What happened to Lechmere......

[GUT]

Hello Rosella,

Two women were within feet of the body at the time and neither claimed to have heard loud footsteps, or any footsteps for that matter.

It is therefore unlikely Xmere and Paul had metal soled shoes on. Since both men were carmen and spent large parts of their day sitting, hob nails boots would not have had the necessity in their jobs as other professions had for the metal shod shoes. Chances are the story of boots "ringing out like hammers" is just another ploy to make Xmere sound guilty.

Yet again, the known facts suggest Xmere's innocence, the speculation suggests guilt. Which is right may never be known.

If they were engaged unloading and unloading heavy items, hob nails would be their footwear. And in spite of Fisherman's insistence that meat was most likely Cross' load it hasnt been established, what his roll was, nor what his load was most commonly made up of.

Carman can, as I understand it, apply to both the man involved in driving and his offsiders.

[DJA]

It is therefore unlikely Xmere and Paul had metal soled shoes on. Since both men were carmen and spent large parts of their day sitting, hob nails boots would not have had the necessity in their jobs as other professions had for the metal shod shoes. Chances are the story of boots "ringing out like hammers" is just another ploy to make Xmere sound guilty.

Yet again, the known facts suggest Xmere's innocence, the speculation suggests guilt. Which is right may never be known.

Used to wear hob nail boots in the 1960s.

Main purpose is for grip in rough terrain.

They actually slip on smooth surfaces. We used to sorta skate around in them. Great fun.

Might be OK for some military types,however not carmen.

[GUT]

Hi Rosella,

In a number of the cases the person finding the body didn't go immediately in search of the police; the person would first find another or others before doing so. This would be consistent with what Lechmere was trying to do, if he were innocent, although again it must be noted that his "going off in search of others" consisted of taking but a few steps away from a woman either very recently dead or bleeding to death as Paul approached.

Wasn't his approaching Paul and insisting Paul check the body with him, Paul Being the first person he heard or saw after finding the body, going for help.

Remember Paul tried to avoid him.

If Cross wanted to avoid Paul all he needed to do wha when Paul tried to avoid him, let Paul go. But NO rather he effectively persues Paul and insists in the hesitant Paul coming to the body.

[GUT]

Used to wear hob nail boots in the 1960s.

Main purpose is for grip in rough terrain.

They actually slip on smooth surfaces. We used to sorta skate around in them. Great fun.

Might be OK for some military types,however not carmen.

Actually DJA disagree, my old man was a truck driver, he wore them till the 50s, they gripped great on the wooden tray of the truck.

[DJA]

If they were engaged loading and unloading heavy items, steel caps would be their footwear.,except they hadn't been invented yet.

Fixed

[DJA]

Actually DJA disagree, my old man was a truck driver, he wore them till the 50s, they gripped great on the wooden tray of the truck.

They would.

I actually wore them myself for several years.

Bloody dangerous in some circumstances.

Polished concrete especially.

You wouldn't be allowed to walk on polished wood floors.

Edit. Possible use into the 1950s might be due to austerity from the Depression and World War 2.

Heel and toe nail ons were popular through the 1960s.

Dad had a cobblers cast iron three footed stand for holding shoes in place whilst tacking the protectors on.

Honestly knew no one who wore them unless military or hiking/climbing.

Knew a fair number of the Wridgways crew.

[GUT]

They would.

I actually wore them myself for several years.

Bloody dangerous in some circumstances.

Polished concrete especially.

You wouldn't be allowed to walk on polished wood floors.

True.

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

But Bury is either a copycat or the Ripper. I don't accept the premise that Bury didn't write the chalkings and considering the similarity between his wife's murder and some of the Ripper murders ergo Bury is either the Ripper or a copycat killer.

I am aware you have never claimed to be an authority on Lechmere. However my besides comment was I suppose a back handed compliment. Considering the amount of posts you have made on Lechmere and the amount I have read I wouldn't expect the doc on Lechmere to contain much about Lechmere that was new and I hadn't already heard about. Therefore how much of the doc would be worth watching? Perhaps you could answer that? Is it worth my while watching the doc on Lechmere next time its on TV? I don't watch whole programmes over the net.

Cheers John

John, you cannot say that YOU donīt accept that Bury may not have written the chalkings, and serve that up to ME as proof! And least of all if you are going to claim that the evidence against Lechmere is weak blaha-blaha...!

Surely you can see how that amounts to you claiming that I am a bad judge of evidence, only to then move on to demanding that everybody adjusts to your own convictions about the chalking at the Bury house, thus craving that we must accept that Bury was either the Ripper or a copycat.

It does not work that way - mildly put!

You ask me if it is worth your while watching the Lechmere docu when it comes on next time. I cannot possibly know that, can I? You may well dislike it for whatever reason.
All I can say is that there are lots and lots of very positive comments on different websites from people who have watched it. Many express the view that they are happy to finally have seen a Ripper suspect docu that makes sense and works practically, whereas the normal suspect docu is drivel with no evidence at all connecting them to the Ripper deeds. Some say "case closed".

Overall, that is what tells Lechmere apart - over the years, the net has been cast wider and wider to try and catch the illusive killer. Today, it is all but accepted to present a person as the probable Ripper if it can be shown that he could handle a knife, had violent tendencies, had a rap sheet involving violence against women etcetera, as long as it can be shown that he lived in 1888 and that he MAY have been in London at the relevant times.

It is like saying that James Earl Ray was the probale killer of John F Kennedy. He was of the right age, he was a fierce political opponent to Kennedy, he is known to have carried out the exact same - extremely unususal - type of crime as the Kennedy assassination (he killed Martin Luther King by shooting him at long range with a rifle), he was into political murder, he was a southerner and could well have been in Dallas that day - the PERFECT fit.

I would propose that he is a better bid for the Kennedy assassination than Bury is for the Ripper deeds, since Bury was a domestic killer. But I would also propose that he can never be a true contender as long as we have a person (Lee Harvey Oswald) we KNOW was in place in the schoolhouse depot.
Now, Oswald had no earlier rap sheet of killing people or using serious violence, he was a family man in a humble line of working.

Which man do you think is the more probable Kennedy killer?

If you can see the relevance of what I am saying, you may actually enjoy the Lechmere docu very much. Letīs hope so.

[Fisherman]

A few words on the accoustic evidence.

The ordinary footgear of working men in 1888 was heavy, hard-soled shoes or boots. Some say that hob-nail boots were the order of the day, and that is perhaps so, I actually donīt know.

But I DO know that I every now and then walk the narrow old streets of central Helsingborg, my hometown, at night. And although people here do not wear hobnail boots, I can easily hear them anyway at night, when there are just two of us in a street and when the sounds of day have dissipated.

I can only surmise that there would have been much fewer competing sounds in 1888, and I can only guess that soft sneakers would have been rarer than henīs teeth.

Imagine, if you will, the sound of a woman walking on high heel shoes through a narrow street in complete silence with high buildings on both sides, effectively caging whatever sound is made. That will not be far off the mark for a credible comparison to the Bucks Row stage. The sound will carry hunderds of yards. Just like it easily carried 130 yards when Neil heard Thain in 1888.

I would very much like for everyboy to get the chance to form their own opinion about this, without being accused for serving up "propaganda", by the way. I find such things are way below what we should allow ourselves. Especially Dr Strange may do well to ponder this.

[John Wheat]

John, you cannot say that YOU donīt accept that Bury may not have written the chalkings, and serve that up to ME as proof! And least of all if you are going to claim that the evidence against Lechmere is weak blaha-blaha...!

Surely you can see how that amounts to you claiming that I am a bad judge of evidence, only to then move on to demanding that everybody adjusts to your own convictions about the chalking at the Bury house, thus craving that we must accept that Bury was either the Ripper or a copycat.

It does not work that way - mildly put!

You ask me if it is worth your while watching the Lechmere docu when it comes on next time. I cannot possibly know that, can I? You may well dislike it for whatever reason.
All I can say is that there are lots and lots of very positive comments on different websites from people who have watched it. Many express the view that they are happy to finally have seen a Ripper suspect docu that makes sense and works practically, whereas the normal suspect docu is drivel with no evidence at all connecting them to the Ripper deeds. Some say "case closed".

Overall, that is what tells Lechmere apart - over the years, the net has been cast wider and wider to try and catch the illusive killer. Today, it is all but accepted to present a person as the probable Ripper if it can be shown that he could handle a knife, had violent tendencies, had a rap sheet involving violence against women etcetera, as long as it can be shown that he lived in 1888 and that he MAY have been in London at the relevant times.

It is like saying that James Earl Ray was the probale killer of John F Kennedy. He was of the right age, he was a fierce political opponent to Kennedy, he is known to have carried out the exact same - extremely unususal - type of crime as the Kennedy assassination (he killed Martin Luther King by shooting him at long range with a rifle), he was into political murder, he was a southerner and could well have been in Dallas that day - the PERFECT fit.

I would propose that he is a better bid for the Kennedy assassination than Bury is for the Ripper deeds, since Bury was a domestic killer. But I would also propose that he can never be a true contender as long as we have a person (Lee Harvey Oswald) we KNOW was in place in the schoolhouse depot.
Now, Oswald had no earlier rap sheet of killing people or using serious violence, he was a family man in a humble line of working.

Which man do you think is the more probable Kennedy killer?

If you can see the relevance of what I am saying, you may actually enjoy the Lechmere docu very much. Letīs hope so.

To Fisherman

If Bury was not the Ripper or a copycat killer don't you think that the chalkings are a massive coincidence? You're always on about coincidences and yet one which to me seems a massive one you dismiss. Also to this point despite me bringing it up numerous times on the Bury boards and to both you and ahem Pierre on this thread no one has provided anything like a coherent argument as to why Bury isn't either the Ripper or a copycat thriller.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

If Bury was not the Ripper or a copycat killer don't you think that the chalkings are a massive coincidence? You're always on about coincidences and yet one which to me seems a massive one you dismiss. Also to this point despite me bringing it up numerous times on the Bury boards and to both you and ahem Pierre on this thread no one has provided anything like a coherent argument as to why Bury isn't either the Ripper or a copycat thriller.

Cheers John

Actually, John, I have proven that Bury need not be either the Ripper or a copycat killer. The fact that you are convinced that he must be does not mean that I need to share that view.

You also need to understand that this does not equal dismissing your claim - it only means that I am telling you that Bury need not have been either the Ripper or a copycat.

The issue whether I dismiss the coincidence that Bury killed and mutilated his wife at a time where there was a killer around who murdered and eviscerated prostitutes in totally unrelated to my pointing out that Bury need not have been the Ripper or a copycat. One can admit that and still be a fanatic Bury proponent, to be fair.

Not that I am, though - and if you read what I said about James Earl Ray, you will se why. For some reason, you have not commented on that?

[John Wheat]

Actually, John, I have proven that Bury need not be either the Ripper or a copycat killer. The fact that you are convinced that he must be does not mean that I need to share that view.

You also need to understand that this does not equal dismissing your claim - it only means that I am telling you that Bury need not have been either the Ripper or a copycat.

The issue whether I dismiss the coincidence that Bury killed and mutilated his wife at a time where there was a killer around who murdered and eviscerated prostitutes in totally unrelated to my pointing out that Bury need not have been the Ripper or a copycat. One can admit that and still be a fanatic Bury proponent, to be fair.

Not that I am, though - and if you read what I said about James Earl Ray, you will se why. For some reason, you have not commented on that?

To Fisherman

You have not proven how Bury could be something else other than the Ripper or a copycat killer. Again I have asked on numerous occasions how Bury was not either the Ripper or a copycat killer and no one has proven how this could be the case. I'd have thought someone wishing to do so would star with a phrase such as Bury needn't necessarily be the Ripper or a copycat killer because...but no.

I have not commented on what you said about James Earl Ray because I don't know enough about James Earl Ray to make an informed comment. As regards the Lechmere doc. Perhaps I should have asked the question. Is there anything in the Lechmere doc that hasn't been mentioned on these message boards at least once?

Cheers John

[Pierre]

Iīll do what I often do - I will point to one thing only, and that point will have to tell the story.
You say that Scobie does not particularly mention Lechmere. But what Scobie said was "when the coincidences mount up - AND THEY DO IN HIS CASE - it becomes one coincidence too many.

Thereīs your answer.

Hi Fisherman,

Please do not run away from the question. You said:

"These two men are very able judges of all matters criminal, and they were both very positive to the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper."


And my question was:

What is the reference to Scobie being positive to the idea that Lechmere WAS the Ripper?

Now, you are referring to the movie, where Scobie is merely responding to the question

"But would the case against Lechmere stand up in a modern court?"

Scobie thinks the case would stand up in court. But: He does not say that he is very positive to the idea of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper. He does not at all say that he is positive to that idea.

So what you are doing here Fisherman is that you are putting words in the mouth of Scobie, that he has never said.

And the reson he has never said them is simply that he has not put Lechemere to trial and have nothing to say about Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

That is just your own hypothesis and you are trying to use Scobie to underpin you theory.

I am sure that Scobie would not like this.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: To Fisherman

You have not proven how Bury could be something else other than the Ripper or a copycat killer. Again I have asked on numerous occasions how Bury was not either the Ripper or a copycat killer and no one has proven how this could be the case. I'd have thought someone wishing to do so would star with a phrase such as Bury needn't necessarily be the Ripper or a copycat killer because...but no.

If you cannot see the logical fault you are making with the information I have provided you with, then there is nothing more I can do. You can lead a horse to water, but...

I have not commented on what you said about James Earl Ray because I don't know enough about James Earl Ray to make an informed comment.

Then make a comment on what you have been told, John - J E Ray shot King at long range with a rifle, so he perpetrated an extremely unusual deed.
John F Kennedy was shot at long range with a rifle.
Ray was a southerner, so he could well have been in Dallas on the Kennedy murder day.

We KNOW that Ray was a killer, and we KNOW that he had killed in the exact same, very unusual way that Kennedy was also killed in.

There is no information about Oswald having had any track record of violence, let alone killing.

Therefore, using your logic, we must set aside the family man with no track record of violence, since we have a BETTER candidate who MAY have been in Dallas in November 1963.

Ergo, using the "Wheat logic", James Earl Ray is a much better bid for the killers role than Oswald.

This is the scenario you are working to with Bury: To hell with anybody who may have been at the site and who acted oddly - if I can find a violent man who I know performed the same kind of unusual deed, he must be the better bid.

There you are. If itīs lunacy, it is your lunacy - I work the other way around, prioritizing a suspect we know were at the murder site over the rest of the violent world. Which, incidentally, is the accepted way of working for the police.

As regards the Lechmere doc. Perhaps I should have asked the question. Is there anything in the Lechmere doc that hasn't been mentioned on these message boards at least once?

Most of it will have been discussed out here. More has been added since the docu. New material is surfacing all the time.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Please do not run away from the question. You said:

"These two men are very able judges of all matters criminal, and they were both very positive to the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper."


And my question was:

What is the reference to Scobie being positive to the idea that Lechmere WAS the Ripper?

Now, you are referring to the movie, where Scobie is merely responding to the question

"But would the case against Lechmere stand up in a modern court?"

Scobie thinks the case would stand up in court. But: He does not say that he is very positive to the idea of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper. He does not at all say that he is positive to that idea.

So what you are doing here Fisherman is that you are putting words in the mouth of Scobie, that he has never said.

And the reson he has never said them is simply that he has not put Lechemere to trial and have nothing to say about Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

That is just your own hypothesis and you are trying to use Scobie to underpin you theory.

I am sure that Scobie would not like this.

Kind regards, Pierre

You are fooling absolutely nobody, Pierre. Scobie said "when the coincidences mount up - and they DO in his case (meaning Lechmere) - it becomes one coincidence too many".

If that is not accepting that Lechmere is a good bid for the killerīs role, I donīt know what is.

He said "a jury would not like that" about the picture Lechmere represented.

He said "the timings and geography really have him" or something along that line.

He said that we had a prima faciae case, enough to warrant a modern day trial, "suggesting that he was the killer".

Thatīs what Scobie said. Apart from what he said that you did NOT hear, material that was cut away from the docu, for example where he spoke more about how silly it would be to accept all the anomalies about Lechmere as mere coincidences.

What I say is something else: I am spending no more time on poppycock like this. Goodbye to you. Go research that suspect of yours and donīt forget to believe in him. He needs all the support he can get.

You, that is.