Lechmere Continuation Thread

[drstrange169]

Hello Columbo,

>>I didn't know that, but then again that kind of proves my point. The production company knew the graphic was wrong but proceeded anyway. They did it to make Cross look more ominous and guilty.<<

No.

If Ed was correct, the only reason the graphic was wrong in the first place was to stay in the continuity Christer imposed on them.

It’s a moral issue.

You accuse a potentially innocent person of a notorious crime, you owe it to them to present the facts honestly.

By all means bring a new perspective to existing evidence, but if you deliberately alter the existing evidence, you are in the wrong.

In this case we have compounding pieces of misinformation. Christer’s lie about Baxter’s summation and knowingly misrepresenting the “encounter”. Both make Xmere look significantly guiltier.

I have no doubt that some of the incorrect facts in the show were beyond Christer’s control, but lying about Baxter’s summation and choosing to misrepresent the Xmere/Paul encounter were both, not only in his control, but something he, being portrayed as an expert, was obliged to get right.

Nobody’s perfect, we all make mistakes, but as we can see here Christer is, point blank, refusing to acknowledge his errors.

That’s a problem.

[Fisherman]

>>The pavement on the side opposite to the murder site, the northern one. I do not care about the picture you have put up. I was there, I walked down the street, and I saw the closing off. You were not. And you are willing to imply that I lie about it.
Look at the docu between 17.25 and 17.32, and you will see how the pavement is closed off and unaccessible. <<

First picture below is a screencapture of the aerial shot from 17:30.

The area I marked with a red circle indisputably shows a free space in the same postion as the shot I post previously.


>>Look at the passage where Andy and I arrive at the scene, between 18.42 and 18.45, where it is very clear that we are walking alongside a fencing off that allows us use of the southern pavement only.<<

Second Screen shot shows your arm coincidently pointing directly at the free space.

The area marked behind Andy Griffiths is the same area as the previous two shots and it shows that it was available whilst you were re-enacting the “encounter” sequence.

I understand that some parts were blocked, specfically the area opposite the body, but there was enough space on the opposite side to do an accurate recreation.

Interestingly, the free space seems to be close to where the Wool Warehouse enterance would have been. Which, of course, is exactly where Xmere claimed the enconter took place.


>>How do you suppose that the re-enactment should be done?<<

Properly or not at all. It’s a black and white issue, that's what responsable people do.

Responsible people?

The "free space" behind Andy Griffiths in the picture is the road into the construction site. If it was a "free site", why do you think there is a fence between the pavement and the open street? It was fenced off to prohibit any traffic but the construction traffic.

As you have been told, we asked about whether or not we would be permitted to move the fence you can see a yard behind Andy Griffiths away for a few minutes, in order to be able to use the street space. We were disallowed to do so, since that street space was reserved for traffic travelling in and out of the building site on the northern side of Bucks Row.

I cannot for the life of me understand how you can even try to argue about this matter. You were never there, you never spoke to the construction workers, you have no idea whatsoever of the rules that applied there. But this does not stop you from claiming that it was irresponsible not to use a space you have been told was sealed off from the film crew.

It may well be that this post of yours is the dumbest post ever to pollute the boards. Even coming from somebody who seems to have no more coveted goals in life than crapping on a Ripper theory, it is beyond stupidity and disrespect. That is the mildest way I can put it.

You are embarrasing yourself rather badly now. HereŽs my advice: You charmingly told me earlier that Edward has never lied to you (implying that I have).
So why not contact Edward and ask if he would be willing to straighten this errand out for you; am I lying about then fencing or am I not?

You either have the decency to do that, and make an effort to find out the truth, or you keep throwing unsavoury, unsubstatiated accusations out here, coupled with accusations about how I am the one attacking posters.

The choice is yours. If you need Edwards address, you can get it from me. IŽd be only too happy to ask him to give you his version of the fence business.

Maybe it will be the first time he lies to you, though...

[Fisherman]

In this case we have compounding pieces of misinformation. Christer’s lie about Baxter’s summation and knowingly misrepresenting the “encounter”. Both make Xmere look significantly guiltier.

Baxter said "It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection".
That means that I have not lied at all, since this was what I said in the docu.
What you point to is how Baxter proceeded: "If, however, blood was principally on his hands, the presence of so many slaughter houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with blood stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's row in the twilight into Whitechapel road, and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic."

This means that Baxter offered an "if" that could explain how the killer may have been able to escape.
However, if the "if" did not apply, then we are straight back to Baxters original statement, that the disappearance of the culprit was astonishing.

What Baxter therefore pointed to was how he understood the amazement of the press and public about how the killer had been able to make his escape. He recognized that there was seemingly a quality of magic about it - but added that there may have been an explanation.

Ergo, when I point to how the coroner spoke about how the escape gave an impression of astonishing qualities on the killers behalf, I am anything but lying.

If this is how you define a lie, you may need to look at your own article in Ripperologist, where you left out half of a quotation to give an impression that was not true. Let the one without guilt throw the first stone!

As for your suggestion that I had the opportunity to shape how the encounter between Lechmere and Paul was depicted in the docu, there can however be no doubt whatsoever. Since the mistake may owe to sheer ignorance on your behalf (normally a very competent guess), I will refrain from calling it an outright lie. Lies are intentional misleadings, the kind of things you loftily accuse me of on a regular basis. I will therefore just say that your accusation is false. It is untrue.
Others will have to decide for themselves what this fact owes to.

[Fisherman]

So here we are, I am sharing my time between dealing with Dustys accusations of being a misleading fraudster, a cheater and a cold-blooded liar, and engaging in a thoroughly engulfing discussion about the knife skills of the Ripper and the Torso man and how they compare.

I wonder which discussion adds more to Ripperology....?

[drstrange169]

>>Baxter said "It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection".
That means that I have not lied at all, since this was what I said in the docu.<<

And still you try to decieve us and/or yourself.

Take the words "at first thought" out of the sentence and you completely change the meaning, which is exactly what you did in the tv show,

"The coroner said, "It was nothing less than astonishing that the killer had magaged to escape given the cirumstances".

You changed the sentence to mean the opposite of what Baxter intended. You edited out his qualifier.

Tell you what, you're a journalist, take the two versions to whoever is your editor/publisher and ask them if one is an honest representation of the other and would they be happy to print it?

The fact that you spent so many words on the rest of your post phaffing around trying to justify the unjustifiable instead of having the guts to own up, is why we keep having these conversations.

>>Others will have to decide for themselves what this fact owes to.<<

At least we can agree on something;-)

[drstrange169]

>>So here we are, I am sharing my time between dealing with Dustys accusations of being a misleading fraudster, a cheater and a cold-blooded liar, and engaging in a thoroughly engulfing discussion about the knife skills of the Ripper and the Torso man and how they compare.<<

And have I intervened in that debate?

You just don't get it do you. It's not about the person, it's about the content. You or anyone else say something senisble, that's great. You or anyone else pull the kind of bullshit you did in your last post and you are going to get called out.

>>I wonder which discussion adds more to Ripperology....?<<

Both.

[Fisherman]

>>Baxter said "It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection".
That means that I have not lied at all, since this was what I said in the docu.<<

And still you try to decieve us and/or yourself.

Take the words "at first thought" out of the sentence and you completely change the meaning, which is exactly what you did in the tv show,

"The coroner said, "It was nothing less than astonishing that the killer had magaged to escape given the cirumstances".

You changed the sentence to mean the opposite of what Baxter intended. You edited out his qualifier.

Tell you what, you're a journalist, take the two versions to whoever is your editor/publisher and ask them if one is an honest representation of the other and would they be happy to print it?

The fact that you spent so many words on the rest of your post phaffing around trying to justify the unjustifiable instead of having the guts to own up, is why we keep having these conversations.

>>Others will have to decide for themselves what this fact owes to.<<

At least we can agree on something;-)

What you are doing is to say that I am lying. A lie is an intentional effort to deceive. No such thing has happened here.

You can have the view that I misrepresented Baxter, and it would be a lot more understandable. Anyone can have a view. Luckily, I am one of these people, and my view is that Baxter was saying that he readily accepted that the killers escape was considered baffling, but that he offered a possible explanation as to why it may not have been as baffling as it seemed. He voiced the common opinion, and that is of interest.

As you may be aware of, it was commonly thought that the killer had made a baffling escape. Swanson, among others, expressed his view that this was so, "the mystery is most complete" was what he said. Most people concurred.

I have myself expressed many times that we must accept that the killer was seen but not exposed by people as he made his way to and from the murder sites. But I too can see why it was thought that he was something of a phantom. My whole work on the Lechmere case has accordingly been very much about dissolving the idea that he was some sort of a phantom, though, so your whole argument is somewhat blurry, to say the least.

Now, we can go on discussing this forever, if you want to, and it wonŽt make a difference. It will only further point you out as a particularly nasty aggressor, hellbent on inflicting as much damage as you can, regardless of the underlying facts.

I am gain if you are, but I would suggest that moving on would be a better way to take the case forward.
As it stands, backwards is the only direction you are moving in.

[Fisherman]

>>So here we are, I am sharing my time between dealing with Dustys accusations of being a misleading fraudster, a cheater and a cold-blooded liar, and engaging in a thoroughly engulfing discussion about the knife skills of the Ripper and the Torso man and how they compare.<<

And have I intervened in that debate?

You just don't get it do you. It's not about the person, it's about the content. You or anyone else say something senisble, that's great. You or anyone else pull the kind of bullshit you did in your last post and you are going to get called out.

>>I wonder which discussion adds more to Ripperology....?<<

Both.

Both add more than the other? Because that was what I asked.
Slander and manure throwing can never compete with an intelligible discussion, so the question was moot from the beginning, of course.

If the slander and manure throwing is based on an inability to write and understand the written word, then so much the worse.

That, Dusty, is where your "calling me out" will have you ending up.

Now, can we not use up valuable space for this crap anymore? And move on to a more rewarding discussion?

[Harry D]

It's no wonder you want to swiftly move on from this subject, Fish. drstrange169 has called you out for misquoting Baxter for your own ends. It appears that much of the case for Lechmere relies on taking things out of context.

[Fisherman]

It's no wonder you want to swiftly move on from this subject, Fish. drstrange169 has called you out for misquoting Baxter for your own ends. It appears that much of the case for Lechmere relies on taking things out of context.

Swiftly? It has been discussed for a week now, and nothing has changed. And it is not as if it has never happened before that accusations have been thrown, ranging from how we did the event in St Johns in order to gain finacially from it, to how we are ruthlessly depressing the Lechmere family by falsely painting the carman out as the Ripper. WeŽve seen it all in that department, Harry, some of it coming from you.
But by all means, set up a fresh new thread about it, and we can all drop in there from time to time and add a thought or two.
As for Dusty and the fine art of misquoting things, well ...

[Harry D]

...to how we are ruthlessly depressing the Lechmere family by falsely painting the carman out as the Ripper. WeŽve seen it all in that department, Harry, some of it coming from you.

I can't speak for Lechmere's relatives. Some people get a thrill from the idea they were related to an infamous figure. Regardless of what they think, I stand by my own principles that it's tasteless to sully a dead man's memory based on nothing more than flimsy circumstantial evidence. And of course you'll respond "That goes for every suspect! At least Lechmere was there!" Many of the popular suspects (Bury, Klosowski, Kelly) were convicted killers, while those who weren't (Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety) were suspected by contemporary policemen. So while they weren't necessarily guilty of the Ripper crimes, there is just cause for suspecting them. Lechmere, not so much.

[Fisherman]

I can't speak for Lechmere's relatives. Some people get a thrill from the idea they were related to an infamous figure. Regardless of what they think, I stand by my own principles that it's tasteless to sully a dead man's memory based on nothing more than flimsy circumstantial evidence. And of course you'll respond "That goes for every suspect! At least Lechmere was there!" Many of the popular suspects (Bury, Klosowski, Kelly) were convicted killers, while those who weren't (Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety) were suspected by contemporary policemen. So while they weren't necessarily guilty of the Ripper crimes, there is just cause for suspecting them. Lechmere, not so much.

There is more factual reason to suspect Lechmere than any other suspect. Much more. And if you are speaking principles, you should recognize that much as some people are convicted killers, it is not an allowed thing to drop other deeds in their laps on no evidence at all. The exact same thing goes for those named by the Victorian police; if there was just the one killer, then we KNOW that the rest were not guilty.
But "sullying" their memories is okay by you.

Now, did you not want to discuss the Baxter words? You said I wanted to avoid it, but here I am, very willing to discuss it with you.

You can begin by telling me how what Baxter said would in any way add to or take away from how Lechmere could be the guilty party.

Once you got that answer correct, we can move on to other questions on the same errand. I would not want you to get the idea that I am evading it.

By the way, you are correct to say that you cannot speak for Lechmeres relatives, just as I am correct to say that Edward and I can, to an extent.
Glad we got that straightened out.

[Fisherman]

Double posting.

[Columbo]

There is more factual reason to suspect Lechmere than any other suspect. Much more. And if you are speaking principles, you should recognize that much as some people are convicted killers, it is not an allowed thing to drop other deeds in their laps on no evidence at all. The exact same thing goes for those named by the Victorian police; if there was just the one killer, then we KNOW that the rest were not guilty.
But "sullying" their memories is okay by you.

Now, did you not want to discuss the Baxter words? You said I wanted to avoid it, but here I am, very willing to discuss it with you.

You can begin by telling me how what Baxter said would in any way add to or take away from how Lechmere could be the guilty party.

Once you got that answer correct, we can move on to other questions on the same errand. I would not want you to get the idea that I am evading it.

By the way, you are correct to say that you cannot speak for Lechmeres relatives, just as I am correct to say that Edward and I can, to an extent.
Glad we got that straightened out.

Personally I don't take Baxter's opinion as fact. It was a supposition on his part. Granted people do use it to bolster the theory but he wasn't an active investigator outside of the inquest so it doesn't matter in the big scheme of this topic other than apparently his entire opinion wasn't given accurately.

And not to be a douche but even though it would've been historically accurate if Fisherman had given the entire baxter account in the documentary, I doubt he didn't because of some malicious, fradulent attempt on his part to decieve people, especially since there is some documented record of it for all to see. There are several JTR and other docus that do the same thing. they paraphrase testimony, eyewitness accounts, even the written record while they're reading it on camera! It's a little unfair to call him a huckster just for that. The other items mentioned by Dusty are not ones I'm even closely equipped to deny or support so have fun

So moving on to the torso murders I hope. Again I know only what I've read here so far about them but (again this has been mentioned on other threads) I believe this killer would have a location that was relatively safe since he would most certainly have to be inside and to dismember would take some time. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

Columbo

[Columbo]

Another thought had just occured to me that this person may have lived outside the city limits, maybe in a secluded country house with a barn or basement. I'm not familiar with the housing in 1870-1890's, but I'm also thinking a private residence with a basement would be a safe bet as well.

Columbo