Lawende was silenced

[Fisherman]

Double posting.

[Fisherman]

Trevor, are you telling me that you STILL donīt understand? Read my lips:

I-have-never-suggested-that-the-carman-used-different-names-with-the-police-and-at-the-inquest.

Whatever "abuse" you seem to recognise apparently did not help. You remain haplessly ignorant.

Try again, Trevor.

As for nails in the coffin, how can the fact that no exact time can be determined for Nicholsī death be such a thing?
I have never said that it CAN be established. I have said that the blood evidence points to Lechmere being more likely a killer than anybody else. And that is a fact, going by Jason Payne Jamesī information.

Is there really NOTHING in the case that you understand? Fascinating!

[David Orsam]

This is actually one of the most non historic posts I have seen in this forum.

This is the person who has posted, without any source evidence, that Warren, Monro and Abberline (and Swanson) were involved in a conspiracy to prevent the killer from being identified and who refuses to accept a historical document which demonstrates that Lawende's suspect looked like a sailor.

It's same person who told us that GOGMAGOG's letter in the newspapers on 6 November included the name and address of Mary Jane Kelly!!!

If you think, Pierre, that I can't assert that Mrs Lechmere must have known that her husband was a carman or that he worked for Pickfords or that his name was Charles or that his stepfather's name was Cross or that Bucks Row was between her house and Bishopsgate without a source, or sources, to back those assertions up, you only show further why you don't understand history or historical argument and why you will always, I am afraid, be a non-historian pretending to be one.

[David Orsam]

Jesus and Mary, David - all that bickering! at all.

I don't know why you characterise my challenges to your posts as "bickering". I guess you don't like being challenged. But it was you who decided to challenge Steve's uncontroversial comment in this thread that Lechmere's supposed deception was a "very weak attempt at deception." Nothing you have said has undermined that comment and, in fact, you have only confirmed it because you tell us that your case rests on the person or persons being deceived not being aware of all the available information!

After three attempts you haven't even answered my question. I asked you if, from all the available information about the witness Charles Cross who had the same address, occupation, employer, family surname and route to work as Charles Lechmere, it "could hardly be anyone else could it?". Your failure to focus on the question is amply demonstrated by your comment, "All the answers to these questions have been given above". But it was a single question! It required a single and very simple answer. The answer to my question is not found "above" because there you were twittering on in highly unrealistic fashion about knowledge of Bucks Row which was only one part of the available information.

The answer can only be: Yes, from the available information, it could hardly have been anyone else.

According to you, Mrs Lechmere WAS a gibbering idiot. Her husband could have been working on the moon for all she knew. But it gets worse because she may have been someone who Lechmere could "dominate totally". If she was so dominated by her husband, there doesn’t seem to have been ANY need for deception. If she heard that her husband had discovered the body of Nichols, so what? From your own post, in which you ask what "impact" it would have had if Mrs Lechmere had discovered Cross was Lechmere, you conclude it would have had no impact! Hence there was no need for deception by Lechmere in the first place! Your entire case on this point thus collapses.

Fisherman, it seems to me that even if Lechmere was the killer, the fact that he called himself Cross at the inquest has nothing to do with an attempt at deception because it really was such a weak attempt that it was pointless. Rather more likely, as many have already pointed out, is that he was known as Charles Cross at Pickfords due to having worked there since the time he was living with his stepfather and that it's as simple as that.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, are you telling me that you STILL donīt understand? Read my lips:

I-have-never-suggested-that-the-carman-used-different-names-with-the-police-and-at-the-inquest.

Whatever "abuse" you seem to recognise apparently did not help. You remain haplessly ignorant.

Try again, Trevor.

As for nails in the coffin, how can the fact that no exact time can be determined for Nicholsī death be such a thing?
I have never said that it CAN be established. I have said that the blood evidence points to Lechmere being more likely a killer than anybody else. And that is a fact, going by Jason Payne Jamesī information.

Is there really NOTHING in the case that you understand? Fascinating!

So where do you actually say he used different names with the intent to mislead ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;385230]

This is the person who has posted, without any source evidence, that Warren, Monro and Abberline (and Swanson) were involved in a conspiracy to prevent the killer from being identified and who refuses to accept a historical document which demonstrates that Lawende's suspect looked like a sailor.

No, David. As I have told you before, "conspiracy" is the wrong word.

It's same person who told us that GOGMAGOG's letter in the newspapers on 6 November included the name and address of Mary Jane Kelly!!!

I actually suggested that you should discuss that source with me instead of discussing the fictional dialogues and ideas of Fisherman which are built on no sources, and the reason was that the GOGMAGOG letter is a real source.

If you think, Pierre, that I can't assert that Mrs Lechmere must have known that her husband was a carman or that he worked for Pickfords or that his name was Charles or that his stepfather's name was Cross or that Bucks Row was between her house and Bishopsgate without a source, or sources, to back those assertions up, you only show further why you don't understand history or historical argument and why you will always, I am afraid, be a non-historian pretending to be one.

That was many personal views in one sentence. Probably you did this to mix up your bad arguments with some arguments looking like "common sense" arguments. But anyone who sees that can go back and read my critique of your ideas in the relevant post.

Also, you are trying to attack me. It does not work. I do not care. I only care for the sources and the historical methods.

Regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Im not sure why this occurs constantly, but thread diversion in order to further ones personal premise is getting really tiring. No matter what the subject we inevitably end up with arguments between 2 or more folks about things that have nothing to do with the thread.

Can this be corrected?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;385032]

Pierre

sorry about late reply, been a little busy.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the reply!

Pierre that does not make another type of approach correct.

Once again my friend you are being economic with the truth, and once again that is with yourself, not us.

Of course you are interested in Lechmere, you require him to be misleading to allow a tie in to your theory of a police officer in Bucks Row and the grand conspiracy you are attempting to construct.

I never built any assumptions on the Lechmere-sources. I found it late and thought it was strange. And I have no hypotheses about "conspiracies". I would never call it conspiracy.

So let us put what Lechmere said into some sort of perspective.

Did he mislead?

He gave his correct first name.
He gave his correct middle name.
He gave the correct home address.
He gave the correct employer.

in addition he gave a surname under which he was listed on a census in the 1860's.

Was he therefore trying to hide?

Given he supplied the first four above, he was extremely easy to trace if need be.

Yes, I agree with you. But why did he withdraw his statement about the sighting in Buckīs Row?

Again, there is no way of knowing the truth, and people will never agree.

The statement about the police is only of importance if you accept that he lied and Mizen told the truth.

There is no historical reason to think Mizen was lying. Or is there?

We should now briefly look at PC Mizen to see if there are any reasons why his testimony was different from Lechmere and Paul.

1. He may have simply misunderstood, when told he was needed in Bucks Row and then finding an officer already there it could have been an assumption on his part. This is certainly possible.

2. You have said before that there may be a bias against the police in witness reports.
However from Mizen's own testimony he admitted he did not go immediately to Bucks row, rather he continued to knock up one more house.
The comment about being told a police officer was already in Bucks Row may have to cover up his failure to proceed immediately.

We have limited sources, analysis of that data does not give a clear indication if either of the witnesses lied, it is highly possible, indeed i would say probable, that there was a genuine misunderstand, but there is no way of being sure.

Nr 1: A "possibility". There are to many of those. No good historical material.

No 2: If Mizen was wanted by another policeman, he should have hurried up. So that would not have given him more time to go on knocking up people and ignore the request of his colleague.

It is not a wish list, it is a statement of fact.

Can employment data be produced which shows he was always employed under the name Lechmere ( I do not know myself, however I am sure Fisherman could tell us)

No they would found a man with:

The same first and middle names, with the same employer.

That is a very weak attempt at deception.

Calling it weak or strong (defining the strength) does not focus on the problem. The problem is why he did it. What could he have gained?

The overall effect we cannot know, we were not there.

However we can draw some conclusions.

The consequences were:

That his family were not linked directly to the murders.

Not linked to the name Lechmere in the press.

That his identity would not be immediately obvious, other than to those who had the right (legally) to conduct a search for him.

This is a very difficult problem.

The Police may ( I know you said not could have been, but we cannot know if this was the case or not) have trusted him more being he was the step son of a former officer, that is highly probable.

Not highly probable but possible. Possibilities are hopeless, to many.

Has with Lawende, whom this thread is meant to be about, there’s no convincing data to suggest anyone was silenced.

You see it, because you want to my friend, not because it is real or tangible.

And because I see it, I analyse it. Thanks for a good discussion, Steve.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

No, David. As I have told you before, "conspiracy" is the wrong word.

No you didn't actually Pierre. You told me that "conspiracy" was a word you would never use. In response, I explained to you that it is the correct word to describe what you are alleging.

I actually suggested that you should discuss that source with me instead of discussing the fictional dialogues and ideas of Fisherman which are built on no sources, and the reason was that the GOGMAGOG letter is a real source.

I'm certainly not discussing the fictional ideas and dialogues of Fisherman. The GOGMAGOG letter is a real source which you have really misunderstood.

That was many personal views in one sentence. Probably you did this to mix up your bad arguments with some arguments looking like "common sense" arguments. But anyone who sees that can go back and read my critique of your ideas in the relevant post.

Also, you are trying to attack me. It does not work. I do not care. I only care for the sources and the historical methods.

The point I was making Pierre was that you don't need a source to back up every single argument in a historical debate. As for attacking you I have no interest in doing so. I am attacking the historical methods you use, your poor use and understanding of the sources and your claim to be a "historian" for which I have seen no evidence on this forum.

[Abby Normal]

Steve didn't actually say that. He said it was a "very weak attempt at deception."

According to your interpretation of what he was doing that seems to be accurate because you say "he served up information that would not have him identifiable to family and relatives, the ones who were able to keep a daily track of him."

But his family name of Cross and his actual address (combined with his occupation), together with the fact that Bucks Row was on Lechmere's route to work, would surely have identified him to his family and relatives. So, if he was the killer who was trying to deceive them, it certainly strikes me as a very weak attempt at deception and I'm rather surprised that you don't think the same.

Hi David and El
but certainly we don't know whether it was a weak attempt at deception do we? for all we know it could have been a masterful success of deception, no?

[Elamarna]

I never built any assumptions on the Lechmere-sources. I found it late and thought it was strange. And I have no hypotheses about "conspiracies". I would never call it conspiracy.

Pierre

Two points here, while you may not have used Lechmere to begin with, but you have made it clear that you believe he saw and spoke to a police officer in Bucks Row.

Second point, you believe that senior police knew who the killer was, and covered it up.

This very thread is about Lawende being silenced, you are also suggesting that the same happened with Lechmere and Arnold

The word conspiracy is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as:
(Other dictionaries define it in a very similar manner.)

" the activity of secretly planning with other people to do something bad or illegal:"



That IS EXACTLY what you are suggesting.

Yes, I agree with you. But why did he withdraw his statement about the sighting in Buckīs Row?


There is no historical reason to think Mizen was lying. Or is there?


Nr 1: A "possibility". There are to many of those. No good historical material.

No 2: If Mizen was wanted by another policeman, he should have hurried up. So that would not have given him more time to go on knocking up people and ignore the request of his colleague.

I have put these four comments together.

There is no proof he withdrew a statement, it revolves around if you believe Mizen, which you have attempted to side step in your usual manner.

I see no reason to believe Mizen over Lechmere, It is highly probably that there was a misunderstanding, it is the simplest option, and is not unreasonably.

With regards to you comments that having been told he was wanted by an officer in Bucks Row, That seems to be self defeating on your part.

If he was told he was wanted he would hurry up, however according to his own testimony, he carried on knocking up.

What is clear is:

He was told he was needed in Bucks Row, by whom and why is open to debate. He did not proceed at once, that is from his own testimony.

Not to proceed was a dereliction of duty, be it he was needed by another officer of not.
However if he did not realise why he was needed until he arrived, to say another officer was there, would lessen this dereliction of duty to an extent.
In addition, his testimony about meeting the officer in Bucks Row, is different from that of PC Neil.

It cannot therefore be ruled out that he did not tell the whole truth.

Not highly probable but possible. Possibilities are hopeless, to many.

That is your opinion, which of course you are entitled to, I disagree; in my opinion it is highly probable.

And because I see it, I analyse it.

You miss the point, you are analysing something which does not exist, therefore the conclusions you draw are completely invalid.

regards

steve

[Abby Normal]

But you are ignoring two essential facts here Fisherman.

Firstly, unless one went the long way round by heading north, Bucks Row was the gateway to Spitalfields and Bishopsgate. So you are asking us to believe that Mrs Lechmere did not know how to get to those two key locations (one of which was where her husband worked).

Secondly, that Mrs Lechmere simply must have known the location of Bucks Row after 31 August 1888 because of its infamy due to it being the location of the Nichols murder.

So your own lack of knowledge of every single street in your area is irrelevant because we are talking here about a street which was a vital thoroughfare for anyone living in Doveton Street (especially for someone who had lived there for over a month) and the location of a notorious local murder.

So Fisherman I need to repeat the question which you have now ducked twice:

Mrs Lechmere must have known that her husband left his house at about 4.30am to be at work at about 5.00am. So this particular carman called Charles, who had the same surname as Lechmere's stepfather, who discovered the body in Bucks Row at about 4.45am and was stated to be living in the very house that Mrs Lechmere was living could hardly be anyone else could it?

Hi David
If you don't mind me answering.

Mrs Lechmere must have known that her husband left his house at about 4.30am to be at work at about 5.00am.

I think must is too strong a word. I would think she would probably know when he generally left, but perhaps he left, give or take whatever minutes depending on what he had going on. or he could have lied about why and when he was leaving, for his own reasons.

So this particular carman called Charles, who had the same surname as Lechmere's stepfather, who discovered the body in Bucks Row at about 4.45am and was stated to be living in the very house that Mrs Lechmere was living could hardly be anyone else could it

?

Yes IF she found this out. But that's the crux-if she did.

[Elamarna]

Hi David and El
but certainly we don't know whether it was a weak attempt at deception do we? for all we know it could have been a masterful success of deception, no?

Hi Abby,

I will disagree with you, the point was, the police could identify Cross if they needed him.

I do not believe there was any attempt at deception, I gave my reasons for this in the posts 101 and 115.


all the best

Steve

[David Orsam]

Hi David and El
but certainly we don't know whether it was a weak attempt at deception do we? for all we know it could have been a masterful success of deception, no?

I don't think I quite understand.

But let me say this. If I posted on here as David Masro, I might be successful at deceiving some people that I was a different person but it would still be a weak attempt at deception given that the second name is my current posting name backwards. So the weakness of the attempt is not necessarily related to the success or otherwise of the deception.

[David Orsam]

Hi David
If you don't mind me answering.

I think must is too strong a word. I would think she would probably know when he generally left, but perhaps he left, give or take whatever minutes depending on what he had going on. or he could have lied about why and when he was leaving, for his own reasons.

I don't mind you answering Abby but if I may say so I find that answer quite bizarre. You are seriously suggesting that Mrs Lechmere did not know that her husband left the house in which they both living to go to work at about 4.30am in the morning? I have difficulty in computing this I'm afraid.