Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

I'm sorry, I'm too cynical by far. It's a result of being a police officer for nearly thirty years.

And are you saying that:

-the fact that Lechmere was found by a victims side
-the fact that he was alone with the victim until being stumbled upon by Robert Paul
-the time given, that should have Lechmere half a mile down Hanbury Street at 3.45
-the covered up wounds
-the correlation between murder spots and Lechmeres working routes
-the discrepancy beteen what Lechmere and Mizen said at the inquest
-the lack of hearing Lechmere on Pauls behalf
-the name change
-the arrival in working clothes to the inquest
-the correlation between his mothers house and the Stride murder
-the finding of the torso very close by his mothers place

...would not interest a seasoned policeman?

Were those thirty years served in a murder squad at any time?

Mr Barnett says it would be silly not to investigate further, but you seem to be of a different meaning.

If you think it would not be necessary to investigate further, how do you justify that take on things? Why is this gathered evidence of no consequence? How does it amount to a bee in a bonnet only?

Is it your police expert hunch, or can you substantiate it?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Goodness me!

And are you saying that:
-the fact that Lechmere was found by a victims side
-the fact that he was alone with the victim until being stumbled upon by Robert Paul
-the time given, that should have Lechmere half a mile down Hanbury Street at 3.45
-the covered up wounds
-the correlation between murder spots and Lechmeres working routes
-the discrepancy beteen what Lechmere and Mizen said at the inquest
-the lack of hearing Lechmere on Pauls behalf
-the name change
-the arrival in working clothes to the inquest
-the correlation between his mothers house and the Stride murder
-the finding of the torso very close by his mothers place
...would not interest a seasoned policeman?
Were those thirty years served in a murder squad at any time?
Mr Barnett says it would be silly not to investigate further, but you seem to be of a different meaning.
If you think it would not be necessary to investigate further, how do you justify that take on things? Why is this gathered evidence of no consequence? How does it amount to a bee in a bonnet only?
Is it your police expert hunch, or can you substantiate it?
All the best,
Fisherman

Goodness me! Did I say all that??? I'd better go and take some pills. I could have sworn I wrote only a few lines.

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Not sure I feel too comfortable having my slightly tongue in cheek fictionalised copper's hunch being waved in SPE's face like that.

Let's hope he has the good grace to answer, despite the somewhat combative tone of the question.

MrB.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Not sure I feel too comfortable having my slightly tongue in cheek fictionalised copper's hunch being waved in SPE's face like that.

Let's hope he has the good grace to answer, despite the somewhat combative tone of the question.

MrB.

I feel quite comfortable with it myself, Mr Barnett. There is every reason to.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

How?

...
Were those thirty years served in a murder squad at any time?
...
Is it your police expert hunch, or can you substantiate it?
...
Fisherman

I have questioned and arrested dozens of crime suspects, was a tutor constable and trained around sixty officers to do the job, have dealt with dozens of sudden deaths, witnessed many autopsies, acted as coroner's officer, trained and been part of the firearms team, and have been involved in murder investigations. How does your police record stand?

[Fisherman]

Goodness me! Did I say all that??? I'd better go and take some pills. I could have sworn I wrote only a few lines.

You did. But hereīs the opportunity to prove your point about "silly Ripperologists".

Or to just wave it away.

I mean, just jumping into a discussion and offer a Graham Chapmanish "Silly! Silly! Stop it, thatīs silly!" is not going to convince many people of the superior quality of your argument. Not until you presented some argument at all, at least.

There are issues to evaluate, questions to answer, anomalies to be explained - or explained away. And you DID join the thread for some sort of reasoning, didnīt you?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

But...

I feel quite comfortable with it myself, Mr Barnett. There is every reason to.
The best,
Fisherman

But I do hope that you are not smug, you sound it.

[Stewart P Evans]

You are not...

You did. But hereīs the opportunity to prove your point about "silly Ripperologists".
Or to just wave it away.
I mean, just jumping into a discussion and offer a Graham Chapmanish "Silly! Silly! Stop it, thatīs silly!" is not going to convince many people of the superior quality of your argument. Not until you presented some argument at all, at least.
There are issues to evaluate, questions to answer, anomalies to be explained - or explained away. And you DID join the thread for some sort of reasoning, didnīt you?
All the best,
Fisherman

You are not going to entice me into your tedious and pointless 'suspect' discussions. Do get a life.

[Rob Clack]

And are you saying that:

-the fact that Lechmere was found by a victims side
-the fact that he was alone with the victim until being stumbled upon by Robert Paul
-the time given, that should have Lechmere half a mile down Hanbury Street at 3.45
-the covered up wounds
-the correlation between murder spots and Lechmeres working routes
-the discrepancy beteen what Lechmere and Mizen said at the inquest
-the lack of hearing Lechmere on Pauls behalf
-the name change
-the arrival in working clothes to the inquest
-the correlation between his mothers house and the Stride murder
-the finding of the torso very close by his mothers place

...would not interest a seasoned policeman?

Were those thirty years served in a murder squad at any time?

Mr Barnett says it would be silly not to investigate further, but you seem to be of a different meaning.

If you think it would not be necessary to investigate further, how do you justify that take on things? Why is this gathered evidence of no consequence? How does it amount to a bee in a bonnet only?

Is it your police expert hunch, or can you substantiate it?

All the best,
Fisherman

Still misleading people Christer? I suppose that's what people do with a weak suspect.


Rob

[Fisherman]

I have questioned and arrested dozens of crime suspects, was a tutor constable and trained around sixty officers to do the job, have dealt with dozens of sudden deaths, witnessed many autopsies, acted as coroner's officer, trained and been part of the firearms team, and have been involved in murder investigations. How does your police record stand?

I donīt think I need have to have a police record to inquire about your service. It obviously is of interest that you have police experience, and it makes a difference if you were a beat copper in Cropredy or if you were a senior murder investigator in London.

Not that I think that a retired police officer would necessarily be the best bid for somebody to solve the Ripper riddle. Just as such a background can be useful in some instances, it can probably be much less useful in others. Iīve sen policemen out here that have produced input of wildly differing quality, something you may agree about.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

You are not going to entice me into your tedious and pointless 'suspect' discussions. Do get a life.

I have one. In some respects, it resembles yours - we both post out here.

And I was not really expecting that you would let me "entice you" into any debate. I felt rather convinced that you would just provide the negative oneliner with no facts or information about the case involved and then scuttle off.

Bye,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Still misleading people Christer? I suppose that's what people do with a weak suspect.


Rob

I donīt have the faintest idea what people do with weak suspects, Rob.

Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

I donīt have the faintest idea what people do with weak suspects, Rob.

Fisherman

It is what you are doing with Lechmere.

Rob

[Fisherman]

It is what you are doing with Lechmere.

Rob

Oh, I DID get the inference, Rob. What I pointed out is that he is not a weak suspect.

He is in fact the best one.

Admittedly, up til the pre-Lechmere time, the best suspect WAS a weak suspect in many ways. But that has changed now.


The best,
Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

Oh, I DID get the inference, Rob. What I pointed out is that he is not a weak suspect.

He is in fact the best one.

Admittedly, up til the pre-Lechmere time, the best suspect WAS a weak suspect in many ways. But that has changed now.


The best,
Fisherman

If he was such a strong suspect, the best one, then you wouldn't have the need to mislead people and let the facts speak for themselves.

Rob