Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

It wasn't personal abuse. It was concern.

You took my post, twisted it inside out and then argued against it.

This is not normal behaviour, so please do not bother responding.

That is simply more personal abuse Simon, thus compounding your offence.

Why taking your post and arguing against it is, in your opinion, "not normal behaviour" I can't imagine. I didn't twist it inside out, I asked you to try and clarify what you were talking about. Your failure to do so speaks volumes. I doubt you even understand yourself what you have been saying in this thread.

One thing is certain: it's all been nonsense.

[Trevor Marriott]

Charles Lechmere was asked twice to state his name, address and working place - inititially when he arrived at the cop shop, and then as he testified at the inquest..

Perhaps I have missed it but what official source is there to show exactly what name he gave at the police station?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Here it is again, that old "If he wanted to deceive, he made a poor job" business.

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.

[David Orsam]

For anyone who hasn't read my article "Reconstructing Jack", it might be worth mentioning that I first asked Simon to explain his theory about Mizen and Neil on this forum back in November 2014 but he failed to do so. Below is an extract from my article which sets out my exchange with him in detail.

(The full article, for anyone interested, can be found here: http://www.orsam.co.uk/reconstructingjack.htm )

"My first experience of Simon Wood on the Casebook forum was during a discussion about the police evidence relating to the murder of Mary Ann Nichols. In a thread entitled 'The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary', Simon told me on 22 November 2014 (#1043):

'I have never believed PC Mizen...PC Neil wasn't where he should have been at 3.45, so PC Mizen put him there with a simple lie'.

In a further post (#1050), Wood said that, 'Neil wasn't where he should have been at the time - somewhere in Great Eastern Square' and that 'Mizen lied to cover Neil's arse'. He added:

'And you can bet your last Snickers bar that Mizen and Neil got their stories straight as they could before attending the inquest.'

In response, I asked:

'If that's the case then why were their stories different?

Mizen: Cross told me that a policeman [Neil] said I was wanted in Buck's Row.

Neil: I never saw or spoke to Cross.

Different stories, no?'

Simon's reply was:

'Steady on, old chap. Mizen did not name the PC as Neil.

Rather than argue ourselves blue in the face, let's just agree in the final analysis their contradictory stories went unchallenged'.

It will be noted that Simon now refers to their stories as 'contradictory', whereas previously he said they 'got their stories straight'. More importantly, I wasn't going to accept his attempt to make a point out of the fact that Mizen did not name the police constable as PC Neil, so I said:

'I know he didn't but I thought your point was that he was trying to cover up for Neil's absence from the scene. If the PC he was referring to was not Neil, what was the point of him inventing a conversation with Cross.'

I also pointed out that if Mizen had told the truth about what Cross said to him, but Cross had been lying, then both of their stories were consistent with Cross lying.

In the meantime, Simon told another poster:

'PC Neil was not where he should have been on this night of nights.

It makes far more sense to believe that PC Mizen lied to place PC Neil where he should have been.

Did PC Mizen find PC Neil on arriving at the murder scene? Eventually, of course.

Policemen lying under oath? Unthinkable as it is to Ripperology, newspaper letter columns full of such stories.'

I responded as follows:

'If you are saying that PC Mizen was first on the scene and PC Neil only turned up later then, far from making "far more sense" this actually doesn't make any sense! PC Thain arrived at the murder site before PC Mizen and was requested by PC Neil to summon a doctor so unless Mizen, Thain and Neil are all involved in some crazy conspiracy, it was Neil who found the body (after Cross and Paul)'.

In response, Wood, who, until then, had said that only two policemen were telling lies, now asked me why I believed three policeman with suspicious stories rather than Cross to which I replied:

'...it looks to me like you really do believe there was some sort of crazy conspiracy going on here! There clearly wasn't. The reason Thain ran off to fetch a doctor and Mizen ran off to fetch and ambulance, while Neil remained with the body, is because Neil was the first officer on the scene and was calling the shots.'

Simon answered:

'I don't believe there was some sort of crazy conspiracy going on unless, of course, you mean three cops desperately trying to keep their stories straight.'

My reply was to call Simon's bluff:

'Go on then, I'm listening.

Do explain to me how and why three police constables all invented a completely false story about the finding of the body. And please tell me what really happened.'

The only response from Simon was cryptic:

'Hi David

Please be sure to let me know when you need more paint to trap you in that corner.'

I responded to say that I didn't understand this (and over one year later I still don't) to which Simon replied:

'Long posts are most often in inverse proportion to their logic.

I explained myself with precision.

PC Mizen lied to place PC Neil where he should have been but wasn't, when Cross and Paul walked from Bucks Row through Great Eastern Square and up Bakers Row to the corner of Hanbury Street.'

Cross's story about not seeing a policeman prior to encountering PC Mizen was bourne out by PC Neil himself.

Why else would PC Mizen make it up?'

I answered:

'Hi Simon, your post is certainly short but I'm having difficulty seeing the logic. Neil's beat evidently took him half an hour to patrol (i.e. "He had been round the same place some half an hour previous to that and did not see any one" - Times inquest report) so why would he have had to have been there in the few minutes that Cross and Paul were there? Had Mizen found the body, having been directed to Buck's Row by Paul and Cross, all Neil would have had to do is say that he had been there at 3:20, saw nothing, and was due back at 3:50 hence he missed the discovery by Paul and Cross (at 3:40) and by Mizen (at 3:45). You also say nothing about Thain, who I asked you about. He said he came to the scene, saw Neil and was sent to fetch a doctor. Who do you say asked him to do this? Mizen? Who then asked Mizen to fetch an ambulance?'

There was no response to this post from Simon.

The reason I have quoted this exchange at some length is because it shows that Wood clearly believes that the police were lying about the discovery of the finding of the body of Nichols. When I purchased Wood's e-book a few months after the exchange, in early 2015, I was fully expecting to find Wood's theory as to what was going on set out in full with an explanation as to why the officers were lying.

To my surprise he said absolutely nothing about the police officers lying at the inquest of Nichols. Not a word."

[Fisherman]

Perhaps I have missed it but what official source is there to show exactly what name he gave at the police station?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Good grief, Trevor... Donīt flaunt it!

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes, you always seem to be surprised when people donīt agree with you. I will be as short as possible, since I do not want to be sucked into the malstroem of your argumentation:
I do not think that Mrs Lechmere or her kids or his aquaintances would necessarily have known the names of the streets Charles Lechmere walked to work.

[Trevor Marriott]

Good grief, Trevor... Donīt flaunt it!

and the correct answer to win the prize is ............................?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

I will be as short as possible, since I do not want to be sucked into the malstroem of your argumentation:
I do not think that Mrs Lechmere or her kids or his aquaintances would necessarily have known the names of the streets Charles Lechmere walked to work.

That is certainly short because it only addresses one of the points I made. It's not a very convincing response either because even with basic geographic knowledge of their local area they surely must have known that Bucks Row was situated between Doveton Street and Bishopsgate. Further 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?

[Fisherman]

That is certainly short because it only addresses one of the points I made. It's not a very convincing response either because even with basic geographic knowledge of their local area they surely must have known that Bucks Row was situated between Doveton Street and Bishopsgate. Further 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?

If they must have known they must have known. And as you conclude they must have, they surely must have. Otherwise you are wrong, and we all know you are never wrong.
So basically, it is all very easy.

Me, stupid sod, was thinking that Bucks Row was threehundred meters or so away from Doveton Street, and if we draw a circle treehundred meters out from 22 Doveton Street, it will enclose a hundred streets or so. And, daft as I am, I thought that since the Lechmeres had only just moved into the area, maybe - just maybe - Mrs Lechmere had not had the time to turn into a living encyclopedia of the Bethnal Green streets at that stage.
But here you are, proving me wrong - she MUST have known all the names of the streets between Doveton Street and Bishopsgate.
Mea culpa, David, mea maxima culpa.

You see, this is precisely why I think you are an arrogant besserwisser who is unable to take in the mere possibility that you may actually be wrong. And that is also the reason that I am very unwilling to exchange posts with you. You are clearly well read up and intelligent - but I donīt need to tell you that, do I?

[Fisherman]

and the correct answer to win the prize is ............................?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Beyond you...?

[Trevor Marriott]

Beyond you...?

I dont think there is any official source to tell us exactly what name he gave when he first went to the police station.

If that be so, it doesnt bode well for your case against Lechmere

If there is any official source, I am sure some kind poster will come to your rescue, seeing as you ducked the question, and this is one question you cannot answer with another question

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

If they must have known they must have known. And as you conclude they must have, they surely must have. Otherwise you are wrong, and we all know you are never wrong.
So basically, it is all very easy.

Me, stupid sod, was thinking that Bucks Row was threehundred meters or so away from Doveton Street, and if we draw a circle treehundred meters out from 22 Doveton Street, it will enclose a hundred streets or so. And, daft as I am, I thought that since the Lechmeres had only just moved into the area, maybe - just maybe - Mrs Lechmere had not had the time to turn into a living encyclopedia of the Bethnal Green streets at that stage.
But here you are, proving me wrong - she MUST have known all the names of the streets between Doveton Street and Bishopsgate.
Mea culpa, David, mea maxima culpa.

You see, this is precisely why I think you are an arrogant besserwisser who is unable to take in the mere possibility that you may actually be wrong. And that is also the reason that I am very unwilling to exchange posts with you. You are clearly well read up and intelligent - but I donīt need to tell you that, do I?

No-one needs to be a "living Encyclopedia" Fisherman. Perhaps, as you seem to think, Mrs Lechmere was a gibbering idiot of a woman who had never left her house since moving in and had no idea where Bucks Row was but one would have thought that on hearing that there had been a very gruesome murder in Bucks Row, close to where she was then living, she would very quickly have discovered its location being between her house and Bishopsgate.

So I repeat what I said in my previous post to which, in amongst all the inappropriate personal abuse, you have not responded:

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?

[Fisherman]

I dont think there is any official source to tell us exactly what name he gave when he first went to the police station.

If that be so, it doesnt bode well for your case against Lechmere

If there is any official source, I am sure some kind poster will come to your rescue, seeing as you ducked the question, and this is one question you cannot answer with another question

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Let me try this question on you, Trevor - if he presented himself by any other name than Cross with the police, donīt you think it would be reasonable if the coroner - who would have then carmans name in front of himself on the witness list - would have asked him why he changed his name from the one he had given the police?

I know that the question may seem a treacherous and subtle one, but in reality it is not. Just flex your brain and give it some afterthought, and we will see what you come up with.

If anything.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: No-one needs to be a "living Encyclopedia" Fisherman. Perhaps, as you seem to think, Mrs Lechmere was a gibbering idiot of a woman who had never left her house since moving in and had no idea where Bucks Row was but one would have thought that on hearing that there had been a very gruesome murder in Bucks Row, close to where she was then living, she would very quickly have discovered its location being between her house and Bishopsgate.

I just checked Google Maps to see whether I know the names of all streets within an area that answers to the distance between Doveton Street and Bucks Row.
It turns out Iīm a gibbering idiot. And I have lived here for twenty years, whereas Mrs Lechmere had lived in Doveton Street for a month and a half.
Goodnight, Almighty!

[Pierre]

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.

Yes, it would have identified him to his relatives, I agree. But the name Cross would not have identified his family to the killer. And the use of that name may even have been a result of his discussions with his family.

Regards, Pierre



Regards, Pierre