Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Patrick S]

Ben:

... at what point did you “upgrade” your certainty of Crossmere’s guilt from “70%” to this:

Quote:
“He did it. There can be very little doubt.”

On the 20:th of August.

All the best,
Fisherman

Well, we heard this kind of thing once before and it turned out to be the "Mizen Scam". More laughable than convincing. I hope this is better.

I am going to choose to believe that you are peddling a theory you don't actually believe in order to sell a book somewhere down the road. That's okay. Many have done it before. The ill informed and gullible will buy it. The press will have a few "Case Closed?" articles rattling about. The usual nonsense. You'll make some pocket change and it will disappear among the Ripper clutter, much like Cornwell's book. Until the follow-up. Then we'll do it all over again.

[Lechmere]

Some truly priceless comments here - rich comedy.
For one or two others I fear for their blood pressure as things can (and absolutely certainly will) only get worse - much much worse for their poor rapidly beating hearts.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

... at what point did you “upgrade” your certainty of Crossmere’s guilt from “70%” to this:

Quote:
“He did it. There can be very little doubt.”

On the 20:th of August.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Just for you, Fish....

It ought to be apparent to you - as it evidently is to the great majority of others posting here - that your 'theory' has devolved into little more than tedious - and largely pointless - repetition of your personal conjecture; which has been largely rejected by your audience.

If you could take a step backwards for a moment, you'd see that equally, there are several people amongst that audience who would like to see some hard evidence in support of your case.

As I've said to you before: rather than going on, and on, and on, along the same old lines - in which the majority have largely lost all interest after 2 years of the same - you'd be better served by seeking out that hard evidence.

Up to you, of course; but carry on repeating your personal conjecture ad nauseum and you're going to end up talking to yourself.

That wouldn't be much fun, would it?

I thought you wanted to stay away from Lechmere threads, Sally? They bored you, remember? Drying paint and all that?

And yet, here you are again...?

Myself, I think it would be moronic to waste my time on topics I have no interest in. Apparently, you do not agree?

You are welcome to produce any sort of coherent criticism or useful point and I will answer it. To simply claim, however, that things are repeated on the Lechmere threads is anything but productive. Repetition is frequent on all subjects, and since I have been asked a thousand times why Lechmere did not run and told twothousand times that he thought of himself as Cross, it would be inpolite not to answer.

But if you don´t have an interest at all in the Lechmere threads, then why do you spend so much time on them? There are hundreds of posts on the topic, by your hand. On a topic that bores you?

I can´t figure out why this should be. Maybe you have an answer? Or maybe you will just draw at least some sort of logic deduction from your disinterest and go refreshingly far away?

Fisherman

[Ben]

Suffice to say, I’m in total agreement with Patrick and Sally.

I’m afraid I no longer have the time to spend frantically and repetitively posting here, and to be honest, I feel a little sorry for those who have, but since my name has been dragged into the “debate” – and I see I stand accused by Fisherman of being a “dunce” for alluding to the unpopularity of the Crossmere theory – my curiosity has been briefly aroused.

Just to clarify, Fisherman, at what point did you “upgrade” your certainty of Crossmere’s guilt from “70%” to this:

“He did it. There can be very little doubt.”

…?

(My emphasis)

“Do you think that they would have taken an interest in Lechmere if they had known what we know about the false name, his timings, his routes, the Mizen scam, the lack of hearing each other in Bucks Row”

You need to understand about circular arguments, and how to avoid making them so frequently. We most certainly do not “know” that there was a “Mizen scam”. Who agrees with you that Crossmere “scammed” Mizen? Answer - nobody except those promoting Crossmere as the ripper, i.e. a tiny, tiny percentage of those conversant with – and willing to discuss - the recently conceived “case” against him. The name change is not suspicious. He called himself Cross at work – that’s a fact, and I say so advisedly. There is not a fraction of a possibility of the name Lechmere NOT coming to the fore if he was known at work by that name. I do not exaggerate – no possibility. Hence, unless you’re now arguing that his called himself Cross from the beginning of his career at Pickfords as part of a pre-conceived plan to murder and mutilate prostitute much later on in that career, there is nothing suspicious about his use of the name Cross.

Nor is there anything remotely suspicious about the “routes”. What’s with the plural, by the way? Where is your evidence that Cross ever took a different route from Doveton Boulevard to the one he used on the morning of the Nichols murder? How many serial killers have been known to kill and dispose of their victims en route to work? None. Timings? Yes, pity the likely time of death for Chapman works out so badly for his ripper candidacy, and that he was almost certainly at work when that murder was committed, ditto Kelly.

There’s nothing wrong with “passion”, we understand that, but there IS something wrong with bulldozer debating tactics masquerading unsuccessfully as tenacity. Chill out a bit and who knows? You might snare a few takers along the way.

[Sally]

Just for you, Fish....

It ought to be apparent to you - as it evidently is to the great majority of others posting here - that your 'theory' has devolved into little more than tedious - and largely pointless - repetition of your personal conjecture; which has been largely rejected by your audience.

If you could take a step backwards for a moment, you'd see that equally, there are several people amongst that audience who would like to see some hard evidence in support of your case.

As I've said to you before: rather than going on, and on, and on, along the same old lines - in which the majority have largely lost all interest after 2 years of the same - you'd be better served by seeking out that hard evidence.

Up to you, of course; but carry on repeating your personal conjecture ad nauseum and you're going to end up talking to yourself.

That wouldn't be much fun, would it?

[Fisherman]

Zzzzzz.....

There´s a good girl!

Fisherman

[Sally]

Zzzzzz.....

[Fisherman]

I myself would rather watch paint dry than countenance this tired old nonsense further - which is what I shall return to right now.

Is THAT where your true talent lies? I´ve often wondered when I have read your posts.

Good luck with it, and remember - you do NOT want to post on Lechmere any more since it bores you.

Don´t take your eye off that target now, Sally!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Forgive me. But I cannot see how ANY reasonably intelligent person could be believe this theory? It has nothing to do with the unaccepting nature of Ripperolgoy, upsetting the applecart, or any of the other cute turns of phrase you've used to dismiss any common sense opposition to this Lechmere nonsense! It has do with reality! It has to do with simple reasoning! You and Ed repeat the same absurd trivia and supposition again and again, as if it will one day become fact. It won't.

Lovely.

But not to worry, don't despair: most reasonably intelligent frequenters of these boards, having already fallen asleep several times whilst reading the pro-Crossmere 'arguments'; have now departed in search of far more interesting pursuits - like squabbling over the fakery [or not] of photographs e.g.

I myself would rather watch paint dry than countenance this tired old nonsense further - which is what I shall return to right now.

It's a charming shade of magnolia - extra interesting [by comparison]

[Patrick S]

I'm posting this (below) again because my dander is up (again). In your view, this man's ONE slip up was giving a "false" name (omitting for now the invented Mizen Scam). Had he given his LEGAL name (Lechmere) we'd have missed him, Jack the Ripper, still...after all these years. Yet, in all other interaction he was not only perfect in his ability to predict the outcome(s) of each and every action that he took, even though (if he were guilty) nearly every one of these actions was exactly contrary to what a man who SECONDS before Paul arrive had cut the throat and BUTCHERD Polly Nichols would have done. Consider:

1. Virtually caught in the act of murder, he doesn't run.
2. He doesn't attack Paul. He's armed, Paul isn't.
3. He approaches Paul and says, "Come see this woman (I just killed?)". He doesn't pull a ruse, "My wife is drunk again!", wait for Paul to pass, and disappear into the night. No. He invites a stranger to get involved! Paul didn't see what was going on and say, "Hey, you!" No. Crossmere approached him and said, "COME SEE!"
4. He declines to move the body (which would have given him a reason for having blood on her person, which - in the dark and having just killed Nichols - he had no way of knowing if had blood visible on his clothing or not.
5. He moves off with Paul in the same direction, in search of police. He doesn't say, "I go this way. I'll look for a copper on my way. See you later." No. He goes on a walk with Paul.
6. He finds Mizen and tells him, "I think she's dead." Not, "She's probably drunk." No. She's dead. And he killed her (?). He he tells a cop she's dead. He's the killer. Brilliant.
7. He's not asked for ID. He's asked his name. He gives a "fake" name, but one that can be reasonably argued that he's entitled to (although YOU and Ed want it both ways: He's entitlted to it, except he's not, because he's never used it in official documents). He gives his genuine home address. He gives his genuine place of work. AND a "fake" name (?). He doesn't give fake everything - which he could easily have done, and then simply disappear into the crowded abyss of the East End. No. He gives information that can lead the police DIRECTLY to him. Here's where I live. Here's where I work....you know...just in case you want to find me and talk to me and investigate me...at any time of the day or night...you'll know where to find me (the killer). He wants to remain undetected by his kin? How about remaining undetected by the POLICE?

[Patrick S]

I would also once again stress the fact that we are now pondering the possibilitites to take a case against a suggested Ripper suspect to trial.

That should say something about the quality of the suspect as such.

How many other suspects could potentially be brought to trial on what we have on them ...?

Not a single one, I would propose.

The best,
Fisherman

FOOLISHNESS! Utter DRIVEL! Absurdity built upon ABSURDITY!

I'm referring, of course to this entire Lechmere business, and also my complete inability to not comment on the nonsense that is posted on these boards (by Fisherman and "Lechmere")! Alas, the above, along with Fisherman's contention that he has a background in the law and feels that some reasonable case could be made in a court of law is completely out of bounds.

"we are now pondering the possibilitites to take a case against a suggested Ripper suspect to trial."

WE are not! YOU (and Ed) are. What IS happening is this: People on this thread are attemping to point out the folly of this Lechmere the Ripper business. Alas, it's falling on deaf, deluded ears.

What you have against Lechmere IN THE EYES OF THE LAW is NOTHING. For the sake of argument, let's - to use your phrase - view these circumstances with 'an eye on Lechmere being guilty (which is on it's face ridiculous from both a practical and (especially) a legal persepctive):

Lechmere gives a false name. Didn't make it up, but - according to you - very nearly. Why? Well....we don't know. Before we can even ponder further interest in Lechmere, much less seek an indictment, go to trial, seek a conviction, get a conviction, etc., well, we - as prosecutors - must endeavor to know WHY he gave a "false" name. We must then reject the all of the OTHER "whys" in favor of a judgement that he gave the name Cross because he VERY LIKELY killed Nichols.

Bear in mind, any fool can come up with any number of reasons why he may have called himself Cross other than being the killer, and YOU, Fisherman, cannot disprove ANY of them!

- You can't disprove the he was - in fact - commonly known, in his private and/or professional life as Cross.
- You cannot disprove that everyone just called him "Cross" and had since he was a boy. Thus, his name was leagally Lechmere, but everyone called him Cross.
- You can't prove that he didn't give the name to try his best to just not get involved and get to work.
- You can't prove that he had an IQ of 85 and often became confused and just blurted out CROSS.
- You can't prove that he once had a bad experience with the police and was attempting to not involve himself with them further.
- You can't prove that he became confused when rattled. Seeing a dead woman rattled him, or the thought of being late for work again (since you can't prove he was not chronically tardy, either) rattled him, or being near a copper rattled him...thus he said CROSS......
- You can't prove that the police didn't have all the information they needed on him being CROSS and not Lechmere, and - being completely satisifed - say, "Okay! That's good enough for me, Chuck!"
- You can't prove, either, that he said CROSS because he was, in fact, Jack the Ripper.

EVERYTHING you have is based on this one, small, likely insignificant bit of information. Everything else is built from this. The fact of the matter is, had he said, my name is Lechmere, there'd be nothing to see here. And, seeing as his plan, his interaction with Paul, the "Mizen Scam", all of it, was so MASTERFUL and worked perfectly to get him "off the hook" why would he not SEE INTO THE FUTURE (as he did in your scenario every step of the waY)...and just say, "I'm Lechmere!"?

Forgive me. But I cannot see how ANY reasonably intelligent person could be believe this theory? It has nothing to do with the unaccepting nature of Ripperolgoy, upsetting the applecart, or any of the other cute turns of phrase you've used to dismiss any common sense opposition to this Lechmere nonsense! It has do with reality! It has to do with simple reasoning! You and Ed repeat the same absurd trivia and supposition again and again, as if it will one day become fact. It won't.

Lastly, when I see the photo of Lechmere's decendents thinking their great grandad was Jack, it upsets me to no end. Ed should be ashamed of himself. It is wonderful fodder for interviews and dinner parties that you may never have been invited to otherwise, isn't it? "Here's a photo of my mom with great-grandpappy......JACK THE RIPPER!" It makes me physically ill. These people are no longer anonymous are they? It may lead to a reality TV stint or feature film. It's disgusting and I feel like taking a shower just being exposed to this filth.

[Fisherman]

I would also once again stress the fact that we are now pondering the possibilitites to take a case against a suggested Ripper suspect to trial.

That should say something about the quality of the suspect as such.

How many other suspects could potentially be brought to trial on what we have on them ...?

Not a single one, I would propose.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=GUT;304693]G'day Fisherman

That is where the onus comes in you are wrong t is the other way around the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise must as a question of law overcome the presumption of innocence.

I was not alluding in any shape or form to where the onus of proof lies. We both, you and me alike, know that it is normally the prosecution that must prove their case, having initiated the trial in the first place.

It nevertheless applies that once the weighing is carried out - regardless of where the onus of proof lies - if the indications of innocence are outweighed by the implications of guilt, the suspect will loose the case.

Maybe it is a language thing that has lead to our difference on this issue.

Again it may be language but if there is an innocent explanation for for each individual explanation, then you have not excluded a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

No,we have not excluded that Lechmere would be exonerated in a court of law. But once again, you and me were not discussing the Lechmere case! I know I wasn´t, at least - I simply said that there will be innocent alternative explanations around in every case brought on circumstantial grounds, generally speaking. And I added that although this is the case, people will nevertheless many times be convicted on circumstantial evidence only.

The question whether Lechmere could be brought to trial and perhaps convicted on the existing circumstantial evidence is another issue. Just as I said, I am happy to give my views on that issue, but it is a different discussion than the generalized discussion, and it should have a thread of it´s own if you wish to pursue it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

at post 662 you said

However, if the indications of innocence are NOT strong enough to overcome the implications of guilt, then the suspect will be convicted, IN SPITE of there having been alternative innocent explanations around.

That is where the onus comes in you are wrong t is the other way around the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise must as a question of law overcome the presumption of innocence.

Maybe it is a language thing that has lead to our difference on this issue.

and at #657 you said

Yes, that is absolutely true. And Edward and me have never said anything else - there has always been an innocent explanation to each individual allegation. We have pointed that out ourselves, numerous times.

Again it may be language but if there is an innocent explanation for for each individual explanation.
then you have not excluded a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.