Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I need to begin by saying that I didn't intend to use elements of my background as arguments of authority but only to say that my interest in the JTR case covered various fields where the research method/approach one uses makes the difference between a scenario and a valid theory.

When I mentionned that you were doing some circular reasonning with the idea of Lechmere being a psychopath, it was based on the way you expressed your opinion. At one point in some of your numerous responses (Don't ask me to trace them, it would take years. LOL), you went through Lechmere's life and picked up elements which would confirm your opinion (absence of a father role model, 'lying', etc.). That was circular reasoning and one must be careful for up to a certain degree, everyone has certain psychopath attributs. Now when you phrased it this way: "I have often postulated that Jack the Ripper would most likely have been a psychopath. That´s what I see at the murder sites. The FBI, I may add, saw the same thing - psychopathology. It therefore follows that if Lechmere was the killer, then HE was that psychopath", it's not circular reasonning. The end results are the same, but only the latter method is valid.

What I meant was the approach/method you use makes the difference. Let me give you an example of it's impact. In 1900, Planck made the assumption that energy was made of individual units, or quanta and built an equation explaining it. A few years later, Albert Einstein theorized that not just the block of energy, but the radiation itself was quantized in the same manner and corrected Planck's equation. What was originally known as the Planck quanta theory became the Planck-Einstein theory and now strickly as one of Einstein's theories. So you must be careful.

One last advice. You often reformulate your points differently hoping others will better understand them which may generate confusion. Try to limit your use of words and maintain a constant in the way you express an idea.

You will obviously admit I'm right because I'm not wrong. LOL

Respectfully yours,

Hercule Poirot

P.S. Maybe you already answered this question but I can't remember what you may have said about it. Did James Scobie base his opinion on certain specific elements or was it a global conclusion?

Since I cannot make much sense of the first bit - and since you ask me to stay short - I will only answer the last question:
James Scobie had no previous interest in the case. He was provided with a compilation of the case details and reports on what the other experts in the programme said. I never met Scobie, and so I have to trust that the compilation involved the relevant material. I saw Andy Griffith´s compilation, and it was quite exhaustive. I have no reason to think Scobies was not. Nor does it lie upon me to prove that it was kosher. It lies on those who suggest it was not to prove their case.

And yes, it is incredible that this issue should even arise!

[Pcdunn]

But Neil and the police gave a press conference on the evening of the 2:nd, where they stuck with Neil being the finder. Why would they do that if Lechmere had spoken to them 24 hours before..?

Maybe Lechmere didn't talk to Neil?
I don't know, really. But what else could be the "new evidence" Abberline mentioned?

[Fisherman]

Maybe Lechmere didn't talk to Neil?
I don't know, really. But what else could be the "new evidence" Abberline mentioned?

It was not just Neil - it was the police on the whole, Helson being then one doing most of the talking. So even if that leaves us in the dark regarding what Abberline spoke of, it leaves a bright light shining over how Lechmere had not yet come forward.

[Fisherman]

You'll also notice that I skipped over your point about Lechmere using a knife at work. That's because it's an irrelevance. Whoever the Ripper was, whatever his vocation (if he even had a job), he obviously went out that night armed with a knife. If Hutchinson was the Ripper, he would've had no problem getting hold of one. Furthermore, isn't it more likely that in his profession Lechmere would've had something more akin to a penknife for cutting rope, than the thin, long bladed weapon that was used to dispatch Nichols & co.?

You will forgive me for skipping over most of your post, Harry. This last part is enough to show how you reason:

We KNOW that Lechmere would have had a knife since carmen did, in oder to be able to cut the harnesses. But this you think is not a point in the carmans favour, since Hutch could easily have found himself one!

The whole point is that what we KNOW of the carman, you have to guess and conjure up about Hutchinson: He could have had a knife, he could have walked those streets, he could have been out at those hours, he could have lied about his name etcetera.

It spells disaster for you ability to understand who a comparison like this works. Lechmere COULD have been more devious, don´t you know!

You just stick with your guesswork and I will stick with the facts. You will probably be the more content of us anyway!

By the way, the knife used to kill Nichols was not a thin, longbladed weapon. It was described as a "a strong bladed knife, moderately sharp" by Llewellyn.

But what did he know...?

[drstrange169]

>>Neil ... gave a press conference on the evening of the 2:nd, where they stuck with Neil being the finder.<<

Did he? I've never seen a date for when Neil made that statement, and I seriously doubt you have either.

Since the Star was circulating a story about two men with PC Neil as early as Friday afternoon, Neil could have been asked anytime. The story appeared in the Daily News which meant Monday would be the first day they would be able to publish Neil's denial.

>>Why would they do that if Lechmere had spoken to them 24 hours before..?<<

According, again, to Monday's Daily News, Inspector Helson gave an interview Sunday evening, which is probably what Fish has got confused about.

Nelson says nothing about Neil in that interview. As a a journalist, Fish should know that police do NOT give all the information they have to the press.

What is interesting about Helson's interview is the bulk of it appears to debunk the blood beat up theory;-)

"...the small quantity of blood found on the spot ..."

[drstrange169]

>>We KNOW that Lechmere would have had a knife ... just stick with ... guesswork and I will stick with the facts.<<

We DON'T know Xmere had a knife on him at all.

It is what the rest of us define as guesswork Fish.

Yes, it's a reasonable guess, but guess nonetheless. It is not and never will be a fact.

I'm sure you are convinced that we are all vehemently anti-Xmere, but we are not. It's just the constant presentation of guesswork and theorising as hard evidence, that prompts us to correct.

Like quite a few, Xmere is a genuine potential suspect, but despite the reams written and surfeit of sound spoken against him, nothing as yet stands up to close scrutiny.

By selective choosing the evidence and adding a lot of theorising, a good and enertaining story can be made against him. Your TV show proved that.

In the real world of research we are looking for something a little more substantial than that and, as yet nothing, has been forthcoming.

But, hope springs eternal as they say.

[caz]

Do I think that Charles regarded Cross as a false name? That is the wrong question. The right question is "Do you think that he used the name Cross with the intention to mislead?"

My answer is a very clear yes on that one.

I agree with you here, Fish. Don't faint.

But is it not possible that, after considering the situation long and hard before doing the right thing and attending the inquest, this hard-working family man used the name Cross with the intention to mislead the killer?

The killer, reading the inquest reports, would never connect the man who had very possibly interrupted his fiendish deeds with his wife - Mrs. Lechmere and his brood of little Lechmeres. If Lechmere didn't quite trust the police enough to keep his real name out of it for his family's sake, who could blame him? If anyone had gone on to query the use of his long departed stepfather's surname for this one occasion - which was not illegal anyway and about as far as you can get from a hanging offence - such an explanation would have come across as entirely understandable in the circumstances. Just a prudent man, thinking of his nearest and dearest and not particularly keen to let the killer know a Lechmere had nearly buckled him.

Schwartz was another witness who may have nearly buckled Stride's killer. As far as is known, he didn't attend her inquest. So could the police have perhaps intervened to protect Schwartz by letting the killer think his evidence was not being investigated?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

drstrange169: Neil ... gave a press conference on the evening of the 2:nd, where they stuck with Neil being the finder.

Did he? I've never seen a date for when Neil made that statement, and I seriously doubt you have either.

Since the Star was circulating a story about two men with PC Neil as early as Friday afternoon, Neil could have been asked anytime. The story appeared in the Daily News which meant Monday would be the first day they would be able to publish Neil's denial.

Aha. Well, the article commences "Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said..."
That´s why I thought that it all happened on the evening of the 2:nd.

[Fisherman]

>>We KNOW that Lechmere would have had a knife ... just stick with ... guesswork and I will stick with the facts.<<

We DON'T know Xmere had a knife on him at all.

It is what the rest of us define as guesswork Fish.

Yes, it's a reasonable guess, but guess nonetheless. It is not and never will be a fact.

I'm sure you are convinced that we are all vehemently anti-Xmere, but we are not. It's just the constant presentation of guesswork and theorising as hard evidence, that prompts us to correct.

Like quite a few, Xmere is a genuine potential suspect, but despite the reams written and surfeit of sound spoken against him, nothing as yet stands up to close scrutiny.

By selective choosing the evidence and adding a lot of theorising, a good and enertaining story can be made against him. Your TV show proved that.

In the real world of research we are looking for something a little more substantial than that and, as yet nothing, has been forthcoming.

But, hope springs eternal as they say.

It was a very logical demand from those who owned the horses and who stood to loose a lot if the ones driving them did not have a knife. But yes, it may well be that Lechmere didn´t like knives or that he had accidentally dropped it on the nights of August the 7:th, August the 31:st, September the 8:th, September the 30:th and November the 8:th, so you are absolutely correct. It seems I got carried away.

[Fisherman]

caz: I agree with you here, Fish. Don't faint.

But is it not possible that, after considering the situation long and hard before doing the right thing and attending the inquest, this hard-working family man used the name Cross with the intention to mislead the killer?

The killer, reading the inquest reports, would never connect the man who had very possibly interrupted his fiendish deeds with his wife - Mrs. Lechmere and his brood of little Lechmeres. If Lechmere didn't quite trust the police enough to keep his real name out of it for his family's sake, who could blame him? If anyone had gone on to query the use of his long departed stepfather's surname for this one occasion - which was not illegal anyway and about as far as you can get from a hanging offence - such an explanation would have come across as entirely understandable in the circumstances. Just a prudent man, thinking of his nearest and dearest and not particularly keen to let the killer know a Lechmere had nearly buckled him.

Of course it is possible, Caz. Anything that is not impossible is possible. But why would a killer who could read in the papers that Lechmere had heard or seen absolutely nothing go after the carman? Why would the carman fear such a thing?
I don´t think that it is the best suggestion. I would be slightly more prone to accept the suggestion that he did not want to worry his wife - something that has also been suggested.

But overall, Caz, when I weigh these matters, I take ALL bits and pieces in. If Lechmere was just a man who was either scared of the killer or a man who wanted to keep his wife from worrying - why is it that Mizen tells us that he spoke of another PC in Bucks Row? Why does Mizen say - as per that Times, I believe - that the carman had said that a woman had been found lying in Bucks Row?
"Had been found lying"? Why not say "I found this woman in Bucks Row"? The first alternative makes it sound as if somebody else did the finding - like another PC.
It is also said that the carman said "You are wanted in Bucks Row".
Wanted? By whom? Same thing here!

All of these OTHER matters are what make your suggestion less likely in my eyes, Caz. If he had been innocent, that I wpuld not want him to disagree over a n umber of matters with the police. I would not want Paul to say "there he stood", I would want him to say "This man in front of me suddenly stopped". I would not want Nichols to still bleed when Mizen arrived, six or seven minutes after Lechmere left her. I would not want all other papers but the Star lack his address. I would not want Lechmere to have said that he left home at 3.30, because he should have been a long way from Browns Stable Yard at 3.45 if that was the case. I would not want a paper to open up for Lechmere having spoken to Mizen alone, by writing "The other man, who went down Hanbury Street". I would have wanted Lechmere to say "yeah, let´s do that, mate" when Paul suggested to prop ichols up.

I would not have wanted all of these surrounding factors that either imply that he lilled Nichols or open up for an interpretation that this was so. The donkey´s back is long since broken, Caz.

Schwartz was another witness who may have nearly buckled Stride's killer. As far as is known, he didn't attend her inquest. So could the police have perhaps intervened to protect Schwartz by letting the killer think his evidence was not being investigated?

Then they could easily have dropped such a thing woth the papers, could they not? "As of now, the police see no reason to further investigate the story given by Israel Schwartz, since it has been found not to be true".

Problem solved.

[caz]

Trevor Marriott:

As to Griffiths making this unusual comment about him not running it is nothing more than that an unusual comment, and just because he is a retired police officer that comment holds no more evidential value from him, than if made by my aunt fanny.

But were you not the one who tried to pull rank, pretending that I did not have any experience of police stations and their work? Whereas you did? Well, well...!
So let me get this right! Since you are an e-copper, you have the upper hand in understanding all things criminally related? But since Griffiths is also an ex-copper, he does not have the upper hand in understanding all things criminally related?

That´s the god thing about debating with you, Trevor - you seem predestined to get yourself into these trousertangling antics. One can always count on a laugh or two.

Funny, I saw this the other way round, Fish. You repeatedly push the observations of a retired copper when you agree with them, as if just being a retired copper somehow puts those observations beyond question. Yet when the retired copper happens to be Trevor Marriott, you scoff at his observations and expect us all to treat them as beneath contempt.

Well I would use the example of dear Trevor to demonstrate that endorsing the observations of any retired copper is more fraught with danger than endorsing those of his aunt fanny.

Sorry, Trev. Couldn't resist.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Funny, I saw this the other way round, Fish. You repeatedly push the observations of a retired copper when you agree with them, as if just being a retired copper somehow puts those observations beyond question. Yet when the retired copper happens to be Trevor Marriott, you scoff at his observations and expect us all to treat them as beneath contempt.

Well I would use the example of dear Trevor to demonstrate that endorsing the observations of any retired copper is more fraught with danger than endorsing those of his aunt fanny.

Sorry, Trev. Couldn't resist.

Love,

Caz
X

I have met and worked with slaughterers who have been very daft - and I have met and worked with slaughterers who have been very clever.

I have had the same experience with people working in shops, blacksmiths and journalists.

I am pretty convinced that all occupations will hold people of varying intellectual gifts.

My mother and father - both long gone - always used to say that if I had nothing nice to say about a person, then I should shut up.

In Andy Griffiths´ case, I have a lot of nice things to say. He was very quick on the uptake of information, analytically sharp, kept an open mind, never bought things straight off without having weighed them...

If it is cherry-picking to put faith in him, then I´m having cherries for supper.

[caz]

Lechmere cleared up things for the police, who had gotten tangled up in the misconception that Neil was the finder. They hosted a press conference where the carmen were pooh-poohed. They let Neil on the stand to misinform the world.

Then along came this humble, simple carman and said "I am sorry, but you have got it all wrong. It was I who foud the body, I and that other carma you seem to disbeleive."

What were the odds that the copper would think "It has to be him" at that stage, C.D.?

Ooh, ooh, let me have a go, Fish.

Is the answer a thousand to one?

You see, if PC Neil had misinformed the world that he had found the murdered woman, and Robert Paul (the carman - not carmen) was pooh-poohed for claiming he and another unnamed man had found her first and raised the alarm with a policeman (who turned out to be Mizen), the killer would have had to be daft as a brush to come forward and point out that they had it all wrong because he was Paul's otherwise totally anonymous, unidentifiable 'other man', who had been with the corpse before anyone else. If it wasn't broke...

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

Hang on, so because Lechmere might've carried a knife by trade, that makes him a likelier suspect than anyone who didn't? Do I have that right, Fish?

[caz]

I'D like to get back to the topic Pierre introduced instead of simply arguing on specific points regarding Lechmere (which in this thread is actually hijacking the topic).

What I think he was trying to discuss was the problem of frequent misinterpretation of available data and giving an example of one point related to Cross/Lechmere. I also am interested in how people do their research with everything concerning the Ripper.

I think there is a more serious problem than misinterpretation and it's the frequent use of circular reasonning. Let me explain myself.

One comes up with a good reason to beleive someone might be the killer of one of the women. He then concludes his suspect is the Ripper and searches for all the various aspects of his 'suspect's' life which could be interpreted as a point in favour of his theory. It's been done with the Van Gogh tale and, with all due respect, with Fisherman's theory.

Now allow me to make things clear. He has come up with very interesting points and questions which allow him and other to consider Lechmere as a valid suspect and I can't see why we shouldn't add him to the list of serious contenders. What, in the name of God, has to be established before having another 'Official Casebook' suspect? What are the requirements? In the novel I've almost completed, I used one of the top suspects not that I beleive he was the Ripper (quite to the contrary IMHO) but his flamboyant personality fitted the best in my storyline. I'll bet anything you want that using that suspect won't be criticized by anyone. Had I used Lechmere, I could expect being nailed to the closest telephone pole.

Forgive my digression!

Fisherman nevertheless also used a circular reasoning approach and came up with 31 points, many of them being variations of a same point. Now the problem becomes even more delicate. For most of them, like my post graduate social science teacher would have said to me, are not independently conclusive but strickly speculative which affects the overall validity of the thesis. When you submit that the Ripper was a psychopath, again you use circular reasoning and pick every piece of information which will bring to conclude Lechmere, being a psychopath could very well be the Ripper.

Such has been the problem in too many cases and Pierre has been pointing out similar research errors hoping one would propose a valid method.

Now Fisherman, please don't serve me the newbie argument you gave Pierre. I've been lurking Casebook for more than six years, read almost every book on the subject and only began to participate in the forum months ago. My background: law, social science, political marketing and... quantum mechanics. Now in my opinion, your theory would be considered as a plausible and valid historical scenario, not an accepted theory. From the legal point of vue, because of the numerous non conclusive points your theory could easily be chalenged in a court as it would not be considered as offering real circumstantial evidence.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

P.S. Please forgive my poor English, French being my main language.

Hi Hercule,

I have the same problem with Fisherman's circular reasoning but I must not have explained it properly to him because he accused me of not knowing what a circular argument is.

I wish you better luck with your observations than I had.

Love,

Caz
X

PS There is nothing wrong with your English.