A Cross by any other name...smells like JtR?

[Lechmere]

As we know Major Bullocks was of course outranked by Colonel Francis Charles Hughes-Hallett.

[MrBarnett]

Simon,

You forgot the one that best describes the Lechmere theory - the dog's bollocks!

MrB

[DVV]

Have you ever been wrong, David? On anything at all? No?

Well, thereīs your answer for you then!

Fisherman
6 ft 4

Problem is that I don't remember you seriously considering the possibility of Smith being a Ripper victim. As for Tabram, hem...., you firmly believed in the famous bayonet.... soldiers ? I think so, but can't remember exactly...and we owe you the unforgettable Scavenger theory...

Now that you've discovered Lechmere-the-Ripper, every piece of the puzzle has to be interpreted accordingly.
Emma Smith, Martha Tabram, the Pinchin Street torso ? Lechmere !
What a strange method.

6'4 ? Then you must weight 60 kg to be healthy.

Cheers

[Lechmere]

Mr Barnett
On Charles Lechmere’s record keeping.
I don’t think I have referred to it as obsessive.
However I think it does show attention to detail.
It isn’t the biggest of big deals in so far as this case goes, but in comparison to everyone else who I have looked at, his records are by far the most complete.
I think something can be read into an individual’s nature by such things.
For example George Hutchinson, the guy who saw Kelly with a posh looking man just before she was killed, is almost certainly the man known as Toppy Hutchinson. In comparison to Charles Lechmere he was a slob. Living as a lodger until he was quite old, hardly ever on the electoral register, hit and miss whether he baptised his children. He comes across from what we know of him as a relaxed raconteur, dining out on his Ripper experiences and probably conning the police out if a few shillings.
Lechmere comes across as button up and ‘proper’ – ‘Yes siring’ the coroner at the inquest.
He must have been hard working and frugal – as shown by his shops and his probate entry.

On the school change. Yes he will have to have arranged it in advance for his children to be registered (I think five were with him and of school age at the time) at the new school.

My experience of living in the East End (obviously 100 years later) is that most people I knew would have moved first and then registered at the new school, and would have had the kids help with the move and not been particularly rapid about re-registering either. As most were not very education orientated. And that was after over a hundred years of compulsory education.
That he had them registered to start the day after he left his old house implies that they started school that day.

[Lechmere]

A few other answers

Tabram was killed on the night after a Bank Holiday – in the hours of the morning of a work day.

I have previously been reluctant to include Emma Smith. However Tom Wescott’s recent book (which I am actually very critical of in his conclusions and flimsy connections) encouraged me to reassess her murder. She did not die outright and probably had no idea she was about to die. As she may well have been attacked while soliciting she may have drawn a veil over this by saying she wasn’t and that she was the subject of an unprovoked gang attack.
So I would not just eliminate her from the list.

Do we know that the killer of Chapman had blood on his clothing? No we don’t.
Can we can say for sure that Philips was wrong? No we can’t.

Lynn
Read Lechmere’s testimony with a view to him being guilty and you will be able to determine where he lied and where he did not.

[Patrick S]

Read Lechmere’s testimony with a view to him being guilty and you will be able to determine where he lied and where he did not.

Read his testimony with a view of him being guilty? And you think this is reasonable? This is exactly the issue with Lechmere as a "suspect". In order to take him seriously you must view him as guilty going in to even entertain the idea.

He brilliantly bluffs his way out of trouble, because he's a psychopath. We must view him as a psychopath in order to see the brilliance of his deception. If we don't, we just see a man acting with no consciousness of guilt. Nothing in the man's life indicates he was a psychopath - other than baseless accusations that he was Jack the Ripper, of course. What? He kept detailed records? He seems a buttoned-up, proper gentleman who called people, sir? All a ruse! Why? Because he was a killer. Do you not see? You see all these things because you see him as a murderer first. Therefore, everything you learn about him subsequently just serves to underscore what you believe. For those who don't examine him with a 'view of him being guilty', well.....we don't see what you see.

[Lechmere]

Yes it is very reasonable, in fact it is the correct approach to adopt.
If you were conducting an investigation into a potential suspect now you would view his behaviour through a lens conditioned by experience of such killers - who tend to be psychopaths. Therefore you would judge his behaviour against that bench mark.
Similarly you would look at his statements to see what they look like if he was guilty.
You certainly wouldn't just uncritically accept what they say.
If that were the case then how many criminals would be caught?
Try doing it with the other witnesses and see how far you get.

[Patrick S]

Yes it is very reasonable, in fact it is the correct approach to adopt.
If you were conducting an investigation into a potential suspect now you would view his behaviour through a lens conditioned by experience of such killers - who tend to be psychopaths. Therefore you would judge his behaviour against that bench mark.
Similarly you would look at his statements to see what they look like if he was guilty.
You certainly wouldn't just uncritically accept what they say.
If that were the case then how many criminals would be caught?
Try doing it with the other witnesses and see how far you get.

If you don't assume he is a murderer, what do you have - within the Nichols investigation or Lechmere's life overall - that leads you to believe he's a psychopath? Investigators DO NOT view witness testimony with the assumption that normal behavior is abhorrent because the witness IS a psychopath.

[Fisherman]

Problem is that I don't remember you seriously considering the possibility of Smith being a Ripper victim. As for Tabram, hem...., you firmly believed in the famous bayonet.... soldiers ? I think so, but can't remember exactly...and we owe you the unforgettable Scavenger theory...

Now that you've discovered Lechmere-the-Ripper, every piece of the puzzle has to be interpreted accordingly.
Emma Smith, Martha Tabram, the Pinchin Street torso ? Lechmere !
What a strange method.

6'4 ? Then you must weight 60 kg to be healthy.

Cheers

One pointing out will tell the story: I have never "firmly belived in the old bayonet".
Not once have I said that I think a bayonet must have been used on Tabram. Never.

I have always stated that a sturdy dagger or dagger-like weapon was what was thrust through Tabrams sternum.

Your claim is wildly and pathetically wrong, thus.

Guess what it does to your overall credibility, David? What is left of it, I mean.

I could go on demolishing the rest of your post too, but I really feel inferior when it comes to thrashing it. You do it so much better yourself.

Now, Iīll just sit back and wait for you to wade through all of the Tabram material and find a post where I have said that I am of the meaning that she must have been killed by a bayonet. Surely, you will bolster what you said, and surely you can?

You may find posts where I donīt exclude a bayonet - bayonets are sometimes dagger-like, sturdy weapons, and they vary much in appearance. I may have corrected people who have said that she could not have been subjected to a bayonet, for that she could.

But you will not find a single where I propose that she must have been.

Oh, dear.

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Patrick
Obviously I have no evidence from his life to suggest Lechmere was a psychopath.
That isn't the point.
The killer was almost certainly a psychopath however.
So if a suspect - in this instance Lechmere - does something or it is suggested that he may have done something for a particular reason, a common refrain is 'oh that's not likely, he wouldn't have done that', but he would have if he was the killer and a psychopath. That is the point.
And as we should be looking for a psychopath in a case such as this - which isn't a normal crime - testimony should be critically evaluated with an eye to the person lying and being a psychopath.
Otherwise you would never catch the culprit - which was of course the case.
The thing about psychopaths is that you don't know someone is one until after they have done something which causes them to be unmasked and most pass undiagnosed.
There are several features in Lechmere's life which are commonly found in murderous psychopaths and which I have mentioned before. Of course these are not proofs that he was a psychopath, just that he had the preconditions within which murderous psychopaths often gestate.

[DVV]

One pointing out will tell the story: I have never "firmly belived in the old bayonet".
Not once have I said that I think a bayonet must have been used on Tabram. Never.

I have always stated that a sturdy dagger or dagger-like weapon was what was thrust through Tabrams sternum.

Your claim is wildly and pathetically wrong, thus.

Guess what it does to your overall credibility, David? What is left of it, I mean.

I could go on demolishing the rest of your post too, but I really feel inferior when it comes to thrashing it. You do it so much better yourself.

Now, Iīll just sit back and wait for you to wade through all of the Tabram material and find a post where I have said that I am of the meaning that she must have been killed by a bayonet. Surely, you will bolster what you said, and surely you can?

You may find posts where I donīt exclude a bayonet - bayonets are sometimes dagger-like, sturdy weapons, and they vary much in appearance. I may have corrected people who have said that she could not have been subjected to a bayonet, for that she could.

But you will not find a single where I propose that she must have been.

Oh, dear.

Fisherman

Hi Fish,

You're only quibbling, I'm afraid.
You've constantly supported Killeen's suggestion, and obviously, when he said "a dagger or bayonet", it can only mean that one of these two phantasmagorical weapons, with a similar blade, had inflicted THIS wound.

Therefore, when you follow Killeen, you just can follow him entirely : dagger or bayonet. There is nothing that allows you to decide whether it was one or the other.

How can you know it was a dagger, but not a bayonet ?

Answer this, please, my friend.

Cheers

[Patrick S]

Patrick
Obviously I have no evidence from his life to suggest Lechmere was a psychopath.
That isn't the point.
The killer was almost certainly a psychopath however.
So if a suspect - in this instance Lechmere - does something or it is suggested that he may have done something for a particular reason, a common refrain is 'oh that's not likely, he wouldn't have done that', but he would have if he was the killer and a psychopath. That is the point.
And as we should be looking for a psychopath in a case such as this - which isn't a normal crime - testimony should be critically evaluated with an eye to the person lying and being a psychopath.
Otherwise you would never catch the culprit - which was of course the case.
The thing about psychopaths is that you don't know someone is one until after they have done something which causes them to be unmasked and most pass undiagnosed.
There are several features in Lechmere's life which are commonly found in murderous psychopaths and which I have mentioned before. Of course these are not proofs that he was a psychopath, just that he had the preconditions within which murderous psychopaths often gestate.

You miss the point entirely. One must start with a fairly large assumption in order to view Lechmer's actions in Buck's Row with suspicion (much less interpret them as telling us he was psychopath). We must assume that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, or at the very least that he killed Nichols.

While this is all very interesting and entertaining, it does speak the state of 'Ripperology', doesn't it? This is the kind of thinking that led Cornwell to Sickert, birthed the Royal Conspiracy, and led some poor, lost souls to Lewis Carrol.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

You're only quibbling, I'm afraid.
You've constantly supported Killeen's suggestion, and obviously, when he said "a dagger or bayonet", it can only mean that one of these two phantasmagorical weapons, with a similar blade, had inflicted THIS wound.

Therefore, when you follow Killeen, you just can follow him entirely : dagger or bayonet. There is nothing that allows you to decide whether it was one or the other.

How can you know it was a dagger, but not a bayonet ?

Answer this, please, my friend.

Cheers

Unless you conveniently failed to see it, David, a bayonet implicates the soldiers Tabram was with. That is why I have never subscribed to it.

If you had said that I had always supported the bayonet or dagger theory you would have saved yourself the embarrasment. But you didnīt. You opted for me being a bayonet subscriber - that I "firmly believed in the old bayonet". Thatīs thoroughly misleading and, as long as the dagger is excluded, something I will not tolerate.

As for supporting the dagger OR bayonet theory, whatīs strange with that? The evidence and Killeen supported it too. Itīs the mainstream suggestion.

You REALLY need to shape up. And to word what you want to say in a manner that allows other people to see what you are after. Otherwise, you will likely step in it again.

Adieu,

Fisherman

[Harry D]

Read his testimony with a view of him being guilty? And you think this is reasonable? This is exactly the issue with Lechmere as a "suspect". In order to take him seriously you must view him as guilty going in to even entertain the idea.

He brilliantly bluffs his way out of trouble, because he's a psychopath. We must view him as a psychopath in order to see the brilliance of his deception. If we don't, we just see a man acting with no consciousness of guilt. Nothing in the man's life indicates he was a psychopath - other than baseless accusations that he was Jack the Ripper, of course. What? He kept detailed records? He seems a buttoned-up, proper gentleman who called people, sir? All a ruse! Why? Because he was a killer. Do you not see? You see all these things because you see him as a murderer first. Therefore, everything you learn about him subsequently just serves to underscore what you believe. For those who don't examine him with a 'view of him being guilty', well.....we don't see what you see.

Well said, Patrick.

Can't believe we have three concurrent threads on this complete non-starter of a suspect, whereas my poor Mr. Levy is out in the cold.

[DVV]

Unless you conveniently failed to see it, David, a bayonet implicates the soldiers Tabram was with. That is why I have never subscribed to it.
Fisherman

Fantastic.

Therefore, because you don't think that the two guardsmen are guilty, it must be a dagger and not a bayonet ?

As if Martha could not have met another soldier after 11:45...

But to begin with, a bayonet merely implicates someone who has a bayonet.... I'm not Somalian, but I have several Somali swords home.
In your world, if I kill someone with one of these swords, the police should suspect a Somilian, that's it ? How cute.

Learn to think properly, or take some rest.