Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

Monty:

To be fair...

Fair? A "non-starter", eh ...?

... the constant reference to Cross, no matter what the thread, is the main reason why this theory maintains a constant presence on these boards, and why many a commentator on the case have withdrawn from here..

As has been noted, the main part of the threads concerning themselves with Lechmere have been started by people who do not ascribe to the theory. The same goes to a significant degree for the instances where Lechmere is brought into threads that were not originally intended to discuss him. And believe it or not, when people discuss a phenomenon or bring it into an ongoing discussion, the reason for this happening will be that there is a large underlying interest.

If other posters are so dismayed by a topic they do not like being discussed that they leave the boards, then it is their own chosen action and their own responsibility. Not that I have found any decline in the postings out here - it can be very intense and heated, as ever.

In my experience, the theory is rarely discussed elsewhere.

I have more than once seen it surface on other web sites that concern themselves with the Ripper in a more peripheral manner. "Cross" is being referred to there.
Otrherwise, I can easily imagine get-togethers where the participants commence the proceedings by gripping each others hands and swearing that the names Cross or Lechmere may not be uttered in any shape or form in the localities.
Do not mention him, and he will go away, sort of. The ostridge approach.

And the intensity is more to do with the fact that reasoned debate is an impossibility due to personalities involved, rather than the theorys buoyancy on the sea of validity.

I agree! A reasoned debate is often impossible to entertain. Whenever such a debate is started off with one of the participants stating that Lechmere is a non-starter or that there is nothing at all strange about the implications of the case, reason flies out of the window.

Edward said - a few posts up - that any policeman that had the theory with all it´s complications presented to him back in 1888 and chose not to act upon it (perhaps claiming that the carman was a "non-starter") deserved to be tarred and feathered. I agree.

The theory apparently has normally reasonable and knowledgeable Ripperologist panicking. That´s sad, but there is nothing I can do about it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

To be fair, the constant reference to Cross, no matter what the thread, is the main reason why this theory maintains a constant presence on these boards, and why many a commentator on the case have withdrawn from here..

In my experience, the theory is rarely discussed elsewhere.

And the intensity is more to do with the fact that reasoned debate is an impossibility due to personalities involved, rather than the theorys buoyancy on the sea of validity.

Monty

[Barnaby]

I don't want to play the "Paul game"....or the "Cross game". Both are silly. Almost as silly as your Ripper tour.

Recently I started a thread about Paul's behavior, not advancing him as a suspect but questioning some of his behavior.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8104

It received a little attention and my concerns regarding Paul were quickly and adequately addressed by a number of posters.

I suppose you can create a suspect scenario with many of the witnesses, police officials, other known characters about the East End, etc. It is quite another thing to advance a theory so polarizing that the debate rages ad infinitum. And that is the difference: If it were silly it wouldn't be debated with such intensity.

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
Of the witnesses you mention only Thain and Neil's timings coincide properly - which isn't surprising as they were both policemen from the same station.
You don't have to go out of the way to make the timings not to fit and for a window of opportunity for Lechmere to open, with no running and no particular rush involved.
I will leave you to check back through the newspaper records for he Sunday evening police statement rather than re-quote it yet again.

[moonbegger]

Lech ,

Ther are not six witnesses whose times corroberate each other.

Cross , Paul , Llewellyn , Neil , Thain .. sorry 5 , can all be reasonably slotted in to complete a full picture . All under oath . Admittedly the reporting of said times is a little loose to say the least .. but we do have reports that tie everything everyone said together , making a logical fit .
its only when we go out of our way to make a nonsense of everyone being where they were and when they said can we find discrepancy .

All that can be said that given the various times that were given, Lechmere can be shown to have had the opportunity

If he left just after 3.30 "about 3.30" he would have had to run down to Whitchapel rd , grab the first brass he could find , and quick march her to the Row , not to mention kill and mutilate her ..

And there is solid evidence that the police disregarded Paul’s newspaper interview. They issued a statement of some sort after it explicitly pooh-poohing it that was widely reported in the press.

I have never seen this solid evidence , I have seen the misread article some time back that was wrongly attributed as such .. but not this conclusive proof you claim of . be nice to see it .

moonbegger

[Patrick S]

Patrick
While we do not have solid facts that proove either Barnett or Paul were innocent, when evaulating the possibility of guilt one of the main things I use for guidance is the police’s known actions.
If the police are known to have interrogated someone then I find it difficult to regard that person at all seriously as a suspect.
We know Barnett was interrogated, his clothes checked and he had an alibi.
We know Paul was roused out of his house in the middle of the night and taken to a police station all the next day. The most obvious explanation for this was that he was under interrogation.

If you want to play the Paul game he must have circled around Winthrop Street but no one saw him go down Winthrop Street – and there were people there.
It meant he lied about leaving home just before 3.45 which implies his wife was in on it with him.
He had no known reason to be in Berner Street.

You seem to find it amusing that after leaving the body Lechmere met a policeman and the policeman’s version of their conversation was totally different from his version of the conversation.
Hilarious.
Almost as funny as your limerick.

I don't want to play the "Paul game"....or the "Cross game". Both are silly. Almost as silly as your Ripper tour.

[Lechmere]

Patrick
While we do not have solid facts that proove either Barnett or Paul were innocent, when evaulating the possibility of guilt one of the main things I use for guidance is the police’s known actions.
If the police are known to have interrogated someone then I find it difficult to regard that person at all seriously as a suspect.
We know Barnett was interrogated, his clothes checked and he had an alibi.
We know Paul was roused out of his house in the middle of the night and taken to a police station all the next day. The most obvious explanation for this was that he was under interrogation.

If you want to play the Paul game he must have circled around Winthrop Street but no one saw him go down Winthrop Street – and there were people there.
It meant he lied about leaving home just before 3.45 which implies his wife was in on it with him.
He had no known reason to be in Berner Street.

You seem to find it amusing that after leaving the body Lechmere met a policeman and the policeman’s version of their conversation was totally different from his version of the conversation.
Hilarious.
Almost as funny as your limerick.

[Lechmere]

Mr B
Does it have to be said again?
The significance in the name swap is that in Charles Lechmere we have someone who we have about 110 recorded instances where his family name was given as Lechmere in a wide variety of sources.
We have no other examples of him using Cross.
The one time we have him using Cross is shortly after he was found by a dead body.
That is a blatant anomaly.
You can say maybe this or maybe that or maybe the other.
It remains an anomaly.
When looking for a suspect it is wise to look for anomalies.

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar

Ther are not six witnesses whose times corroberate each other.
It is perfecty reasonable to put some store in Paul’s timing as he had only just left home where he almost certany had a clock as he knew he was late.
The police tended to round to the nearest quarter, so their timing could easily be seven and a half minutes out either way.
For the police’s timing tonbe right, Lechere must have left ,ater tha he said. Which ever version you prefer, the times have to be massaged.
Incidentally, if you are looking for solid proof for anyttjimng then you are in the wromg area of study.
But I come back to the point I made, yet again, again, again.
All that can be said that given the various times that were given, Lechmere can be shown to have had the opportunity

None of the Lechmere case is built on quicksand, for the very good reason that they case does not sink in any of the disputable parts.
If you were an investigating officer in this case at the time, and if you were faced with the circumstantial and arguable aspects that relate to Lechmere, and if you then took no further action because you loftily shrugged off these matters as of no account, then I would suggest you should have been drummed out of the force and tarred and feathered for good measure.

There is no case for Lechmere disturbing anyone as he didn’t say any such thing. If you think he was innocent then why would he lie? Or are you suggesting he lied to save his own skin and was too gutless to even tell Mizen or and kept it secret from Paul as well?

The speculation and fantasy Moonbeggar is all yours.
And you mention the witness under oath? You have him lying under loath and covering up that he had witnessed the attack.
Well he did lie under oath as he gave an incorrect name.

And there is solid evidence that the police disregarded Paul’s newspaper interview. They issued a statement of some sort after it explicitly pooh-poohing it that was widely reported in the press.

You also seem very muddled on the issue of rewards.

[DRoy]

Actually, you didn´t - you said that there was not one thing to go on. We have got tons to go on, and you should have known it by now.

Have a long, good read of the latest posts, DRoy, and then we can have a chat. What we have is a suspect where a discussion can be had whether the accusations agaisnt him would stand up in court or not.

... and that´s what you describe as having nothing to go on. Dear, dear me ...!

Fisherman

Fish,

For clarification on what I meant to say...there is not one fact that proves Lech is guilty of anything.

One thing at a time can be easily explained but when you said to look at all of the 'coincidences' and put them together, I did just that. When I look at your list, I understand why you feel he's guilty...it's a big list! But when looking closer at each item on the list, I don't see what you see.

I don't see Lech's home or work place being any more significant than the other thousands of people living in the same place. I don't see the times fitting like you do. I don't see a problem with the name Cross. You get the idea.

No I don't think it would stand up in criminal court. It wouldn't stand up in civil court either where you only have to prove on a balance of probability he's guilty.

I look forward to your continued research though, as always I enjoy your posts so hope you find something more concrete.

Cheers
DRoy

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

I'm not digging deep at all. Just reacting to the spin that in my opinion detracts from what might otherwise be a tantalising possibility.

You put forward Lech's 'lying' as evidence of his guilt. But with your own use of your nome de plume, you provide us with a perfect example of an innocent use of an alternative name. Of course, you would not give that name to the police if asked. But that isn't the point.The point is that in certain circumstances it is not necessarily lying to identify oneself by a name other than that on one's birth certificate.

You've got me wrong if you think I'm a desperate Lech naysayer. Think of me as a sensitive teenager at a family wedding: some of the hyperbole emanating from team Lech is a bit like watching an over enthusiastic dad-dance.

MrB

[Fisherman]

I think I must have missed the clarification of this Fish .. would you be so kind as to point me in the right direction of said evidence ?

we do have various press reports of an Officer quizzed and reprimanded over his alleged actions on the night , which would not make sense if his story was believed by all ?

moonbegger

So who disbelieved Neil? Who reprimanded him? And when?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Do you consider you are lying every time you sign off as 'Fisherman' ?

If not, please explain why.

MrB

No, I don´t consider I am lying when I sign off as Fisherman. These are public boards and we are allowed to write under a chosen signature. It is common procedure out here, even, although there are numerous exceptions.

However, if I was to go to the police and testify in relation to a murder case, I would not call myself Fisherman - I would give the police the name under which I am known in the registers, my true name, the only true name I have. Otherwise I WOULD be lying. In fact, no matter the context, I would always be lying if I said that my true name was Fisherman. The same goes for every other name I have ever called myself that was not my true name.

If the police had asked me "Are you Fisherman", I would of course tell them that I am. But I don´t think the Met asked Lechmere if he was Cross, so that kind of melts away as a viable explanation.

May I say that I think you are digging deep now, Mr Barnett? It has an element of desperation to it, that is how it looks to me at least...

All the best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Do you consider you are lying every time you sign off as 'Fisherman' ?

If not, please explain why.

MrB

[moonbegger]

No - and nor do I need it. It is very clear that the police disbelieved Paul from the outset, so thre´s no quashing, I´m afraid.

I think I must have missed the clarification of this Fish .. would you be so kind as to point me in the right direction of said evidence ?

we do have various press reports of an Officer quizzed and reprimanded over his alleged actions on the night , which would not make sense if his story was believed by all ?

moonbegger