Lechmere the serial killer?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;390807][QUOTE=Pierre;390806]

Im not sure it's a lie but anyone who thinks Lechmere was the Ripper is a joke.

Says the best informed and most reliable source on these boards. Showīs over, letīs all go home, John Wheat has spoken.

Can we keep the debate level a mile or two higher? No?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390806][QUOTE=Fisherman;390802]

THAT IS ACTUALLY A LIE, FISHERMAN. Why do you lie?

It is easy for anyone to listen to what those two persons say in your so called documentary.

NOWHERE in it does anyone of them say that they "think the killer had been found".

Regards, Pierre

James Scobie said that there was a prima faciae case that suggests that Lechmere was the killer. He also said, in a snippet that did n ot make the docu, that it would be ridiculous to believe in the amount of coincidences required for Lechmere not to have been the killer, or something to that effect.

Andy Griffiths is quoted on the docu as saying that given the extent of the injuries and how fresh they were, they had to have been inflicted when Lechmere was with her. Plus, of course, I have in an earlier post said that Griffiths told me in person that he believed that we had found the right man, but that was off the camera.

So I am telling the truth, and you are falsely accusing me of lying.

But why would it matter anyway? Arenīt we supposed to have fed both Griffiths and Scobie misleading information?

There is a large bunch of morons out on these boards, maybe we can agree on that?

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390806][QUOTE=Fisherman;390802]

THAT IS ACTUALLY A LIE, FISHERMAN. Why do you lie?

It is easy for anyone to listen to what those two persons say in your so called documentary.

NOWHERE in it does anyone of them say that they "think the killer had been found".

Regards, Pierre

Im not sure it's a lie but anyone who thinks Lechmere was the Ripper is a joke.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390802][QUOTE=Varqm;390801]

The interesting thing is that neither Andy Griffiths not James Scobie thought I was in a fantasy world. Contrary to that, they thought the killer had been found.

THAT IS ACTUALLY A LIE, FISHERMAN. Why do you lie?

It is easy for anyone to listen to what those two persons say in your so called documentary.

NOWHERE in it does anyone of them say that they "think the killer had been found".

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Varqm;390801]

"He had nothing to add as to who was the killer..."?

Well, believe it or not, but most killers do not take it upon themselves to break the news to the authorities.

In a perfect world, they would, I know - but there you are.

Then again, in a perfect world, people help out to prop women up if needed. And they donīt even have to be doctors to do that.

As for cooperating with the authorities, do you consider lying to a PC a useful cooperation? Do you think that obscuring your real name is cooperation?

Lechmere may have been a witness only, it cannot be ruled out. But he was no "ordinary witness" by any stretch of the imagination. Ordinary witnesses are witnesses to whom a multitude of anomalies do not cling.

Itīs all about angles, is it not?[/QUOTE

You are in a fantasy world. Witnesses makes mistakes a lot,in lineup identification,color of clothes, time of sighting,even insisting a suspect is the killer - even though later on the suspect is exonerated by DNA,etc.That makes them normal people not liars. It is not like they rehearse/prepare their role as witnesses.We're are dealing with people not some formula.But I'll leave you to your stupor.

The interesting thing is that neither Andy Griffiths not James Scobie thought I was in a fantasy world. Contrary to that, they thought the killer had been found.

That too, I guess, is about angles.

Of course witnesses make mistakes. The fewest of them mistake other names for their own, however.

And when it comes to the lie about the second PC, it would have been Mizen who erred (according to those who find the Lechmere theory a hard pill to swallow) - but that does not add up with his subsequent behavior.

Why you would bring up identification lines and such matters is beyond me, since there was no such thing at all in relation to Lechmere. Maybe you are unaware of that? Itīs hard for me to say, but regardless, the issue does not apply here.

Itīs fine to disagree with me. But before you do so, it would be nice if you made the effort to read up thoroughly on the errand.

An informed view is always better than a standard knee-jerk reaction.

Like yours.

[Varqm]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390795]"He had nothing to add as to who was the killer..."?

Well, believe it or not, but most killers do not take it upon themselves to break the news to the authorities.

In a perfect world, they would, I know - but there you are.

Then again, in a perfect world, people help out to prop women up if needed. And they donīt even have to be doctors to do that.

As for cooperating with the authorities, do you consider lying to a PC a useful cooperation? Do you think that obscuring your real name is cooperation?

Lechmere may have been a witness only, it cannot be ruled out. But he was no "ordinary witness" by any stretch of the imagination. Ordinary witnesses are witnesses to whom a multitude of anomalies do not cling.

Itīs all about angles, is it not?[/QUOTE

You are in a fantasy world. Witnesses makes mistakes a lot,in lineup identification,color of clothes, time of sighting,even insisting a suspect is the killer - even though later on the suspect is exonerated by DNA,etc.That makes them normal people not liars. It is not like they rehearse/prepare their role as witnesses.We're are dealing with people not some formula.But I'll leave you to your stupor.

[Fisherman]

Also I don't take the view that the police were total buffoons. Surely the police looked at Lechmere and came to the conclusion that he was a witness who found a body. Nothing more. What proponents of the Lechmere theory have failed miserably to do is give anything to indicate Lechmere was anything other than a witness.

Cheers John

So tell me, John, if they looked at Lechmere, why is it that they missed out on his real name? The one thing you reach is to show us all how you think that it was patently obvious that the carman needed to be looked into. You basically tell us the very thing you try to avoid telling us - that Lechmere needed to be investigated, since he makes for a very good suspect. You think the police would be total bufoons if they failed to do so.

Thanks for that, John.

[Fisherman]

I stand by my statement. What you fail to grasp is that Lechmere was a witness and nothing indicates anything else including all the bullshit about Lechmere. Bury on the other hand is a proven violent mutilator and murderer.

Cheers John

It says a lot about you when you turn to terms like "bullshit". I am not surprised in any way - a professed low level of understanding combined with a lacking will to learn makes for a pedagogic background to explain things.

You are welcome to stand by your statement, however. You are even welcome to shout it in the streets and squares. It remains wrong just the same.

I donīt "fail to grasp" that Lechmere was a witness. I know he was a witness - he testified in that capacity at the inquest.
That, however, does not mean that he could not have been the killer.

Somebody seems to have failed to grasp that, however.

Bury, on the other hand, tells us that the police did not have any caserelated suspect at the time. Therefore they did exactly what I keep telling you the police does: they go looking for other violent men, and try to eliminate them from the investigation.
Just like they did with Bury. He was a domestic strangling killer, he did not cut throats and he did not obtain organs from his victim (who was his own wife). And the police decided he was not their man.

[John Wheat]

Also I don't take the view that the police were total buffoons. Surely the police looked at Lechmere and came to the conclusion that he was a witness who found a body. Nothing more. What proponents of the Lechmere theory have failed miserably to do is give anything to indicate Lechmere was anything other than a witness.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

Men with a record of knife violence against women would be secondary to anybody conducting an investigation. If no other viable suspect with genuine ties to the murder spots could be identified, they would come into play, otherwise they would not.

That has not changed since the last time I told it to you. And - surprise, surprise - nor will it do so in days to come.

If we asked the question "Who is more likely to commit a violent knife deed, William Henry Bury or somebody who has no known record of violence?", then Bury would get the vote.

But when we look at a specific crime, Bury only becomes of interest when we can eliminate all the people who we know were involved at the crime scene. We donīt treat Bury as if we knew that he was there - but if no genuine suspect can be pointed to, we may make the assumption that Bury COULD have been there, and then we need to prove that he was until he can become a suspect.

It really is no harder than that.

I stand by my statement. What you fail to grasp is that Lechmere was a witness and nothing indicates anything else including all the bullshit about Lechmere. Bury on the other hand is a proven violent mutilator and murderer.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Although we cannot eliminate Cross totally 100% because we do not know what he was doing before Paul saw him, I agree. An ordinary witness.He had nothing to add as to who was the killer and he could not have helped Mary - he was not a doctor.The least he could have done was cooperate with authorities and he did like the overwhelming majority of witnesses - professional and not, mistakes and all.

"He had nothing to add as to who was the killer..."?

Well, believe it or not, but most killers do not take it upon themselves to break the news to the authorities.

In a perfect world, they would, I know - but there you are.

Then again, in a perfect world, people help out to prop women up if needed. And they donīt even have to be doctors to do that.

As for cooperating with the authorities, do you consider lying to a PC a useful cooperation? Do you think that obscuring your real name is cooperation?

Lechmere may have been a witness only, it cannot be ruled out. But he was no "ordinary witness" by any stretch of the imagination. Ordinary witnesses are witnesses to whom a multitude of anomalies do not cling.

Itīs all about angles, is it not?

[Fisherman]

No surely a random witness would be the place to start. Not a convicted murderer and mutilator who was living in the East End at the time with his prostitute wife. And who fled shortly after Mary Kelly's death. No surely a random witness is much more likely to be the Ripper.

Men with a record of knife violence against women would be secondary to anybody conducting an investigation. If no other viable suspect with genuine ties to the murder spots could be identified, they would come into play, otherwise they would not.

That has not changed since the last time I told it to you. And - surprise, surprise - nor will it do so in days to come.

If we asked the question "Who is more likely to commit a violent knife deed, William Henry Bury or somebody who has no known record of violence?", then Bury would get the vote.

But when we look at a specific crime, Bury only becomes of interest when we can eliminate all the people who we know were involved at the crime scene. We donīt treat Bury as if we knew that he was there - but if no genuine suspect can be pointed to, we may make the assumption that Bury COULD have been there, and then we need to prove that he was until he can become a suspect.

It really is no harder than that.

[Varqm]

Scoff all you want, Fish. You're the one who's overblown an innocent bystander into the hall of shame of Ripper suspects. You have nothing, sir.

Although we cannot eliminate Cross totally 100% because we do not know what he was doing before Paul saw him, I agree. An ordinary witness.He had nothing to add as to who was the killer and he could not have helped Mary - he was not a doctor.The least he could have done was cooperate with authorities and he did like the overwhelming majority of witnesses - professional and not, mistakes and all.

[Henry Flower]

Pierre. You are not a historian.

Pierre: I take it your suspect was found not standing alongside just one freshly bleeding victim, but all five? Congratulations - now your suspect is infinitely more viable than Cross.

Again, bravo Pierre, for all the effort you put into imitating a historian, for authoritatively telling everyone else they have blundered with the sources, and for telling us literally nothing concrete, testable, or debatable about your mythical suspect.

[miss marple]

Just realised your being ironic