Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Sally]

Zzzzzz.....

[Fisherman]

Zzzzzz.....

Thereīs a good girl!

Fisherman

[Sally]

Just for you, Fish....

It ought to be apparent to you - as it evidently is to the great majority of others posting here - that your 'theory' has devolved into little more than tedious - and largely pointless - repetition of your personal conjecture; which has been largely rejected by your audience.

If you could take a step backwards for a moment, you'd see that equally, there are several people amongst that audience who would like to see some hard evidence in support of your case.

As I've said to you before: rather than going on, and on, and on, along the same old lines - in which the majority have largely lost all interest after 2 years of the same - you'd be better served by seeking out that hard evidence.

Up to you, of course; but carry on repeating your personal conjecture ad nauseum and you're going to end up talking to yourself.

That wouldn't be much fun, would it?

[Ben]

Suffice to say, I’m in total agreement with Patrick and Sally.

I’m afraid I no longer have the time to spend frantically and repetitively posting here, and to be honest, I feel a little sorry for those who have, but since my name has been dragged into the “debate” – and I see I stand accused by Fisherman of being a “dunce” for alluding to the unpopularity of the Crossmere theory – my curiosity has been briefly aroused.

Just to clarify, Fisherman, at what point did you “upgrade” your certainty of Crossmere’s guilt from “70%” to this:

“He did it. There can be very little doubt.”

…?

(My emphasis)

“Do you think that they would have taken an interest in Lechmere if they had known what we know about the false name, his timings, his routes, the Mizen scam, the lack of hearing each other in Bucks Row”

You need to understand about circular arguments, and how to avoid making them so frequently. We most certainly do not “know” that there was a “Mizen scam”. Who agrees with you that Crossmere “scammed” Mizen? Answer - nobody except those promoting Crossmere as the ripper, i.e. a tiny, tiny percentage of those conversant with – and willing to discuss - the recently conceived “case” against him. The name change is not suspicious. He called himself Cross at work – that’s a fact, and I say so advisedly. There is not a fraction of a possibility of the name Lechmere NOT coming to the fore if he was known at work by that name. I do not exaggerate – no possibility. Hence, unless you’re now arguing that his called himself Cross from the beginning of his career at Pickfords as part of a pre-conceived plan to murder and mutilate prostitute much later on in that career, there is nothing suspicious about his use of the name Cross.

Nor is there anything remotely suspicious about the “routes”. What’s with the plural, by the way? Where is your evidence that Cross ever took a different route from Doveton Boulevard to the one he used on the morning of the Nichols murder? How many serial killers have been known to kill and dispose of their victims en route to work? None. Timings? Yes, pity the likely time of death for Chapman works out so badly for his ripper candidacy, and that he was almost certainly at work when that murder was committed, ditto Kelly.

There’s nothing wrong with “passion”, we understand that, but there IS something wrong with bulldozer debating tactics masquerading unsuccessfully as tenacity. Chill out a bit and who knows? You might snare a few takers along the way.

[Fisherman]

Just for you, Fish....

It ought to be apparent to you - as it evidently is to the great majority of others posting here - that your 'theory' has devolved into little more than tedious - and largely pointless - repetition of your personal conjecture; which has been largely rejected by your audience.

If you could take a step backwards for a moment, you'd see that equally, there are several people amongst that audience who would like to see some hard evidence in support of your case.

As I've said to you before: rather than going on, and on, and on, along the same old lines - in which the majority have largely lost all interest after 2 years of the same - you'd be better served by seeking out that hard evidence.

Up to you, of course; but carry on repeating your personal conjecture ad nauseum and you're going to end up talking to yourself.

That wouldn't be much fun, would it?

I thought you wanted to stay away from Lechmere threads, Sally? They bored you, remember? Drying paint and all that?

And yet, here you are again...?

Myself, I think it would be moronic to waste my time on topics I have no interest in. Apparently, you do not agree?

You are welcome to produce any sort of coherent criticism or useful point and I will answer it. To simply claim, however, that things are repeated on the Lechmere threads is anything but productive. Repetition is frequent on all subjects, and since I have been asked a thousand times why Lechmere did not run and told twothousand times that he thought of himself as Cross, it would be inpolite not to answer.

But if you donīt have an interest at all in the Lechmere threads, then why do you spend so much time on them? There are hundreds of posts on the topic, by your hand. On a topic that bores you?

I canīt figure out why this should be. Maybe you have an answer? Or maybe you will just draw at least some sort of logic deduction from your disinterest and go refreshingly far away?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

... at what point did you “upgrade” your certainty of Crossmere’s guilt from “70%” to this:

Quote:
“He did it. There can be very little doubt.”

On the 20:th of August.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Some truly priceless comments here - rich comedy.
For one or two others I fear for their blood pressure as things can (and absolutely certainly will) only get worse - much much worse for their poor rapidly beating hearts.

[Patrick S]

Ben:

... at what point did you “upgrade” your certainty of Crossmere’s guilt from “70%” to this:

Quote:
“He did it. There can be very little doubt.”

On the 20:th of August.

All the best,
Fisherman

Well, we heard this kind of thing once before and it turned out to be the "Mizen Scam". More laughable than convincing. I hope this is better.

I am going to choose to believe that you are peddling a theory you don't actually believe in order to sell a book somewhere down the road. That's okay. Many have done it before. The ill informed and gullible will buy it. The press will have a few "Case Closed?" articles rattling about. The usual nonsense. You'll make some pocket change and it will disappear among the Ripper clutter, much like Cornwell's book. Until the follow-up. Then we'll do it all over again.

[Scott Nelson]

For one or two others I fear for their blood pressure as things can (and absolutely certainly will) only get worse - much much worse for their poor rapidly beating hearts.

I'm not one of them. I'm looking forward to what you guys found on August 20th. Since several others independently came to suspect Cross, his status as a potential suspect can't be totally off-base.

[Patrick S]

Decision Points

I'll post this again, in hopes having the experts address the issues. Let's examine what we'll call Lechmere's decision points on August 31, 1888. We'll assume for this discussion that Charles Lechmere killed and mutilated Polly Nichols.

1. Robert Paul approaches the crime scene. Lechmere has either just finished mutilating Nichols or is still in the process of doing so. Virtually caught in the act of murder, the killer:

A. Runsinto the dark, deserted streets.
B. AttacksPaul (Lechmere has a knife either in hand or on his person).
C. Tries a ruse (my wife is drunk, etc.).
D. Does nothing in hopes that Paul passes without noticing (or at least saying) anything.
E. Approaches Paul, gets his attention, and asks him to "Come and see this woman.".

2. Paul thinks Nichols may be alive. He asks Lechmere to move the body. Lechmere, having just killed and mutilated Nichols, may have (and probably does have blood on his person - it's definate that he has no way of knowing if he has blood on him or not). Moving the body will provide him a perfect alibi for the blood on his clothing. Lechmere:

A. Helps lift Nichols and shouts, "Eh! I've gotten blood all over my coat!"
B. Declines to move the body.

3. Paul is still unsure if Nichols is alive or dead. But both he and the killer, Lechmere, are late for work. Lechmere decides to:

A. Tell Paul he works in the other direction and will send a copper if he finds one on his way to work.
B. Tell Paul he'll run ahead and see if he can find someone who can help, and just keep running until he feels he's out of danger of being caught.
C. Go for a walk with Paul in search of a policeman to report the fact that a woman is lying in Buck's Row.

4. Upon finding PC Mizen, Lechmere tells Mizen that:

A. He thinks she's drunk.
B. He thinks she's ill.
C. That she's either drunk or ill and he agrees with Paul, he thinks she's alive.
D. Tell Mizen, "For my part, I think she's dead."

5. Mizen asks Lechmere his name. Lechmere, having just killed and mutilated a woman, wants to protect himself from arrest. So he:

A. Tells him his name is Charles Lechmere. Since no suspicion has fallen upon him up to this point, why not?
B. Make up a completely fake name, fake address, fake place of employment and disappear after the conversation with Mizen.
C. Tell him your real first name and your adoptive father's last name along with your real home address and real place of employment.

Really. THIS is your theory?

[Fisherman]

I'm not one of them. I'm looking forward to what you guys found on August 20th. Since several others independently came to suspect Cross, his status as a potential suspect can't be totally off-base.

But thatīs sound reasoning, Scott - how does that belong on this thread?

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Is this Breakthrough anything to do with Cats meat and Lechmere's ties to it ?

Cats meat production in Bucks Row .. True .

Cats meat shop front of 29 Hanbury street .. True .

Cats meat shop next to Dutfields yard .. possible ..



Although the Patrick S post is very hard to deny ..

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Is this Breakthrough anything to do with Cats meat and Lechmere's ties to it ?

Cats meat production in Bucks Row .. True .

Cats meat shop front of 29 Hanbury street .. True .

Cats meat shop next to Dutfields yard .. possible ..



moonbegger .

No, Moonbegger, it has nothing to do with the catīs meat business - although that issue is very interesting as such, and there is more to say about it than what has been said.

It is something else, but thatīs as much as I intend to say at this remove in time. You can trust Edward though, when he says that matters will get worse for the fainthearted.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. Who said that it was a breakthrough? It may be, but Iīd like to make my own calls on such matters.

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
Patrick's post is very easy to deny, as propositions come no where near to describing the 'Lechmere theory'.

[MrBarnett]

Cat's meat is the key, because of what it was made from.

And canals are the thread that links everything together.

Am I close?

MrB