Charles Lechmere interesting link

[MrBarnett]

Patrick,

I paid ten quid and stood in the rain for 2 1/2 hours to get my glimpse. I expect my next glimpse will be when I buy the book.

MrB

[Patrick S]

That's a tricky one for you, Fish.

Don't leave us in suspense.

[Patrick S]

The plot thickens! A photo of lechmere? Wether he was JtR or not is one thing, but at the very least a photo of a very important witness which we didn't have before is significant in its own right.

And another thing I might be missing. All talk about his body language, what image he projected etc. How about does he fit any of the witness descriptions??!?!

Can I see it? I would be happy to tell you how it strikes me fish!!

I agree. We all know that Annie Chapman wasn't Jack the Ripper, yet it was quite interesting to a see photo of her in life, wasn't it. Unfortunately, the issue of Cross as an important WITNESS in the case has been trodden on and soiled by Fish and Ed. Now we are drawing conclusion with respect to his demeanor and character from one photograph. Alas, this is merely one more absurdity piled upon a scrap heap of absurdities.

With respect to 'Ripperology' we now seem to be at a point in time where it's no longer acceptable to simply study and - when possible - postulate. Now, it seems, we must have "theories" and "suspects", going so far now as to say that we are very nearly CONVINCED of "guilt".

[DRoy]

Congrats to Lechmere & Fish for again contributing and providing one more piece of the puzzle that we all yearn for. I agree with Abby Normal, thanks guys, we do really appreciate the effort. A picture of Lech is important and I look forward to seeing what else it is you've uncovered.

Cheers
DRoy

[MrBarnett]

How about does he fit any of the witness descriptions??!?!

That's a tricky one for you, Fish.

[Abby Normal]

Dear little Sally!

You may wish to go back and see what I asked: How did the Charles Lechmere photo strike you?

Of course, being of the ilk you are, you will immediately accuse me of phrenology! That was to be expected!

To me, seeing the photo the first time over struck me in a number of ways. First of all, it felt strange to look into the eyes of a man I had read about for thirty years but never seen.

After that, I was struck by something else about him, something that had nothing to do at all with his looks. You see, there are OTHER things than looks that can strike you when looking at a person. If I was to comment on what you just did - point me out as somebody who took personal looks to implicate crime - and send you a photo with my reaction, it would strike you as a photo of a very happy person, laughing hysterically. For example!

Now, Sally - can you begin to see that there are other things to observe in a person than personal looks, angles of noises, heights of foreheads and shapes of ears?

There is also mood, body language etcetera. Such things can say something about a person. Some will look shy and reveal that in facial expression and body language, for example. And that actually implies a shy person to some extent. Or a misrepresentative photo, for that matter.

But you are not shy, are you! Once again you are jumping the gun and throwing out accusations for no good reason at all. And on top of that, you are doing it on a thread you are so utterly and totally uninterested of! What IS it that makes it impossible for you to just disappear from such a boring topic as this?

The next time over you are about to try and paint me out as a phrenologist, would you please have the courtesy to ask first? Itīs a complicated world out there, and you have an uncanny manner of getting it wrong ever so often. Iīd be glad to help you out so that you donīt trouble me and embarras yourself any further.

All the best,
Fisherman

The plot thickens! A photo of lechmere? Wether he was JtR or not is one thing, but at the very least a photo of a very important witness which we didn't have before is significant in its own right.

And another thing I might be missing. All talk about his body language, what image he projected etc. How about does he fit any of the witness descriptions??!?!

Can I see it? I would be happy to tell you how it strikes me fish!!

[MrBarnett]

Oh dear, look what I've started.

I may be a bit odd, but every time I look at an old photo my mind comes up with an instant assessment of the person's character. It takes a few seconds longer to verbalise as jolly, cold, stern, intelligent, humorous etc. Am I really the only person who does this?

In the case of the Lech photo I sensed self-possession. I could be wrong, and if it was self-possession it could just be that of an exemplary citizen and family man who was feeling just a little smug at how well he had done in life.

I wonder if I had initially said he looked like a kindly old uncle whether my statement would have caused such an uproar.

MrB

[Patrick S]

Dear little Sally!

You may wish to go back and see what I asked: How did the Charles Lechmere photo strike you?

Of course, being of the ilk you are, you will immediately accuse me of phrenology! That was to be expected!

To me, seeing the photo the first time over struck me in a number of ways. First of all, it felt strange to look into the eyes of a man I had read about for thirty years but never seen.

After that, I was struck by something else about him, something that had nothing to do at all with his looks. You see, there are OTHER things than looks that can strike you when looking at a person. If I was to comment on what you just did - point me out as somebody who took personal looks to implicate crime - and send you a photo with my reaction, it would strike you as a photo of a very happy person, laughing hysterically. For example!

Now, Sally - can you begin to see that there are other things to observe in a person than personal looks, angles of noises, heights of foreheads and shape of ears?

There is also mood, body language etcetera. Such things can say something about a person. Some will look shy and reveal that in facial expression and body language, for example. And that actually implies a shy person to some extent. Or a misrepresentative photo, for that matter.

But you are not shy, are you! Once again you are jumping the gun and throwing out accusations for no good reason at all. And on top of that, you are doing it on a thread you are so utterly and totally uninterested of! What IS it that makes it impossible for you to just disappear from such a boring topic as this?

The next time over you are about to try and paint me out as a phrenologist, would you please have the courtesty to ask first? Itīs a complicated world out there, and you have an uncanny manner of getting it wrong ever so often. Iīd be glad to help you out so that you donīt trouble me and embarras yourself any further.

All the best,
Fisherman

Of all the absurdities, this is the most absurd. Do you know what you can tell about a person's inner-workings from a photograph? Exactly this: Nothing. Of course you can examine a photograph after you have certain information (or in this case, information you've completely invented) and say, "Well...you can tell _______ by looking at him, can't you?" The fact of the matter is that you've gone so far down this path, you see confirmation in EVERYTHING. If the photo had presented Lechmere in exactly the opposoite light that you THINK he's presented in, you'd have argued some other point, assuring us that it does nothing to contradict what you already knew: THIS man was Jack the Ripper.

I'm convinced now more than ever that neither you nor Ed actually believes this Lechmere business. It's too ridiculous. You are simple con men, hoping to one day make a few bucks.

[Fisherman]

Mr Barnett!

Sorry about the commotion - some people do have a tedious habit of making misunderstanding axiomatic.

Thank you for your comments on the photo! I do "C" exactly what you mean.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

What's this?

The implication here appears to be that suspicion against Crossmere can be bolstered according to how he appears in his much alluded to photo.

Riighht.........

We'll be hearing that he had 'criminal features' next. Mind you, I bet that goes down a storm with the general public - '... and here it is, Ladies and Gents, the fact of Jack the Ripper!!!'

Ridiculous - and reprehensible.

Dear little Sally!

You may wish to go back and see what I asked: How did the Charles Lechmere photo strike you?

Of course, being of the ilk you are, you will immediately accuse me of phrenology! That was to be expected!

To me, seeing the photo the first time over struck me in a number of ways. First of all, it felt strange to look into the eyes of a man I had read about for thirty years but never seen.

After that, I was struck by something else about him, something that had nothing to do at all with his looks. You see, there are OTHER things than looks that can strike you when looking at a person. If I was to comment on what you just did - point me out as somebody who took personal looks to implicate crime - and send you a photo with my reaction, it would strike you as a photo of a very happy person, laughing hysterically. For example!

Now, Sally - can you begin to see that there are other things to observe in a person than personal looks, angles of noises, heights of foreheads and shapes of ears?

There is also mood, body language etcetera. Such things can say something about a person. Some will look shy and reveal that in facial expression and body language, for example. And that actually implies a shy person to some extent. Or a misrepresentative photo, for that matter.

But you are not shy, are you! Once again you are jumping the gun and throwing out accusations for no good reason at all. And on top of that, you are doing it on a thread you are so utterly and totally uninterested of! What IS it that makes it impossible for you to just disappear from such a boring topic as this?

The next time over you are about to try and paint me out as a phrenologist, would you please have the courtesy to ask first? Itīs a complicated world out there, and you have an uncanny manner of getting it wrong ever so often. Iīd be glad to help you out so that you donīt trouble me and embarras yourself any further.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

What's this?

The implication here appears to be that suspicion against Crossmere can be bolstered according to how he appears in his much alluded to photo.

Riighht.........

We'll be hearing that he had 'criminal features' next. Mind you, I bet that goes down a storm with the general public - '... and here it is, Ladies and Gents, the fact of Jack the Ripper!!!'

Ridiculous - and reprehensible.

[MrBarnett]

A picture. And when viewed with 'and eye on Lechmere being guilty' I'm sure it looks quite unsettling indeed.

I'm sure it would, as it did when viewed through my habitual scepticism.

MrB

[Patrick S]

I am glad to hear you liked the tour. Out of interest: How did the Charles Lechmere photo strike you?

The best,
Fisherman

A picture. And when viewed with 'and eye on Lechmere being guilty' I'm sure it looks quite unsettling indeed.

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Are you asking whether the man in the photo looked liked someone harbouring a dark secret? If so, my answer has to be possibly - in percentage terms, about 70.

I must admit, though, there was something about the look of the man that brought the C word to mind. ( I mean control not the other one).

MrB

[Fisherman]

Something significant DID come to light on the date in question, Mr Barnett, but thatīs as much as I will say. As an aside, the 70 per cent I spoke of earlier was in response to a poster (Iīve forgotten who it was) who asked me to state a number. Much as I thought 70 sounded like a useful presentation of what I think, it was actually a rather conservative estimation.

I am glad to hear you liked the tour. Out of interest: How did the Charles Lechmere photo strike you?

The best,
Fisherman