Charles Lechmere interesting link

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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, it´s viability. And in that respect, my "non-starter" has the upper edge by a fair country mile or two.

I´m happy with that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

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

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]

Serial killers are not investigated as serial killers.

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

Monty

[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

[Lechmere]

Duplicate u