Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Sally]

Hi Richard Patterson,

For 17 years I have suspected Francis Thompson for the Jack the Ripper murders and for most of that time I have written about him expressly to have him seen as a serious contender for that name.

Thanks for an intriguing post - and I'm interested to see that your suspect has his own sub-forum here on Casebook - perhaps we'll see more about him in due course.

[The Good Michael]

I went through this thread with a fine-toothed comb and saw that Cross has been taken off the hook officially by consensus. OK, next...can the shawl be taken off the hook?


Mike

[Fisherman]

I went through this thread with a fine-toothed comb and saw that Cross has been taken off the hook officially by consensus. OK, next...can the shawl be taken off the hook?


Mike

"Consensus" used to dictate that barristers and murder investigators would laugh at the Lechmere proposition. I always denied that, but to no avail: "consensus" ruled the day.

I concluded that the "consensus" out here was a concoction of biased thinking and ignorance and put the question to a barrister and a murder investigator.

They told me that I had a court case and that there was no need to look for other suspects as long as Lechmere could not be cleared. So they confirmed my misgivings about the "consensus" out here.

Consequentially, I don´t care a rat´s fat behind about your consensus. Why would I? You don´t first make the effort to prove your point, only to then give it up because the ones you disagreed with still won´t accept matters.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: I notice you have chose not to comment on my post #682

But I have - I asked you who you are calling dishonest. That is a comment on your post.

It is a post that shows ignorance in a number of respects. You say that the doctor put the time of death to 3.30, which is very wrong, for example. Llewellyn was not in place until 4.10 (and quite possibly even later), and he said "I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour", which points to 3.40 - or later. "Not for more than half an hour" does not mean half an hour - it means half an hour OR LESS.

It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally.

How does this come into the discussion, Trevor? The discussion is about how long she would have bled. Of course all the blood that is below the opening/s on the body will stay in the body - but it won´t prolong the bleeding process. On the contrary, if the opening/s in the body are all placed high up on it, much less blood will leave the body. And much less blood leaves more quickly than very extensive amounts of blood.

Of course, Nichols was on her back and with her neck cut to the spine, so large amounts will have escaped the body. But not large enough for her to bleed from 3.30 to 3.50, which we need to believe if we were to think she was killed 3.30. If we are foolish enough to suggest 3.20, then we need her to bleed for half an hour.

And a reality check.

The best,
Fisherman

The doctors estimated time of death is simply that an estimate, which you choose to use to prop up your theory. I pointed out in a previous post why that estimated time of death is unreliable. I also pointed out why there were the ambiguities between what was said by the witnesses and their actions which all seem viable to me looking at it as an outsider.

But again when you are hit with reality you can find no answers.

Do you now accept that if the times you seek to rely on are 5-10 mins wrong then Crossmere is exonerated?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert]

Fish, I refer to your post #699, which is bizarre, even for you.

At one point I pictured Crossmere and Nichols stretching their fingertips out to each other, like god creating Adam.

No, Fish, if a man is standing in the middle of the road, while a woman lies on the pavement, he is not beside her. He is not by her side. He is not alongside her.

If you are sitting in a tube train, and Ed has the adjoining seat, then he is sitting beside you. If I am sitting in the adjoining seat to Ed, then I am beside Ed, but I am not beside you. However, I might be beside myself, if I were having to listen to you torturing the English language in this manner.

Saying that Crossmere was by the side of a freshly killed victim is to use a loaded phrase, Fish. It's even worse when you say that he was 'found' there.
Paul may have 'found' Crossmere (although Crossmere took the trouble to intercept Paul), but he did not 'find' Crossmere by the side of Nichols. This is because
1. Crossmere was not by her side.
2. If it hadn't been for Crossmere, it's quite possible that Paul would never have noticed Nichols.

A neutral wording might be that Paul encountered Crossmere, who was standing a few feet from Nichols.

[Fisherman]

Fish, I refer to your post #699, which is bizarre, even for you.

At one point I pictured Crossmere and Nichols stretching their fingertips out to each other, like god creating Adam.

No, Fish, if a man is standing in the middle of the road, while a woman lies on the pavement, he is not beside her. He is not by her side. He is not alongside her.

If you are sitting in a tube train, and Ed has the adjoining seat, then he is sitting beside you. If I am sitting in the adjoining seat to Ed, then I am beside Ed, but I am not beside you. However, I might be beside myself, if I were having to listen to you torturing the English language in this manner.

Saying that Crossmere was by the side of a freshly killed victim is to use a loaded phrase, Fish. It's even worse when you say that he was 'found' there.
Paul may have 'found' Crossmere (although Crossmere took the trouble to intercept Paul), but he did not 'find' Crossmere by the side of Nichols. This is because
1. Crossmere was not by her side.
2. If it hadn't been for Crossmere, it's quite possible that Paul would never have noticed Nichols.

A neutral wording might be that Paul encountered Crossmere, who was standing a few feet from Nichols.

Great - then I will write - as recommended - that Lechmere was found standing only a few feet from Nichols, and we shall se how that works out!

And THEN I will write that Lechmere was found by the side of Nichols anyway, since "by the side of" is not a determined distance.

And then you can go on as much as you want to about it.

The best,
Fisherman
really, really bizarre

[Robert]

Fish, I'm afraid you are still betraying your agenda. You have retained the word 'found' and you have inserted the word 'only.'

Why not just go the whole hog and say "He was found standing on Nichols's head"?

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

The doctors estimated time of death is simply that an estimate, which you choose to use to prop up your theory.

It needs no propping up - it stands by itself. And of course I use the doctors estimate. The only difference is that that I work from the real timings as opposed to you, Trevor.

Why would I NOT be interested in what a doctor says? Why would I go "srew him, he´s wrong anyway" when it it you and your band of merry men that need to postulate that? I´m totally fine with what Llewellyn said. I don´t have to try and dispell it - you have.

I pointed out in a previous post why that estimated time of death is unreliable. I also pointed out why there were the ambiguities between what was said by the witnesses and their actions which all seem viable to me looking at it as an outsider.

Unreliable or not, it is what we have to go by. And the closer in time, the less unreliable, which I think you will know too. The same goes for any "ambiguities" - what we have is what we go by. And it fits together perfectly for Lechmere to have been the killer. I´m sorry, but that´s the way it is.

But again when you are hit with reality you can find no answers.

Hit with reality? I am?
What "reality"?
That you want the timings to be different from the official records?
Or are you speking of something else?

Speaking about something else, you have still not answered my question about who it is you want to brandish as dishonest.

Please do that.
And please bolster it with evidence.
Or take it back.

Do you now accept that if the times you seek to rely on are 5-10 mins wrong then Crossmere is exonerated?

If Lechmere was there in April and not in August, then he is exonerated. But why would I think he was? The records speak of 3.40-3.45 as Lechmere and Paul were there, and factually, it is impossible to move that to 3.30 or 3.55. If we look at the surrounding parameters and the official deductions, we can see that 3.45 must be a much better estimation than 3.40. But of course, having checked out the timings and the streches and the participants involved and their every move, you will know this already.

But tell me, Trevor: what exactly what is the use of this exercise? Why would we ask "If you accept that you are wrong, will you then accept that you are wrong"?

What about yourself, Trevor? Will you now accept that if Lechmere was the killer, then he was the killer

There is something very much amiss with your way of debating, Trevor. You are going to have to raise your game a lot if I am to take any further interest in it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fish, I'm afraid you are still betraying your agenda. You have retained the word 'found' and you have inserted the word 'only.'

Why not just go the whole hog and say "He was found standing on Nichols's head"?

Because nobody is saying that he was. There is evidence that he was close by her, but no evidence that he stood on her head. That´s why.

Of course, it is a nice semantical grip to try and lead on that I am close to saying that he stood on her head. But once it is pointed out for what it is, people will see the mechanism.

It is as if I would say "why don´t you say that Nichols was in Bucks Row while Lechmere was in Winthrop Street. Or Trafalgar Square."

But I think that would be childish and uniformed, just as I think it would point me out as somebody who couldn´t handle having been challenged on good grounds.

That´s why I don´t do such things.

The best,
Fisherman

[Richard Patterson]

Hello Fisherman.

As to Lechmere’s (Outside this thread, I would use the name Charles Cross) reading and writing skills; Regardless of the literacy or illiteracy of his relatives, without schooling Lechmere was probably semi-literate, I’m speaking here as an English teacher, and I can assure you that literacy is not achieved through some sort of osmosis.

Charles Lechmere was found with the body of 1 ripper victim. Everything else you use to maintain his guilt is nothing but conjecture. To say because he was found with 1 body that he was also with the bodies of 4 other victims is wrong. To say he killed all the other victims as they all were on his working trek is also wrong. This is because all the victims were not on his working trek and many of the murders happened on days when he was not working.

Your world-view Fisherman is of bumbling cops, lying witnesses and a carman that might have had some cutting skill in the cat meat trade and you dare others on this thread to get him off the hook. I presented you with a far better suspect - a surgeon, with 6 years, training. Both could have been in Whitechapel committing the murders at those hours, but afterwards and for the rest of his life yours got back to loading carts, while mine, clearly a genius and a survivor, became famous and wrote about it. The boy has yelled that the emperor has no clothes. In your heart of hearts and darkest nights you know what sort of being is really needed to be Jack the Ripper. Who will people ultimately fit the bill for the crime of a century? Lechmere, your crazy Jekyll and Hyde, who simply faded from history, or my vagrant turned famed poet.

The Ripper murders particularly that of the Kelly and the murder in Thompsons’ confessionary murder story, written on the 1st anniversary of the crimes, share many of the same details. It was because of a raging argument between Thompson and his father Charles’ on his plan to remarry an Ann Richardson after the death of Thompson’s mother Mary that Thompson ran away from home. This all happened on November 9th 1995, and three years to the day to the murder of Mary Kelly. Coincidentally, the sign that hung at the front of Twenty-Nine, Hanbury Street read 'Mrs A. Richardson’ If for Lechmere Scobie says, ‘that the coincidence mount up’ then I wonder what he would say for Thompson? I suppose that Lechmere, like Millions of Londoners, could have had the opportunity to commit these. But only Thompson, without any speculation, also had the ability, motive, and weapon. These are facts. I’m speaking only about myself but if I said something about my suspect and you showed me I was wrong and I said it again then I would be a liar.

Thanks.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

The doctors estimated time of death is simply that an estimate, which you choose to use to prop up your theory.

It needs no propping up - it stands by itself. And of course I use the doctors estimate. The only difference is that that I work from the real timings as opposed to you, Trevor.

Why would I NOT be interested in what a doctor says? Why would I go "srew him, he´s wrong anyway" when it it you and your band of merry men that need to postulate that? I´m totally fine with what Llewellyn said. I don´t have to try and dispell it - you have.

I pointed out in a previous post why that estimated time of death is unreliable. I also pointed out why there were the ambiguities between what was said by the witnesses and their actions which all seem viable to me looking at it as an outsider.

Unreliable or not, it is what we have to go by. And the closer in time, the less unreliable, which I think you will know too. The same goes for any "ambiguities" - what we have is what we go by. And it fits together perfectly for Lechmere to have been the killer. I´m sorry, but that´s the way it is.

But again when you are hit with reality you can find no answers.

Hit with reality? I am?
What "reality"?
That you want the timings to be different from the official records?
Or are you speking of something else?

Speaking about something else, you have still not answered my question about who it is you want to brandish as dishonest.

Please do that.
And please bolster it with evidence.
Or take it back.

Do you now accept that if the times you seek to rely on are 5-10 mins wrong then Crossmere is exonerated?

If Lechmere was there in April and not in August, then he is exonerated. But why would I think he was? The records speak of 3.40-3.45 as Lechmere and Paul were there, and factually, it is impossible to move that to 3.30 or 3.55. If we look at the surrounding parameters and the official deductions, we can see that 3.45 must be a much better estimation than 3.40. But of course, having checked out the timings and the streches and the participants involved and their every move, you will know this already.

But tell me, Trevor: what exactly what is the use of this exercise? Why would we ask "If you accept that you are wrong, will you then accept that you are wrong"?

What about yourself, Trevor? Will you now accept that if Lechmere was the killer, then he was the killer

There is something very much amiss with your way of debating, Trevor. You are going to have to raise your game a lot if I am to take any further interest in it.

The best,
Fisherman

There is nothing amiss, Dr Llewellyns estimated time of death is questionable and this has to be so, having regards to how he arrived at that approximate time of death given the state of her clothing. So you don't have such a watertight case as you keep telling everyone.

The rest of the smokescreen you have created, conversations,movements, false names etc then becomes irrelevant and can be thrown in the bin.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert]

Of course, Fish, I agree that Crossmere was not found standing on Nichols's head. Indeed it would be remarkable if he had been, since Nichols was on the pavement and Crossmere was in the middle of the road. It could I suppose have just about been possible, if Nichols had a very large head - but I fear we're stumbling into the realms of fantasy here, Fish.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Fisherman.

As to Lechmere’s (Outside this thread, I would use the name Charles Cross) reading and writing skills; Regardless of the literacy or illiteracy of his relatives, without schooling Lechmere was probably semi-literate, I’m speaking here as an English teacher, and I can assure you that literacy is not achieved through some sort of osmosis.

Charles Lechmere was found with the body of 1 ripper victim. Everything else you use to maintain his guilt is nothing but conjecture. To say because he was found with 1 body that he was also with the bodies of 4 other victims is wrong. To say he killed all the other victims as they all were on his working trek is also wrong. This is because all the victims were not on his working trek and many of the murders happened on days when he was not working.

Your world-view Fisherman is of bumbling cops, lying witnesses and a carman that might have had some cutting skill in the cat meat trade and you dare others on this thread to get him off the hook. I presented you with a far better suspect - a surgeon, with 6 years, training. Both could have been in Whitechapel committing the murders at those hours, but afterwards and for the rest of his life yours got back to loading carts, while mine, clearly a genius and a survivor, became famous and wrote about it. The boy has yelled that the emperor has no clothes. In your heart of hearts and darkest nights you know what sort of being is really needed to be Jack the Ripper. Who will people ultimately fit the bill for the crime of a century? Lechmere, your crazy Jekyll and Hyde, who simply faded from history, or my vagrant turned famed poet.

The Ripper murders particularly that of the Kelly and the murder in Thompsons’ confessionary murder story, written on the 1st anniversary of the crimes, share many of the same details. It was because of a raging argument between Thompson and his father Charles’ on his plan to remarry an Ann Richardson after the death of Thompson’s mother Mary that Thompson ran away from home. This all happened on November 9th 1995, and three years to the day to the murder of Mary Kelly. Coincidentally, the sign that hung at the front of Twenty-Nine, Hanbury Street read 'Mrs A. Richardson’ If for Lechmere Scobie says, ‘that the coincidence mount up’ then I wonder what he would say for Thompson? I suppose that Lechmere, like Millions of Londoners, could have had the opportunity to commit these. But only Thompson, without any speculation, also had the ability, motive, and weapon. These are facts. I’m speaking only about myself but if I said something about my suspect and you showed me I was wrong and I said it again then I would be a liar.

Thanks.

You postulate that your suspect Thompson was medically trained and you use that fact as part of you theory in his suspect viability.

But what if the organs of the victims were not removed at the crime scenes would that not weaken you case?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

If we look at the surrounding parameters and the official deductions, we can see that 3.45 must be a much better estimation than 3.40.

Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot by saying this Fisherman? I mean, your star witness, PC Mizen, testified at the inquest that he spoke to Cross at about 3.45. His conversation with Cross must have been about five minutes after Cross said he first saw the body in Bucks Row. Are you not therefore undermining PC Mizen's credibility by insisting that he was about five minutes out in his evidence? It seems to me that, on the one hand, you want to stress how accurate the constable was in his recollection of his conversation with Cross but, on the other hand, you want to stress how inaccurate he was as to his recollection of the time of this conversation!

[Monty]

The work of Michael Connor should be acknowledged here. He also speculated that Lechmere was delivering to Spitalfields market which at least gives him a legitimate reason to be in the area, other carmen lived at 29 Hanbury street, as Amelia Richardson stated, some leaving at one o clock, others at four or five, to work at the market.
I do wonder how she got her packing cases delivered, there being no mention she owned any form of transport, presumably she or her customers used a carrier, in which case there is at least the possibility of familiarity with 29 Hanbury street. on behalf of someone, and a carman would certainly be amongst them.
All the best.

Indeed, Michael Conner should be acknowledged.

Monty