Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

It has been noted that out of the two strongest supporters of the Cross theory, one is more considered, precise and provides evidence, whereas the other is far more 'vocal', not so considered, and relies on obscure hypothesis.

Monty

Charming as ever, Monty, Iīm sure. The old divide and rule approach - nice!

I will not enter into a slanging match, however, but instead tell you what the problem with the Lechmere material is:

What one does when looking for a killer is to try and find something that seems odd/out of the order/suspicious etcetera. When it comes to Lechmere, there is a very clear and useful starting point: He was found alone by the body of a freshly killed victim.

That can be sinister and it can be innocent. One cannot conclude that either option applies, though.

So what to do? Well, the only reasonable thing to do is to take a further look on the suspect in question. And what happens? It surfaces that he has not used his true name when speaking to the police, in spite of us being able to establish by more than a hundred examples that he regularly used that true name when speaking to the authorities.

Sound reaction:

We already have him by a freshly killed body, alone. Now it turns out that he used an alias when speaking to the police. That is suspicious.

The Never Lechmere reaction:

Yes, he was found alone by a freshly killed victim, but somebody had to find her. And yes, he used an alias, but he may have felt like that alias in that given moment, or he may have wanted to honour his dead stepfather. Nothing suspicious there!

On we go. We find that this victim as the only evisceration victim had her wounds covered.

Sound reaction: Oh-oh - hereīs another strange thing! Suspicion added.

The Never Lechmere reaction: The real killer may have been scared when he heard Lechmere approaching and flung the clothes over her. Or maybe they just fell that way by themselves! Not suspicious at all.

Next: It turns out that the suspect and the PC he spoke to on the murder night have radically different version of what was said. the version the PC presents is shaped as an elaborate and precise lie, tailored to take the suspect past the police.

Sound reaction: Aha! Thatīs as clever a lie as one could think up, and it would have taken him past the police unsearched. This really piles on a lot more suspicion.

The Never Lechmere reaction: It was probably a blatant lie on behalf of the PC, who wanted to save face. Totally innocent!

We then notice that the PC says that just the one man spoke to him, whereas the suspect claims that both he and the other carman present did.

Sound reaction: This is something the PC would not lie about, since it would not gain anything on his behalf. Suspicion proven.

The Never Lechmere reaction: Mizen just goofed up, probably. He simply forgot that both men had spoken to him - yeah, that must be it! Innocent.

And it goes on - we now find that the suspect left out to mention his address before the inquest.

Sound reaction: This is totally in line with what we have been saying all along - that he wanted to hide his involvement to his family and friends. We have a pile of suspicious behaviour now.

The Never Lechmere reaction: He just forgot. Could have happened to anyone! Very innocent, no odd thing at all.

And on it goes: The opportunity window offered by the given points of time. The fact that his working trek could have taken him right past a number of murder spots at the approximate correct time. The appearance in working gear, apron included at the inquest. The failure on each mans behalf to notice the other man in Buckīs Row. The very late flowing blood from Nichols neck. Llewellyns TOD.

The sound reaction: Each and every little bit that is added, also adds to the suspicion since the sheer number of anomalies must do so. That is how it works and that is the whole and only reason that we dig deeper after having found the first potential sign of guilt - to see if there is more to the suspect that does not add up with a picture of innocence.

The Never Lechmere reaction: Nah. Innocent. You have nothing. The manīs a total non-starter.

So, Monty. You now claim that you reason innocent until proven guilty. Thatīs fine, and I agree. This is how we must judge the errand - and any other errand.

But there is a lot more on the line. Gary Ridgway was innocent for the longest time since he could not be proven guilty until the DNA evidence brought him down. That does not mean that the coppers who were on his tail thought him innocent, though - they felt very certain that they were on the right track, and they went that extra mile since they knew deep down that it would bag them the Green River killer.

But from The Never Lechmere fraction, I donīt hear ANY such hope or conviction or even glimmer of a slight suspicion. This very substantiated case, with lots and lots of pointers to potential guilt, is met by people like you, who instead of settling for saying "Yes, there is a number of potentially very damning circumstances attaching to this suspect, and he certainly must be looked into as much as possible since he is the only suspect that has such a long list of potentially guilty pointers", you settle for "He is not even a suspect, he is a mere witness. Thatīs the only place where he belongs. He is a non-starter and could not be the killer."

And after having positioned you like that, YOU claim that I am the ignorant party here ...? And YOU think that I am unconsidered ...?

Where does the "He is a non-starter" leave yourself in those respects, Monty?

Hereīs my guess: It leaves you with the group of people who grind their teeth, realizing that the Lechmere case is one that can never be lightly dismissed - and then you dismiss it lightly nevertheless, just because you donīt like the way things are going on the boards. You throw all logic overboard in favour of getting to pooh-pooh a theory you dislike because of how it has been presented - and by whom, apparently.

I notice that you are now beginning to speak of "cannot be proven beyond doubt", which is something entirely different that the "non-starter" nonsense. Thatīs about time, but it has taken you far, far too long to reach that station, and you have done so carrying some very unflattering luggage along with you.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Agreed,

In short amounts, otherwise it becomes tiresome, and loses its impact.

Monty

[Lechmere]

There's nowt wrong with a bit of passion.

[Monty]

I always work on the 'innocent until proven guilty' premise Ed,

I do not assume guilt.

Yes, by 'answer' I mean satisfactorily, eliminating all doubt. However, I agree, such an answer is an impossibility but rather than acknowledge that, as you have done, some chose to go on and on and on and on, and constantly counter to 'prove' their answer is definitive.

And that's where it get ridiculous, and unattractive, and not beneficial to the theory itself.

It has been noted that out of the two strongest supporters of the Cross theory, one is more considered, precise and provides evidence, whereas the other is far more 'vocal', not so considered, and relies on obscure hypothesis.

Monty

[Lechmere]

The evidence is or was obscure which is telling by in a way about the lack of prior detailed discussion about the Nichols case.
However everyone's take is personal not just in matters directly related to suspects.
I believe every issue raised has been answered - as is not perhaps to be wondered at there is often more than one potential answer so invariably the person favouring a different answer will not be satisfied.
What I see too often is a refusal to concede that the 'guilty' variant so far as explanations go is routinely rejected as ludicrous when individually it needn't even be a sure sign of guilt, but to concede the point as a plausibility becomes a massive impossibility.

[Monty]

Personally I groan every time I see a Lechmere thread revived with a criticism that has been made and answered before, but I understand that different people are usually involved in asking.
I would rather not go through things all again, not least because the confrontational, oppositional nature of forum debates (by no means is this restricted to 'Ripperology') makes such discussions very much lacking in reality.

Discussing it in detail also leaves me vulnerable to plagiarism!

Indeed Ed,

The repetitive cycle bores me. Mainly due to the fact that criticism is answered with a convoluted personal take on some obscure piece of evidence, that and the twisting of meaning to suit ones take. The issues concerning this theory have not been answered, they cannot be, the lack of acknowledgment on that gives the impression of desperation to pin Cross, and leads to uneeded confrontation.

See above.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Personally I groan every time I see a Lechmere thread revived with a criticism that has been made and answered before, but I understand that different people are usually involved in asking.
I would rather not go through things all again, not least because the confrontational, oppositional nature of forum debates (by no means is this restricted to 'Ripperology') makes such discussions very much lacking in reality.

Discussing it in detail also leaves me vulnerable to plagiarism!

[Lechmere]

Duplicate

[Lechmere]

Duplicate u

[Fisherman]

Serial killers are not investigated as serial killers.

The individual murders are investigated, each on their own merit.

Monty

Yes, but once the idea that one man was responsible for all the killings dawned on the police, they would have taken this into account, as we all know. Otherwise Issenschmidt would perhaps have been convicted, for example, but it would seem the police thought they had reason to let him loose after September 30.

No matter what, you are still avoiding the questions I put to you:

Does "reasonable doubt" equate "non-starter"?

Are there any indications of a murderer that only ex-coppers are aware of, or do the things I listed very much belong to the indications the police search for?

I mean, we all full well know the answers to these questions, but since you had the audacity to claim that Edward and I did not have "any idea" what evidence is required to interest the police, I think it is only fair that you provide the goods to prove that rather baffling stance.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Serial killers are not investigated as serial killers.

The individual murders are investigated, each on their own merit.

Monty

[Fisherman]

For someone who is sad, I'm glad you found happiness.

Monty

Thank you kindly, Sir!

... and the questions?

Is "reasonable doubt" equivalent to "non-starter"?

Are there any indications, known only to ex-coppers, that will give away a serial killer? Or are the indications that I listed very viable ones?

I guess that debate just went silent.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

For someone who is sad, I'm glad you found happiness.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

Oh Christer, you make me smile.

Great. That kind of makes up for how sad you make me feel, then.

All due respect to Ed, and yourself, I dont think you have any idea what evidence is required to interest the police, or bring a case to court. There is reasonable doubt concerning Cross.

There is "reasonable doubt"? Is that the same as him being a "non-starter"? Yes?

I have a very good idea what evidence is required to interest the police. I have read up on hundreds of solved serial killer cases, and in each one of them, it is very clearly stated what put the police on the tracks, and how they subsequently worked.

Are you suddenly saying that other parameters than the ones I have read up on in these cases - lies provided by the suspects, paths that they have been proven to use, coinciding timings, for example - would apply specifically to the Ripper case? Or can we safely assume that the police would interest themselves for matters like these in every case, when they are there?

It is all on record, Monty. There are no secrets, known to only ex-coppers.

As for your theory being discussed elsewhere, well, last I trawled the interent, it currently lags behind Simon Woods anticipated work and a Milkman called Belcher. Even Jimmy Kelly is superceeding it.

Well, we pick our sources the way we choose to, Monty! If you want to join up with Ben, who repeatedly have called my theory "unpopular" , go ahead. See, what I am after is not popularity, itīs viability. And in that respect, my "non-starter" has the upper edge by a fair country mile or two.

Iīm happy with that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Oh Christer, you make me smile.

All due respect to Ed, and yourself, I dont think you have any idea what evidence is required to interest the police, or bring a case to court. There is reasonable doubt concerning Cross.

As for your theory being discussed elsewhere, well, last I trawled the interent, it currently lags behind Simon Woods anticipated work and a Milkman called Belcher. Even Jimmy Kelly is superceeding it.

Monty