The Lechmere trail - so far

[Patrick S]

I canīt for the life of me see any fafctual obstacles. What has been mentioned is for example that we donīt have any records of violence or criminality adhering to Lechmere, and yes, it would have ben interesting of there was any such thing - but I donīt regard it as in any way damning. he could well have been regarded as a violent man by his family and neighbours, just as he could have been regarded as a creepy person. We just donīt know. Similarly, he could have been regarded as a good guy, helpful and charitable. That would not clear him anyway, since a number of serialists have been looked upon as being this kind of person.

If I were to name one thing only as being a bit odd, then it is how there are no further evisceration deeds in the East End following Kelly (or MacKenzie). But that is not something that has me very worried. I think that serialists may both quit and change their MO:s, and there are examples to support it. In the end, what speaks FOR Lechmere - to my mind - carries much more weight than the objections suggested as to why he would not have been the killer.

To me, the really hard question to answer is why anybody who has been shown the anomalies attaching to the carman and the blood evidence and what seems like blatant lies, should be adamant in thinking that somebody else would have killed Nichols in the minute or two leading up to Lechmereīs arrival. What on earth is it that makes him so unattractive a bid for many people? That I am too certain and too unwilling to yield a millimeter?
I hope not - it would be extremely unscientific to ground a decision on the dislike of a poster instead of on the existing material.

But it would seem that the mantra is ANYBODY, no matter who - but please, please, please dear Lord - NOT Lechmere!

Fisherman,

Are you incapable of seeing the absurdity of what you've written here. You have lost all objectivity and I do not understand why. Perhaps you have become so fixated on being correct that you've lost the ability to rationally judge anything associated the Lechmere, and perhaps the entire subject of 'Jack the Ripper'.

You mention that Lechmere had no history of arrest or violence. No problem. In fact, that may be evidence against him. Of course, he may have been violent, or "creepy". No problem. That fits too. We've discussed Lechmere's behavior in Buck's Row and his interaction with Mizen, his testimony at the inquest. His actions - as most everyone else sees them - are consistent with someone acting with no consciousness of guilt. No so, you say. It's how a psychopath would act. But, we've nothing that tells us that Lechmere was a psychopath. "Of course we do", you say. "He killed Nichols! He was Jack the Ripper. Of COURSE he was a psychopath!" He had no blood on him. He touched Paul with the hand that - in your scenario - he just cut Nichols' throat with seconds before and used to hide the knife on his person. Not a problem. You site blood 'evidence' that simply doesn't exist. Descriptions of blood, in no way scientific. That's what we have. We have timeframes based on recollections and estimations and interviews and brief testimony reprinted in news papers 127 years ago. Yet, you parrot "blood evidence" again and again. Just as you did with the laughable "Mizen Scam". It does your work no favors.

No one is against you. No one is against Lechmere because he's Lechmere. This is how it works. Theories are discussed, debated , debunked, resurrected, rinsed...repeat.

You have taken an interesting topic and worthwhile research and reduced it to utter foolishness. Please realize that you should take a deep breath, take a step back, and engage in the debate rather than maintain that your research is immune to criticism.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Fisherman,

Are you incapable of seeing the absurdity of what you've written here.

Letīs see, Patrick! Letīs see.

You have lost all objectivity and I do not understand why.

Some say I never had any. Donīt you know?

Perhaps you have become so fixated on being correct that you've lost the ability to rationally judge anything associated the Lechmere, and perhaps the entire subject of 'Jack the Ripper'.

Or perhaps I havent. Perhaps you are not even the best judge of it? Who knows?

You mention that Lechmere had no history of arrest or violence. No problem.

It is to some, believe it or not. Others think I must show that he attended anatomy classes or lectures to be more viable.

In fact, that may be evidence against him.

No, it may not - not without an almighty and unviable stretch.

Of course, he may have been violent, or "creepy". No problem. That fits too.

You know, I am still at a loss to see how I would suddenly be absurd? It seems we agree here. Maybe you have more to say? Letīs see!

We've discussed Lechmere's behavior in Buck's Row and his interaction with Mizen, his testimony at the inquest. His actions - as most everyone else sees them - are consistent with someone acting with no consciousness of guilt. No so, you say. It's how a psychopath would act.

I think you are perhaps placing a few words in my mouth here. I am saying that a psychopath could well do a thing like this. I am not saying that every psychopath does. Not am I saying that it is impossible to see his actions as innocent. On the contrary - I keep pressing the point that each and every one of his actions can be sen from two angles, the guilty and the innocent. But - and that bt is crucial - he has amassed too many anomalies to function as a probably innocent man.

But, we've nothing that tells us that Lechmere was a psychopath.

I agree. Nothing tells us that he was. I keep saying that too.

"Of course we do", you say.

I DO??? Wow!

"He killed Nichols! He was Jack the Ripper. Of COURSE he was a psychopath!"

With quotation marks, even! Are you quoting me, word by word? Surely you must be?

Letīs not be too daft here, Patrick, if we can avoid it. Letīs list your three sentences from your ... ehrm, "quotation":

1. He killed Nichols!

But I say that is not proven! I SUGGEST that he did, and I think he is the best suspect by far. Personally, I think there is a huge chance that he was the killer.

Have you spotted the difference now?

2. He was Jack the Ripper.

I cannot say that he was, on the existing evidfence. I can say that I think that he was the Ripper. My personal take is yet again - that he in all probability was.

Have you spotted the difference now?

3. Of COURSE he was a psychopath!

Nope. He may or may not have been a psychopath. If he was the killer of Nichols - which i think he was - THEN I say we can pretty much bank on him being a psychopath. If he was NOT the killer, then there is little reason to think he was a psychopath.

Have you spotted the difference now?

He had no blood on him.

No? How do you know? Did YOU check his cuffs? Did YOU look at his apron, if he wore it? Maybe there was animal blood on it? Maybe there was himan blood on it. Who can say? You, Patrick?

He touched Paul with the hand that - in your scenario - he just cut Nichols' throat with seconds before and used to hide the knife on his person.

What? Have I said that I know that he was either right-handed or left-handed - or ambi-dexter? Have I, Patrick?

Not a problem.

I could have sworn that you are having all sorts of problems.

You site blood 'evidence' that simply doesn't exist.

The evidence exists. Does Eddowesī apron constitute evidence or not, Patrick?

Descriptions of blood, in no way scientific.

Professioinal. Given by a PC in service - professional.

That's what we have.

And NOT A WORD to dissolve it.

We have timeframes based on recollections and estimations and interviews and brief testimony reprinted in news papers 127 years ago.

Yes, we do. In what way does that differ from any other case, but for the distance in time? And the evidence was recorded in combination with the events, not 127 years later. When does evidence grow too old, Patrick? Is there a best-before date?

Yet, you parrot "blood evidence" again and again. Just as you did with the laughable "Mizen Scam". It does your work no favors.

Ah, there we are - back to your old habits! Scorning, belittling and so on. It was just a matter of time, was it not? I "parrot" but you donīt. My theory is "laughable", and you are the best judge of that. Well, well...!

No one is against you. No one is against Lechmere because he's Lechmere. This is how it works. Theories are discussed, debated , debunked, resurrected, rinsed...repeat.

Yes, but you think my theory has a large number of points that are interesting and quite possibly pointing to guilt. You DO remember that, do you not?

You have taken an interesting topic and worthwhile research and reduced it to utter foolishness. Please realize that you should take a deep breath, take a step back, and engage in the debate rather than maintain that your research is immune to criticism.

I have a much better piece of advice:

Go away, Patrick. Or get a grip. Stop putting words in my mouth. Keep honest. Bolster your accusations.

Get real or get out.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Fisherman,

Are you incapable of seeing the absurdity of what you've written here.

Letīs see, Patrick! Letīs see.

You have lost all objectivity and I do not understand why.

Some say I never had any. Donīt you know?

Perhaps you have become so fixated on being correct that you've lost the ability to rationally judge anything associated the Lechmere, and perhaps the entire subject of 'Jack the Ripper'.

Or perhaps I havent. Perhaps you are not even the best judge of it? Who knows?

You mention that Lechmere had no history of arrest or violence. No problem.

It is to some, believe it or not. Others think I must show that he attended anatomy classes or lectures to be more viable.

In fact, that may be evidence against him.

No, it may not - not without an almighty and unviable stretch.

Of course, he may have been violent, or "creepy". No problem. That fits too.

You know, I am still at a loss to see how I would suddenly be absurd? It seems we agree here. Maybe you have more to say? Letīs see!

We've discussed Lechmere's behavior in Buck's Row and his interaction with Mizen, his testimony at the inquest. His actions - as most everyone else sees them - are consistent with someone acting with no consciousness of guilt. No so, you say. It's how a psychopath would act.

I think you are perhaps placing a few words in my mouth here. I am saying that a psychopath could well do a thing like this. I am not saying that every psychopath does. Not am I saying that it is impossible to see his actions as innocent. On the contrary - I keep pressing the point that each and every one of his actions can be sen from two angles, the guilty and the innocent. But - and that bt is crucial - he has amassed too many anomalies to function as a probably innocent man.

But, we've nothing that tells us that Lechmere was a psychopath.

I agree. Nothing tells us that he was. I keep saying that too.

"Of course we do", you say.

I DO??? Wow!

"He killed Nichols! He was Jack the Ripper. Of COURSE he was a psychopath!"

With quotation marks, even! Are you quoting me, word by word? Surely you must be?

Letīs not be too daft here, Patrick, if we can avoid it. Letīs list your three sentences from your ... ehrm, "quotation":

1. He killed Nichols!

But I say that is not proven! I SUGGEST that he did, and I think he is the best suspect by far. Personally, I think there is a huge chance that he was the killer.

Have you spotted the difference now?

2. He was Jack the Ripper.

I cannot say that he was, on the existing evidfence. I can say that I think that he was the Ripper. My personal take is yet again - that he in all probability was.

Have you spotted the difference now?

3. Of COURSE he was a psychopath!

Nope. He may or may not have been a psychopath. If he was the killer of Nichols - which i think he was - THEN I say we can pretty much bank on him being a psychopath. If he was NOT the killer, then there is little reason to think he was a psychopath.

Have you spotted the difference now?

He had no blood on him.

No? How do you know? Did YOU check his cuffs? Did YOU look at his apron, if he wore it? Maybe there was animal blood on it? Maybe there was himan blood on it. Who can say? You, Patrick?

He touched Paul with the hand that - in your scenario - he just cut Nichols' throat with seconds before and used to hide the knife on his person.

What? Have I said that I know that he was either right-handed or left-handed - or ambi-dexter? Have I, Patrick?

Not a problem.

I could have sworn that you are having all sorts of problems.

You site blood 'evidence' that simply doesn't exist.

The evidence exists. Does Eddowesī apron constitute evidence or not, Patrick?

Descriptions of blood, in no way scientific.

Professioinal. Given by a PC in service - professional.

That's what we have.

And NOT A WORD to dissolve it.

We have timeframes based on recollections and estimations and interviews and brief testimony reprinted in news papers 127 years ago.

Yes, we do. In what way does that differ from any other case, but for the distance in time? And the evidence was recorded in combination with the events, not 127 years later. When does evidence grow too old, Patrick? Is there a best-before date?

Yet, you parrot "blood evidence" again and again. Just as you did with the laughable "Mizen Scam". It does your work no favors.

Ah, there we are - back to your old habits! Scorning, belittling and so on. It was just a matter of time, was it not? I "parrot" but you donīt. My theory is "laughable", and you are the best judge of that. Well, well...!

No one is against you. No one is against Lechmere because he's Lechmere. This is how it works. Theories are discussed, debated , debunked, resurrected, rinsed...repeat.

Yes, but you think my theory has a large number of points that are interesting and quite possibly pointing to guilt. You DO remember that, do you not?

You have taken an interesting topic and worthwhile research and reduced it to utter foolishness. Please realize that you should take a deep breath, take a step back, and engage in the debate rather than maintain that your research is immune to criticism.

I have a much better piece of advice:

Go away, Patrick. Or get a grip. Stop putting words in my mouth. Keep honest. Bolster your accusations.

Get real or get out.

What's strange is that I remain interested in Cross/Lechmere. I find him more interesting that many of the "suspects" (if there can be such things after 127 years). I've never said, "This is all rubbish!" That's not good enough, though. And you fail to see that by not acknowledging obvious obstacles to Cross as a "serialist", you delegitimize your own theory. I suggest that YOU 'get real'. Cut the aggression. Cut the martyr act. Cut the outrage. If your only response to anyone who isn't 100% in your corner is, "Get out" then I suggest you go back to the drawing board and present something you can actually defend.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: What's strange is that I remain interested in Cross/Lechmere. I find him more interesting that many of the "suspects" (if there can be such things after 127 years). I've never said, "This is all rubbish!"

No, you worded yourself differently, instead saying that I was parrotting things and that what I said was laughable and absurd.

Why should it be "strange" that you "remain interested" in the theory, by the way? Either the theory is good enough to accumulate interest or it is not. You canīt have it both ways.

That's not good enough, though.

It was a few posts back. But thatīs life!

And you fail to see that by not acknowledging obvious obstacles to Cross as a "serialist", you delegitimize your own theory.

No, I do not. I point to how there ARE no obvious obstacles, and that does not delegitimize anything at all but the so called obstacles themselves.

I suggest that YOU 'get real'. Cut the aggression. Cut the martyr act. Cut the outrage.

Cut giving me reasons for it, Patrick, and we shall be all very fine.

If your only response to anyone who isn't 100% in your corner is, "Get out" then I suggest you go back to the drawing board and present something you can actually defend.

When I am subjected to suggestions like "you should take a deep breath, take a step back, and engage in the debate rather than maintain that your research is immune to criticism.", I am very likely not to take kindly to it.

It involves a lie, among other things, and I donīt like such things. I have never claimed that my theory is immune to criticism. Contrary to that, I have said on numerous occasions that if anything should surface that pointed to the theory being wrong, I would ditch it accordingly.

The theory is NOT immune to criticism. But it predisposes that the criticism is valid and useful. "He would have run" is one such example of criticism that some posters think "debunks" the theory, but of course, that is sheer folly and nothing else.

Bring on real criticism. Show me why Lechmere could not be the killer, point to how he could not have been at the other sites, convince me that we know enough about his psychological disposition to conclude that he was a good man, and you will have presented seriously damning counterpoints.

But please donīt tell me that he would have run.

[Robert]

Bring on real criticism. Show me why Lechmere could not be the killer, point to how he could not have been at the other sites, convince me that we know enough about his psychological disposition to conclude that he was a good man, and you will have presented seriously damning counterpoints.

Fish, it isn't for us to prove Crossmere innocent. It is for you to prove him guilty, or as close as you can get to it.

[Fisherman]

Bring on real criticism. Show me why Lechmere could not be the killer, point to how he could not have been at the other sites, convince me that we know enough about his psychological disposition to conclude that he was a good man, and you will have presented seriously damning counterpoints.

Fish, it isn't for us to prove Crossmere innocent. It is for you to prove him guilty, or as close as you can get to it.

Oh, I know that. But donīt quote me out of context, if you please! Patrick claimed that I somehow would have stated that the Lechmere theory is immune to criticism, and that was when I said that it is not - but I have not seen any criticism that seriously affects it. And so, Robert, I suggested different types of criticism that would have an effect.

And then along came you, quoting out of context.

[Robert]

So, Fish, you think that your arguments are so strong that it is now necessary for others to prove Crossmere's innocence?

[Harry D]

I will not go into any prolonged debates over isolated points, other than to explain matters if they need be explained

25 pages later.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Robert;352015]So, Fish, you think that your arguments are so strong that it is now necessary for others to prove Crossmere's innocence?[/QU


I think your so called points are so weak that you need to prove you can read. It seems there may be a little something lacking in that respect.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

With regards to Scobie I asked him if he was aware of certain facts which did not form part of the program and should have done. He stated he had not. Now that's good enough for me to question the expert opinions you seek to heavily rely on.

Then state which things it were, and letīs get this overwith, Trevor - before you make too much of a fool of yourself.

The trouble is now you have gone out on a limb by stating categorically that in your belief based on what you believe he was the killer of Nichols. You now wont, and cant accept that belief was based on facts which have now proved to be flawed.

Show me that "proof", Trevor, will you? It should be very interesting!

If you are so certain about the evidence provided by your experts in the light of what is now known go back to them and put the full facts to them or are you worried that they may not now support you.

No, I am not. But I fear I do not have the years it would take to put the full facts to them.

Not that YOU would be aquainted with the full facts.

At least when you questioned my medical experts opinions I did go back to him and try to clarify some of the issue you had concerns with and I posted them for all to see. I did the same with regards to other expert medical expert opinions with regards to the other murders.

I have never questioned your medical expert, Trevor. I think he is quite right in all he says. I think he is professional and knowledgeable.

Therefore, the problem lies elsewhere. Guess where!

Its call transparency look the definition up.

Transparency, isnīt that when it ios very easy to see right through somebody?

I thought so.

The flaws have been put to you many times not just by me but by many others but you are so blinkered that you cannot see or accept them.

I think Blink films have a lot to answer for with regards to what they actually filmed with regards to these experts and what we actually saw in the finished product. Take Scobie, If I remember right he was on screen for about 1 minute yet when I spoke to him he stated he had been interviewed for about 45 mins so what else did he say that was not deemed right and proper for our screens. I might suggest it was comments along the lines that this was not such a clear cut case as the film makers were trying to suggest.

Because the end product which went out on the tv was topped and tailed to portray Lechmere as the killer with irrefutable evidence to support this, but nothing mentioned about the flaws that we now know exist. Funny that don't you think ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

25 pages later.

You have only yourself to blame.

[Fisherman]

The flaws have been put to you many times not just by me but by many others but you are so blinkered that you cannot see or accept them.

I think Blink films have a lot to answer for with regards to what they actually filmed with regards to these experts and what we actually saw in the finished product. Take Scobie, If I remember right he was on screen for about 1 minute yet when I spoke to him he stated he had been interviewed for about 45 mins so what else did he say that was not deemed right and proper for our screens. I might suggest it was comments along the lines that this was not such a clear cut case as the film makers were trying to suggest.

Because the end product which went out on the tv was topped and tailed to portray Lechmere as the killer with irrefutable evidence to support this, but nothing mentioned about the flaws that we now know exist. Funny that don't you think ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, no, no, Trevor - you were supposed to present where and how James Scobie was misled, and not to blabber away, flaunting your ignorance.
Do you really think that nothing is cut away in a film? And do you think that Scobie said that Lechmere seemed like a good guy in that part?
Would a film company use the more or less damning bits, presenting a suspect?

Go home and give that some afterthought.

Then come back and do the decent thing. Tell us all exactly what Scobie was not told and how we misled him. When you call somebody a fraud with nothing to prove it, you are the fraud yourself. I put it to you that this applies here, and I urge you to defend yourself - if you can.

[Fisherman]

Just found this on Wiki, where Charles Lechmere is listed as a suspect (Heureka!):

"According to Holmgren, Cross lied to a policeman at the scene, telling him that he had been with the body for a few minutes, whereas researchers claimed that he must have been with her for about nine minutes..."

This is of course wrong. I have never suggested that Lechmere told a policeman at the murder scene that he had only been with the body for "a few minutes".
What utter tosh!

And "researchers" - whoever that would be - are claiming not that the carman must have been with the body for nine minutes, but instead that his own testimony points to it.

Presenting the theory like this does nobody any favours.

Maybe this is where Trevor gets his information...?

[Trevor Marriott]

No, no, no, Trevor - you were supposed to present where and how James Scobie was misled, and not to blabber away, flaunting your ignorance.
Do you really think that nothing is cut away in a film? And do you think that Scobie said that Lechmere seemed like a good guy in that part?
Would a film company use the more or less damning bits, presenting a suspect?

Go home and give that some afterthought.

Then come back and do the decent thing. Tell us all exactly what Scobie was not told and how we misled him. When you call somebody a fraud with nothing to prove it, you are the fraud yourself. I put it to you that this applies here, and I urge you to defend yourself - if you can.

I dont need to defend myself. You have been give the opportunity to go back to these experts and put to them the full facts as they are now known. Facts that may or may not have been available to them at the time.

I did not specifically say he had been misled and I have not called anyone a fraud. Scobie can only give and opinion based on what was actually and physically provided to him what that was I do not know. Do you know what Blink films provided him with and provided your other experts with?

Have you seen the full un edited versions of their interviews I suspect you have not.

As to the conversation I had with Scobie as it was an off the cuff phone conversation when he rang me at a time when I was not able to write things down. I can only say that I did put certain specifics to him with regards to his participation and with regards to his one minute of air time, which from your perspective is crucial to your theory. material which he said he had not been provided with.

Now referring to your experience murder squad detective who you hold in high esteem. Isn't it correct that based on what he was provided with he only went as far as to say that based on that Lechmere was only "A PERSON OF INTEREST"

Thats a long way from saying he is a prime suspect and a long way, and in direct conflict with what Scobie says.

Flaws Flaws and even more Flaws !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: What's strange is that I remain interested in Cross/Lechmere. I find him more interesting that many of the "suspects" (if there can be such things after 127 years). I've never said, "This is all rubbish!"

No, you worded yourself differently, instead saying that I was parrotting things and that what I said was laughable and absurd.

Why should it be "strange" that you "remain interested" in the theory, by the way? Either the theory is good enough to accumulate interest or it is not. You canīt have it both ways.

That's not good enough, though.

It was a few posts back. But thatīs life!

And you fail to see that by not acknowledging obvious obstacles to Cross as a "serialist", you delegitimize your own theory.

No, I do not. I point to how there ARE no obvious obstacles, and that does not delegitimize anything at all but the so called obstacles themselves.

I suggest that YOU 'get real'. Cut the aggression. Cut the martyr act. Cut the outrage.

Cut giving me reasons for it, Patrick, and we shall be all very fine.

If your only response to anyone who isn't 100% in your corner is, "Get out" then I suggest you go back to the drawing board and present something you can actually defend.

When I am subjected to suggestions like "you should take a deep breath, take a step back, and engage in the debate rather than maintain that your research is immune to criticism.", I am very likely not to take kindly to it.

It involves a lie, among other things, and I donīt like such things. I have never claimed that my theory is immune to criticism. Contrary to that, I have said on numerous occasions that if anything should surface that pointed to the theory being wrong, I would ditch it accordingly.

The theory is NOT immune to criticism. But it predisposes that the criticism is valid and useful. "He would have run" is one such example of criticism that some posters think "debunks" the theory, but of course, that is sheer folly and nothing else.

Bring on real criticism. Show me why Lechmere could not be the killer, point to how he could not have been at the other sites, convince me that we know enough about his psychological disposition to conclude that he was a good man, and you will have presented seriously damning counterpoints.

But please donīt tell me that he would have run.

He would have run.