Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by Sam Flynn 3 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by Michael W Richards 26 minutes ago.
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by Batman 37 minutes ago.
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by Jon Guy 38 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 22 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - by packers stem 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - (53 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - (13 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (13 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Antisemitism as a diversionary tactic - (10 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (4 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Photo ID - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #751  
Old 09-10-2018, 03:56 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
It is up to you if you want to loose credibility by accusing me of being infatuated with Lechmere. All I can do is to point you to how a debate should be done, and after that, if you can´t manage it, that´s your problem, not mine.

You now list three examples that you mean must be conclusive in proving that my take on matters is skewed beyond trustworthyness. Let´s see what kind of water it holds!

You ask that if Paul did the rearranging of the clothes, then how could Lechmere be incriminated.

Problem - the clothing will FIRST have been rearranged by Lechmere. Evidence: If it had NOT been, then Paul would have seen the large open wounds to the abdomen and neck, but he saw nothing when he leant in over her.
Conclusion: The wounds, all of them, must have been hidden from Pauls sight. Further conclusion: Lechmere will have been the one who did the hiding if he was the killer.

Value of your point: None.

Point dealt with in posts 746 and 747


Next: You say that I "use the name" as a point of guilt on Lechmere´s behalf. What I say, and have said repeatedly, is that none of the many points against him are conclusive evidence of guilt, but the collected weight of the evidence pushes him past "reasonable doubt" in my view. James Scobie, a queens counsellor said that since the coincidences mount up in his case, it becomes a coincidence too many. So we are saying the same thing in that regard. As for the name specifically, I have on various occasions said that it may be that he used the name Cross at times, but that this is not a proven thing and the evidence that DOES exist tells us that he invariably used the name Lechmere in all the authority contacts that we know of - apart from in combination with violent death.
I am saying that the name matter is an anomaly, and that until we know for sure why he used the name Cross at the inquest, that anomaly must be added to the tally of matters that do not seem altogether correct.

Conclusion: Far from saying that the name business must be indicative of guilt, what I DO say is that it is something that we must keep track of since it is a deviation from what we have on record.

Value of your point: none.

The fact that we know that he gained no advantage from using Cross should end this nonsense. That is the point.

Next: You say that I refuse to accept that Phillips may have been wrong on the TOD of Chapman.

To begin with, even if Chapman was alive when Richardson was in the backyard, Lechmere could still be her killer. To carry on, you are just as unwilling to accept that she was dead as I am unwilling to accept that she was alive, so what does that say about you? That you are the better judge? I am not saying that it is impossible for Phillips to have been wrong, but I am saying that I find it very unlikely based on how all three parameters are in sync in his verdict. That means that an extremely logical case can be built for how the medical verdict offered by Phillips was likely correct.
Look at this in this manner: If Long, Cadosch and Richardson had never surfaced, how would you treat Phillips´ information? As if he was probably wrong?
The idea of him being wrong is a byproduct of believing in three witnesses who either changed stories as they went along or offered timings that are impossible to fit together.
The official line was one where the police favoured Phillips over these witnesses.
So I am in sync with the official line, and the three parameters offered by Phillips are in sync with each other. Meaning that there is ample reason to opt for Phillips´view.
Therefore, I cannot be said to break any laws of logic or something such when I say that I think Phillips is more likely to be correct than the witnesses are. And consequently, it can never be said that I only say so because I think Lechmere was the killer. It would be like saying that I only say that Lechmere disagreed with the police about what was said on the murder night because I think he was the killer.
It certainly points to the possibility that he WAS the killer, but it is nevertheless a fact on record, and that brings us back to my comparison between you and R J Palmer:

Once somebody points to a fact, we can look at it in one of two ways:

1. That somebody points out a completely relevant fact, or
2. That somebody only does that because he wants to be correct on something.

Option 1 is the sound thing to accept and the one to use in any sound debate.
Option 2 is the Kindergarten version. "Boo-hoooh, he took my toy!", sort of.

Value of your point: none.

More drivel. The chances are higher percentage wise that Philips could have been in error (as per experts) than Richardson (who we have no reason to believe was either mentally subnormal or a man with severely impaired spatial awareness) wouldn’t have been aware, in a small yard, whether a body could have been out of view to him. Especially when we know that he actually saw the body later on.

I do try to point to how it is likely that Lechmere was the killer. But that is because I think that there are many facts surrounding him that point to his guilt, not because I have a personal grudge against him.

Personal grudges and fair debates do not mix very well, see.

I agree. It’s often difficult to conclude otherwise tha your tone and attitude toward me speaks of a personal grudge. I certainly have no personal grudge against you.

And those of us on the other side of the debate don’t tend to feel strongly that Lechmere was innocent because we’re Lechmere ‘fans’ or Fish ‘haters.’ We feel as we do because we’ve also looked at the facts and can’t understand your level of confidence. Personally I’d say that we all have to accept that Lechmere has to be considered because he was alone with the body for a period. Apart from that fact I see nothing that makes me suspect him in the slightest.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #752  
Old 09-10-2018, 03:57 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
[/b]

Then why do you persist in putting this point on ‘why Lechmere was guilty’ lists?
There is no "Why Lechmere was guilty" list. There is a "Why it seems very probable that Lechmere was guilty" list. And the things you mentioned very much belong there.

What would you have me do? Say that I think that he was guilty and then deny saying why I think so...?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #753  
Old 09-10-2018, 03:58 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Take You,Fisherman? I already have,with a pinch of salt.Must have been an effort to admit it is only beliefs you are peddling.Beliefs manipulated into an imaginable bogey man named Cross,without a single piece of genuine evidence that points to him as a killer.
Wrong again. Waste of time. Ignorance.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #754  
Old 09-10-2018, 04:02 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Does anyone else see the problem with Fish’s statement? I cant seem to make him understand.

He’s saying in one breath that if Lechmere was the killer he’d have rearranged the clothes to cover the wounds and yet, in the next breath, he says that Paul pulled her clothes over her knees?!

Robert Paul at the Inquest:



Paul pulled the clothes down, after Lechmere arrived. Therefore they were up when Paul got there. Therefore Lechmere hadn’t covered the abdominal wounds. Therefore..........
Of course I understand you. And you are dead wrong. That is where the main lack of understanding enters the picture.

Are you seriously suggesting that Nichols lay on the ground, wounds uncovered and bleeding, the abdomen a mess of cuts and the neck a gaping wound - and Paul didn´t se that in the dark? And that he later covered all the wounds in the abdomen but not the one in the neck, when he pulled the clothes down...?

That´s one of the saddest and most hilarious posts I have read on the subject. Really..!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #755  
Old 09-10-2018, 04:05 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
When the killer killed Nichols he dropped the skirt down, possibly because he heard Lechmere approach, her skirts we’re near her middle just obscuring the wounds, Paul pulled them down for decency’s sake. If Lechmere had killed her and wanted to insure that no one suspected abdominal wounds he would have expended the extra 0.437 seconds of effort to pull the skirts down fully.

But he didn’t!!

Did he
The clothes would not even come down to the full. So what would be the priority? To pull at them as hard as he could or to hide the wounds?

How about thinking before you write? It takes all of 0.437 seconds.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #756  
Old 09-10-2018, 04:28 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
But that is not the issue here, is it? We are not discussing whether we think it is more likely that she was picked up here or there
That has a significant bearing on the matter, so why shouldn't it be taken into consideration?
Quote:
we are discussing the fact that Lechmere reasonably passed through the killing fields in the early morning hours and that he had ties to the Stride and Eddowes murder sites.
So would many, many other people living in Spitalfields and its immediate vicinity. In contrast to Cross, however, none of these "others" would necessitate family or work ties to explain their presence at any of the Canonical murder sites, because they're within easy walking distance of one another. That's more than can be said of someone living in Doveton Street, Bethnal Green, who would need such devices as family/work ties to exist in order to bring them into the "killing fields" in the first place.
Quote:
So his links to the murder sites are much clearer than the links DeAngelo had to his crime sites.
That is only definitely known in ONE case; the others are tenuous at best.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #757  
Old 09-10-2018, 04:36 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Of course I understand you. And you are dead wrong. That is where the main lack of understanding enters the picture.

That´s one of the saddest and most hilarious posts I have read on the subject. Really..!
Why? Herlock made a perfectly cogent point.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #758  
Old 09-10-2018, 04:43 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Of course I understand you. And you are dead wrong. That is where the main lack of understanding enters the picture.

Are you seriously suggesting that Nichols lay on the ground, wounds uncovered and bleeding, the abdomen a mess of cuts and the neck a gaping wound - and Paul didn´t se that in the dark? And that he later covered all the wounds in the abdomen but not the one in the neck, when he pulled the clothes down...?

That´s one of the saddest and most hilarious posts I have read on the subject. Really..!
When you so obviously twist the meaning of my post just try and score a point you really do yourself, or your case, no favours.

Of course I wasn’t suggesting that the wounds were on view. I’m suggesting that as Paul did pull down her clothing this has to mean that the clothing was up. Either to her thighs or up near her genitals. It’s therefore not I,possible or unlikely that the killer, either when he’d finished or when he heard someone approach, dropped her dress down which covered the abdominal wounds. In addition, as this was likely to have been his first kill, he might yet have come to the idea of fully displaying the wounds.
You choose to interpret this as Lechmere deliberately trying to hide the wounds from Paul. If this was Lechmere’s reasoning how could he have been anything like confident that Paul wouldnt have checked for a pulse in her neck thus discovering her neck wounds.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #759  
Old 09-10-2018, 04:51 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I am responsible for what I say, but not for what they say and how they present the material. That´s the way it goes.

The "factual inaccuracies" you speak of are either not explained or so very minor that you should be ashamed to mention them. But you are a hard man to shame.

While i am prepared of course to accept that some may have been beyond your control, as the lead participant and the one put forward as the "man with the theory", there is a high degree of collective responsibility for all that is said and portrayed in the production.

The inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the Documentary are certainly not minor, a look at the comments on Facebook after every repeat showing, highlight that people take what is said as being major points in the case.

Why should i be ashamed of truth?


Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 09-10-2018 at 05:00 AM. Reason: p
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #760  
Old 09-10-2018, 05:36 AM
Patrick S Patrick S is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
We of course know nothing of the sort. What we know is that Thomas Cross signed him Cross in the 1861 census, but whether he himself used that name other than in combination with cases of sudden and violent death - that we do not know and ought not pretend as if we did.
Wait... Is this a lesson on how to argue respectfully? Just want to make sure I follow your rules.

To be fair, we know that he WAS called Cross around time... because he was called just that, by the person (likely either Thomas Cross or his mother) who answered the 1861 census.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.