Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All roads lead to Lechmere.

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

  • #61


    >>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 oneīs 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.




    Last edited by drstrange169; 07-27-2021, 06:51 AM.
    dustymiller
    aka drstrange

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Fiver View Post

      It easy to prove that Scobie was badly misinformed.

      Jame Scobie appears to have said ""He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols.. Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits. Lechmere then lied to the police and gave false details at the inquest. And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area. Wearing blood stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred."

      "He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols" - This statement is provably false. Robert Paul testified Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road".

      "Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits." - This statement is based on fudging the times. It starts by using 3:20am, the time Lechmere usually left for work, instead of 3:30am, the time Lechmere testified he left for work. It further fudges the time by assuming a ten minute walk would take 7 minutes or less. It fudges the time a third time by ignoring the time estimates of Lechmere and of all three of the first policemen to arrive in favor of the time estimate of Robert Paul.

      It also ignores that the Ripper inflicted far worse mutilations in Catherine Eddowes body in only about 10 minutes. If the Ripper had 18 minutes alone with Polly Nichols he could have inflicted all of the actual mutilations and been 10 minutes walk down the street by the time Robert Paul arrived. An 18 minute time gap contradicts the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper, interrupted in his work.

      "Lechmere then lied to the police..." - Lechmere's testimony contradicted PC Mizen's testimony. If that's proof that Lechmere was the Ripper, then it also proves Robert Paul was the Ripper, since he also contradicted PC Mizzen. This whole phrase is based on "guilty until proven innocent". It assumes that Lechmere was lying while completely ignoring the possibilities of Mizen lying or Mizen misunderstanding what Lechmere said.

      "...and gave false details at the inquest." - Lechmere gave no provably false details at the Inquest. He did use his stepfather's surname as he had done in 1876 in an accidental death case. It's not unusual for men to use a stepfather's surname. It is unusual for men to use a stepfather's surname part of the time and their father's surname part of the time, but Lechmere had started doing that at over a decade before the first Ripper murder. It does not prove that Lechemere "gave false details at the inquest", let alone that he was the Ripper.

      "And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area." - this statement is provably false. Charles Lechmere's family moved to the area at least 30 years before the Ripper killings began.

      "Wearing blood stained overalls..." - Carmen wore sack aprons. Nobody present at the time noticed bloodstains on Lechmere. Lechmere worked for Pickford's, not a meat packing plant, so a bloodstained apron would have been an occasional on-the-job hazard for those times he carried meat and it was improperly packed.

      "...his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred." - this statement is provably false. Lechmere's job placed him at one of the killings around the time that it occurred - Polly Nichols. Martha Tabram was killed near Lechmere's route to work and might have been killed while he was walking to work. Annie Chapman was killed while Lechmere was at work - he has an alibi. Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were not killed along Lechmere's route to work and they were not killed on work days.

      Scobie was clearly fed a mix of false information and opinion masquerading as facts. As the old computer saying goes - GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.
      Just a quickie to show why you should try and find another hobby:

      "He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols" - This statement is provably false. Robert Paul testified Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road".

      Robert Paul also said that Lechmere was "standing where the body was", which you seem to have forgotten.But regardless of what the various sources say, who says that Scobie can not have formed the opinion HIMSELF that Lechmere was "standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols" from the sources? Where exactly do you prove that Scobie was misled and misinformed? The simple truth is that you donīt and you canīt because you have not seen the material.

      "And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area." - this statement is provably false. Charles Lechmere's family moved to the area at least 30 years before the Ripper killings began.

      Charles Lechmere had moved into the Doveton Street area in mid June of 1888. Before he did, he lived in James Street, meaning that he had no reason at all to walk either Hanbury Street or Old Montague Street on his way to work. I know this makes you look rather stupid, but it really needed to be pointed out.

      "...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. Furthermore, if he HAD been give the information that Lechmere was present at the four sites at the time they occurred, then somebody would have alerted him to the fact that he had been lied to and he would in all probability have pressed charges against Blink Films. 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.

      So these were the three points you claim are not only provably false (which was not true, as we have seen) but also proof of how the material Scobie was given was not correct. Neither of these things are proven until you present the material and point out the flawed passages.

      The one thing that has been proven is that you cannot tell evidence and proof from your own behind. My suggestion is that you refrain from exercises you are not familar with in the first place. It can perhaps be a lack of understanding the English language that led you up this sorry path, what do I know - or wish to know?

      This represents the last answer I am going to give you for some lengthy time. I fully realize that it may be a fact that you consider clears the coast for you to produce more false allegations but that is a risk I prefer to live with. The reason is simple: although there are those cheering you on, they are not exactly the kind of posters that are considered credible by those read up on the case. So go ahead, Fiver, with your ripperology and I will go ahead with mine.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post

        Hopefully now that has been sorted we can return to sensible debate.
        We? I never left that path. But you are welcome to make your first efforts along it. For a change.
        Last edited by Fisherman; 07-27-2021, 07:06 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          Robert Paul also said that Lechmere was "standing where the body was", which you seem to have forgotten.But regardless of what the various sources say, who says that Scobie can not have formed the opinion HIMSELF that Lechmere was "standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols" from the sources? Where exactly do you prove that Scobie was misled and misinformed? The simple truth is that you donīt and you canīt because you have not seen the material.
          Saying that Lechmere was "standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols" is not an opinion. It was stated as fact, but it is provably false.

          I did not see the material that Scobie was given, but what he said is readily available. Several of the things that Scobie said are provably false. Several others are based on unproven assumptions.

          Which makes it easy to prove that Scobie was badly misinformed. I already posted evidence that Scobie was badly misinformed. Here it is again.

          Jame Scobie appears to have said ""He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols.. Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits. Lechmere then lied to the police and gave false details at the inquest. And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area. Wearing blood stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred."

          "He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols" - This statement is provably false. Robert Paul testified Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road".

          "Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits." - This statement is based on fudging the times. It starts by using 3:20am, the time Lechmere usually left for work, instead of 3:30am, the time Lechmere testified he left for work. It further fudges the time by assuming a ten minute walk would take 7 minutes or less. It fudges the time a third time by ignoring the time estimates of Lechmere and of all three of the first policemen to arrive in favor of the time estimate of Robert Paul.

          It also ignores that the Ripper inflicted far worse mutilations in Catherine Eddowes body in only about 10 minutes. If the Ripper had 18 minutes alone with Polly Nichols he could have inflicted all of the actual mutilations and been 10 minutes walk down the street by the time Robert Paul arrived. An 18 minute time gap contradicts the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper, interrupted in his work.

          "Lechmere then lied to the police..." - Lechmere's testimony contradicted PC Mizen's testimony. If that's proof that Lechmere was the Ripper, then it also proves Robert Paul was the Ripper, since he also contradicted PC Mizzen. This whole phrase is based on "guilty until proven innocent". It assumes that Lechmere was lying while completely ignoring the possibilities of Mizen lying or Mizen misunderstanding what Lechmere said.

          "...and gave false details at the inquest." - Lechmere gave no provably false details at the Inquest. He did use his stepfather's surname as he had done in 1876 in an accidental death case. It's not unusual for men to use a stepfather's surname. It is unusual for men to use a stepfather's surname part of the time and their father's surname part of the time, but Lechmere had started doing that at over a decade before the first Ripper murder. It does not prove that Lechemere "gave false details at the inquest", let alone that he was the Ripper.

          "And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area." - this statement is provably false. Charles Lechmere's family moved to the area at least 30 years before the Ripper killings began.

          "Wearing blood stained overalls..." - Carmen wore sack aprons. Nobody present at the time noticed bloodstains on Lechmere. Lechmere worked for Pickford's, not a meat packing plant, so a bloodstained apron would have been an occasional on-the-job hazard for those times he carried meat and it was improperly packed.

          "...his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred." - this statement is provably false. Lechmere's job placed him at one of the killings around the time that it occurred - Polly Nichols. Martha Tabram was killed near Lechmere's route to work and might have been killed while he was walking to work. Annie Chapman was killed while Lechmere was at work - he has an alibi. Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were not killed along Lechmere's route to work and they were not killed on work days.

          Scobie was clearly fed a mix of false information and opinion masquerading as facts. As the old computer saying goes - GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Charles Lechmere had moved into the Doveton Street area in mid June of 1888. Before he did, he lived in James Street, meaning that he had no reason at all to walk either Hanbury Street or Old Montague Street on his way to work. I know this makes you look rather stupid, but it really needed to be pointed out.
            Congratulations on attacking something that I never said. It doesn't exactly make you look clever, but it is another example of poor reading comprehension on your part. Your point shows that Charles Lechmere's route to work had recently changed, but neither I nor anyone else said that it didn't

            The Scobie claim was "And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area." - this statement is provably false.

            SuperShodan provided a helpful list in Post #32

            "1858 Holloway Street

            1859 Sion Square

            1861 Thomas Street

            1871 Mary Ann Street

            1881 James Street

            June 1888 Moved to Doveton Street

            1890 22 Doveton Stree
            t"

            Thomas Street was in the area. You treat it as being in the area when you try to hang the Pinchin Street Torso around Lechmere's neck.
            Mary Ann Street was in the area. You treat it as being in the area when you try to hang the Stride killing around Lechmere's neck.
            James Street was in the area.

            So the claim was "And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area." - is provably false.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post


              "...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?


              Last edited by Fiver; 07-27-2021, 10:06 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                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.

                Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #68
                  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.
                  Last edited by drstrange169; 07-27-2021, 10:23 PM.
                  dustymiller
                  aka drstrange

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    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.

                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        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.
                        Last edited by drstrange169; 07-28-2021, 09:02 AM.
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            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.


                            Last edited by Newbie; 07-31-2021, 09:14 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post

                              >>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 oneīs 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.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                >> ... 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.
                                dustymiller
                                aka drstrange

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X