Lawende was silenced

[Robert]

Fish, your portrait of Mrs Lechmere flies in the face of human nature. You envisage a conversation with a neighbour wherein she doesn't ask the location of the site where the woman was murdered. This would have been one of the first things she'd have wanted to know! The reason? She'd have wanted to know how close-by the site was, and whether there was a danger to her and her family.

Furthermore, has it never occurred to you that women with children make it their business to cultivate friendships with other women? Women tend to help each other out where children are concerned.

Again, with such a large family Mrs Lechmere had to do rather a lot of shopping. A normal woman would keep her ear to the ground in order to find the best places to get certain items, which of course can change from week to week. But not Mrs Lechmere! She shut herself away and missed out on all the tips that women pass on to one another.

BTW, I'm relieved to learn that every cabby in London could read. I never knew that. It explains why Holmes and Watson never asked "Can you read?" before jumping into a hansom.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

Audacity is something that is often present within a serialist. And as he moves along, uncaught, that audacity tends to grow.
Edward Stow, who is the anchor of the Lechmere theory but who no longer posts here, believes that the Hanbury Street deed was perhaps intentionally carried out so as to implicate Robert Paul, who worked nearby, in Corbettīs Court. I think that is a plausible suggestion - he may have felt irritated by Paul, if the latter disturbed him before he got round to eviscerating Nichols.

I respect your reasoning about the fact the that to give the name Cross could have been a very ineffective but at least excusable lie, because it's undeniably possible that this is what Lechmere may have tried to pull off. But, of course, it's not difficult to find other elements that by even simpler reasoning suggest that this may have not been the case.

[Trevor Marriott]

Iīll have you know that there is not one single thing that has been presented that has in any way debunked the Lechmere theory. Disprove that if you can.

We have been discussing one aspect of your case against Lechmere. Or would you rather sweep that important issue under the carpet.

I will mention that again, and that is contrary to what you and the absent Insp Squidlley say there is nothing to show that during this investigation Cross misled the authorities, by giving two different names.

Now do you agree or disagree on that issue? Its a simple question, that does not require an answer from you in the form of another question !!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Robert: Fish, your portrait of Mrs Lechmere flies in the face of human nature.

Does it now? How so?

You envisage a conversation with a neighbour wherein she doesn't ask the location of the site where the woman was murdered. This would have been one of the first things she'd have wanted to know!

But in my conversation, the neighbour does give the location: Bucks Row.

The reason? She'd have wanted to know how close-by the site was, and whether there was a danger to her and her family.

But if the neighbour said "Bucks Row" and she did not recognize it as any of the streets nearby, that problem would not arise.

Furthermore, has it never occurred to you that women with children make it their business to cultivate friendships with other women? Women tend to help each other out where children are concerned.

All generalizations are dangerous - like this one.

Again, with such a large family Mrs Lechmere had to do rather a lot of shopping. A normal woman would keep her ear to the ground in order to find the best places to get certain items, which of course can change from week to week. But not Mrs Lechmere! She shut herself away and missed out on all the tips that women pass on to one another.

We donīt know. End of. You are free to speculate - and so am I.

BTW, I'm relieved to learn that every cabby in London could read. I never knew that. It explains why Holmes and Watson never asked "Can you read?" before jumping into a hansom.

Did I say that? I actually think that cabbys COULD read, but I canīt remember saying it.

[Fisherman]

I respect your reasoning about the fact the that to give the name Cross could have been a very ineffective but at least excusable lie, because it's undeniably possible that this is what Lechmere may have tried to pull off. But, of course, it's not difficult to find other elements that by even simpler reasoning suggest that this may have not been the case.

The reasoning that the person A is more likely an innocent man than a serial killer will always hold true. Statistics rule that.
But statistics also involve a number of serial killers in the population. So much as they are unexpected creatures, they are part of the rule too.

With Lechmere, it applies that there are a number of peculiarities attaching to him. And statistically, the more peculiarities and deviations we find, the smaller the chance that they will all be coincidental.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: We have been discussing one aspect of your case against Lechmere. Or would you rather sweep that important issue under the carpet.

On the contrary, Trevor! Get it up on the table!! I want you to list the points you feel are most detrimental to the Lechmere theory. Your "nails in the coffin", as it were. I will settle for the five most damning elements, and you will be caught with your trousers down if you cannot provide them.

If you DO provide a list, I will take it apart faster than you can say "vaginal cartilage". And you can say that REAL fast.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: We have been discussing one aspect of your case against Lechmere. Or would you rather sweep that important issue under the carpet.

On the contrary, Trevor! I want you to list the points you feel are most detrimental to the Lechmere theory. Your nails in the coffin, as it were. I will settle for the five most damning elements, and you will be caught with your trousers down if you cannot provide them.

If you DO provide a list, I will take it apart faster than you can say "vaginal cartilage". And you can say that REAL fast.

I am only concerned with this nail and the fact that you haven't been able to prevent it going deep into Lechmeres coffin.

So far you have acknowledged that he would not have given different names to the police and at court.

With your failure to show Cross used any other name during the police investigation, or at the coroners court, we all must assume that what I said was correct that he only ever used the one name.

Sp pray tell where this suggestion by you and Insp Squiddley came from that he misled the police by giving two different names?

Because is this issue not one of the main pillars that yours and the intrepid and absent Inspectors theory is built on?

Do I see the pillars shaking

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert]

Come, come, Fish. You have just told David that you can imagine a conversation wherein Mrs Lechmere was told where the murder had occurred, yet had no idea where Buck's Row was. I'm saying that she would have wanted to know where Buck's Row was. She would have asked.

All generalisations are dangerous? Does that include your generalisations about psychopaths?

You didn't say that every cabby could read, Fish. I deduced it from Mrs Lechmere's inability (according to you) to go more than two or three streets from her front door.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: I am only concerned with this nail and the fact that you haven't been able to prevent it going deep into Lechmeres coffin.

So far you have acknowledged that he would not have given different names to the police and at court.

"So far you have acknowledged.." That is perhaps the daftest post from you so far. I have never said that he used any other name than Cross with the police and the inquest.

Did you get it into your head that I was suggesting that he called himself Lechmere with the police and Cross at the inquest...?

With your failure to show Cross used any other name during the police investigation, or at the coroners court, we all must assume that what I said was correct that he only ever used the one name.

Good Lord - you ARE thinking that I suggested that he used Lechmere with the police! That takes the biscuit, Trevor!
And what crap is that about only ever using one name? We know quite well that he used the name Lechmere whenever he signed a document. We only know that he used Cross in combination with the Nichols murder. And as I very clearly pointed out, if he had used different names with the police and the inquest, the coroner would have remarked upon it.

Today you have surpassed all your earlier efforts, Trevor. You are lowering the bar to well under ground level. If you can ever dig it up again, it will have "Made in China" stamped on it!

Sp pray tell where this suggestion by you and Insp Squiddley came from that he misled the police by giving two different names?

HE DIDNīT AND I NEVER SUGGESTED IT! You seem to be as illiterate as Elizabeth Bostock, Trevor. Get help from a literate person, who can sort it out for you. What I have said a zillion times is that he gave police and inquest the name Cross, that he gave the police but not the inquest the address and that he gave both police and inquest his working place.

Because is this issue not one of the main pillars that yours and the intrepid and absent Inspectors theory is built on?

Do I see the pillars shaking

Here is a quote from my initial post on the errand on this thread:

Now, if he was not trying to avoid the police, then why did he not call himself Lechmere? Well, because he may have been trying to avoid somebody elseīs interest - that of his family and aquaintances. If he did not want them to know that he was the Bucks Row witness, how could he avoid that?

There were three elements involved:
1. His name - if he called himself Charles Lechmere, then his family and aquaintances would know it was him.
2. The address - if he said he lieved at 22 Doveton Street, the same thing would apply.
3. His working place - Pickfords was huge and hundreds of men worked there, so he could stay incognito even if he gave that information.

Now, what do we have? We have him giving another name than the one he normally used in contact with the authoritites. But not a name to which he had no connection! The advantages were apparent:
A/ He could defend it with the police - if they checked him.


Oopsie, Trevor. So once more you got it wrong. Once more, you failed to understand. Once more you are caught with your pants around your ancles.

And gee, it is NOT a pretty sight.

Reading and writing, Trevor - THAT is one of the main pillars my theory is built upon. Hereīs a friendly help list for you to soak up:
A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q-R-S-T-U-V-W-X-Y-Z

The best of luck!

[Fisherman]

Come, come, Fish. You have just told David that you can imagine a conversation wherein Mrs Lechmere was told where the murder had occurred, yet had no idea where Buck's Row was. I'm saying that she would have wanted to know where Buck's Row was. She would have asked.

All generalisations are dangerous? Does that include your generalisations about psychopaths?

You didn't say that every cabby could read, Fish. I deduced it from Mrs Lechmere's inability (according to you) to go more than two or three streets from her front door.

Robert, I have lots of experience of people telling me what is "human behavior" and "common sense".

These same people have a lot of trouble realizing that commons sense dictates that the carman was the probable cutter on account of the blood issues. Those same people have a lot of trouble realizing that common sense dictates that people who swop names when approaching the police may have something to hide.

So I am not overly impressed with what you think is human behavior. Or common sense.

Even if she asked, she may have been told "up west" or "up at the hospital" and no more. Thatīs how we generally pin down these things. The fewest say "Buckīs Row is a street that runs between Bakers Row in the west and Brady Street in the east".

And there is absolutely no guarantee that she would have asked in the first place.

I donīt generalize about psychopaths. I am saying that many of them do this or that, not that all of them do. Can you see the difference? You DO know what a generalization is, I trust?

Itīs good to hear that the cabby thing was an enterprising invention of yours only. Thanks for clarifying that.

[Robert]

You DO know what a generalization is, I trust?

Yes, but do you?

I donīt generalize about psychopaths. I am saying that many of them do this or that, not that all of them do. Can you see the difference?

No, because there is no difference. I never said that all women with children cultivate friendships with other women. And I even used the word 'tend' in my next sentence.

[Fisherman]

You DO know what a generalization is, I trust?

Yes, but do you?

I donīt generalize about psychopaths. I am saying that many of them do this or that, not that all of them do. Can you see the difference?

No, because there is no difference. I never said that all women with children cultivate friendships with other women. And I even used the word 'tend' in my next sentence.

Then we are both in the clear, Robert. Congrats, us! Plus we have the extra benefit of you acknowledging that yours is a suggestion only that need not be true at all in the relevant case.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: I am only concerned with this nail and the fact that you haven't been able to prevent it going deep into Lechmeres coffin.

So far you have acknowledged that he would not have given different names to the police and at court.

"So far you have acknowledged.." That is perhaps the daftest post from you so far. I have never said that he used any other name than Cross with the police and the inquest.

Did you get it into your head that I was suggesting that he called himself Lechmere with the police and Cross at the inquest...?

With your failure to show Cross used any other name during the police investigation, or at the coroners court, we all must assume that what I said was correct that he only ever used the one name.

Good Lord - you ARE thinking that I suggested that he used Lechmere with the police! That takes the biscuit, Trevor!
And what crap is that about only ever using one name? We know quite well that he used the name Lechmere whenever he signed a document. We only know that he used Cross in combination with the Nichols murder. And as I very clearly pointed out, if he had used different names with the police and the inquest, the coroner would have remarked upon it.

Today you have surpassed all your earlier efforts, Trevor. You are lowering the bar to well under ground level. If you can ever dig it up again, it will have "Made in China" stamped on it!

Sp pray tell where this suggestion by you and Insp Squiddley came from that he misled the police by giving two different names?

HE DIDNīT AND I NEVER SUGGESTED IT! You seem to be as illiterate as Elizabeth Bostock, Trevor. Get help from a literate person, who can sort it out for you. What I have said a zillion times is that he gave police and inquest the name Cross, that he gave the police but not the inquest the address and that he gave both police and inquest his working place.

Because is this issue not one of the main pillars that yours and the intrepid and absent Inspectors theory is built on?

Do I see the pillars shaking

Here is a quote from my initial post on the errand on this thread:

Now, if he was not trying to avoid the police, then why did he not call himself Lechmere? Well, because he may have been trying to avoid somebody elseīs interest - that of his family and aquaintances. If he did not want them to know that he was the Bucks Row witness, how could he avoid that?

There were three elements involved:
1. His name - if he called himself Charles Lechmere, then his family and aquaintances would know it was him.
2. The address - if he said he lieved at 22 Doveton Street, the same thing would apply.
3. His working place - Pickfords was huge and hundreds of men worked there, so he could stay incognito even if he gave that information.

Now, what do we have? We have him giving another name than the one he normally used in contact with the authoritites. But not a name to which he had no connection! The advantages were apparent:
A/ He could defend it with the police - if they checked him.


Oopsie, Trevor. So once more you got it wrong. Once more, you failed to understand. Once more you are caught with your pants around your ancles.

And gee, it is NOT a pretty sight.

Reading and writing, Trevor - THAT is one of the main pillars my theory is built upon. Hereīs a friendly help list for you to soak up:
A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K-L-M-N-O-P-Q-R-S-T-U-V-W-X-Y-Z

The best of luck!

Another typical side step by you. We can always tell when you are rattled the black type comes out in force and the posts get longer and out comes the abuse. You are so predictable.

Lets deal in facts, not what you believe, or think, or simply made up. One final time is there any official sources that show Cross used two different names to the police or the coroner? which go to back up the part of your theory where you suggest he was deliberately misled the authorities in any way?

Where does he use the name Lechmere in all of this then if thats what you believe?

Oh and you asked for another nail in the coffin, lets not forget that the time of death of Nichols cannot be firmly established to coincide with the movements of Cross.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert]

Fish, it was you who called my remark a generalisation. Remember?

Most of what I, you and every other member of these boards write is by way of a suggestion that need not be true, Fish. The point is, some suggestions are reasonable, while others are from the planet Zargon.

[Fisherman]

Robert: Fish, it was you who called my remark a generalisation. Remember?

I did not, actually. But I can see why you missed out on it. I was quoting Tage Danielsson, a Swedish cultural giant and a comedian, who said "Alla generaliseringar är farliga - så ock denna", meaning "All generalizations are dangerous - including this". And "this" means the generalization that generalizations are all dangerous.

So what I was doing was to warn against regarding your stuff about women speaking to women as a general rule.

Admittedly, you could not know about the Tage Danielsson quote (one of my favourites) and so you could not see what I was getting at.

You Brits really should read up on Danielsson, who was a fantastic person in many ways. Another of my favourites from him in translation is "Without doubt, one is not sane".

Most of what I, you and every other member of these boards write is by way of a suggestion that need not be true, Fish. The point is, some suggestions are reasonable, while others are from the planet Zargon.

Do exemplify, Robert - it sounds thoroughly fascinating and it also sounds like a possibly excellent opportunity for me to put you right.