Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Lechmere]

Duplicate

[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!

[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]

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]

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]

There's nowt wrong with a bit of passion.

[Monty]

Agreed,

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

Monty

[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]

My point, proven.

For clarity. I have not called you ignorant Christer. I suspect it is a language thang, however it needs to be pointed out.

And to answer your persistent question, Cross, as it stands, is a non- starter as a valid suspect. This down to insufficient damning evidence which is reasonably dismissed.

His actions at the scene are consistant with other witnesses, his circumstances cover thousands in the area. There is no reason, at present, to suspect Cross as the murderer of Mary Ann Nichols, nor any other victim associated with the Whitechapel Murders.

The fact we are continuouisly debating the same concerns regarding this theory, nigh on 5 years after they were raised, is testament to the fact that evidence is circumstantial at best, and stretched beyond reason at worst.

That, at present, is where we are.

Now I await your inevitable response with hope you shall provide something new of interest.

Dont disappoint me.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty!

As for what you have called me and inferred, I know that very well. And on second thoughts, I would not have had much reason to object to you calling me ignorant, since I am about to do the exact same about your take. The reason being that you have just shown ignorance by claiming that Lechmere (that IS his name) is a non-starter as a valid suspect.

Tar and feathers, Monty - tar and feathers.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

He gave his name as Cross.

You've disappointed me Christer, but not surprised me.

Monty

[Fisherman]

He gave his name as Cross.

You've disappointed me Christer, but not surprised me.

Monty

That leaves us on equal footing in that department, then. But I at least got the name right.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

That leaves us on equal footing in that department, then. But I at least got the name right.

All the best,
Fisherman

You haven't, but if it pleases you childish need to think that, I'm happy. The relevance is immaterial. He is known as Cross, and stated as such.

Monty

[Fisherman]

You haven't, but if it pleases you childish need to think that, I'm happy. The relevance is immaterial. He is known as Cross, and stated as such.

Monty

Many killers have given false names to the authorities in combination with their activities: Peter Tobin, Vincent Tabak, Simon Hennesey, Darrell Crider, Moses Mathias ... heaps of them. The prudent thing to do in such cases is to call these men by their correct names when dealing with them in a historical context - not to accept their aliases because they chose to call themselves by those false names. They intended to mislead when doing so, and that should not be commended by accepting their lies.

The exact same thing must apply in this case. We do not know (well ... ) to what, if any, extent it applies that Charles Lechmere was the killer, but for claritys sake and to conform to the rule, he should be called by his true name, especially since we have it on record that it was the name he chose to go by himself. The only opposition is "Cross" and that suggestion is totally squashed numerically by Lechmere. All other suggestions are conjecture.

If there is any childishness at all involved - and there really ought not be, Monty - then it is on behalf of those who will not accept this. You are a researcher, and you should know this.

You may CHOOSE to call the carman Cross if it pleases you or if you just canīt bring yourself to go along with the evidence, the records, the name registers and the common approach, but what you need to avoid is to call me childish for sticking with the truth and the norm.

On the whole, and as usual when you enter the Lechmere (yes!) debate, what does crop up is antagonism, belittling and bad temper.That in itself is reason enough not to prolong this poor excuse for a debate.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

To state Cross is a false name is erroneous ad misleading.

To state he lied about his name, is erroneous and misleading.

Maurice Micklewhite decided to call himself Micheal Caine. Is he a liar and a devious serial killer?

I suspect that you use of the word 'false' is down to the fact English is your second language, and not because you wish to influence the readership.

Monty