Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Fisherman]

I'm left shaking my head. Fisherman advocates his suspect fiercely and logically. Why should this generate scorn? We need more people advocating their preferred suspects with as much passion and level-headedness (and the two can coexist) as Fish.

To me, Lechmere, Hutchinson, and Richardson are all men placed at the scene who may be the Ripper. Of these it is debatable who is the strongest. The weakest would be Richardson so he probably did it.

Actually, Barnaby, the people who use scorn to comment on the Lechmere case, are the ones painting themselves into a corner. They single themselves out as incompetent.
They are having a field day, employing their knowledge that the case cannot be proven, and they act as if I had stated that it COULD be proven.
If they wanīt to make spectacles of themselves, then so be it. It is a short warmth to pee in your pants.

The worst of these posters make it their business to name the Mizen scam a fiasco. But they are less interested in looking at how clear the implications are:

1. There is virtually no chance that Mizen would have misheard Lechmere THREE times. There is even less chance that these three times would represent the exact three matters that would take Lechmere past the police and keep him in the clear. The mere suggestion is ridiculous.

2. There is virtually no chance that Lechmere would have concocted as complex and convoluted a lie as the one with the extra PC. He would have known that Lechmere and Paul would both gainsay him, and then the cat would be out of the bag. In all probability, it would cost him his job.
More pertinently, he never even needed to invent an extra PC. It would be counterproductive. It would put him in a situation where he had a duty to get to Bucks Row double quick to answer the colleagues call, and the criticism against the Mizen scam are built on how Mizen would have felt a need to make excuses for his suggested tardiness.
Why on earth would he admit to knowing that another PC had requested his help? He could just say "I didnīt make haste since I had been told that there was a drunken woman in Bucks Row, and that would not have been a very pressing errand". Problem solved. In accordance with what he knew the carmen would say.

3. Thain tells us that he was not supposed to leave his beat unless called. The same would have applied to Mizen. Therefore, it makes sense to accept that he WAS called - by Lechmere, who lied about the other PC.

These matters make it more or less a certain thing to me that Lechmere lied to Mizen. And once we accept that, we also must accept that he was the probable killer. And that is BEFORE we count the rest of the case details in.

Our ever clever Dusty says that for example the fact that Lechmere passed right through the killing zone at what was seemingly the approximate times the victims died should be looked upon as a matter where both timings and routes are "in doubt".
That is a useless thing to say.
He could just as well have said that the points are not proven.
That would have been as useless.

The case against Lechmere is - once more - NOT built on proof. If it HAD been, it would have been solved.

The case against Lechmere is built on circumstantial evidence. On suspicions.

When it comes to the correlation between his working routes and times and the murders, all we need to ask ourselves is "would this have interested the police if they had known?"

It would have made them drool. It is the EXACT type of information the police are looking for when they have opted for a suspect: Okay, so this man looks like our killer. Now, find out where he was on these days, and when he was there.

If they get a match, they know they are on the right track.

A number of ill-informed posters with a penchant for trying to look clever worries me very little in that context. It is sad, thatīs all.

[Varqm]

That is funny in a way.

[drstrange169]

Hello Barnaby,

I don't scorn Christer, or least it's never my intention too. It's just that he gets a bit carried away with his eagerness and tends to invent things that need correcting.

e.g. Xmere, "claimed to have walked 30-40 yards in front of Robert Paul ..."

of course, Xmere made no such claim.

[drstrange169]

>>The case against Lechmere is built on circumstantial evidence. On suspicions.<<

Which fair enough if and when it is presented that way.

The problem arises when suspicions are presented as facts, Xmere lied about this, Xmere lied about that etc etc etc.

[Fisherman]

Hello Barnaby,

I don't scorn Christer, or least it's never my intention too. It's just that he gets a bit carried away with his eagerness and tends to invent things that need correcting.

e.g. Xmere, "claimed to have walked 30-40 yards in front of Robert Paul ..."

of course, Xmere made no such claim.

It seems that when we have to think ourselves, you are having difficulties to follow.

From the Morning Advertiser quoting Charles Lechmere:

"...on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come..."

So, Dusty, Lechmere went into the centre of the road, and AT THE SAME TIME he heard Robert Paul. From other sources we know that he estimated that Paul was 30-40 yards away as he first noticed him. It is clear from, for example, the Daily News:
"...walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away..."

Other sources have it as 30 yards.

So we know that Lechmere claimed to have walked down the street, walking into the middle of it when he noticed what he believed to be a tarpaulin.
And we know that AT THE SAME TIME as he walked into the street, he heard Robert PAul 30-40 yards away".

We therefore know that Charles Lechmeres claims involved that Ribert Paul was but 30-40 yards behind him as he himself stepped out into the middle of the street.

Your choice is to either accept this as facts, or to paint me out as "inventing things that need correcting".

What are the implications? Do we or do we not know that Charles Lechmeres suggestion was that aas he stepped into the street, Robert Paul was, to the best of Lechmereīs knowledge, but 30-40 yards off?

Instead of making a fuss about things like these, where the only criticism you have to offer is linguistical: "He did not say that", whereas the facts tell us that this was his estimation, you could provide a lot of TRULY interesting debate.

But the naysayers do not want that. They want to do what you do, snipe away at completely irrelevant details. They settle for pointing out the bloody obvious: "We cannot know FOR SURE that he did not have a reason to call himself Cross".

That is the game they are playing, and you are joining in frequently, Dusty. At itīs best, it is a moot exhibition of disinteresting quibble.

[Fisherman]

>>The case against Lechmere is built on circumstantial evidence. On suspicions.<<

Which fair enough if and when it is presented that way.

The problem arises when suspicions are presented as facts, Xmere lied about this, Xmere lied about that etc etc etc.

You know damn well that I have said a million times that each and every one of the points involved to make a case against Lechmere may have alternative, innocent explanations.
But still, you make the case that I should at any time have presented the case as a factually proven one.

It does not matter if I say "He lied about X" or "It seems he lied about X", because you will in the first case say "Not proven!" and in the second "You cannot say that it seemed so, it does not seem so to me!"

I have no intentions to bow to any request that I should say "a case can be made that he swopped his name", since we know quite well that he DID swop his name. And if the police asked him "What is your name", then stating "Cross" would be a lie. His name was Lechmere, and he had accepted that his name was Lechmere, since that was the name he used whenever dealing with the authorities.

I can only say so many times that the case is built on suspicion and not on proof, I can only say so many times that the details that point to him MAY have alternative, innocent explanations. That is all that can be demanded of me, and I have lived up to it throughout.

There are others, making the claim that it is a proven thing that Mizen lied at the inquest. Why donīt you go after these people instead? THAT is how an outright lie looks, THAT is where you need to clean the boards of unfactual vomit.

[Patrick S]

You know damn well that I have said a million times that each and every one of the points involved to make a case against Lechmere may have alternative, innocent explanations.

We also know - DAMN WELL - that you have made the case repeatedly that as far as you are concerned Lechmere's guilt is a near CERTAINTY! In fact, over the past few weeks and months you have repeatedly posted that upon further reflection you can find almost no other explanation...this is, obviously, absurd. And now you look for cover behind a few minor caveats posted amoung a moutain of accusations? Please.

The fact of the matter is this, "Fisherman": You are incapable of civil discourse with people not hailing you as a visionary, transcendent 'Ripperologist'. You are arrogant, stubborn, condescending, and about half as intelligent as you think you are. You are also - in light of your refusal to engage me on these boards (not to mention a simple, professional, respectful debat on my dime) - childish.

I'll go further. You bemoan the fact that you've been called a coward on these pages, when everyone knows that was never the case. I suggest that you simply felt that you'd been CALLED a coward because you realize that you are behaving, gasp, quite cowardly. I don't hold it against you. You can't defend this tripe against practical criticism.

Of course, I have alienated myself from you further by making the cardinal sin - it seems - of actually taking your theory seriously. So, I read. I did my own research. I reached the logical conclusion: Lechmere was not "Jack the Ripper" and the myriad other serial killers you accuse him of being. In fact, the historical record indicates he was a somewhat transformative figure within his family in that through hard work, stable employment, a long (50 years) and productive (11 children) marriage he was able to move future generations of his family out of the cycle of poverty that was pervasive in his family's time and place. Some may descibe this - in itself - as somewhat cowardly. As for myself, I'll say that it's either that....or dishonest....or simply YOUR incompetence, or lack of skill, intelligence, ethics, what have you. I don't know. You decide.

But still, you make the case that I should at any time have presented the case as a factually proven one.

It does not matter if I say "He lied about X" or "It seems he lied about X", because you will in the first case say "Not proven!" and in the second "You cannot say that it seemed so, it does not seem so to me!"

This is more of your double-speak. Anyone who has studied this thing for any amount of time should be aware of one very simple fact: NOTHING can be proven. This is especially true with the Nichols' murder in that the actual case file do not exist. You are trying to have it both ways here "Fisherman". You are the one who has thrown out terms like "blood EVIDENCE". To apply the term 'evidence' to things you concluded based upon witness statements appearing in sensationlized 127 year old news accounts is laughable.

You also presented your "Mizen Scam" ( ) as some sort of scientific formula, apparent to anyone honesty analyzing the available data. In doing so you canonize Mizen as the Christian Cop and condemn Paul as a liar. Based on a few words appearing in notoriously inaccurate news accounts, even as those accounts and the events related in them indicate clearly that MIZEN was one who was less than honest. True, had very obvious, understandable reasons for his lies, both of omission and otherwise. Yet, these are far less sinister and don't lead to "Jack the Ripper" and "The Torso Killer", do they?

I have no intentions to bow to any request that I should say "a case can be made that he swopped his name", since we know quite well that he DID swop his name. And if the police asked him "What is your name", then stating "Cross" would be a lie. His name was Lechmere, and he had accepted that his name was Lechmere, since that was the name he used whenever dealing with the authorities.

This was an intiguing item. Once. Not so much these days in that it's become apparent that it's all you have. There is NOTHING else of interest here. Nothing. Every other aspect of your theory has proven to be far-fetched fantasy borne of your manic desire to cast Lechmere as "Jack the Ripper". When he fits a profile, you cite that profile. When he doesn't, you cite exceptions that "disprove" those inconvenient profiles. When a witness says something that corroborates Lechmere, he's a liar. When a word is spoken that may indict him, it's gospel. This nonsense is apparent to everyone but you. My contempt for your theory has almost turned to pity for you. Almost.

I can only say so many times that the case is built on suspicion and not on proof, I can only say so many times that the details that point to him MAY have alternative, innocent explanations. That is all that can be demanded of me, and I have lived up to it throughout.

You are clearly backing off. This is wise.

There are others, making the claim that it is a proven thing that Mizen lied at the inquest. Why donīt you go after these people instead? THAT is how an outright lie looks, THAT is where you need to clean the boards of unfactual vomit.

Of course, I have never said that it's a proven thing. That would make me as silly as you are. I have based my theory on the same reports you base yours upon. However, I've not sold mine as an "internationally sent documentary". I have no book coming out about Mizen's lies. I have the common sense and decency to say that Mizen lying does not mean that he was not an outstanding cop and good Christian man. Check the boards, "Fisherman". That's a fact.

Mizen first omitting information (which is about as clear as it could be based on what we know) and then inventing a story to cover his tracks and protect is job is understandable. As I've said (again, check it), it amounted to a white lie. Further, I've said that both Mizen's and Thain's white lies were known and tacitly endorced by the Met in order to protect their already tarnished image. Alas, it's not sexy or potentially profitable. But, it's a simple, apparent, and common sense conclusion. It won't make anyone famous or rich. It certainly will not garner publicity in Pakistan and India. But, it's at least honest.

Feel free to take me up on my offer to debate at any time. I'll be here, as I hope you'll continue to be...even if you won't engage me directly. I'm not going anywhere because I simpy can't sit idle while you post nonsense.

[Pierre]

Swopped names - no scientific significance.

Disagreed with the police about a number of very prudent things - no scientific significance.

Had a home and a job that meant that he would pass right through the killing zone at the relevant hours - no scientific significance.

Was found alone with a freshly killed victim - no scientific significance.

Was at the killing site at a remove in time that fits the blood evidence - no scientific significance.

Was described by a QC as a prima faciae case that suggested that he was the killer - no scientific significance.

Claimed to have walked 30-40 yards in front of Robert Paul, who said nothing about hearing or seeing Lechmere - no scientific significance.

Shall I tell you where I think your "scientific significance" belongs, Pierre? No, I shall not - we are not supposed to do such things.

You write that you wish that you could reduce my purpose to a pure money making interest.

Iīm sure you do.

I wish I could ascribe your interest in the case to an openminded will to see results.

Hi Fisherman,

You present a list of what you call evidence and after each one put "no significance". But it was the theory I wrote about. Each of these single items must be put together. I know that you have done that as well and that you think the sum of them adds up as pointing towards Lechmere-Cross as the Whitechapel killer.

But if you want to examine how valid the theory is you must start with judging the validity of each item above. Here it goes:

Swopped names - to his stepfathers name who was a policeman.
Interpretation 1: Lechmere-Cross wanted to present himself as a reliable source, having a policeman for a stepfather = middle high validity.
Interpretation 2: Lechmere-Cross wanted to hide his true ID = low validity.

Disagreed with the police about a number of very prudent things - disagreed with another witness who was a policeman. Interpretaion 1: Who disagreed with who? Witnesses often tend to disagree at inquests = high validity. Interpretaion 2: He was a killer who freely attended the inquest and there he started lying = low validity.

Had a home and a job that meant that he would pass right through the killing zone at the relevant hours. Interpretation 1: As did a large number of criminals and non criminals in this area = high validity. Interpretation 2: Lechmere-Cross was a killer since he was available = low validity.

Was found alone with a freshly killed victim. Interpretation 1: Witnesses who find murdered people tend to do that = High validity. Interpretation 2: He was the killer and he wanted to be found at the murder site but afterwards dod not confess that he had comitted the murder = Low validity.

Was at the killing site at a remove in time that fits the blood evidence. Interpretation 1: He was very close in thime to the mutilations of Nichols. He was as close in time as Diemschutz to the murder on Stride = High validity. Interpretation 2: He must be a murderer (but Diemschutz mustnīt) = low validity.

Was described by a QC as a prima faciae case that suggested that he was the killer. Comment: I havenīt heard of this and donīt understand it, sorry.

Claimed to have walked 30-40 yards in front of Robert Paul, who said nothing about hearing or seeing Lechmere. Interpretation 1: Witnesses often disagree and they misremeber = High validity. Interpretation 2: The fact (if so) that R.P. did not mention x, doesnīt mean he didnīt see or hear x = medium high validity. Interpretation 3: R.P:s silence must mean that L-C was a liar = low validity.

Your turn to validate the items Fisherman. I challenge you.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

You present a list of what you call evidence and after each one put "no significance". But it was the theory I wrote about. Each of these single items must be put together. I know that you have done that as well and that you think the sum of them adds up as pointing towards Lechmere-Cross as the Whitechapel killer.

But if you want to examine how valid the theory is you must start with judging the validity of each item above. Here it goes:

Swopped names - to his stepfathers name who was a policeman.
Interpretation 1: Lechmere-Cross wanted to present himself as a reliable source, having a policeman for a stepfather = middle high validity.
Interpretation 2: Lechmere-Cross wanted to hide his true ID = low validity.

Disagreed with the police about a number of very prudent things - disagreed with another witness who was a policeman. Interpretaion 1: Who disagreed with who? Witnesses often tend to disagree at inquests = high validity. Interpretaion 2: He was a killer who freely attended the inquest and there he started lying = low validity.

Had a home and a job that meant that he would pass right through the killing zone at the relevant hours. Interpretation 1: As did a large number of criminals and non criminals in this area = high validity. Interpretation 2: Lechmere-Cross was a killer since he was available = low validity.

Was found alone with a freshly killed victim. Interpretation 1: Witnesses who find murdered people tend to do that = High validity. Interpretation 2: He was the killer and he wanted to be found at the murder site but afterwards dod not confess that he had comitted the murder = Low validity.

Was at the killing site at a remove in time that fits the blood evidence. Interpretation 1: He was very close in thime to the mutilations of Nichols. He was as close in time as Diemschutz to the murder on Stride = High validity. Interpretation 2: He must be a murderer (but Diemschutz mustnīt) = low validity.

Was described by a QC as a prima faciae case that suggested that he was the killer. Comment: I havenīt heard of this and donīt understand it, sorry.

Claimed to have walked 30-40 yards in front of Robert Paul, who said nothing about hearing or seeing Lechmere. Interpretation 1: Witnesses often disagree and they misremeber = High validity. Interpretation 2: The fact (if so) that R.P. did not mention x, doesnīt mean he didnīt see or hear x = medium high validity. Interpretation 3: R.P:s silence must mean that L-C was a liar = low validity.

Your turn to validate the items Fisherman. I challenge you.

Regards Pierre

You challenge common sense and how a police force works. Thatīs about it.

[Errata]

>>The case against Lechmere is built on circumstantial evidence. On suspicions.<<

Which fair enough if and when it is presented that way.

The problem arises when suspicions are presented as facts, Xmere lied about this, Xmere lied about that etc etc etc.

Some of this is a simple narrative problem. When presenting a thesis, it is presented as fact. The experiment or research will then prove or disprove. Many people on these boards present their theories as facts because they are approaching it as a thesis. It's how the scientific community presents theories, and anyone who got it drilled in their head in high school is prone to do the same thing even outside a scientific forum. I've done it. I've not done it. I've even done it for a month or so and then switched to not doing it if I lose faith in the idea.

It also saves time without having to write out all the "I think" or "maybe if" kind of qualifiers. Fisherman has stated the evidence and questions he has. It's not enough to prove or disprove, so it remains a thesis. Thus it is perfectly acceptable for the thesis to be presented as a statement rather than a question. It's just one way people have of presenting theories on here. And it's an acceptable one.

[Pierre]

You challenge common sense and how a police force works. Thatīs about it.

"Common sense" is useless when it comes to research. It wonīt get you to knowing who Jack the Ripper was.

Which "common sense" do you use? A 19th or 20th century model? Whose "common sense" is it?

Now it has become perfectly clear to me that you donīt even know what you are doing. By the word "know" I mean using a scientific perspective and method.

Research has had a lot to say in this matter. I recommend that you use some book on scientific methods within the field of history.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Some of this is a simple narrative problem. When presenting a thesis, it is presented as fact. The experiment or research will then prove or disprove. Many people on these boards present their theories as facts because they are approaching it as a thesis. It's how the scientific community presents theories, and anyone who got it drilled in their head in high school is prone to do the same thing even outside a scientific forum. I've done it. I've not done it. I've even done it for a month or so and then switched to not doing it if I lose faith in the idea.

It also saves time without having to write out all the "I think" or "maybe if" kind of qualifiers. Fisherman has stated the evidence and questions he has. It's not enough to prove or disprove, so it remains a thesis. Thus it is perfectly acceptable for the thesis to be presented as a statement rather than a question. It's just one way people have of presenting theories on here. And it's an acceptable one.

Hi,

of course it is a thesis. But it is not well founded. You always build a thesis on some data - but you have to have valid and reliable data to get a solid thesis.

Fisherman has very scanty and interpretable data and he lacks data for all but one murder. So the thesis is to wide for the data.

Perhaps if he said that L-C might have murdered Nichols and noone else. But even then the data would be unsufficient. Because then anyone could claim that Diemshutz murdered Stride. And so on.

It is a matter of what we shall accept as evidence and what quality our theories should have.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Pierre: "Common sense" is useless when it comes to research.

Then research is not what we should use.

It wonīt get you to knowing who Jack the Ripper was.

Tell you what: your "science" will DEFINITELY not catch our man. There was never a serialist caught throughout history using such a model. Sound police work, grounded in anomalies and suspicious behaviour attaching to a suspect is what does the work.
I canīt remember the men who caught sutcliffe, Ridgway, Gacy etcetera engaging in academic discussions. So letīs not be ridiculous here. Raed the memoirs of those policemen and see what worked for them!

Which "common sense" do you use? A 19th or 20th century model? Whose "common sense" is it?

Use your model and find out.

Now it has become perfectly clear to me that you donīt even know what you are doing. By the word "know" I mean using a scientific perspective and method.

You do that, Pierre. And shame on the killer if he does not cooperate!

Research has had a lot to say in this matter. I recommend that you use some book on scientific methods within the field of history.

Thank you; No thank you, to be more exact.

[Fisherman]

Hi,

of course it is a thesis. But it is not well founded. You always build a thesis on some data - but you have to have valid and reliable data to get a solid thesis.

Fisherman has very scanty and interpretable data and he lacks data for all but one murder. So the thesis is to wide for the data.

Perhaps if he said that L-C might have murdered Nichols and noone else. But even then the data would be unsufficient. Because then anyone could claim that Diemshutz murdered Stride. And so on.

It is a matter of what we shall accept as evidence and what quality our theories should have.

Regards Pierre

Yes, of course if we had definitive proof that Lechmere killed Nichols, we should not take that as an indication of him having killed the other evisceration victims too. That would be APALLINGLY unscientific!

[Patrick S]

HI,

of course it is a thesis. But it is not well founded. You always build a thesis on some data - but you have to have valid and reliable data to get a solid thesis.

Fisherman has very scanty and interpretable data and he lacks data for all but one murder. So the thesis is to wide for the data.

Perhaps if he said that L-C might have murdered Nichols and noone else. But even then the data would be unsufficient. Because then anyone could claim that Diemshutz murdered Stride. And so on.

It is a matter of what we shall accept as evidence and what quality our theories should have.

Regards Pierre

Pierre,

I'll disagree here as it relates to this particular field of endeavor, i.e. "Ripperology". What "Fisherman" has done here is fairly standard practice. Paley did it with Mann, Cornwell with Sickert, and more recently, Robinson with Maybrick. It's a long list and it's perfectly acceptable, mostly interesting stuff. I do not begrudge Christer his beliefs. I remain interested in debating his theories, obviously. I have zero problem with him conceiving the Lechmere theory. I have no issues with him defending his theory.

What I take issue with first and foremost is the fact that Christer is now and has been - on these pages - a bully. Further, he is completely incapable of conceding well made points, valid questions, or differing theories. Such things are met with pointed insults, the questioning of one's intelligence and/or knowledge of the case. He is - quite simply - in capable of debate. I will never abide a bully.