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

[Billiou]

I would just like to point out that the documentary was re-aired again recently in Australia on our SBS channel.
It went under "The Missing Evidence" series.
This series also includes subjects such as:
The Death of Marilyn Monroe
9/11 Secret Explosions In The Tower
The Loch Ness Monster
The Nevada Triangle
Big Foot

Cheers,
Bill

[Pierre]

I would just like to point out that the documentary was re-aired again recently in Australia on our SBS channel.
It went under "The Missing Evidence" series.
This series also includes subjects such as:
The Death of Marilyn Monroe
9/11 Secret Explosions In The Tower
The Loch Ness Monster
The Nevada Triangle
Big Foot

Cheers,
Bill

The title is very telling.

Regards, Pierre

[Geddy2112]

The title is very telling.

??????

[Pcdunn]

??????

I think Pierre means "the missing evidence" in the Lechmere theory, Geddy.

[Geddy2112]

I think Pierre means "the missing evidence" in the Lechmere theory, Geddy.

*crawls back under rock*

[Harry D]

Has Christer Holmgren discovered the killer's identity?

Spoilers:


















































































































































No.

[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.

[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.

[Pierre]

??????

"The Missing Evidence".

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

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

*crawls back under rock*

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

Best wishes, 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]

[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]

Garbage in - garbage out.

Still, you tried!

[John Wheat]

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

[Pierre]

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

I think that is well put.