Some questions re. Lechmere

[Columbo]

Nice to see, like most threads on this forum, that it has run off without addressing my initial questions.

The intent of my original post was to ask about the documentary and what it presented. Not about theories, speculations, debates, arguments, just about what was presented in the documentary and my questions in post #5.

Now, if everyone is happy to just ignore it and debate about other things then I will simply take my bat and go play somewhere else....

Hi Billiou

I thought your questions were pretty well covered in the first few pages. Unfortunately it is the norm for a thread to go off completely in another direction.

Let's see if we can get back on track.

Columbo

[Billiou]

The documentary

Nice to see, like most threads on this forum, that it has run off without addressing my initial questions.

The intent of my original post was to ask about the documentary and what it presented. Not about theories, speculations, debates, arguments, just about what was presented in the documentary and my questions in post #5.

Now, if everyone is happy to just ignore it and debate about other things then I will simply take my bat and go play somewhere else....

[GUT]

Then there should not be any problem in you agreeing with everything I've said John.

And I was really responding to comments that one needs to prove that Lechmere murdered every victim before drawing any conclusions. Thus, for example, Pierre said:

"Look for historical data, analyse them and validate them and see if they indicate that Lechmere did one, two, three or more murders and dismemberments."

Based on the premise that I have mentioned, you don't need to do this. If Jack the Ripper murdered all the C5, then finding the murderer of Mary Ann Nichols is enough to find Jack the Ripper.

People seem to be missing the two ifs..

IF JTR killed all five

And

If Crossmere killed one..

Not that hard really.

[David Orsam]

An interesting premise David. But Lechmere can't be proven to have murdered any of the C5.

Then there should not be any problem in you agreeing with everything I've said John.

And I was really responding to comments that one needs to prove that Lechmere murdered every victim before drawing any conclusions. Thus, for example, Pierre said:

"Look for historical data, analyse them and validate them and see if they indicate that Lechmere did one, two, three or more murders and dismemberments."

Based on the premise that I have mentioned, you don't need to do this. If Jack the Ripper murdered all the C5, then finding the murderer of Mary Ann Nichols is enough to find Jack the Ripper.

[John Wheat]

Just popping in to this thread to say that if Jack the Ripper was a serial killer who murdered all of the five canonical victims then (based on that premise) you only need to prove that an individual murdered one of those canonical victims and you have found Jack the Ripper. You don't need proof for the other four, as long as there is no reason why the individual could not have murdered any of them.

An interesting premise David. But Lechmere can't be proven to have murdered any of the C5. He is merely a man who found a body.

Cheers John

[David Orsam]

Hey David,

Ok this sounds like fun. So we are excluding all victims before Polly Nichols correct?

I haven't excluded any victims Columbo. I have said that if the five canonical victims were all murdered by Jack the Ripper then you only need to solve one of those murders and you have solved all five.

[CertainSum1]

Can anyone answer me how we know Lechmere worked for Pickfords for 20 years? Is it simply his own one-time statement at the inquest?

[Columbo]

Although, of course, if you are someone like Pierre who believes that all five canonical murders were Ripper murders it's illogical, and downright obtuse, to challenge the idea that the murderer of Mary Ann Nichols was Jack the Ripper (who murdered all the other four). Thus, to repeat, if JTR was responsible for the C5, all we need to do is identify the murderer of one of the victims and we have found Jack the Ripper.

Hey David,

Ok this sounds like fun. So we are excluding all victims before Polly Nichols correct? Do you have any other parameters for your premise we should be aware of?

Columbo

[David Orsam]

Yes, thank you Jerry, that's the point. And to prevent any misunderstanding: the premise is that all five were murdered by Jack the Ripper (as opposed to a belief that they were).

Although, of course, if you are someone like Pierre who believes that all five canonical murders were Ripper murders it's illogical, and downright obtuse, to challenge the idea that the murderer of Mary Ann Nichols was Jack the Ripper (who murdered all the other four). Thus, to repeat, if JTR was responsible for the C5, all we need to do is identify the murderer of one of the victims and we have found Jack the Ripper.

[David Orsam]

Yes, based on the premise David set. That is: The belief that all five were murdered by the same hand.

Yes, thank you Jerry, that's the point. And to prevent any misunderstanding: the premise is that all five were murdered by Jack the Ripper (as opposed to a belief that they were).

[jerryd]

So be ware if you murder a person: if the judge thinks there is a serial killer on the loose, YOU will be charged for not just the one murder you committed but for a whole set of murders.

Pierre

Yes, based on the premise David set. That is: The belief that all five were murdered by the same hand.

[David Orsam]

So be ware if you murder a person: if the judge thinks there is a serial killer on the loose, YOU will be charged for not just the one murder you committed but for a whole set of murders.

I knew that someone would fail to grasp premise of my post and it's no surprise that it's you Pierre.

Just read my post properly and all will become clear.

[Pierre]

Just popping in to this thread to say that if Jack the Ripper was a serial killer who murdered all of the five canonical victims then (based on that premise) you only need to prove that an individual murdered one of those canonical victims and you have found Jack the Ripper. You don't need proof for the other four, as long as there is no reason why the individual could not have murdered any of them.

So be ware if you murder a person: if the judge thinks there is a serial killer on the loose, YOU will be charged for not just the one murder you committed but for a whole set of murders.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Just popping in to this thread to say that if Jack the Ripper was a serial killer who murdered all of the five canonical victims then (based on that premise) you only need to prove that an individual murdered one of those canonical victims and you have found Jack the Ripper. You don't need proof for the other four, as long as there is no reason why the individual could not have murdered any of them.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;380789]

Allow me to sum thing up, for my edification.

It's not likely that Jack the Ripper STOPPED killing if he were alive and free, and we know that Lechmere lived until 1920.....so we know that Lechmere stopped being Jack and became the Torso Killer. So, who did he become after? Can we get a full list of Lechmere's victims so that we may flesh out "OUR" theory?

This is starting to sound like, "We know that Lechmere was a psychopath because Jack the Ripper HAD to have been psychopath. And since Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, well, we know he was a psychopath.

Yes, a world of tautologies.

Regards, Pierre