Documentary: Jack The Ripper: Has Christer Holmgren discovered the killer's identity?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;385903]

Aha.

So he was NOT found alone with a freshly killed victin - that is not real?

And Nichols was NOT bleeding from the neck in her wound for at least five or six minutes - that is not real either?

And the carman did NOT use a name ho otherwise did not use in official circumstances when speaking to the police - that is wrong, and something I have gotten wrong?

And Mizen did NOT testify to the effect that Lechmere had mislead him? That is "not real"?

Nor did the carman have a working route that took him through the area where four out of six victims were killed? That is a figment of my imagination, it is "not real"?

Why do you pretend not to know the difference between historically established facts and your interpretation of historically established facts?

Kind regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

Found alone with a freshly killed victim - extremely weak?

Blood running from the neck at least five or six minutes after Lechmere left the body - extremely weak?

Changing your name when speaking to the police - extremly weak?

Implicated by a serving PC as having mislead him - extremely weak?

Having had a working route that fits with four out of six murders, geographically and timewise - extremely weak?

May I remind you, John, that your man cannot be proven to have been anywhere near any of the murder sites, there is no physical evidence even remotely pointing to him etcetera - that is what an extremely weak case looks like.

Simply disliking not being able to keep up should not encourage you to try and diminish the very real factors pointing to Lechmere. Try establishing a single fact about Bury that ties him to the case in any manner at all, and you may have something to speak up about.

May, that is - it depends.

Yes it's all extremely weak. Lechmere found a body so what? Lechmere gave a name that could easily be traced to him. No big deal either. Find something concrete and I'll give a ****.

[Fisherman]

They are not "real" factors. They are your factors.

Aha.

So he was NOT found alone with a freshly killed victim - that is not real?

And Nichols was NOT bleeding from the neck in her wound for at least five or six minutes - that is not real either?

And the carman did NOT use a name he otherwise did not use in official circumstances when speaking to the police - that is wrong, and something I have gotten wrong?

And Mizen did NOT testify to the effect that Lechmere had mislead him? That is "not real"?

Nor did the carman have a working route that took him through the area where four out of six victims were killed? That is a figment of my imagination, it is "not real"?

I suddenly remember why I avoid you, Pierre. It is because you lack knowledge. You do not understand the simplest of things, you are poorly read up and you are trying to disguise all of this behind a veil of claimed historical righteousness.

Pathetic is what it is. And as full of falsities as it is shameful. I have wasted enough time on you, and I only have myself to blame for it. But no more - goodbye.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;385898]

Found alone with a freshly killed victim - extremely weak?

Of course he was found alone. He was alone on his way to work. Paul was also on his way to work and walked alone on the same street.

That is no crime.

Blood running from the neck at least five or six minutes after Lechmere left the body - extremely weak?

Who was the policeman seen by Lechmere?

Changing your name when speaking to the police - extremly weak?

You mean using a secondary name.

There are more hypotheses for why he used the name Cross. The worst one would be that he was a killer. You picked the worst one.

Implicated by a serving PC as having mislead him - extremely weak?

Avoiding to use his primary name in court. Avoiding to give the same statement as on the night in Buckīs Row.

No indications of being a serial killer. On the contrary. If he was, he should have made the same statements in court to avoid suspicion.

Having had a working route that fits with four out of six murders, geographically and timewise - extremely weak?

A lot of people used those streets. Were they all serial killers? If they were, they were smarter than Lechmere. They stayed away from the police.

May I remind you, John, that your man cannot be proven to have been anywhere near any of the murder sites, there is no physical evidence even remotely pointing to him etcetera - that is what an extremely weak case looks like.

Yes, I agree. Such an approach is weak.

Simply disliking not being able to keep up should not encourage you to try and diminish the very real factors pointing to Lechmere.

They are not "real" factors. They are your factors.

Try establishing a single fact about Bury that ties him to the case in any manner at all, and you may have something to speak up about.

I agree.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

I think that is well put.

Youīd wish.

[Fisherman]

The circumstantial evidence for Lechmere being the Ripper is extremely weak at best.

Found alone with a freshly killed victim - extremely weak?

Blood running from the neck at least five or six minutes after Lechmere left the body - extremely weak?

Changing your name when speaking to the police - extremly weak?

Implicated by a serving PC as having mislead him - extremely weak?

Having had a working route that fits with four out of six murders, geographically and timewise - extremely weak?

May I remind you, John, that your man cannot be proven to have been anywhere near any of the murder sites, there is no physical evidence even remotely pointing to him etcetera - that is what an extremely weak case looks like.

Simply disliking not being able to keep up should not encourage you to try and diminish the very real factors pointing to Lechmere. Try establishing a single fact about Bury that ties him to the case in any manner at all, and you may have something to speak up about.

May, that is - it depends.

[Pierre]

The circumstantial evidence for Lechmere being the Ripper is extremely weak at best.

I think that is well put.

[John Wheat]

The circumstantial evidence for Lechmere being the Ripper is extremely weak at best.

[Fisherman]

Garbage in - garbage out.

Still, you tried!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;385867]

Itīs simple - I was not the one finding the killerīs identity.

You mean that you were not the one who found out that Lechmere was called Cross when he grew up.

Instead Michael Connor and Derek Osborne were the pioneers.

Edward Stow has been the most intrumental man in researching Lechmere, and I would suggest that he knows more about the Lechmeres than any living soul on this planet.

There is a concept, with all due respect now, within sociology. It is called "garbage in, garbage out". It means that if you put some irrelevant variables into the equation, or if you use irrelevant data, you get irrelevant results.

So Fisherman, why all those years of searching for relevant data, constantly finding irrelevant data and building the results on that?

Mind you, I do not say that your work has been meaningless. But for finding Jack the Ripper it has.

I have made my own contributions, but I was not the first nor the most thorough researcher of the carman.

One can dig very deep into the rubbish bin (irrelevant archive) and find a lot of anecdotic things. Then one must start to argue that they are "interesting". The more one digs, the more one has put effort into the job, and the more one must argue for itīs meaningfulness.

But the ID is sound enough, and there can be littel doubt - but much quibble - about Lechmere being the Ripper. The case cannot be proven concusively as it stands, but realistically, itīs game over.

? Oh. Now I feel very embarrassed. I am sorry for saying that. But desperately trying to give the things found in the rubbish bin some value, however thorough the work was done, and given that the "researcher" was a good, honest man, I always feel embarrassed when I see that type of behaviour. It doesnīt help being a sociologist.

Since the Ripper and the Thams Torso killer were also one and the same man, the only reasonable conclusion is that Charles Lechmere was also guilty of the torso murders, beginning killing at the very latest in 1873.

You know what, Fisherman. I can probably find some other murders done in the same decades. Perhaps you can accuse Mr Lechmere for having done those too.

It is great, isnīt it? The rubbish bin gives the material, one builds a theory on it, and then, in the end, the very person believed to be Jack the Ripper becomes the rubbish bin. Garbage in - garbage out.

There you are Billiou - thanks for asking. Now itīs up to you to decide for yourself whether I am right or wrong.

So how does one "decide" on that? One could start off with reading these assumptions. Enjoy!:

1. Lechmere found a dead body on his way to work.
2. Lechmere used his second name in the courtroom.
3. Lechmere has no connection to the murders of Chapman, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly. Connection = evidence from the murder sites.
4. Lechmere has no connection to the dismemberment cases. Connection = Evidence from the murder sites.
5. There are no sources for Lechmere having a clear motive.
6. There is no source giving a reason for Lechmere having started to murder women.
7. There is no source giving a reason for Lechmere having stopped to murder women.
8. There is no source giving a reason for thinking that the police suspected Lechmere.
9. There are no sources for Jack the Ripper being Lechmere!
10. There are no sources for Jack the Ripper having had common problems with Lechmere!
11. There are no sources for Lechmere having produced any writings to the papers or to the police!
12. There are no points in the timeline of Lechmereīs life corresponding to the dates of the murders!
13. There is no source pointing to Lechmere having confessed to being Jack the Ripper!

Do you see the underscores? These criteria are met in some other research.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

"The Missing Evidence".

There is no evidence for Lechmere being Jack the Ripper. The evidence is missing.

Regards, Pierre

Wrong, of course - there is a lot of evidence, circumstantial such. Or do you deny that, Pierre?

It also applies that there is more evidence for the carman than for any other suspect in the Ripper case. Or do you deny that, Pierre?

Itīs a hard pill to swallow, I know.

[Pierre]

*crawls back under rock*

Do come out again! I like a lot of question marks!

Best wishes, Pierre

[Pierre]

??????

"The Missing Evidence".

There is no evidence for Lechmere being Jack the Ripper. The evidence is missing.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Itīs simple - I was not the one finding the killerīs identity.

Instead Michael Connor and Derek Osborne were the pioneers.

Edward Stow has been the most intrumental man in researching Lechmere, and I would suggest that he knows more about the Lechmeres than any living soul on this planet.

I have made my own contributions, but I was not the first nor the most thorough researcher of the carman.

But the ID is sound enough, and there can be littel doubt - but much quibble - about Lechmere being the Ripper. The case cannot be proven concusively as it stands, but realistically, itīs game over.

Since the Ripper and the Thams Torso killer were also one and the same man, the only reasonable conclusion is that Charles Lechmere was also guilty of the torso murders, beginning killing at the very latest in 1873.

There you are Billiou - thanks for asking. Now itīs up to you to decide for yourself whether I am right or wrong.

[Pcdunn]

Good move, Constable

*crawls back under rock*

Keep your helmet on at all times and your head down, and you'll do just fine around here.