Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[GUT]

I was involved, deeply involved, in this deceitful docu, remember?

Well Fish why then can't you answer a simple question if you were sop deeply involved?

[GUT]

You know Fish I've tried to keep out of this thread but it is things like this that get n my craw

I have been accused of being a bad family father, a lousy journalist, a Swede (apparently inforgiveable to some), a liar, pompous and a coward.

But then you have the gall, being offended yourelf of making the same accusation against others.

Talk about Pots and Kettles.

[Fisherman]

GUT:

1. Well Fish why then can't you answer a simple question if you were sop deeply involved?

2. You have the gall, being offended yourelf of making the same accusation against others.

This is the last you will hear from me in this errand, Gut.

1. I have answered that I never met Scobie. I never held his compilation of papers in my hand and looked through it. I neve occurred to me that somebody sould have the extemely bad taste to call it into question, suggesting that it was designed to fool Scobie into getting it wrong. In the film, we can see that the material he has in front of him is totally relevant. I am convinced myself that the rest of the material followed the same standards. Paul Begg said, on hearing the accusation thrown forward by Trevor Marriott, that what we were obliged to provide Scobie with was the points of accusations against Lechmere. He was to judge whether that was enough for a trial in his eyes, he was not to take in the whole case with all it´s details. As far as I understand, his compilation involved an overview of the case against Lechmere, together with reports on what the other experts in the docu had had to say. We can visually see that he got the material Jason Payne-James provided. And we can see a thickish wad of papers in the hands of Scobie.

2. What counts is the context in which an expression is used. If I am being accused of something and react to it as being wrongful, it does not follow that I cannot accuse the ones who levelled the original accusation of the same thing.

In the 18:th century, the Swedish king Gustav III accused tsar Peter of Russia of looking for war.
Then Peter accused Gustav III of looking for war.

It turned out that Gustav had dressed Swedish soldiers as Russian soldiers, inciting war. So, Gut, when Peter accused Gustav of looking for was, he had the gall to accuse the Swedish king of the exact same thing he disliked being accused of himself. And he was right to do so.

A lesson in history, a lesson in tactics, a lesson in propaganda, a lesson in semantics, all at the same time.

Can it be that what I say about people who have said the same thing about me is actually true? Yes. If it is true, should I have "the gall" to say so? Yes.

Should YOU have the gall to accuse me of being a hipocrytical for it?

That is really the only interesting question out here.

Good luck with your investigations into the Blink Films rot. I trust you to take your responsibility and try to shed light over things. Being a seeker of the truth and a man with a dedication for fair play, I simply cannot see how you would not make good use of the contact information I provided.

You are curious, you are a man with a mission, and first and foremost, you would NEVER want to leave the type of accusations that are knit to this hanging, since it could potentialy tarnish me, a fellow poster.

Now do the right thing, Gut!!!

Goodbye to you.

[Sally]

Fisherman -

I note that you haven't responded to Patrick's offer of an open debate in post #124 - did you miss it perhaps?

I think this would be a great opportunity for you to showcase your [or Ed's, whichever you prefer] theory in a public forum - you've backed Crossmere all the way; you're obviously entirely convinced of his candidacy as the Ripper, so why not?

So - will you be debating Crossmere in Baltimore in April? Doubtless many who've been following the Crossmere debate will be waiting for your confirmation.

[GUT]

Should YOU have the gall to accuse me of being a hipocrytical for it?

Yes Fish because unfortunately you are being hypocritical.

When I first joined these forums you were attacking Ben's Hutch is Flem theory left right and centre, but when your theory is subject to similar scrutiny you take it highly personally, so I'm afraid that your reactions are hypocritical.

[GUT]

Yes Fish because unfortunately you are being hypocritical.

When I first joined these forums you were attacking Ben's Hutch is Flem theory left right and centre, but when your theory is subject to similar scrutiny you take it highly personally, so I'm afraid that your reactions are hypocritical.

Also you take exception to people calling you a coward, a statement I can't find in this thread, then outright call others cowards, now that is the very definition of hypocritical,

[Mayerling]

GUT:

What counts is the context in which an expression is used. If I am being accused of something and react to it as being wrongful, it does not follow that I cannot accuse the ones who levelled the original accusation of the same thing.

In the 18:th century, the Swedish king Gustav III accused tsar Peter of Russia of looking for war.
Then Peter accused Gustav III of looking for war.

It turned out that Gustav had dressed Swedish soldiers as Russian soldiers, inciting war. So, Gut, when Peter accused Gustav of looking for was, he had the gall to accuse the Swedish king of the exact same thing he disliked being accused of himself. And he was right to do so.

A lesson in history, a lesson in tactics, a lesson in propaganda, a lesson in semantics, all at the same time.

Goodbye to you.[/B]

Hello Fish,

I'm sorry to disturb you but you brought this on a little bit. I was reading your comments to GUT and you demonstrated your knowledge of Swedish history (actually Swedish-Russian Foreign Relations in the 18th Century), and I'm having a problem with it.

It doesn't quite make sense.

Gustavus III did not become King of Sweden in the early 1760s. He had a role in Swedish affairs due to being heir to his father the king, but the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Gustavus (Volume 12, p. 736 to 739) show that he did not step into an active political role until 1768, when he stepped in during his father's interregnum (I take it that his father had become somehow incapacitated mentally or physically). Problem is that Tsar Peter III of Russia (the last Tsar to have that name) was murdered in a palace coup, almost certainly engineered in part by his wife Catherine the Great, in 1764. Could you please explain how exactly Gustavus was king of Sweden earlier than he appears he was to have a conflict about "he said, he said" with Peter (a notoriously unstable monarch) while Peter was still on the throne? If I have missed something please correct it.

Of course the anti-Catherine rebel Pugachev, who operated in the 1770s with his vast revolt, claimed he was Peter - but he was lying.

Jeff

[caz]

Caz, I think that Lechmere quite possibly went to the police on the evening before the second inquest day, at a stage where the police´s pooh-poohing Paul had not yet reached the public via the papers.

I would also go as far as to say that even if Lechmere had known about how Paul was dissed, he could not be absolutely sure that Paul would not be in a position to mention some detail that would give the police a change of heart.

In either case, it would be a question of being proactive on the carman´s behalf.

But must we chew this over and over and over and over again...?

No, Fish, you have no obligation to keep chewing. But I do question what was in it for Lechmere to be 'proactive' when he was just 'another man', who only 'looked like a carman', and Paul's newspaper story indicated pretty clearly that neither he nor Mizen suspected this 'other man' of any wrongdoing. In fact the only finger being pointed was at Mizen for continuing to knock up after being told that a woman was lying in the street, asleep, unconscious or worse, and at the mercy of the elements, if not the local gangs or the man who had murdered a street woman in the area, in similar conditions, not a month since. Mizen would have wanted Paul or the 'other man' to become suspects like he wanted a hole in the head, given how that would have reflected on his own performance. Lechmere was home free, and would have remained so, even in the highly unlikely event that Paul and Mizen were to join forces, turn over every stone in Whitechapel and find him again. They can't hang you for not attending an inquest after raising the alarm with a less than proactive policeman who suspected nothing until it was too late. By the time they found Lechmere again and were able to positively identify him as the same man, what possible evidence could they have conjured up to connect him with the crime itself?

When you add to all that the trouble you insist Lechmere felt obliged to go to, to use a different surname at the inquest and try to keep his home address out of it too, so he could kill again without raising certain people's suspicions, the question becomes not what was in it for him, but what could have possessed him to put himself through any of it, once safely away from Mizen?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish,

I'm sorry to disturb you but you brought this on a little bit. I was reading your comments to GUT and you demonstrated your knowledge of Swedish history (actually Swedish-Russian Foreign Relations in the 18th Century), and I'm having a problem with it.

It doesn't quite make sense.

Gustavus III did not become King of Sweden in the early 1760s. He had a role in Swedish affairs due to being heir to his father the king, but the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Gustavus (Volume 12, p. 736 to 739) show that he did not step into an active political role until 1768, when he stepped in during his father's interregnum (I take it that his father had become somehow incapacitated mentally or physically). Problem is that Tsar Peter III of Russia (the last Tsar to have that name) was murdered in a palace coup, almost certainly engineered in part by his wife Catherine the Great, in 1764. Could you please explain how exactly Gustavus was king of Sweden earlier than he appears he was to have a conflict about "he said, he said" with Peter (a notoriously unstable monarch) while Peter was still on the throne? If I have missed something please correct it.

Of course the anti-Catherine rebel Pugachev, who operated in the 1770s with his vast revolt, claimed he was Peter - but he was lying.

Jeff

You have missed nothing at all, Jeff! And why would you be disturbing me?
It was I who misremembered - it was Catherine the Great who ruled Russia when Gustav sent his Russian-clothed soldiers in.

Anyway, the argument as such remains the same. But thank you for correcting a Swede who should have known better - after all, it is Swedish history we are talking about!

[caz]

But this is just your preconceived notion, Caz.

Too funny, Fish. And your entire theory is not just based on preconceived notions of how Jack the Ripper would behave in Lechmere's clothes? Or if you prefer, how Lechmere would behave with Jack the Ripper's mind?

I think that it would be eminently sensible to attend the inquest if he believed that he would be sought for as the killer if he did not.

So now he becomes sensible? Like normal people, you mean? Where did the psychopath go, with the perverse thrill he got from taking daft risks he had no need to take? I think you may be better off using that argument, because in order to be found he had to be sought first, and the only two people on the planet who may just possibly have recognised him again, Paul and Mizen, were arguably the least likely to co-operate in the circumstances. Lechmere would have known that, from Paul's anti-police stance and from having put one over on Mizen, whose best bet was to swear there was nothing remotely suspicious about the 'other man', to justify his own response.

Therefore, ultimately, he may have reasoned that he stood to gain an escape from the gallows.

I'm amazed - but impressed - that you didn't go on this time to point out (using a circular motion) that the 'ruse' evidently worked because he did escape from the gallows.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Take a look at Hercules latest post to you. He understands what circular reasoning is.
In a sense, we are all engaging in a paraphrase of circular reasoning, since we are rehashing the same old arguments over and over and over again...

'In a sense... a paraphrase of'??

I wondered when that old howler would come up. A certain prolific poster on the Hutchinson threads used to describe circular reasoning that way, showing a complete misunderstanding of the term. Circular reasoning is a solitary vice. It has nothing to do with multiple posters following each other round and round in circles, 'rehashing the same old arguments'. In fact, if you still think it can be used that way without appearing ignorant of its true meaning, I'm not sure you grasped anything at all from Hercule's post.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz: No, Fish, you have no obligation to keep chewing. But I do question what was in it for Lechmere to be 'proactive' when he was just 'another man', who only 'looked like a carman', and Paul's newspaper story indicated pretty clearly that neither he nor Mizen suspected this 'other man' of any wrongdoing.

There is something very strange going on here. Why don´t you underrstand my argument? it is very clear and simple, and should offer no chewing resistance at all.

I will try once more, and you must tell me what it is you cannot accept. I will take it step by step.

1. Lechmere and Paul approach Mizen, and Lechmere speaks to him about the woman in Bucks Row. This ensures that all three men will be able to identify each other.

2. None of the carmen approach either police or press initially, leaving Neil to think that he was the sole finder of Nichols.

3. Mizen does not go to his superiors and tell them that two carmen had spoken to him.

4. Then, on the 2:nd of September, an article surfaces in Lloyds Weekly, where Robert Paul claims to have come upon the victim before the police did so, and that another man was found standing where the body was as this happened. In the article, there are passages that will have told the police that the carman was not telling the truth - for example, he says that the body was stone cold, and the police will have known that it was instead warm, apart from the hands and lower arms.

5. On the evening of the 2:nd, in the aftermath of the article in Lloyds Weekly, the police give an "interview". At this occasion, inspector Helson spoke to the press, and it appears that John Neil participated also. This is what is said of Neils contribution:
"Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthern to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete. "

We must assume that this interview followed upon the publication in Lloyds Weekly, and that some time had passed after the publishing before the interview was given. This means that there was a window of time where it had not yet surfaced that the police did not trust what Paul said in the interview.

If Lechmere took his decision to go to the police in this interval, it makes perfect sense for him to be proactive. He knew that Paul was essentially telling the truth, and he knew that Paul would be able to describe a number of things that you needed to have been in place to know about - like for example how the dress was pulled down to the knees but no further. He would therefore probably have assumed that the police would believe Robert Paul.
It follows that he would realize that he was at great risk to become the prime suspect, and that he stood to gain from being proactive: If he could persuade the police that he had not had the time to do the murder on account of Paul being on his heels, he would stand a chance to get out of the dilemma. Paul, having arrived in nigh on total darkness, would not have been able to corroborate or deny the distance Lechmere suggested was there between them.

You suggest that Mizen would have thought "so this was the man who spoke to me - Robert Paul", and that is not a bad suggestion per se. But the article in Lloyds has one man only arriving up at Bakers Row, and that should have Mizen wondering.
Regardless if it did or not, it neverthess remains that Lechmere would have known:

A/ That TWO men arrived in Bakers Row, not one

B/ How Lechmere looked and how Paul looked

In the article, the other carman is named, and it is stated where he worked. It is obvious that Robert Paul has no intention of keeping quiet about the find. And if he spoke to the press, giving his name, then it must to Lechmere have seemed very likely that the police would talk to Paul. And if they did, there was every chance that

A/ Paul would tell the real story

B/ Mizen would be called upon to ID the carman - which would let the cat out of the box.

It would have been a question of guessing the development on Lechmere´s behalf. If he sensed that he would be outed, he needed to be proactive.

That is how I see it. You may see it differently, but surely you can follow my reasoning?

In fact the only finger being pointed was at Mizen for continuing to knock up after being told that a woman was lying in the street, asleep, unconscious or worse, and at the mercy of the elements, if not the local gangs or the man who had murdered a street woman in the area, in similar conditions, not a month since.

What Lechmere told him, if Mizen was not lying, was that a woman "had been found" on the broad of her back in Bucks Row, and that another PC was in place, requesting his presence.
If Mizen was not lying, then the gravity of the case was played down, and the help at hand was played up.

Mizen would have wanted Paul or the 'other man' to become suspects like he wanted a hole in the head, given how that would have reflected on his own performance.

That is pure conjecture. Mizen did nothing wrong. He could be sure that his colleague had taken the names, and it was never hinted at that it could be a case of murder or suicide.
What Mizen needed to do in such a case was to go to Bucks Row and that was exactly what he did.

Lechmere was home free, and would have remained so, even in the highly unlikely event that Paul and Mizen were to join forces, turn over every stone in Whitechapel and find him again. They can't hang you for not attending an inquest after raising the alarm with a less than proactive policeman who suspected nothing until it was too late.

Once Lechmere had passed Mizen, he was "in the clear" in this respect. So he got there quicker.

In your scenario, he would equally be in the clear - but he would not have been able to serve the inquest his "Paul was just 30 yards behind-story", leaving the inquest and police to conclude that he could have been aloine with the body for an unknown amount of time. And that would in all probabulity have him suspected. By going to the inquest, HE AVOIDED THAT.

By the time they found Lechmere again and were able to positively identify him as the same man, what possible evidence could they have conjured up to connect him with the crime itself?

None - but he could well be the prime suspect, and he would reasonably end up under very close surveillance, which would have been exactly what he tried to avoid.

When you add to all that the trouble you insist Lechmere felt obliged to go to, to use a different surname at the inquest and try to keep his home address out of it too, so he could kill again without raising certain people's suspicions, the question becomes not what was in it for him, but what could have possessed him to put himself through any of it, once safely away from Mizen?

He never was "safely away", Caz. That is your conjecture only. He would have had the full interest of the whole Met if he stayed away.
As it was, he bluffed the inquest and was cleared in the eyes if the police.

If he was the killer and could choose between these two things, which would be the better choice to make? To stay away and arguably become the most sought-after man in Britain, or to roll the dice and try and bluf everybody?

Basically, we are down to the same old "he wouldn´t" - "oh yes, he would", and nobody is going to be able to establish any percentage value about how good or bad the different bids are.
But I hope, at any rate, that you can accept that there is a logical explanation involving Lechmere as the killer.

[Patrick S]

If I thought that you were a useful judge of such matters, I would be very worried.

But somehow I feel light at heart.

Charming, to the last....Eh, Christer? 'Twas far less hurtful language caused you to skulk away in tears, refusing to engage me. Then....that was the prudent move wasn't it? When you can no longer argue effectively as you are confronted with those annoying facts and simple logic....well.....it's always best to play the wounded victim.

[Fisherman]

'In a sense... a paraphrase of'??

I wondered when that old howler would come up. A certain prolific poster on the Hutchinson threads used to describe circular reasoning that way, showing a complete misunderstanding of the term. Circular reasoning is a solitary vice. It has nothing to do with multiple posters following each other round and round in circles, 'rehashing the same old arguments'. In fact, if you still think it can be used that way without appearing ignorant of its true meaning, I'm not sure you grasped anything at all from Hercule's post.

Love,

Caz
X

You are completely correct, Caz - people rehashing things are not engaging in circular reasoning!

Bravo!

However, I never meant that they did. That is why I say that a paraphrase would be to let the discussion go round and round and round in circles, the way you do. And I, when I answer the same old questions over and over and over again.

From the net, defining "paraphrase:

To adapt or alter (a text or quotation) to serve a different purpose from that of the original.

Check things first next time. Please?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman -

I note that you haven't responded to Patrick's offer of an open debate in post #124 - did you miss it perhaps?

I think this would be a great opportunity for you to showcase your [or Ed's, whichever you prefer] theory in a public forum - you've backed Crossmere all the way; you're obviously entirely convinced of his candidacy as the Ripper, so why not?

So - will you be debating Crossmere in Baltimore in April? Doubtless many who've been following the Crossmere debate will be waiting for your confirmation.

Backtrack on the boards, Sally. The answer is there.