Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Ben]

On the 20:th of August.

No, Fisherman. You wrote "He did it. There can be very little doubt" on 6th August, so the "upgrade" in your guilt-conviction predated whatever exciting discovery/revelation/whatever occurred on the 20th.

So now you've upgraded even further...to what, I wonder? 100% certainty that it was him?

Wow.

[Lechmere]

Everyone likes an upgrade

[Fisherman]

No, Fisherman. You wrote "He did it. There can be very little doubt" on 6th August, so the "upgrade" in your guilt-conviction predated whatever exciting discovery/revelation/whatever occurred on the 20th.

So now you've upgraded even further...to what, I wonder? 100% certainty that it was him?

Wow.

Ben!

Has it occurred to you that:

-70-30 actually means that you have very little doubt?

-I am perhaps pulling your leg?

-I may have been looking at something on the 6:th that resulted in me becoming convinced the 20:th?

-people may feel more or less certain of things from day to day on a hunch basis?

-more than one thing could have been added?

As it happens, there is information that strengthens my case. But before you have any use for it, you must first be able to see the true implications of what went down on the murder morning. Working from what you wrote in your former post, you would never have picked up on part B since you think that part A never existed.

Thats how it goes when we get things wrong.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

Mr Barnett!

Did you enjoy your evening out on the 25:th?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

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

I'll add this to the list of absurd statements made by the Lechmere-a-cons, since my post has nothing to do with theory and is simply a list of things that Lechmere actually did. What you are unable to do, clearly, is tell me why on Earth a guilty man would do those things if his goal was not to be caught.

At this point it's clear that you have either chosen to ignore the post(s) completely, or, it's taking you several days to construct your responses, and your having trouble doing so in a way that makes any sense whatsoever (Which is in and of itself the answer I expected: You've got nothing.).

Now, we'll all wait for the big unveiling. Then, as seems to be the pattern here, we'll all say, "Wait. What? That doesn't make ANY sense!" You and Fisherman will blast everyone for being mean to you and saying nasty things about your "theory" and declare that Ripperology is akin to the Flat Earth Society. And the world will turn. We'll continue poking holes and laughing at you, alternately, and you'll continue with your con until you make a buck or two.

[Lechmere]

At least it gives meaning to your life and allows you space to vent and rant.

[Patrick S]

At least it gives meaning to your life and allows you space to vent and rant.

Says he of the 3,000-plus posts. Hilarious.

[MrBarnett]

Mr Barnett!

Did you enjoy your evening out on the 25:th?

All the best,
Fisherman

I did indeed, Fish. I opted for the very soggy afternoon tour. It was very interesting and I picked up a few things I wasn't aware of. The highlight (apart from the delicious bag of chips from Poppies on the corner of Hanbury Street) was seeing a photo of Lech.

Am I missing something here? I thought your ref to Aug, 20th was just a throwaway response. Is that the case, or did something significant come to light on that date?

MrB

[Fisherman]

Something significant DID come to light on the date in question, Mr Barnett, but thatīs as much as I will say. As an aside, the 70 per cent I spoke of earlier was in response to a poster (Iīve forgotten who it was) who asked me to state a number. Much as I thought 70 sounded like a useful presentation of what I think, it was actually a rather conservative estimation.

I am glad to hear you liked the tour. Out of interest: How did the Charles Lechmere photo strike you?

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Are you asking whether the man in the photo looked liked someone harbouring a dark secret? If so, my answer has to be possibly - in percentage terms, about 70.

I must admit, though, there was something about the look of the man that brought the C word to mind. ( I mean control not the other one).

MrB

[Patrick S]

I am glad to hear you liked the tour. Out of interest: How did the Charles Lechmere photo strike you?

The best,
Fisherman

A picture. And when viewed with 'and eye on Lechmere being guilty' I'm sure it looks quite unsettling indeed.

[MrBarnett]

A picture. And when viewed with 'and eye on Lechmere being guilty' I'm sure it looks quite unsettling indeed.

I'm sure it would, as it did when viewed through my habitual scepticism.

MrB

[Sally]

What's this?

The implication here appears to be that suspicion against Crossmere can be bolstered according to how he appears in his much alluded to photo.

Riighht.........

We'll be hearing that he had 'criminal features' next. Mind you, I bet that goes down a storm with the general public - '... and here it is, Ladies and Gents, the fact of Jack the Ripper!!!'

Ridiculous - and reprehensible.

[Fisherman]

What's this?

The implication here appears to be that suspicion against Crossmere can be bolstered according to how he appears in his much alluded to photo.

Riighht.........

We'll be hearing that he had 'criminal features' next. Mind you, I bet that goes down a storm with the general public - '... and here it is, Ladies and Gents, the fact of Jack the Ripper!!!'

Ridiculous - and reprehensible.

Dear little Sally!

You may wish to go back and see what I asked: How did the Charles Lechmere photo strike you?

Of course, being of the ilk you are, you will immediately accuse me of phrenology! That was to be expected!

To me, seeing the photo the first time over struck me in a number of ways. First of all, it felt strange to look into the eyes of a man I had read about for thirty years but never seen.

After that, I was struck by something else about him, something that had nothing to do at all with his looks. You see, there are OTHER things than looks that can strike you when looking at a person. If I was to comment on what you just did - point me out as somebody who took personal looks to implicate crime - and send you a photo with my reaction, it would strike you as a photo of a very happy person, laughing hysterically. For example!

Now, Sally - can you begin to see that there are other things to observe in a person than personal looks, angles of noises, heights of foreheads and shapes of ears?

There is also mood, body language etcetera. Such things can say something about a person. Some will look shy and reveal that in facial expression and body language, for example. And that actually implies a shy person to some extent. Or a misrepresentative photo, for that matter.

But you are not shy, are you! Once again you are jumping the gun and throwing out accusations for no good reason at all. And on top of that, you are doing it on a thread you are so utterly and totally uninterested of! What IS it that makes it impossible for you to just disappear from such a boring topic as this?

The next time over you are about to try and paint me out as a phrenologist, would you please have the courtesy to ask first? Itīs a complicated world out there, and you have an uncanny manner of getting it wrong ever so often. Iīd be glad to help you out so that you donīt trouble me and embarras yourself any further.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mr Barnett!

Sorry about the commotion - some people do have a tedious habit of making misunderstanding axiomatic.

Thank you for your comments on the photo! I do "C" exactly what you mean.

All the best,
Fisherman