the ones resorting to such things are the underbelly of ripperology and devoid of any sort of credibility <<

Bingo again!


>>- if one is ready to go to such lengths, then one has burnt one´s ships in the measliest of ways. There are no two ways about it. The underbelly of ripperology, end of. <<


Could not agree more, inventing a fictitious quote is indeed the underbelly of this research subject. Ditto hypocritical posts.

On the other other hand, have my posts here been proven wrong or misleading?

I await, but I suspect in vain, for Christer to show “proof” that someone in this thread or any thread on Casebook wrote,"Trevor found out that Scobie was misinformed”

I had a similar exchange with Christer's partner in crime, the man who uses the alias Ed Stow and his greek chorus, claiming it was illegal for Lechmere to use the name Cross. When I showed them proof it wasn't and challenged them to to cite any legal reason that it was illegal, they changed the subject for a couple of posts and then disappeared into the cyber ether.

And so it ever is with the main Lechmereites, they shout a lot, they cry a lot, but when you ask them to back it up, they are off and away.

Hopefully now that has been sorted we can return to sensible debate.

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long Alfred Crow was alone with Mrs Tabram.

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long Louis Deimshitz was alone with Mrs Stride.

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long PC Watkins was alone with Catharine Eddowes.

Fact: it cannot be “established” how long “Indian Harry” was alone with Mary Kelly.

It would seem that not being able to establish how long the finder was with the body is is standard not unusual. And ALL the named above have been accused of being the killer.

These are all false dichotomies: the inference is that since everyone now considers these people to be innocent, Lechmere should be likewise considered innocent. No one (i hope) is claiming that since Lechmere discovered the body first and that there is no verifiable way to determine how briefly he was with the body, he should be considered a prime Ripper suspect. There is a lot that is dodgy about his actions and statements that should attract interest.

If you have more evidence about Louis Delmshitz's (or the others) suspect behavior shortly after their discovery, or at an inquest, please share it with us. Each should be treated independently.

[Newbie]

How can you walk a route that doesn't exist anymore?

Bath Street between Collingswood and Brady would have been an essential part of Lechmere's walk to work. It 's been underneath a Sainsbury's for nearly three decades.


The old route was actually longer than Fisherman's timed route: add back some time for the heavier shoes and 7 minutes seems about right. The entire walk to Pickford's was about 1.8 miles: 30 minutes is a reasonable time to get there, and a 3:30 am departure seems about right.

The 3:20 departure time was reported by only one newspaper during the inquest (the one who provided Lechmere's address).
Whether Lechmere was innocent or guilty, he would have stated a time that conformed to PC Oneil's time of encountering the body.
I put little stock in the stated time of departure - it was either correct or incorrect.

[Fiver]

The reason is that there are too many posters with lacking insights and manners taking part in the debates out here....

That's a rather ironic position for you to take.

"You should try and find another hobby."- Fisherman

"I know this makes you look rather stupid." - Fisherman

"You cannot tell evidence and proof from your own behind." - Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Sorry to see you go, but if you won't take responsibility for what you put in your posts you can't expect people to react otherwise than how they have. It's a bit rich blaming Fiver for his posts when you've blatantly invented quotes in an attempt to denigrate people and then failed to acknowledge what you've done. To pretend to take some high moral ground when you've done something as fundamentally dishonest as that is insulting to the everyone here. Would be better if you reassessed your past few posts and let people remember you for a higher note than this, which I'm certain you are capable of doing.

[Fisherman]

I just pointed out on anoter thread that I am leaving Casebook for some time. The reason is that there are too many posters with lacking insights and manners taking part in the debates out here, and just like you are never going to be able to explain things to a drunken crowd pissing on the lawn why they are wrong, I am not spending any more time on a number of posters out here, telling them why they are equally wrong. Before I go: I just watched what Scobie really said in the docu, and realized that the three "points" Fiver brought up and said were proof that Scobie was misled, were actually matters Scobie said not a iot about! They were all things that the film team worded. But that did not stop Fiver from mentioning them as if it was proven that the material James Scobie was handed involved these exact wordings.

To call that kind of methodology "doubtful" does not even beegin to cover it. To call it "deceitful" does not cover it. To call it a mockery of what a debate should be about does not cover it. In fact, being as lost for words as I am, not being born an Englishman, I fail to find any terms that do cover it, and that will not have the administrators of the boards getting their hearts beating arythmically.

But the saddest thing of all is that I am not surprised in any way. Because this is exactly how the debate is conducted by some elements out here. It is exactly how some distinctly weird thinking is passed off as truths out here on a general basis.

On that other thread, Jeff Hamm has done his best to tone down these rhetorics and explained to posters that they need to be a lot better read up before commenting. Kudos to him for that, and my sympathies to those out here who make balanced and informed posts about why they do not think Lechmere did it - to carry the kind of material some of the less knowledgeable and more aggressive posters contribute here in the collective naysayer rucksack is no easy thing! I pity great posters like Frank van Oploo, Gary Barnett, Etenguy etcetera, people with a genuine interest in the case and with knowledge to match it; the least thing they need is to be cheered on by an ignorant mob. It detracts - steals! - from their oiverall credibility and they do not deserve it. Meaning that if the less well read up and less able debaters really want the Lechmere theory to be given sound and useful criticism, then the best thing they could do would be to go away and let the ones who are better equipped to handle things do so.

Now, where were we? Ah, yes - I am going away for some time.

[drstrange169]

The thing to remember Fiver is that Scobie's views, like all experts in light entertainment shows, are meaningless to serious research. He is just someone Christer and some others use to muddy the waters and deceive the gullible. Christer is quite happy to critique experts who appeared on other shows, but becomes precious when his tv pet expert edited opinions are questioned.

Experts are only useful to serious research if they are asked specific questions relating to their fields of expertise. And only then when those questions and FULL answers are available for all to review. His appearance on the tv show was like buying a hundred piece jigsaw with seventy five pieces missing.

Despite numerous requests over the years for Christer to supply a detailed list of what Scobie was given and what he said, nothing has been forthcoming, therefore any claims of Scobie that he seeks to promote are valueless. It's as simple as that.

[drstrange169]

As I predicted, Christer has distanced himself from proving his point. And as it always ends up, some Lechmerites make something up, are challenged to prove their claims, only to run away from them.

This is the very reason the "Lechmere is jtr" theory cops so much flack. Not because there aren't some reasonable questions to be asked about him. But, that some of those that try to fit him up for the crimes, do so by manipulating or faking stories. What's at issue here is Christer's credibility. Did he simply make up that quote? If so why? And if it is an error on his part why won't he acknowledge it? If it was made up, how many other things have been made that go unacknowledged?

Sadly, through social media we now live in a world where this kind of thing abounds and truth and acountability have become accepted by some as an optional extra.

[Fiver]

Scobie also say "the timings really have him" or something like that, and since we do not know the exact timings, we really cannot be sure that this is true - but it was nevertheless an opinion Scobie formed, presumably going on his own take that there are only so many coincidences that can be accepted before it becomes one coincidence too many.

I see you still don't understand what the word 'coincidence' means.

Scobie appears to have also said:

"The timings really hurt him because she could have been very very recently fatally killed. You can inflict injuries, as I'm sure a pathologist will tell you, with a knife in seconds and the question is, "where were you?" "what were you doing during that time?" Because actually he has never given a proper answer. He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way, behaving in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. A jury would not like that. When the coincidences add up, mount up against a defendant, and they mount up in this case, it becomes one coincidence too many. The fact that there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of which he is linked geographically and physically, you add all those points together, piece it all together and the prosecution have the most probative powerful material the courts use against individual suspects. What we would say is that he has got a prima facie case to answer which means there is a case good enough to put before a jury which suggests that he was the killer."

I haven't see the quote before, but David Orsam refuted it back in 2017.

So why does Scobie think there is a good case against Lechmere?

Point 1 The timings "really hurt him".

Point 2 Following directly on from point 1, he has never given a proper answer as to where he was or what he was doing.

Point 3 - Following directly on from point 2, he was behaving suspiciously.

Point 4 He is linked geographically and physically to a pattern or area of offending.

Those are the only reasons given.

Point 1 is based on wrong information. Point 2 is not correct. It follows that Point 3 is unsustainable. Point 4 is baffling and, in any case, not something that existed at the time of the Nichols murder.

Although Scobie refers to "coincidences" he doesn't identify any of them in the case against Lechmere and it is said in the context of a general statement.

So there is more evidence that Scobie was given incorrect or misleading information. Though it is interesting how Scobie parrots you about coincidences.

[Fiver]

"...his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred." - this statement is provably false.

... but it is nevertheless something that Scobie could have chosen to conclude all on his own, and not something that would necessarily have been worded in that way in the material he was given.

Good to see you at least admit that the claim that "...his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred" is provably false.

If Scobie was given true information, how could he have possibly come to this false conclusion?