Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fiver]

I of course never called you a liar. I despise posters calling others liars on no grounds at all. There is a good example to learn from very close by.

You accused him of inventing something. So while you did not use the word "liar", you clearly were accusing rj of lying.

And your accusation was clearly false. He posted the article yet another time to show your accusation was false.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Now I am going to sign off for some time; life is too short to spend in the company of people who are not able to conduct a serious debate, and there are a few of those out here.
I will sign off by a last post to Fiver.

I suppose I should not be surprised that you intend to make no attempt to answer my # 1546 about the completely baseless statement made by Scobie.

[Fisherman]

Now I am going to sign off for some time; life is too short to spend in the company of people who are not able to conduct a serious debate, and there are a few of those out here.
I will sign off by a last post to Fiver.

As those who have been subjected to the matter will remember, Fiver has claimed as a fact that all the houses of Bucks Row WERE called upon, in an inquiry mentioned in a paper that spoke about how a house to house search was made in the streets adjoining Bucks Row. The matter was mentioned on the 3rd of September.
Of course, when it is said that the streets that were searched were the ones ADJOINING Bucks Row, that does not mean that Bucks Row itself was subjected to the same house to house inquiry. In fact, the wording seems to specifically point ut how this was not the case.

But Fiver would not have that. He inferred that if the adjacent streets were subjected to a house to house inquiry, then that MUST have entailed Bucks Row too.
And it SHOULD have.
But it didn't.

Fiver does not like to be proven wrong. He is willing to read selectively and alter the meaning of what is said in order to try and flee from that fate, as shown by the above.

I took some little time to research the matter myself, and that led me to the Echo of the 1st of September 1888. In that paper, it says:

"In Brady-street, Thrawle-street, and other small thoroughfares in the low locality where the deceased was discovered the police have made an almost house-to-house investigation themselves, and caused secret inquiries to be conducted by persons known amongst the force as "nosea," in the hope of finding some link to enable them to unravel the hideous and mysterious crime."

So here we have that house to house investigation again. But this time over, we are supplied with names of the streets, like Brady Street and Thrawle Street! What becomes clear here is that a wide net was cast in this effort. Equally, it is clear that not all of the houses in these streets were investigated, it was an "almost house to house investigation". And it only took place in the small thorough fares of the general locality of Bucks Row, whereas it is again NOT said that it took place in Bucks Row itself!

It therefore applies that when coroner Baxter complained about how not all of the households in Bucks Row had been interviewed, after inspector Spratling having owned up to this matter, it was not Spratling himself who was criticized and told to do a house to house investigation in Bucks Row himself, as Fiver rather exotically suggests - it was of course the lax work of the police on the whole that Baxter gave a kick in the bum.

It is not that I am saying that the streets where the murders take place need not be investigated in depth. They DO. And that is the whole crux here - the police failed to do so, and were accordingly criticized by coroner Baxter.

And here, with Fiver trapped on the banks of his own river of invention, I take my leave for some time. If my absense could be used to do something else than misrepresent what I am saying, so much the better.

But I am not holding my breath, of course. The past terrifies.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I said before, anybody who claims that somebody is a liar without being able to prove it, is himself a liar.
As I said before, anybody who cannot prove that somebody has been dishonest without being able to prove it, is himself dishonest.

That is all there is to it. Hysteria and wild accusations have tendency to fall back on the hysterics and accusers.

And after all of your desperate wriggling you still cannot give an explanation how you managed to count up those few newspaper reports and erroneously conclude that the majority said ‘3.00’ when the reality was that the majority said ‘around 3.30.’ It’s noticeable that you managed to include the one that mentioned 3.20 though.

Thats point proven. It’s there in black and white and you cannot give any reason for this. Wriggle all that you want Fish. Everyone can read this and see the truth.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Paul Begg put it otherwise. He said that it was a completely legal and working way of doing things. But what does he know that you don't know better...?

Moreover, the fact that it was the evidence against Lechmere that Scobie got was very clearly pointed out in the documentary.

So zero points to you, Fiver. Again.

With the ‘about 3.30’ part deliberately omitted of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are as likely to be able to prove that the Phantom killer existed as you are to prove that I am a liar, Herlock.

If your assessment is limited to ‘well if you can’t name him then he can’t have existed’ then no more need saying on this particular point.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Try that on James Scobie. And don't forget to tell him that you are the better judge of the two of you on matters legal, Fiver.

The fact that there was a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of (sic) which he is linked - geographically and physically - ... the prosecution have the most powerful material the courts use against individual suspects.

(James Scobie, QC, criminal barrister)


No barrister should make a statement like that about a person accused of having committed six murders, when he was working 14 to 18 hours per day, living with his wife and nine children, when the first supposed murder in the series (Tabram's) occurred at a time before he would have set out for work, when two of the murders occurred on his day off, when the last murder occurred on a day on which either he was on holiday or, at the time that the mutilations were committed, would have been at work.

How on earth could Lechmere have been linked geographically and physically to Mitre square?

[Fisherman]

As you repeat the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Scobie was not given any of the witness statements or the coroner's summing up, just a list of bullet points.

Or as programmers put it "garbage in, garbage out".

Paul Begg put it otherwise. He said that it was a completely legal and working way of doing things. But what does he know that you don't know better...?

Moreover, the fact that it was the evidence against Lechmere that Scobie got was very clearly pointed out in the documentary.

So zero points to you, Fiver. Again.

[Fisherman]

He's proved you left out the "about", your post admits it.

The problem is that he is trying his very best (which really amounts to embarrassingly little) that I left it out with the intention of deceiving people.

The question whether you did that deliberately is a harder one to prove, but we can look for a pattern. Have you repeatedly left out information that would point against Charles Lechmere being the killer? Have you continued to do this after the information has been repeatedly pointed out to you?

I may certainly have said "If he left home at 3.30, then it applies .."

But that is not a deception. It is a theoretical construction.

Besides, even if I was to leave it out tomorrow, that does not in any way prove any intention of mine to deceive yesterday.

As it happens, I have never had any such intentions, and I never will have. Not am I a liar.

But if that enters into your equations is another thing, of course.

[Fisherman]

People believing the murders are connected does not prove that someone connected to one murder has any connection to the other murders. By your "logic" every witness can be "proven" to be the Ripper.

You should not speak about proof, Fiver. What I am saying is that the logical outcome of identifying a suspect in one of the cases, is that a suspect for ALL the cases has been identified.

Back in the real word, Charles Lechmere has no connection to any of the murders except for Nichols, and the evidence is strongly in favor of him being an innocent witness.

According to you, yes. According to me, it is a very different matter.

We really should try to get a KC settle this for us.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yep. That was what I anticipated. I said a good deal more about it, but the film team cut away most of it.

But basically, what I am saying is that I think that the evidence against him is so overwhelming that I find it unlikely that he will ever be cleared by any matter - but I don't rule it out categorically. Conversely, I beleive that what is found about him in the future will either be of a neutral nature, or it will fit the suggestion that he was the killer - but I am not ruling out that I am wrong.

We need no drama about a very uncontroversial thing. I think he did it. I believe future finds will strengthen the suggestion. End of.

Whatever I find about this man will go to confirm his guilt; it will not go to clear him.

I realise that - well - here he is: Jack the Ripper.

(Christer Holmgren)



That looks very much like a presumption of guilt.

[Fisherman]

You've offered theories and selective quoting. You have misrepresented the original sources, modern experts, and other posters. You have ignored the dictionary and much of the evidence.

And now you're claiming those as "insights".

I guess it's time to point you back to the dictionary.

I was referring to the insights of R J Palmer, not my own insights, Fiver.

And where does not understanding that put you in relation to me when it comes to language knowledge...?

Yes, exactly!

[Fisherman]

You don't apply this reasoning to the men who found any of the other victims. All you have proved is that you are deliberately ignoring all options other than Charles Lechmere.

Not at all. I have never done that. I have repeatedly said that there IS a window of opportunity for another killer.

How is that "ignoring all other options than Charles Lechmere", Fiver? Do explain it to us!

I FAVOR Lechmere as the absolute best suspect there has ever been and I DO think that he was the killer.

But you need to learn that this is another matter altogether. I am quite allowed to do so, and I would preferably do it without you claiming falsehoods on my behalf simultaneously.

[Fisherman]

Afraid your the one trying to say "Nothing to see here, move on, please" as you repeatedly ignore facts that don't foy with your theory.

You drawing a Ley Lines on the map shows you deliberately ignoring all lines that don't point to Charles Lechmere, nothing more.

That line, however, does not ignore the straight trip from the arch to 22 Doveton Street. It nails it. And if we are looking at Lechmere as the likely killer, it is a piece of information that is either a mind-blowing coincidence or a matter linking Lechmere to the torso murders. Just like how the chosen dump site on Lechmeres childhood street ALSO offers a very intriguing possible link to the carman.

And THAT is why YOU are the one trying to sweep it under the carpet.

Are you going to have more tries on this, Fiver? It won't change, you see.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere was spotted near a body and lived in the area. That's it. The supposed anomalies are a mix of selective quoting, unsupported theories, double standards, and the occasional bit of complete nonsense like the Ley Lines.

Nope, that is not "it". he DID give an alias, he DID disagree with Mizen, the wounds WERE hidden from sight, his work trek DID pass through Spitalfields, he DID have his mother living nearby the Berner Street murder site and so on.
There is no "selective quoting", no unsupported theory", no "double standards" and no "nonsense" about it.

They are all proven facts, and you find them impossible to swallow - so you lie about them, calling them things they are not and never were.

It is standard Fiver stuff.