Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Barnaby]

And anyway, things always coincide with my theory, so I´m quite used to it.
Fisherman

I've noticed this. You do have a good amount of inductive support for your explanation of the events. And you get about as close as one can get to generating testable predictions (e.g., with the acoustics) 125 years later.

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
Neil stated he was at the crime scene at about 3:45, like Paul, but at leastvguve minutes must have separated them.
Can you work for yourself now that if Lechmere gave his times to conform with Neil and not Paul then he would not have been out by very much?
Another one of your schoolboy errors.

Also I'm not entirely sure of what you think is signified by the press report about the hullabaloo in the vicinity of Bucks Row after the murder.

[Lechmere]

GUT
Without wishing to labour the point, you said:

I think my words were that there is a glimmer of a possibility of a guilty interpretation. However see an innocent explanation as being consistent with all of the proven issues, as opposed to the speculative issues.

This implies that you think your belief in Lechmere’s innocence is based on more factual or proven issues than is my suspicion as to his guilt.
However, your belief in his innocence is based purely on your conjecture and speculation about these proven issues.
We have an incident that can be explained in alternative ways – you always choose the innocent explanation. That is speculation just as much as choosing the guilty explanation.
Your speculative choice may be more personally satisfying to you but it is no more based on anything that is proven than is the guilty choice.

[Barnaby]

Lechmere,

I think GUT's skepticism is reasonable. The burden of proof should be on those advancing Lechmere as the Ripper. I don't think we should all by default just sit on the fence and wait to be swayed. Rather, we should be skeptical of all suspects unless sufficient evidence convinces us otherwise. What constitutes "sufficient evidence" is different for everyone, I suppose.

[moonbegger]

Moonbeggar
Neil stated he was at the crime scene at about 3:45, like Paul, but at leastvguve minutes must have separated them.
Can you work for yourself now that if Lechmere gave his times to conform with Neil and not Paul then he would not have been out by very much?
Another one of your schoolboy errors.

Also I'm not entirely sure of what you think is signified by the press report about the hullabaloo in the vicinity of Bucks Row after the murder.

So are you claiming that Thain was correct with his Times ( especially when tied in with Llewellyn's 4am call)

Or was Paul right with his Exactly 3.45 ? Choose a horse and ride it !

Here is the thing , We Don't know what times were off and who's times were on .. we don't even know what time Cross left for work ! " About 3.30" allowing for just after , and fitting in nicely .. then we have "3.20" which would IF claimed would raise obvious concerns .. By using the same logic you apply to the Lechmere case.. He obviously said "About 3.30" because if he said 3.20 .. he would have been questioned about it .. and there is no evidence that he was .

Infact "About 3.30" as well as pointing to his innocence , also points to the suggestion that he did mirror Pauls time after all, If guilty
The whole 3.20 time makes no sense Guilty or innocent .

See that Ed , another one of my school boy errors is to look at both sides of the equation impartially ..

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 .

Infact as you correctly point out , that is the same with a lot of suspects ..

cheers , moonbegger .

[DRoy]

My own thinking is that it is strange that he is never absolved from a single point.

Fish,

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

Why did not Mizen say that TWO men spoke to him?

Ask Mizen. Why is it Lech's fault Mizen states he only talked to one person and how does this somehow incriminate Lech?

Why do not Mizen and Lechmere agree about what the PC was told?

See above.

Why is it that it seems that Lechmere played down the seriousness of the errand?

'Seems' is a good word. Could it be because he didn't know the seriousness? Did Paul know the seriousness? This doesn't incriminate Lech in any way.

Why was not Nichols left with her clothes flung up over her?

Ask the killer. Nobody knows who pulled her clothes down, nor why, nor when. This doesn't incriminate Lech in any way.

Why did he not say "Lechmere" as he was asked for his name?

I'm not even going to bother with this one.

Why did not Paul say that he noticed a bloke walking some way up ahead?

Because he didn't notice one. Seriously, this isn't evidence against Lech at all why Paul could/couldn't, did/didn't...

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

How do you know they did? How do you know what he normally wore? How do you know these weren't his best clothes? How do you know he didn't have a huge job immediately afterwards? This is not incriminating in the least.

Why did he ommitt to mention where he lived in front of the inquest?

No proof he did. It may have been stated but not heard. Not the least bit suspicious or incriminating.

Why is it that the time he left home allows for him to have done the deed?

Because he had to leave home at some time to arrive at work when he's supposed to! Should he have left two hours early to arrive at work two hours early? The other murders are earlier or later so did he change his shift daily?

Why couldn´t just Paul have said that he actually DID see somebody en route to work - a man under the brewery lamps?

Because he didn't see anybody. Really? These questions are your evidence?

Why is it that the murders coincide with Lechmeres logical routes to work?

They coincide with anyone going the opposite direction as well. They also coincide with someone living in the heart of the murder sites and either turning left or right. Wow! Is there a pattern in the murder sites?

Why did the victims all die at hours that logically tally with his route to work?

I don't see they do. We don't know when his shift was nor what routes he took except for the one day.

Why did just Stride have to die at 12.45 - on a free night for Lechmere?

Free night, how can we be so sure? If she died 5 hours earlier or later would it make any difference to you?

Why could not one of the working trek victims have been the one that died at 12.45?

Because you'd find a way to make the puzzle piece fit anyway?

Why did Eddowes die so close to the convenient Broad Street depot?

That question and the wording of it doesn't warrant a response

Why is Eddowes the only other victim to die early? On Lechmere´s free night?

See my response about Stride.

Why can´t the poor man get one single break and have his story confirmed and proven in just one single, measly instance? Why is it that we ALWAYS find the room for him to have done it?

Because even if it doesn't fit some people find a way to make it fit. An example would be Lech's mother living on the supposed murder path yet no proof Lech even talked to mother or visited or walked from her house at any time.

For a supposed serial murderer, he sure did a lot of things that at least a couple see as incriminating. Was he really that dumb to leave so much info out there for others to interpret as sure signs of guilt...or are those couple Lech murderer supporters that good at armchair detective work? Hmmmm...

Cheers
DRoy

[Lechmere]

Barnaby
I accept that the burden of proof is on those trying to make a case - but GUT was going beyond that, probably to be fair just by using slightly imprecise wording, in suggesting that the case for Lechmere's innocence was based on some proven matter.

Moonbeggar.
Errrr
No I'm not saying that Thain was right.
Llewellyn was more likely to be right, mind you, for the time he was called up. But I would suggest that coordinating Than with Llewellyn is more likely to put the Neil-Thain conversation at 3.50 - but that's another story.

You have been imagining that you had discovered some sort of major point about Lechmere raising a red flag against himself by saying he left at 3.30, when he may have known that Paul put their meeting at 3.45 - thus advertising that he had a window of 8 minutes unaccounted for.
Have you forgotten that?

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.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;302772]

Fish,

So if he wasn't stupid, then it was a deliberate decision to create the timing anomaly. Why? Presumably because he left no later than 3.20 (possibly earlier) and feared his wife would confirm this if she were asked by the police.

I would warn about predisposing that it was a deliberate decision to create the time anomaly - Einstein may have forgotten to bring an umbrella in rainy weather, and he was a clever guy too.
My own personal take on matters is that he may well have added a measure of minutes to the time he actually left, but what we have is what we must go by and it is very much in line with him having had that window of opportunity.

In that case what did he do with the extra time? 18 mins, possibly more, and he couldn't even manage any organ removal.

Come on, Mr Barnett - he may have had to wait for ten minutes before a suitable prey - Nichols - came along.

Did it take him that long to find Nichols in the first place? Did he take a detour from his 'proven' route to find her? And having done so, did he then deliberately take her back to his work route to murder her?

We can only guess. I do think, however, that the prostitutes normally were the ones who chose the spot. And there is every chance that he picked her up on Whitechapel road.

Perhaps that was the case with the other victims. He went off route to find them and then took them back to make a point of some kind. What do you think?

I think that out of the ones who fell prey along his working trek, Nichols is the only one where I don´t prioritize the murder spot as the place where he necessarily met his victim. Could have, though!
Osborn/Wentworth, George Yard close by Old Montague, Hanbury Street, Dorset Street - these women he would have had a very decent chance of having met without straying from his trek.

Personally, I've always believed the choice of location was the women's, not Jack's. And it's unlikely that he found them soliciting within a few yards of where they were killed. So the significance of the two 'proven' routes is severely diminished. He went off route, whatever that was , to find his victims and they then took him to the places they knew where they could be assured of a few minutes' privacy, but not so secluded that they couldn't call for help if necessary.

I think I have given my answer to that already, Mr Barnett.

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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