Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

Present some solid facts that tell us that Joseph Barnett was innocent. While your at it, present some solid fact that tell us that Robert Paul was innocent. By God, who's to say he didn't kill Nichols and circle around and run into Cross, just to give himself an alibi. Give me solid facts that Mizen didn't do it.

See - you have realized the problem. Good on you. We are not going to get many facts to work with. But we DO have some.

Further, you have no idea if the name was "lied about".

Ah, but I do. I am absolutely sure, even. That is one of those facts I mentioned: You have one name and one name only that is your true name. The rest are false names. So it is a fact that he lied about his name.
That is not to say that he could not have called himself Cross at times (which I don´t think he did, but for arguments sake...), but such a thing would not go to absolve him. He lied about his name.

It's a stretch from the outset to call it a lie, isn't it?

No, it is not.

After all, he didn't invent the name, did he?

Well, in a way he did. He was supposed to say "Lechmere" when he was asked about his true name (that is what the police ask for when they ask your name), but he thought up another name instead - Cross. Invented it for the moment, so to speak.

You have no information about the man's life with respect to name he identified with, how others knew him.

On the contrary - I DO have such information. I know that a great many people knew him by the name of Charles Lechmere, since that was what he answered when asked about his name by any authority.
You, on the other hand, have no bolstering at all for your supposition/claim/fantasy (or whatever we should call it) that he bounced beteeen names like a guttaperka ball. The suggestion is a rather silly one, unless you´ve noticed that yourself, Robert. Or John. Or Lewis. Or Patrick.

Cross is -after all - a pretty simple name. Perhaps from a young age, people simply called him 'Cross'.

Mmm. Holmgren, my name, is not that common a name. But I have never been called anything else nevertheless. I have a friend who is named Natt och Dag (Night and Day, a name with a proud history but ever so weird), and he is not called Svensson. Though it would have been simpler.

So, he closely identified himself with that name. I have no idea and neither do you.

One wild guess and one truth. A fifty per cent outcome. Happy?

Official documents call him Lechmere.

Yes, they do.

He identified himself to the police as Cross.

Yes, he did.

I mean, yeah....... Why not conclude he's Jack the Ripper?

Add a number of anomalies and the suggestion becomes a sounder one. Add even more, and you have a case. The best case there is, actually, on this issue.
It is not - as some try to lead on - just the question of a name. It is a whole chain of anomalies.

But please. Tell us more about the "Mizen Scam"! I need a good chuckle today.

Read your own posts, then, Franz. They humour me.

Good night,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Greetings Fish ,

Is this the same argument that got quashed some time back Fish .. or do you have some new solid evidence that verifies your claim ?

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.

The best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;303022]

Yes, do that - present some solid facts telling us that he was innocent. I have a lied-about name for example. What do YOU have? Fisherman

Present some solid facts that tell us that Joseph Barnett was innocent. While your at it, present some solid fact that tell us that Robert Paul was innocent. By God, who's to say he didn't kill Nichols and circle around and run into Cross, just to give himself an alibi. Give me solid facts that Mizen didn't do it.

Further, you have no idea if the name was "lied about". It's a stretch from the outset to call it a lie, isn't it? After all, he didn't invent the name, did he? You have no information about the man's life with respect to name he identified with, how others knew him. Cross is -after all - a pretty simple name. Perhaps from a young age, people simply called him 'Cross'. So, he closely identified himself with that name. I have no idea and neither do you.

Official documents call him Lechmere. He identified himself to the police as Cross. I mean, yeah....... Why not conclude he's Jack the Ripper?

But please. Tell us more about the "Mizen Scam"! I need a good chuckle today.

[moonbegger]

So why would the police offer a reward , when they had already discounted the gangs ?

On the assumption that the crime was committed by one of a "High Rip" gang, some of whose names are known, the police are, it is stated, empowered by the Chief Commissioner to give money payment to those who give confidential statements, with the additional assurance that any one who turn's Queen's evidence against the actual perpetrator will be at once pardoned of any participation he may have had in the matter. The murder is of such an exceptionally brutal character that the detective officers are using the most strenuous exertions to bring the criminals to justice.

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Greetings Fish ,

The fact that the police did not believe in Robert Pauls interview

Is this the same argument that got quashed some time back Fish .. or do you have some new solid evidence that verifies your claim ?

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=moonbegger;303019]

Again logic would suggest , being a Monday , he was either pulled in, or told to report to the station or inquest , by an early morning beat copper .. Hence his work attire ! What solid evidence do you have to suggest otherwise ?

The fact that the police did not believe in Robert Pauls interview - they backed up Neil when he said that he was the first and sole finder of Nichols´dead body. That´s about as solid proof you are gonna get.

In both instances, the case against relies solely on speculation , you are challenging the logical , the verifiable , the witness's under oath , with pure speculation and fantasy ..

How nice of you not to call my "speculation and fantasy" impure! May I remind you that you too are speculating and fantasizing? The innocent approach (in spite of Lechmere´s lying about his name, lying to Mizen etctera) is a house of cards. Really, Moonbegger...!

like I have said many times regarding the CrossMere claim , you are building your house on quicksand .. present some solid facts instead of flip flopping from one moot point to another .

Yes, do that - present some solid facts telling us that he was innocent. I have a lied-about name for example. What do YOU have?

Every guilty action has an innocent Explanation...

No, guilty actions never have innocent explanations. You got that semantically wrong.

...just like every Innocent explanation has a guilty accusation

That comes closer to the truth.

What you need to do is to set yourself a limit beyond which you stop believing in coincidences, and when that limit is passed ...

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

Come on Fish. You state there isn't one piece that clears him and I'm stating you don't have one piece of incriminating evidence proving guilt.

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.

What's the problem with that? If any of my comments are intellectually untenable and completely false then prove his guilt on one thing. Don't speculate, don't guess, prove guilt somehow.

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

[moonbegger]

Moonbeggar.

I am suggesting that maybe Lechmere gave the time of 3.30 as he was trying to coordinate his story with the very well publicised timings given by Neil (rather than Thain actually). That would have resulted in only a very small window of opportunity (and barely a red flag) between Lechmere's leaving time of 3.30 and Neil arriving at Brown's Stable Yard at 3.45.
This does not mean (need I say - yes I seem to have to) that I have suddenly come around to thinking that Neil did actually get there at 3.45.
I am suggesting that maybe Lechmere gave his time based on Neil's advertised timing.
That's all.

With regard to the timings, I have also said repeatedly, that all that can be said that with the timings as given, Lechmere certainly hasn't got a 'time' alibi. He has a window of opportunity wide enough for him to have carried out the murder. The timings could be shrunk to disallow it also.

With a victim who had only just been freshly killed, and indeed where the doctor estimated she had been killed more or less moments before the Paul-Lechmere meeting, and further given that the state of the body and the clothing suggested that the killer may have been interrupted, then with the timing issue you could not do any better than to suggest opportunity on the part of Lechmere.
This is not proof but you could not realistically get a better combination of circumstances that are capable of a guilty interpretation.

And yes, if you were to proceed through all the different aspects there are alternative guilty or innocent explanations - that is a given.
But it is the sheer quantity of potential guilty explanations - rather than each individual one - that build together to make this case.

I am suggesting that maybe Lechmere gave the time of 3.30 as he was trying to coordinate his story with the very well publicised timings given by Neil (rather than Thain actually). That would have resulted in only a very small window of opportunity (and barely a red flag) between Lechmere's leaving time of 3.30 and Neil arriving at Brown's Stable Yard at 3.45.

Or maybe it happened exactly like this and there was no need to coordinate anything ! .. and yes there is also a guilty spin that can be attributed to it , but all the timings lend themselves to everything unfolding exactly how all witnesses claimed ! So what is your proof that it didn't happen exactly like above ? what solid proof do you have that counters six sworn testimonies ?

With a victim who had only just been freshly killed, and indeed where the doctor estimated she had been killed more or less moments before the Paul-Lechmere meeting, and further given that the state of the body and the clothing suggested that the killer may have been interrupted,

I think you make a stronger case here , for Mr Lechmere disturbing the Killer or Killers , and being fearful of retribution on him and his family ( hence the name switch )

Fish,

Why did Lechmere not go to the inquest in his Sunday best when everybody else did?

Again logic would suggest , being a Monday , he was either pulled in, or told to report to the station or inquest , by an early morning beat copper .. Hence his work attire ! What solid evidence do you have to suggest otherwise ?

In both instances, the case against relies solely on speculation , you are challenging the logical , the verifiable , the witness's under oath , with pure speculation and fantasy ..

like I have said many times regarding the CrossMere claim , you are building your house on quicksand .. present some solid facts instead of flip flopping from one moot point to another .

Every guilty action has an innocent Explanation , just like every Innocent explanation has a guilty accusation .. that is the CrossMere theory in a nutshell .

cheers , moonbegger .

[DRoy]

If you had not opened up your post like this, I may have considered answering it. But you disqualify yourself when you claim that there is not a single point to go on. It is intellectually untenable and completely false.

All the best
Fisherman

Come on Fish. You state there isn't one piece that clears him and I'm stating you don't have one piece of incriminating evidence proving guilt. What's the problem with that? If any of my comments are intellectually untenable and completely false then prove his guilt on one thing. Don't speculate, don't guess, prove guilt somehow.

Cheers
DRoy

[Lechmere]

Yes
At this remove it is pretty unreasonable to expect a case to be made for any suspect where sufficient evidence can be presented that would result in a successful prosecution.
I think Lechmere is probably the only one where there is an arguable case that could be taken to court.
But it is more a case of presenting evidence to see who is a potential culprit or the most likely match for the culprit that can be found.

[Fisherman]

I understand about the burden of proof and the standard of proof and it is here that the case against Cross, to my mind falls in a pile. You assert he is the killer you have to prove it someone else doesn't have to disprove it. If you want a criminal prosecution you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, if you want a civil case you have to prove it on the balance of probabilities, that's the onus of proof, it's on you. Even on the balance of probabilities given the seriousness of the allegations you need convincing proof.

Let´s keep in mind that there are two levels included whenever we play the "Find the Ripper"-gane, GUT.

There is the level "Will this case stand up in a court of law and guarantee us a conviction of the suspect where we may conclude that he is beyond reasonable doubt the killer"?

And then there is the level "Has enough been presented in relation to this suspect for us to conclude that he is the number one suspect"?

In the latter case, there can be no doubt whatsoever that Lechmere is the best suspect - by far. Others will contest this, but the fact of the matter is that they will not be able to produce a half-decent suspect themselves. Some will say "My guy was actuall suspected by the police at the time." But so was Ostrog and Issenschmidt, and as long as it cannot be shown WHY they were suspected, they fall short until further notice.

In the first case. can the suspect be expected to be convicted in a court of law, I leave it to the experts to decide. What we DO know is that a case CAN be put forward on circumstantial evidence - lots of it. How far it would take the case as such is another matter.

But would anybody take the Kosminski case to court on the existing evidence? The Tumblety case? Druitt? Levy? Bury? Van Gogh...?

I say no, that would be impossible. In Lechmere´s case, I am not so sure. And that to me firmly settles who is top dog in this matter.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

GUT
That there are innocent explanations for each factual aspect is something that has been discussed since the year dot. (The year dot in Lechmere-as-a-suspect terms that is). It is not something you have just thought up.
The difference with the Lechmere case - as opposed to other potential cases - is that virtually every factual aspect has a potentially guilty explanation. It is not just one or two isolated factual events that are capable of having a guilty spin. It is that combination that makes the Lechmere case.
Invariably contraries say - 'its all about his name swap' , or 'its al about the routes to work' or 'its all about the Mizen disagreement' or 'its all about her clothes being pulled down', or 'its all about the timings' and so on - when these 'its all abouts' added together actually make the case.

But what you fail to persuade me on is why I should accept the guilty explanation when there is a perfectly acceptable innocent explanation, and I don't for one second think that I am the first to "think it up".

I understand that there are more than one point in the Cross argument, I understand about circumstantial cases.

I also understand about the burden of proof and the standard of proof and it is here that the case against Cross, to my mind falls in a pile. You assert he is the killer you have to prove it someone else doesn't have to disprove it. If you want a criminal prosecution you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, if you want a civil case you have to prove it on the balance of probabilities, that's the onus of proof, it's on you. Even on the balance of probabilities given the seriousness of the allegations you need convincing proof.

Because the onus is on you the Laws of Evidence tell us that if there is an acceptable explanation that is consistent with innocence you must acquit. That is exactly why I keep coming back to the innocent explanation.

I have said it before, but part of the problem is perhaps that you and I have different standards, you it appears [and I am not trying to put words in your mouth, it is merely my perception] are happy with what you see as a consistent hypothesis, I want evidence that would persuade a properly instructed jury.

[Lechmere]

GUT
That there are innocent explanations for each factual aspect is something that has been discussed since the year dot. (The year dot in Lechmere-as-a-suspect terms that is). It is not something you have just thought up.
The difference with the Lechmere case - as opposed to other potential cases - is that virtually every factual aspect has a potentially guilty explanation. It is not just one or two isolated factual events that are capable of having a guilty spin. It is that combination that makes the Lechmere case.
Invariably contraries say - 'its all about his name swap' , or 'its al about the routes to work' or 'its all about the Mizen disagreement' or 'its all about her clothes being pulled down', or 'its all about the timings' and so on - when these 'its all abouts' added together actually make the case.

[GUT]

G'day Lechmere

What I said was that the proven issues had innocent explanations.

I will now expand as it seems some can not fathom the simple fact that if there is an innocent explanation than the burden falls fair and square on those proposing some form of guilty explanation to prove it, and again as I said I see a glimmer of a possibility of guilt, but it takes one hell of a lot more than a faint glimmer to get to the line.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

My thinking is that it is strange that some find him guilty so easily with not a single point to go on.

Cheers
DRoy

If you had not opened up your post like this, I may have considered answering it. But you disqualify yourself when you claim that there is not a single point to go on. It is intellectually untenable and completely false.

All the best
Fisherman