Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick,

In this context, is it possible he simply panicked and, with just a short time in which to make a fateful decision, he effectively froze?

Anything is possible. However, when I look at this situation, Lechmere's behavior - IF he were the killer - is nonsensical to the extreme. This is why "Fisherman" et al must make him a psychopath. So, once again, let's look at what happened in Buck's Row with the assumption that Lechmere WAS a psychopath and DID kill Nichols.

Having done the deed and begun his mutilations, Lechmere hears footsteps coming down Buck's Row. Recall, it was pitch black. Now, to your point that Lechmere "panicked" and "froze". But, that's not quite what he did. He rather calmly covered Nichols' wounds, walked a few feet into the middle of the road, WAITED for the man (Paul) to come upon him and asked him to "come see this woman". Remember also that Paul stated he tried to walk around Lechmere and continue on his way. But Lechmere TOUCHED Paul's shoulder and called his attention to the body, asking him to come have a look. I would suggest that had Lechmere actually "panicked and froze", there'd have been no interaction at all between these two men.

Okay. So, now we have Paul going with Lechmere, the killer, to the body. They examine her and Paul thinks she's breathing (very slightly). Yet, Lechmere says that he thinks she's dead. Again, he has an opening. Paul thinks she's alive even though Lechmere KNOWS she's dead because he cut her throat. But, Lechmere DISagrees. He thinks she's dead. He doesn't agree that there was movement. Now, Paul wants to move the body. Lechmere says no. Again, it's pitch black in Buck's Row. Lechmere has no way of knowing for certain if he's covered in blood or not (recall he TOUCHED Paul with a hand just used to kill and disembowel Nichols). Moving the body give him a perfect excuse for HAVING that blood on his person. Lechmere is telling Paul he thinks she's dead. Yet, Fisherman wants us to believe that Lechmere will not move the body because her wounds would then be apparent. And that would make Paul suspect Lechmere? Why? Both men suspect she MAY be dead (Lechmere states it outright, Paul thinks he detects faint breathing). Yet the MANNER in which she died suddenly implicates Lechmere? Paul suddenly says, "Her throat's been cut! YOU DID IT! MURDER!!!" Okay. I've gotten sidetracked.

So, then what does he do? He goes in search of a cop, WITH Paul! Now, he had a great advantage. The two men conferred and agreed that they neither wanted to be late for work. So, Lechmere knows Paul is COMING from the direction he came and GOING in the direction he was HEADED. Lechmere was STANDING in one spot when Paul came along. Paul had no idea where he was headed. Why not say, "You go that way. I'm going THIS way to work (the direction Paul had come from)". I'll send a cop if I see one, you do the same." But, no. He goes WITH Paul. At the intersection at the top of Bucks Row, he could have split from Paul again. He didn't. He turned with Paul and found Mizen in Baker's Row and the men told them what they'd found.

Now, bear in mind that Lechmere had no idea how any of this would go. He asks Paul to come see, Paul take out a match, lights it, sees the wounds. Very possibly could have happened. But, I guess Paul was not a smoker. Lechmere didn't know that. So they go find a cop. How could Lechmere have known Mizen would not have said, "Show me." Then he's right back in Buck's Rown with cop, with a lantern. The theory also holds that Lechmere had the murder weapon ON HIM. He did all this, knowing that a simple search turns up a bloody knife?

Again, to many gyrations required for me to buy into this.

[David Orsam]

... but according to the only man who gave an exact time. And according to the final police report, where 3.40 had been adjusted to 3.45, signed Donald Swanson. Presumably, he had weighed in all factors at that stage. Which was why the time was altered.

It's disappointing to find you making statements like the above Fisherman. Back in 2014 I gave you a long list of timings by Swanson in the Chapman case which did not match the evidence and which made perfectly clear that Swanson's timings in his reports were approximate only. You failed to engage with the point, merely remarking, "I don't think we should drag other cases in". It is both fantastical and implausible to suggest that Swanson actively re-investigated the Nichols murder, and deliberately altered Abberline's timings, when preparing his report for the Home Office.

[Fisherman]

It's disappointing to find you making statements like the above Fisherman. Back in 2014 I gave you a long list of timings by Swanson in the Chapman case which did not match the evidence and which made perfectly clear that Swanson's timings in his reports were approximate only. You failed to engage with the point, merely remarking, "I don't think we should drag other cases in". It is both fantastical and implausible to suggest that Swanson actively re-investigated the Nichols murder, and deliberately altered Abberline's timings, when preparing his report for the Home Office.

I disagree. I would think it much more implausible to reason that the alteration was made by accident, or whatever it is you are suggesting. I do not know to what extent the timings were given much attention in 1888 - as many say, there will be more of an uncertainty owing to fewer people owning timepieces, and what clocks and timepieces there were, were less exact than those of today.
I do know, however, that today, the closest attention is payed to the time issue. When prime minister Palme was killed in Sweden back in -86, the time was scrutinized in the greatest of detail. All matters were checked against the time, and a schedule was formed where seconds played important roles.
Basically, I would think that the timings were of great interest to the victorian police too. And I believe that the reason for the discrepancy between the two reports giving a time for when Lechmere and Paul met by the body, was that the police had scrutinized the matter and come to the conclusion that 3.45 was the reasonable time. It fits the overall scenario, not least.
Why you should find it "disappointing", I fail to see - I am stating that it is my belief that this was what happened, not that it is a fact.

As for comparisons with other cases, I remain at the stance you seem to dislike: I donīt judge the Nichols case by the Chapman case time handling. It is interesting per se, but not applicable as such.

[Columbo]

I consider the term "rule out" to mean that it's impossible for that person to have committed the crimes. For instance, if we have documentary evidence that "Person X" was in Australia from May 1888 through March, 1889 then I would be inclined to "rule them out" based on that evidence. However UNLIKELY a "suspect" may be, it's very hard to say definitively that he/she committed one or all of the crimes. Just I do not think it's possible - short of something new coming to light - to rule Cross/Lechmere out, either. I don't think he's a very likely killer by any stretch of the imagination. But, I cannot "rule him out".

Let me say this: These crimes were not committed last week. Thus, our ability to "rule someone out" is, shall we say, somewhat impeded by time, lack of information, lost records, poor census data, etc. So, when we say "so and so cannot be RULED OUT", well, that's not saying much, and you have a very big pot of "suspects" indeed, no matter how unlikely they are to have been a killer.

Lastly, I'm unfamiliar with "investigations done by modern day researchers" that show that anyone was "not involved at all". Obviously, I don't think anyone on your list was Jack the Ripper. Alas, the problems I stated above with respect to "ruling someone out" exist and apply to everyone. Gull was old an infirm. He makes an unlikely Ripper. Yet, I'm not aware of any evidence that "rules him out". Much of what Cornwell has written about Sickert is bunk. Does that "rule him out"? No. Tumblety has been "RULED OUT"? By modern researchers? Not involved at all, huh? Well, I've never thought of him at Jack the Ripper. But, this HAS to be news to many on these boards! Well, done, Columbo! I'll make sure we ask to have his suspect page removed!

Hi Patrick,

Well, let me expound on this a little.

You can't rule out Lechmere because he was found with the body. That in itself prevents anyone from completely ruling him out. I agree with you, he seems an unlikely murderer but so do a lot of killers so we should continue to look into him.

Donald Rumbelow is one of the modern researchers that did an excellent job ruling out the "Royal 3" in his wonderful "The Complete Jack the Ripper".
(by the way, Gull being in his 70's, in-firmed and stroke ridden effectively rules him out, Eddie had iron clad, provable alibis for all the murders, that rules him out).

Mr. Rumbelow, in my opinion, also ruled out Walter Sickert in his updated version as well. He did a very detailed investigation. Also recent research shows he was mostly likely in France.

Martin Fido, with the help of other researchers like Paul Begg also effectively ruled out James Maybrick and destroyed the JTR diary.

Phillip Sudgen's research, again my opinion, ruled out Druitt. Not on his own, but he did add to the conclusions.

Joseph Merrick, The Elephant Man, was brought up as a suspect. I think we can pretty much cancel his upcoming page in the suspects section.

Tumblety has been discarded as a suspect by almost all researchers and experts on the subject. Why? because he was in his 50's, 6ft or better and homosexual. No witness described such a man, he was never seen with a victim and most likely he was in jail during one of the murders. This rules him out.

That doesn't mean all suspects can be ruled out. I pick on Feighanbaum but I can't rule him out. I can't rule out James Kelly, George Hutchinson, Joe Barnett and others. The way things are going Mizen might not be ruled out!

Police then and now rule out suspects all the time based on a variety of factors based on the details of the crime they're being suspected of committing. I can say without regret that OJ killed two people. The evidence shows it. If I use your reasoning, Ronald Goldman's father can't be ruled out of that murder if he's even slightly accused of it.

You've brought up a lot of good points in your posts and have given this thread some punch, but the rudeness and anger is doing nothing but make you look a little childish and I say even a little jealous of Fisherman and his ideas. I really hope we can get back to a civilized debate with some witty quips thrown in.

Columbo

[Columbo]

It's disappointing to find you making statements like the above Fisherman. Back in 2014 I gave you a long list of timings by Swanson in the Chapman case which did not match the evidence and which made perfectly clear that Swanson's timings in his reports were approximate only. You failed to engage with the point, merely remarking, "I don't think we should drag other cases in". It is both fantastical and implausible to suggest that Swanson actively re-investigated the Nichols murder, and deliberately altered Abberline's timings, when preparing his report for the Home Office.

Hi David,

I have to agree with you on this. I would hope that Swanson would include at least a range and not make his own judgement and set a time he doesn't know is accurate or not.

But even given a 5 minute discrepancy, Fisherman is right in that Cross should not have been there in Buck's Row at 3:45 or 3:40.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Well. That's all fine and good. The only problem is that the "fight" part of "fight or flight" is NOT, in fact, FIGURATIVE at all. It's literal, and what Cross/Lechmere did was not, by any measure, a "fight".

Hi,

Patrick is correct, Lechmere didn't fight or flee. He did what someone who has a quick mind and a little cunning would do. Patrick said it himself (albeit in jest).

Lechmere heard Paul, considered his options and quietly pocketed the knife and lowered Nichols skirts to cover the wounds. He then pretended to find the body and disarmed Paul's distrust by acting innocent and saying he found Nichols.

It's possible. Maybe not probable to some, but possible.

Columbo

[harry]

Colombo,
In answer to your post above.
(1) If he did lie. You are not then claiming it's proven he did lie,nor are you claiming his actions or claims deceived anyone.Good.
(2) Cross admitted he was there with her body.Like you say if it could be proven he was with her while she was alive we would all embrace his guilt,but it cannot be so proven.Pleased you admit that.
(3) To prove he used Cross only on that occasion is an impossibility.

You see there is no incriminating evidence of guilt whatever, in any action or statement by Cross.

It is a case of if,or could have,or maybe this or that happened.Not to say that is not a good approach,but only if those if's,could haves,or maybe's are verified as fact,are they any use,and they have not been in the case of Cross.

[Hercule Poirot]

Hi Patrick,

Well, let me expound on this a little.

You can't rule out Lechmere because he was found with the body. That in itself prevents anyone from completely ruling him out. I agree with you, he seems an unlikely murderer but so do a lot of killers so we should continue to look into him.

Donald Rumbelow is one of the modern researchers that did an excellent job ruling out the "Royal 3" in his wonderful "The Complete Jack the Ripper".
(by the way, Gull being in his 70's, in-firmed and stroke ridden effectively rules him out, Eddie had iron clad, provable alibis for all the murders, that rules him out).

Mr. Rumbelow, in my opinion, also ruled out Walter Sickert in his updated version as well. He did a very detailed investigation. Also recent research shows he was mostly likely in France.

Martin Fido, with the help of other researchers like Paul Begg also effectively ruled out James Maybrick and destroyed the JTR diary.

Phillip Sudgen's research, again my opinion, ruled out Druitt. Not on his own, but he did add to the conclusions.

Joseph Merrick, The Elephant Man, was brought up as a suspect. I think we can pretty much cancel his upcoming page in the suspects section.

Tumblety has been discarded as a suspect by almost all researchers and experts on the subject. Why? because he was in his 50's, 6ft or better and homosexual. No witness described such a man, he was never seen with a victim and most likely he was in jail during one of the murders. This rules him out.

That doesn't mean all suspects can be ruled out. I pick on Feighanbaum but I can't rule him out. I can't rule out James Kelly, George Hutchinson, Joe Barnett and others. The way things are going Mizen might not be ruled out!

Police then and now rule out suspects all the time based on a variety of factors based on the details of the crime they're being suspected of committing. I can say without regret that OJ killed two people. The evidence shows it. If I use your reasoning, Ronald Goldman's father can't be ruled out of that murder if he's even slightly accused of it.

You've brought up a lot of good points in your posts and have given this thread some punch, but the rudeness and anger is doing nothing but make you look a little childish and I say even a little jealous of Fisherman and his ideas. I really hope we can get back to a civilized debate with some witty quips thrown in.

Columbo

Probably the great majority of the suspects, if not all of them, on Casebook's Suspect page wouldn't have the slightest chance of being charged for one or any other of the canonic 5 murders based on the legal rules existing back then or those of today. That's why, in many cases, it's simply the result of the opinion of amateur Ripperologists. Pure speculation is the primary rule here and elsewhere.

It it that bad? Not really, because Casebook, as well as all other JTR forums, offers an open area of discussuion about JTR. Of course, I would expect one day such forums come out with a series of criterias we could abide with when discussing certain elements. For example, the mere definition of 'suspect', 'person of interest' varies from one to the other with the results we observe each and every day (I should say every 30 minutes). In other words, it's like visiting Disney World. If one can't enjoy the ride everyone else does, well... he should go fly a kite somewhere else. Should there be certain... how should I define it... 'Rules of engagements'...? Perhaps but the this forum would rapidely turn into a gathering of pseudo acadmics and God knows how it would become boring. Some members have a serious difficulty coping with such an evironnement, and we could all name a few which would be any way pointless.

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot

[Columbo]

Colombo,
In answer to your post above.
(1) If he did lie. You are not then claiming it's proven he did lie,nor are you claiming his actions or claims deceived anyone.Good.
(2) Cross admitted he was there with her body.Like you say if it could be proven he was with her while she was alive we would all embrace his guilt,but it cannot be so proven.Pleased you admit that.
(3) To prove he used Cross only on that occasion is an impossibility.

You see there is no incriminating evidence of guilt whatever, in any action or statement by Cross.

It is a case of if,or could have,or maybe this or that happened.Not to say that is not a good approach,but only if those if's,could haves,or maybe's are verified as fact,are they any use,and they have not been in the case of Cross.

Hi Harry,

I absolutely agree with your post, and I also would say because of the discrepancies brought to light by Fisherman, like timing, dispute on accuracy of who said what etc, Cross should be looked at because there are enough irregularities to warrant it, just like any person of interest in a crime.

At this point we're more or less trying to determine what evidence is useful and what to discard. Unfortunately we've fallen into a lot of supposition on this thread. I hope we can get back to information and facts.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Probably the great majority of the suspects, if not all of them, on Casebook's Suspect page wouldn't have the slightest chance of being charged for one or any other of the canonic 5 murders based on the legal rules existing back then or those of today. That's why, in many cases, it's simply the result of the opinion of amateur Ripperologists. Pure speculation is the primary rule here and elsewhere.

It it that bad? Not really, because Casebook, as well as all other JTR forums, offers an open area of discussuion about JTR. Of course, I would expect one day such forums come out with a series of criterias we could abide with when discussing certain elements. For example, the mere definition of 'suspect', 'person of interest' varies from one to the other with the results we observe each and every day (I should say every 30 minutes). In other words, it's like visiting Disney World. If one can't enjoy the ride everyone else does, well... he should go fly a kite somewhere else. Should there be certain... how should I define it... 'Rules of engagements'...? Perhaps but the this forum would rapidely turn into a gathering of pseudo acadmics and God knows how it would become boring. Some members have a serious difficulty coping with such an evironnement, and we could all name a few which would be any way pointless.

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot

I think your post nails it. The great thing about opinions and debate is that new information or a different view sheds light on a subject. I've learned quite a bit on this thread alone about Whitechapel 1888.

Forums such as this I think should be fun and educational while letting people with similar interests meet and exchange ideas. I know I've enjoyed this thread and met some very interesting people.

I would definitely not want this forum to become too academic. That would just plain suck the wind out of any of the fun we're having here!

Columbo

[drstrange169]

From the Daily Telegraph, September 4 1888:

(See what happens when you excited about finding how to use the quote button;-)

... but according to the only man who gave an exact time.

... and Paul was also the only man known to have given unreliable evidence, versus four independent witnesses whose evidence confirmed each other's accounts.

You trust Paul even though we KNOW he told untruths, I'll go with the verifiable evidence.

... we know that regardless of he left 3.20 or 3.30, he should have been way past Bucks Row at 3.45.

Again, according to Xmere and three independent witnesses and possibly the time clock at Broad Street Station, he was.

You trust the man we KNOW told untruths, I'll go with the verifiable evidence.

See a pattern forming here?

He seems the by far more likely man to have been economic with the truth.

???

We all KNOW Paul was a man who told untruths. It's verifiable by the available information.

We know Xmere's claimed timing fits in with three other witnesses.

We know when Paul said Mrs Stride had been dead for a longtime, she wasn't.

We Know when Paul said he went alone to find Mizen, he didn't.

We know when Paul said he was the only man to speak to Mizen, he wasn't.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:


(See what happens when you excited about finding how to use the quote button;-)

Yes, oops! The really sad thing about this mistake of yours is that you were being sarcastic when presenting it. I think that touches on what some posters are saying out here - there is so much bad blood when Lechmere is discussed that any true progress is effectively hindered by it.
This time it was you, but I know that I can be sarcastic too. Of course, like most people, I like to think that I am justified in being so, when it happens. But we are not the best judges of such things ourselves, so I will leave that question open.


... and Paul was also the only man known to have given unreliable evidence, versus four independent witnesses whose evidence confirmed each other's accounts.

You trust Paul even though we KNOW he told untruths, I'll go with the verifiable evidence.

No, I donīt trust Paul, as you should be aware. I think he may have been boasting in his report, trying to take on the lead role. Itīs either that or the reporter spiced things up.
But how can you boast about the time being 3.45? How would saying 3.40 make Paul look less of a hero?
That is the clincher for me in this case. There was nothing to gain by lying about the time, but there was a lot to gain in terms of looking quite the he-man by lying about the other parameters.
Plus the story works a lot better if the time was 3.45 than if it was 3.40. And, like I keep saying, Swanson altered the time in his final report. When you do so, you do so for a reason.

Again, according to Xmere and three independent witnesses and possibly the time clock at Broad Street Station, he was.

You trust the man we KNOW told untruths, I'll go with the verifiable evidence.

See a pattern forming here?

I see you trying to be sarcastic again. Can you really afford that? Would a slightly humbler attitude not be more becoming, considering how your last sarcasm payed off? If you make the effort, I will.
No matter if it was 3.40 or 3.45, Lechmere should have cleared Bucks Row. If it was 3.37, it would be in line with the time Lechmere left home. But in such a case, we need to accept that Neil was in place at 3.40, and he should have spoken to Thain at around 3.41-3.42, sending him to fetch Llewellyn. And if this was what happened, then Thain spent up towards 18-19 minutes on a walk that should have occupied around two minutes of brisk walking.

If we instead accept that Paul was correct when he said that he walked down Bucks Row at EXACTLY 3.45. then he should have arrived at the body at 3.46.and then he spen some little time examining the body, whereupon he walked with Lechmere to find Mizen. This took four minutes, no more, according to Paul, so we will be looking at Neil arriving at the body at around 3.50 instead of 3.45. Then Neil examined the body (perhaps for a minute, taking us to 3.51), heard Thain and summoned him (it took around a minute for Thain to walk down Bucks Row, so we arrive at 3.52) spoke to him and instructed him to go for Llewellyn (one more minute passes, and Thain takes off at 3.53, making im arrive at Llewllns practice at around 3.55). And Llewellyn says he was called up at 4 or slightly before.
In all of this, Mizen acts like a kind of lock, since when he arrived at the scene, Thain had already walked off for Llewellyn. And that means that the examination Neil made before he summoned Thain could not have been a longish one - Mizen will have taken about two minutes to walk to Bucks Row, and so he will have been in place around five minutes after the carmen left the body.
This scenario would have Mizen saying "about 3.45", but in reality the time would have been, say, 3.48. Nothing strange there. And Neil who said that he found the body at around 3.45 would have done so at 3.50. And Thain would have been waved down at 3.51.
Of course, these are approximations, but they make sense of the whole matter.
If neither PC carried a timepiece, they may have heard a nearby clock strike the quarter hour, just before the unfolding of the drama. That may have been what made them remember the time as around 3.45.
If so, then Paul would have relied on another timepiece. But this seems to be clear anyway, since he apparently knew BEFORE 3.45 that he was late.

?

We all KNOW Paul was a man who told untruths. It's verifiable by the available information.

I was comparing Lechmere to Mizen, not to Paul.

We know Xmere's claimed timing fits in with three other witnesses.

Could you expand on this before I comment on it?

We know when Paul said Mrs Stride had been dead for a longtime, she wasn't.

It was Mrs Nichols, Mrs Stride was alive and kicking at the time. And we donīt know that Paul lied about this, since it could equally have been the reporter who embellished. Paul may have said that the hands were cold, so she may well have been dead some time, and then the reporter spiced it up. We canīt be sure either way, and if we canīt, then we cannot claim Paul must have lied.

We Know when Paul said he went alone to find Mizen, he didn't.

Same problem - did he say that, or did the reporter create that picture?

We know when Paul said he was the only man to speak to Mizen, he wasn't.

Same problem.

Itīs not that I donīt agree that it seems that Paul told a story that was not true on all counts. I just wanīt to make sure that we do not conclude things as facts when we cannot be sure that they are.
In the end, my own best guess is that Paul exagerrated his own role in the drama. But when it comes to the question I was discussing in my former post, itīs kind of moot since I was comparing Mizen to Lechmere, I was not comparing the two carmen.

[harry]

Colombo,
Fine,if we also as a person of interest,consider the points that suggest Cross's innocence,and understand the rules necessary to distinguish between the two.

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick,

Well, let me expound on this a little.

You can't rule out Lechmere because he was found with the body. That in itself prevents anyone from completely ruling him out. I agree with you, he seems an unlikely murderer but so do a lot of killers so we should continue to look into him.

Donald Rumbelow is one of the modern researchers that did an excellent job ruling out the "Royal 3" in his wonderful "The Complete Jack the Ripper".
(by the way, Gull being in his 70's, in-firmed and stroke ridden effectively rules him out, Eddie had iron clad, provable alibis for all the murders, that rules him out).

Mr. Rumbelow, in my opinion, also ruled out Walter Sickert in his updated version as well. He did a very detailed investigation. Also recent research shows he was mostly likely in France.

Martin Fido, with the help of other researchers like Paul Begg also effectively ruled out James Maybrick and destroyed the JTR diary.

Phillip Sudgen's research, again my opinion, ruled out Druitt. Not on his own, but he did add to the conclusions.

Joseph Merrick, The Elephant Man, was brought up as a suspect. I think we can pretty much cancel his upcoming page in the suspects section.

Tumblety has been discarded as a suspect by almost all researchers and experts on the subject. Why? because he was in his 50's, 6ft or better and homosexual. No witness described such a man, he was never seen with a victim and most likely he was in jail during one of the murders. This rules him out.

That doesn't mean all suspects can be ruled out. I pick on Feighanbaum but I can't rule him out. I can't rule out James Kelly, George Hutchinson, Joe Barnett and others. The way things are going Mizen might not be ruled out!

Police then and now rule out suspects all the time based on a variety of factors based on the details of the crime they're being suspected of committing. I can say without regret that OJ killed two people. The evidence shows it. If I use your reasoning, Ronald Goldman's father can't be ruled out of that murder if he's even slightly accused of it.

You've brought up a lot of good points in your posts and have given this thread some punch, but the rudeness and anger is doing nothing but make you look a little childish and I say even a little jealous of Fisherman and his ideas. I really hope we can get back to a civilized debate with some witty quips thrown in.

Columbo

Let me understand this. You ask ME why I disagree with the Lechmere theory. I respond. I tell you why, at length repeating much of what I've posted on these pages over the years. And that makes me childish and jealous? Very good. Welcome to the board, Columbo.

You asked ME about 'ruling out'. I told you my metrics. Others have theirs. Take that up with them. Someone not meeting a physical description does not - for me - "rule" someone out in that I do not put my full faith in any one witness. That is to say that cannot say definitively that any one witness actually saw "Jack the Ripper" (although if anyone may have, it likely was Joseph Lewende, in my view). The rest of your post is simply a restatement of what others - and yourself - accept as enough "evidence" to "rule" someone out. They and you are welcome to that.

I'll repeat this for you: I do not think any name appearing on this site or elsewhere is the "true" name of "Jack the Ripper" (if he ever existed). But, most of them cannot be "ruled out", as I define it. Essentially, I take "the field". "Jack" was likely a name lost to history. Someone who died quietly without much note, some short time after the killings stopped. This does NOT mean that I would not accept ANY of the suspects that have been presented, including Lechmere, if I felt that a compelling case had been made. TO ME, the Lechmere "theory" is far from compelling, for reasons I've listed for you at length, only be to be called jealous and childish. I might call you a sycophant. But I wont, as I am happy that "Fisherman" has a friend. For now. We'll see where this goes if you decide to disagree with some aspect of this rock solid case.

[Pcdunn]

"...to make sure we do not conclude things as facts when we cannot be sure that they are."

With respect, Fisherman, I think you do just this with the Lechmere as JTR theory. I've read all the threads about him here at Casebook, and I saw the television documentary. There is a good deal of supposition and may haves in your list of evidence against him-- in my opinion.