Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Patrick S]

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 shape 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 courtesty 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

Of all the absurdities, this is the most absurd. Do you know what you can tell about a person's inner-workings from a photograph? Exactly this: Nothing. Of course you can examine a photograph after you have certain information (or in this case, information you've completely invented) and say, "Well...you can tell _______ by looking at him, can't you?" The fact of the matter is that you've gone so far down this path, you see confirmation in EVERYTHING. If the photo had presented Lechmere in exactly the opposoite light that you THINK he's presented in, you'd have argued some other point, assuring us that it does nothing to contradict what you already knew: THIS man was Jack the Ripper.

I'm convinced now more than ever that neither you nor Ed actually believes this Lechmere business. It's too ridiculous. You are simple con men, hoping to one day make a few bucks.

[MrBarnett]

Oh dear, look what I've started.

I may be a bit odd, but every time I look at an old photo my mind comes up with an instant assessment of the person's character. It takes a few seconds longer to verbalise as jolly, cold, stern, intelligent, humorous etc. Am I really the only person who does this?

In the case of the Lech photo I sensed self-possession. I could be wrong, and if it was self-possession it could just be that of an exemplary citizen and family man who was feeling just a little smug at how well he had done in life.

I wonder if I had initially said he looked like a kindly old uncle whether my statement would have caused such an uproar.

MrB

[Abby Normal]

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

The plot thickens! A photo of lechmere? Wether he was JtR or not is one thing, but at the very least a photo of a very important witness which we didn't have before is significant in its own right.

And another thing I might be missing. All talk about his body language, what image he projected etc. How about does he fit any of the witness descriptions??!?!

Can I see it? I would be happy to tell you how it strikes me fish!!

[MrBarnett]

How about does he fit any of the witness descriptions??!?!

That's a tricky one for you, Fish.

[DRoy]

Congrats to Lechmere & Fish for again contributing and providing one more piece of the puzzle that we all yearn for. I agree with Abby Normal, thanks guys, we do really appreciate the effort. A picture of Lech is important and I look forward to seeing what else it is you've uncovered.

Cheers
DRoy

[Patrick S]

The plot thickens! A photo of lechmere? Wether he was JtR or not is one thing, but at the very least a photo of a very important witness which we didn't have before is significant in its own right.

And another thing I might be missing. All talk about his body language, what image he projected etc. How about does he fit any of the witness descriptions??!?!

Can I see it? I would be happy to tell you how it strikes me fish!!

I agree. We all know that Annie Chapman wasn't Jack the Ripper, yet it was quite interesting to a see photo of her in life, wasn't it. Unfortunately, the issue of Cross as an important WITNESS in the case has been trodden on and soiled by Fish and Ed. Now we are drawing conclusion with respect to his demeanor and character from one photograph. Alas, this is merely one more absurdity piled upon a scrap heap of absurdities.

With respect to 'Ripperology' we now seem to be at a point in time where it's no longer acceptable to simply study and - when possible - postulate. Now, it seems, we must have "theories" and "suspects", going so far now as to say that we are very nearly CONVINCED of "guilt".

[Patrick S]

That's a tricky one for you, Fish.

Don't leave us in suspense.

[MrBarnett]

Patrick,

I paid ten quid and stood in the rain for 2 1/2 hours to get my glimpse. I expect my next glimpse will be when I buy the book.

MrB

[Patrick S]

Patrick,

I paid ten quid and stood in the rain for 2 1/2 hours to get my glimpse. I expect my next glimpse will be when I buy the book.

MrB

What a relief. It's clear that Ed and Fish are simple hucksters. Somehow it's comforting to know they are at least intelligent enough to not actually believe this foolishness. I'll be in London in a few months. I'll have to see what the Crossmere Twins have cooking to raise a buck while I'm in town.

[MrBarnett]

Patrick,

The ten quid went to a good cause, not into the pockets of team Lechmere.

Assumption of guilt without evidence is never a good idea.

MrB

[moonbegger]

I discovered the House and street that Joseph Lawende resided in during the murders ( in fact I lived a few doors down from him )

I too should have written a book and had a grand unveiling ..

Damn !!! Missed the boat again

cheers , moonbegger .

[DRoy]

What a relief. It's clear that Ed and Fish are simple hucksters. Somehow it's comforting to know they are at least intelligent enough to not actually believe this foolishness. I'll be in London in a few months. I'll have to see what the Crossmere Twins have cooking to raise a buck while I'm in town.

Patrick,

You can tell by my posts that I'm not buying Lech as 'Jack' but come on man, give some credit where credit is due. They obviously believe their theory quite passionately regardless whether right or wrong. They've contributed so that you and I even have something to talk about. Meeting them would be humbling and doing a tour with them should be an honor regardless of their personal opinions about the case. They've contributed, (I know I haven't), besides arguing, ask yourself what you've contributed. Stick to making awesome posts like you have previously in this thread when you made people actually think.

Cheers
DRoy

[MrBarnett]

Hi Moon,

It's never too late. You could write a history of the house, with Lawende's tenancy as one of the chapters.

And bringing the discussion back on topic, did your nan know that a JTR witness lived a few doors away? Think carefully before you answer. If it's a no, it'll strengthen the case against Lech considerably.

MrB

[Lechmere]

Patrick
The difference - apart from my posts being spread over a longer period - is that I post on topics that I enjoy and am interested in. I critically examine several other suspect theories but only the ones I find interesting. I dont bother at all with the 'laughble' ones. Whereas you seem a bit obsessed with a theory you think is laughable. But then the repeated references you give to your mirth is more reminiscent of hysteria.

[MrBarnett]

Patrick,

You can tell by my posts that I'm not buying Lech as 'Jack' but come on man, give some credit where credit is due. They obviously believe their theory quite passionately regardless whether right or wrong. They've contributed so that you and I even have something to talk about. Meeting them would be humbling and doing a tour with them should be an honor regardless of their personal opinions about the case. They've contributed, (I know I haven't), besides arguing, ask yourself what you've contributed. Stick to making awesome posts like you have previously in this thread when you made people actually think.

Cheers
DRoy

Right on, DRoy!

Even if you believe there is nothing of any consequence to Lech's candidacy, surely the research into his life is interesting. And coming up with a photo is a scoop by anyone's standards.

And not all of us on here have high academic standards (speaking for myself here and assuming there may be others of my ilk). I for one find it intriguing that the only person ever discovered by a freshly killed JTR victim had a connection to a horsemeat business in Pinchin Street. Doesn't prove a thing, of course, but it's a curious coincidence, surely.

I don't get why people get so hot under the collar about this stuff. As far as I can tell the Lech theory is based on sound research. If someone feels the wrong conclusions have been drawn, so what? It's not as if anything has been invented (so far as I am aware).

MrB