Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[The Good Michael]

Maybe not the place for it, but the biggest piece of nonsense in this whole theory is the foundation it's built on: Cross gave an incorrect name. Of course it is quite normal, and almost automatic for a child to take on the surname of a new father. Now, if Cross had been 16 or 17, maybe it would be different, but I believe he was quite a young boy. It has no bearing on things that he didn't have his name legally changed. That would take time and effort, and what would the point be. When Lechcross gave his address to the police, he proudly used his surname for 30+ years, Cross. How could it be any different? So let's just drop that one from the argument forever, because it only is another tick against not Lechmere, but the proponents. If the Lechemerites can fins any evidence that Cross used the name Lechmere growing up with his schoolmates, I may rethink things. As it is now, it's hogwash at best.

Mike

[Colin Roberts]

Maybe not the place for it, but the biggest piece of nonsense in this whole theory is the foundation it's built on: Cross gave an incorrect name. Of course it is quite normal, and almost automatic for a child to take on the surname of a new father. Now, if Cross had been 16 or 17, maybe it would be different, but I believe he was quite a young boy. It has no bearing on things that he didn't have his name legally changed. That would take time and effort, and what would the point be. When Lechcross gave his address to the police, he proudly used his surname for 30+ years, Cross. How could it be any different? So let's just drop that one from the argument forever, because it only is another tick against not Lechmere, but the proponents. If the Lechemerites can fins any evidence that Cross used the name Lechmere growing up with his schoolmates, I may rethink things. As it is now, it's hogwash at best.

Perhaps we should petition to have the name on his tombstone changed to 'Cross'.

How naïve his descendants must be to believe that his name was 'Lechmere'.

For that matter, how naïve they must be to believe that their name is 'Lechmere'.

[J6123]

That recent documentary has left me nearly 50/50 as to whether Charles Allen Lechmere murdered Polly Nichols. Maybe even 60/40, in favour of him doing it. That is going by the case presented in the documentary alone, and that her wounds were as extremely fresh as they appear to have been, and he really did lie to Mizen about another copper being with the body.

Cracking documentary.

[The Good Michael]

Perhaps we should petition to have the name on his tombstone changed to 'Cross'.

How naïve his descendants must be to believe that his name was 'Lechmere'.

For that matter, how naïve they must be to believe that their name is 'Lechmere'.

I agree.

Mike

[J6123]

Afterthought....

There's plenty of arguments against, of course, one of which being that what we know about Lechmere seems to clash a bit with John Douglas's behavioural profile of the Ripper. Which begs the unspeakable question - Is John Douglas wrong?

Personally I think that, at the very least, this is not a ridiculous theory at all.

[The Good Michael]

Afterthought....

There's plenty of arguments against, of course, one of which being that what we know about Lechmere seems to clash a bit with John Douglas's behavioural profile of the Ripper. Which begs the unspeakable question - Is John Douglas wrong?

Personally I think that, at the very least, this is not a ridiculous theory at all.

It isn't ridiculous. The case that is built has ridiculous components.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Afterthought....

There's plenty of arguments against, of course, one of which being that what we know about Lechmere seems to clash a bit with John Douglas's behavioural profile of the Ripper. Which begs the unspeakable question - Is John Douglas wrong?

Personally I think that, at the very least, this is not a ridiculous theory at all.

John Douglas's Ripper profile is useless. If Cross clashes with it than I'd say that's actually a point in favor for the Cross camp.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Yes you do.

You work from the suggestion that he was a liar, when there is a perfect explanation for the name.

You work from the assumption that he lied to Mizen, when Paul's version supports Cross more than it supports Mizen.

You work from the assumption lied about what time he left home.

You work from the assumption that he was a murderer.

Thatīs a bit backwards, Gut. Edward and I have produced a theory, and in that theory, we cast Lechmere as the killer.

If he was the killer, then he was not a good guy. He was instead a bad guy, doing bad things.

To make the theory work, I need to conjecture, based on the facts. So I do just that. I therefore say that if he was the killer, then he was a liar and a bad man.

Similarly, if he was NOT the killer, he was in all probability NOT a bad guy. Then he was just unlucky to find a murder victim, and unlucky to have a number of coincidences pointing his way, while all the while, he was a stand-up citizen.

This too can be true - but I wonīt use that conjecture to build my theory, will I?

Lechmere could have been a good guy and he could have been a bad guy. I canīt prove it either way. But I CAN point to a number of circumstances pointing us in the sinister direction, and that number is great enough to have Andy Griffiths and James Scobie recognizing the material as indicative of a sinister character.

He nevertheless remain innocent until proven guilty. And as long as he does, his status as good or bad remains an open question, basically. To what extent? That is an individual weighing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robert:

Fish, you talk as if Lechmere is a complete mystery. He is not. We know that he raised a large family, was industrious, and no shred of criminality attaches to him. This must be thrown in the pot, along with Mizen's police record, his stable marriage and his do-gooderism, whatever that amounted to.

The trouble here is that you want to establish that it is a good thing to have many children; that it somehow is something that evinces an underlying heart of gold.

It isnīt.

You also reason that absense of evidence is evidence of absense when it comes to the criminal record.

And you say that being industrious points to a good character. But a master thief is also industrious - and the more industrious he is, the more of a threat to society he becomes.

These "merits" are fog, nothing else, until we can establish if Lechmere was a good citizen or a bad one. And we cannot do that.

The best that can be said about him is that his life seems to parallel that of many good citizens - but that is no guarantee whatsoever. John Eric Armstrong raised a family, and he was a model sailor in the army. So he SHOULD have been a good citizen, but he wasnīt.

Now, if you think that we should side with Mizen against Crossmere regarding what was said between the two of them early that morning, purely because Mizen was a good policeman, then as far as I am concerned you will be disappointed. It might be different if Crossmere was proved to be, say, an habitual liar. But he has not been so proved.

It HAS been proven that he provided the wrong name to the police, though. In it, there lies an indication that he may well have been less than honest. In Mizens case, we have his grading telling us that he was held high in regard as a policeman. That would entail that his superiors thought that he was honest.

We can also see that Mizens actions were totally in line with having been presented the exact lie he said he was subjected to.

The scales therefore DO tip over, Robert, at least to my mind. And very clearly too.

The clincher, of course, is that Paul backs up Crossmere's account, but you have an eccentric theory that he and Crossmere formed an 'entity' which meant that they could be together and yet be in different places. I have already said that I find this bizarre.

... and you are welcome to that thought. I have provided scores of examples of how a group or entity can be represented as a group by what an individual says, but you apparently have not read and understood.

The extreme example is when somebody yells "We won!" after some football team has taken home a trophy. In that case, the yeller need not even be on the same contintent to ascribe himself as belonging to an entity, and thinking that he is at liberty to speak of himself as belonging to the "we" represented by the team.

It is a very, very, very common way of expressing things. The perceived "we" do or say something and you count yourself as belonging to the "we".

Another example: A couple speaks about how they went to the graveyard to pay their respect to a deceased friend:

We took the bus to the cemetery, and we walked together to the grave where we lit a candle.

Did BOTH light the candle, Robert?

Please, please tell me that you can see how this works!

What would be TRULY bizarre if Lechmere and Paul jointly approached Mizen and spoke to him, would be Mizens leaving Paul out as he recounted what ha happened.

It would be as if somebody said about you and me that "there was this guy quarreling on the net". We are two. It is obvious. We should not be alluded to as one man doing all the discussion.

Nor would Lechmere and Paul have been - IF they had both approached Mizen. In that case, regardless if Paul did less talking, Mizen would nevertheless reasonably have said that TWO men came along and spoke to him.

Any other suggestion is quite, quite bizarre.

But that does not seem to bother you in this case?

You choose the occurence where there IS an alternative explanation instead.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

It isn't ridiculous. The case that is built has ridiculous components.

Mike

... and has brought about ridiculous opposition, letīs not forget that

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

That recent documentary has left me nearly 50/50 as to whether Charles Allen Lechmere murdered Polly Nichols. Maybe even 60/40, in favour of him doing it. That is going by the case presented in the documentary alone, and that her wounds were as extremely fresh as they appear to have been, and he really did lie to Mizen about another copper being with the body.

Cracking documentary.

Many thanks, J6123!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

... and has brought about ridiculous opposition, letīs not forget that

The best,
Fisherman

Fish - perhaps you can clarify exactly what you mean by 'ridiculous opposition'?

In what way has the logical, virtually unanimous questioning of your theoretical framework by the Ripperological community been 'ridiculous'?

Do tell.

[Kaz]

What I am saying is that we have Mizen graded - we donīt have Lechmere graded.

When it is said that we must accept that Lechmere was probably a good citizen until we find evidence to the contrary, I disagree.

We should regard him as innocent until proven guilty, but that is another thing.

He could have been good and he could have been bad. Until we know what applies, we should not go with either choice.

As for Mizen, the exact same thing applied up til the moment his grading was found. Up til then, why would we regard him as a good copper, when we did not know? Or as a good one?

Now we DO know, however.

So itīs yes, Mizen was a good copper.

And itīs no, we cant tell whether Lechmere was good or bad, and so we donīt work from either suggestion.

All the best,
Fisherman

I did ask the question some time ago regarding lechmeres personal life and what exactly happened 2months before the killings started. 'Something' that meant he wasn't any longer living with his daughter? What about all his other children he had at that time?

I found the documentary fascinating and you built very good grounds for cross being JTR, these threads are doing a good job at dismantling it all though. Some of the sarcasm is of the highest order aswell

[Robert]

Fish, I have already said that it is not having lots of children that is praiseworthy, but looking after them that is praiseworthy. And in my opinion it is reprehensible to refuse to look after them. Call me old-fashioned if you will.

Absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence, but not in this particular example. However, given that a thorough search has doubtless been made by you and Ed, it is something worth taking account of.

It's true that a master thief may be industrious. But if I saw a master thief risking his liberty year after year for the kind of money that Crossmere was earning, I would tell him :
1. You're not in the Joker, Penguin or Riddler class.
2. Get a job at Pickford's instead.
Unless of course you're suggesting that Crossmere was swiping joints of meat from the depot?

Paul says that 'they' told Mizen what they had seen. According to you, Paul said nothing. He was actually round the corner and out of earshot when Crossmere told Mizen a lie about being wanted by a constable. We have already been through all this, Fish, and I do not wish to get drawn into that maelstrom again. However I do ask : if you are an investigating officer and one of your policemen (a good policeman, who has been graded!) insists on one version of a story, while a member of the public insists on the diametrically opposite version, then wouldn't you smell something? Wouldn't you ask a few questions and try to get to the bottom of the matter?

Finally I must give you credit for raising one point that I think is particularly important, namely that we won the World Cup in 1966, and I was instrumental in that, though I have never received any credit for it. You find in these things that it's always the men on the pitch who get the kudos. Favouritism, I call it.

[Colin Roberts]

Afterthought....

There's plenty of arguments against, of course, one of which being that what we know about Lechmere seems to clash a bit with John Douglas's behavioural profile of the Ripper. Which begs the unspeakable question - Is John Douglas wrong?

Personally I think that, at the very least, this is not a ridiculous theory at all.

John Douglas's Ripper profile is useless. If Cross clashes with it than I'd say that's actually a point in favor for the Cross camp.

"Is John Douglas wrong?"

"John Douglas's Ripper profile is useless."

If I were unaware of the outcome of a single roll of two dice, but asserted that the single most likely outcome was a seven; would I then be "wrong" if the outcome proved to have been an eleven?

Would my profile have been "useless"?