Lechmere the serial killer?

[miss marple]

Why?

Miss Marple

[John Wheat]

All I do say is that for those exploring the single-killer theory, it would be wise to start with the convicted murderer and mutilator who was living in the East End at the time.

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.

[Harry D]

Coming from somebody who promotes a suspect he cannot even show to have been anywhere near any of the murder sites, that is actually rather funny.

Or sad.

It all depends on how you interpret things.

And that is an area where you not only lag helplessly behind, but also take pride in flaunting your shortcomings.

But this is not what we should use the forums for. You´ve had your say, you´ve had your butt thrashed, and I have no intention to waste any more time on you.

That's enough about my butt, thank you.

Once again you fire a parting shot and then try to claim the moral high-ground. I wish I could believe this is your last post on the matter but you have more last posts than Columbo had "one more thing". Too bad your investigative skills aren't on par.

And for the record, I don't promote said suspect, and I certainly don't seek to proselytize with a misinterpretation of the facts. All I do say is that for those exploring the single-killer theory, it would be wise to start with the convicted murderer and mutilator who was living in the East End at the time.

[John Wheat]

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.

You're not wrong Harry.

[Fisherman]

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.

Coming from somebody who promotes a suspect he cannot even show to have been anywhere near any of the murder sites, that is actually rather funny.

Or sad.

It all depends on how you interpret things.

And that is an area where you not only lag helplessly behind, but also take pride in flaunting your shortcomings.

But this is not what we should use the forums for. You´ve had your say, you´ve had your butt thrashed, and I have no intention to waste any more time on you.

[Harry D]

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.

[Fisherman]

And serial killers tend not to be found with the victims, unless they've literally been caught red-handed. It's an instinctive part of survival behaviour to flee when you're faced with danger. Lechmere could've been on his merry way down Buck's Row before Paul met him in the middle of the street. Instead he decided to bluff it out, which must mean he was a psychopath and not an innocent witness.

An epic post!

I did not intend to respond to your antics anymore, but this is an opportunity that I cannot sidestep.

"Serial killers tend not to be found with the victims". Wow. Do singular killers tend to? A real whopper there, Harry!

"It´s an instinctive part of survival behavior to flee when you´re faced with danger." Apparently, you have no idea about how a psychopath works. Not the slightest. It is a verfied and documetned fact that these people lack the startle reflex to a smaller or larger degree - meaning that they will not get scared by sudden surprises. It is equally documented that a psychopath wil not panic when others do. And all you have to say in that context is that it is no proven thing that Lechmere was a psychopath. Pathetic, to say the least.

But there is more: "Instead he decided to bluff it out, which must mean he was a psychopath and not an innocent witness."

Has it occurred to you that an innocent witness would not have anything to bluff about?

It´s rare to see such a rot of a post. Thanks for laying your cards on the table.

And to think, you signed off with the LOL smiley.

It´s you he´s laughing at, Harry. Goodnight.

[Harry D]

I'm not defending Pierre but Lechmere is in no way a viable ripper suspect and none of the arguments for Lechmere being a suspect stack up. All there actually is in the Lechmere theory is that Lechmere found a body so what? Someone had to. The rest of it is bullshit. Having said that it is about time Pierre named his suspect.

And serial killers tend not to be found with the victims, unless they've literally been caught red-handed. It's an instinctive part of survival behaviour to flee when you're faced with danger. Lechmere could've been on his merry way down Buck's Row before Paul met him in the middle of the street. Instead he decided to bluff it out, which must mean he was a psychopath and not an innocent witness.

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;390689]

You have absolutely no idea if lech was the killer or not Pierre.NONE.

And At least he has put forth a viable candidate and argued clearly and concisely why his man is a good suspect, unlike your continued nonsense about an unnamed suspect and all the peripheral crackpot theories you continue to clog these boards with.

It's been about a year now Pierre. Who's your suspect?

Until you name your suspect you have no right to criticize others.

Hi Abby

I'm not defending Pierre but Lechmere is in no way a viable ripper suspect and none of the arguments for Lechmere being a suspect stack up. All there actually is in the Lechmere theory is that Lechmere found a body so what? Someone had to. The rest of it is bullshit. Having said that it is about time Pierre named his suspect.

Cheers John

[barnflatwyngarde]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;390689]

You have absolutely no idea if lech was the killer or not Pierre.NONE.

And At least he has put forth a viable candidate and argued clearly and concisely why his man is a good suspect, unlike your continued nonsense about an unnamed suspect and all the peripheral crackpot theories you continue to clog these boards with.

It's been about a year now Pierre. Who's your suspect?

Until you name your suspect you have no right to criticize others.

In the immortal words of Isaac Hayes, "Damn Right!"

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390681]

Hi Fisherman,

Just because other theories are lousy does not make your hypothesis about Lechmere alright. In fact, he does not work at all as a serial killer. He works only for an hypothesis about one murder. And the factors you are weighing in in that model of yours are not interesting. Let me tell you, and everybody else, why:

You did something years ago. You yourself found a name in a source. The name was Cross. Cross was said to have found a dead woman. Cross himself, in the sources where you found him, was not said to have been found by Paul. According to the papers, Paul said that he saw a man standing where the woman was.

But since you think you have "found" Jack the Ripper, you have imposed that perspective on all the sources for Lechmere. So now we have got minutiae in Buck´s Row, eternal narratives about minutes, where you try with all means to prove that by being "exact" - discussing minutes - you can cross two lines: the line of the serial killer who killed Polly Nicholls and the line of Charles Lechmere passing through Buck´s Row on his way to work.

I can tell you, it does not matter if you are "exact". It does not matter if Charles Lechmere is supposed by you to have been found at the "right" time and place, counted in minutes or even seconds (the "blood evidence") - since there is not one single source implying that Lechmere was at any of the other murder sites, and since there is not one single source implying that Lechmere had a motive, and since there is not one single source explaining why he stopped killing and started again and stopped again.

So minutiae in Buck´s Row is not showing anyone that "The carman is the only suspect who works on investigative grounds.".

Lechmere and the clock are not correlated. Lechmere and any of the other murders are not correlated. Lechmere and the wounds on Polly Nicholls are not correlated. It is a spurious correlation, interpreted by you as a correlation, from the perspective of a journalists finding of an article. It is not a journalist "finding" a killer. And it is not a journalist finding a "serial killer". It is a journalist finding an article and interpreting the narrative as being significant, when it is not.



Lechmere works eminently because he is dead and can not protest. He is an easy target for you. He was on his way to work and found Polly Nichols. But you do not like that. You do all you can to connect an innocent dead man to a whole series of terrible murders. That is what is working eminently, for you.

But for me as an historian, all I could say is that we should write a book about your eminent work so that other will be warned against it. Why? It is not because I dislike you, because I do not. I think you are funny and I think you are a very good example of things going wrong with historical sources. And I admire the hard work you have put into your case of making Lechmere work.

But Lechmere was not the serial killer Jack the Ripper.



What I think you should worry about is accusing a dead man for being Jack the Ripper when he was not Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

You have absolutely no idea if lech was the killer or not Pierre.NONE.

And At least he has put forth a viable candidate and argued clearly and concisely why his man is a good suspect, unlike your continued nonsense about an unnamed suspect and all the peripheral crackpot theories you continue to clog these boards with.

It's been about a year now Pierre. Who's your suspect?

Until you name your suspect you have no right to criticize others.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390680]

Yes, that´s a blessing. The fewest are as unbiased as you.

And of course, if Lechmere was NOT found leaning over the body, but instead a few feet away, that would make him a much less viable suspect.

As for "He had knowledge from working in the meat trade", I don´t think that is said in the documentary at all. If so, that is something that is quite applicable if you want a discussion about "falsehoods".

The carman is the only suspect who works on investigative grounds.

Hi Fisherman,

Just because other theories are lousy does not make your hypothesis about Lechmere alright. In fact, he does not work at all as a serial killer. He works only for an hypothesis about one murder. And the factors you are weighing in in that model of yours are not interesting. Let me tell you, and everybody else, why:

You did something years ago. You yourself found a name in a source. The name was Cross. Cross was said to have found a dead woman. Cross himself, in the sources where you found him, was not said to have been found by Paul. According to the papers, Paul said that he saw a man standing where the woman was.

But since you think you have "found" Jack the Ripper, you have imposed that perspective on all the sources for Lechmere. So now we have got minutiae in Buck´s Row, eternal narratives about minutes, where you try with all means to prove that by being "exact" - discussing minutes - you can cross two lines: the line of the serial killer who killed Polly Nicholls and the line of Charles Lechmere passing through Buck´s Row on his way to work.

I can tell you, it does not matter if you are "exact". It does not matter if Charles Lechmere is supposed by you to have been found at the "right" time and place, counted in minutes or even seconds (the "blood evidence") - since there is not one single source implying that Lechmere was at any of the other murder sites, and since there is not one single source implying that Lechmere had a motive, and since there is not one single source explaining why he stopped killing and started again and stopped again.

So minutiae in Buck´s Row is not showing anyone that "The carman is the only suspect who works on investigative grounds.".

Lechmere and the clock are not correlated. Lechmere and any of the other murders are not correlated. Lechmere and the wounds on Polly Nicholls are not correlated. It is a spurious correlation, interpreted by you as a correlation, from the perspective of a journalists finding of an article. It is not a journalist "finding" a killer. And it is not a journalist finding a "serial killer". It is a journalist finding an article and interpreting the narrative as being significant, when it is not.

And not only that, he works eminently. I think you need to get over that, but I am not holding my breath. In all probability, you will continue to try and smear the theory as best as you can.

Lechmere works eminently because he is dead and can not protest. He is an easy target for you. He was on his way to work and found Polly Nichols. But you do not like that. You do all you can to connect an innocent dead man to a whole series of terrible murders. That is what is working eminently, for you.

But for me as an historian, all I could say is that we should write a book about your eminent work so that other will be warned against it. Why? It is not because I dislike you, because I do not. I think you are funny and I think you are a very good example of things going wrong with historical sources. And I admire the hard work you have put into your case of making Lechmere work.

But Lechmere was not the serial killer Jack the Ripper.

Taking into account how pathetic you efforts in that department are, I am not really all that worried.

What I think you should worry about is accusing a dead man for being Jack the Ripper when he was not Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

It's amazing how many people you encounter online who have been totally hoodwinked by the Channel 5 documentary. "He was found leaning over the body!" "He had knowledge from working in the meat trade!" All falsehoods. Thankfully I'm there to set them straight.

Yes, that´s a blessing. The fewest are as unbiased as you.

And of course, if Lechmere was NOT found leaning over the body, but instead a few feet away, that would make him a much less viable suspect.

As for "He had knowledge from working in the meat trade", I don´t think that is said in the documentary at all. If so, that is something that is quite applicable if you want a discussion about "falsehoods".

The carman is the only suspect who works on investigative grounds. And not only that, he works eminently. I think you need to get over that, but I am not holding my breath. In all probability, you will continue to try and smear the theory as best as you can.

Taking into account how pathetic you efforts in that department are, I am not really all that worried.

You should not expect any answer to your next contribution to the field.

[John Wheat]

It's amazing how many people you encounter online who have been totally hoodwinked by the Channel 5 documentary. "He was found leaning over the body!" "He had knowledge from working in the meat trade!" All falsehoods. Thankfully I'm there to set them straight.

Absolutely Harry

Lechmere found a body he was not found over the body.

Cheers John

[Harry D]

It's amazing how many people you encounter online who have been totally hoodwinked by the Channel 5 documentary. "He was found leaning over the body!" "He had knowledge from working in the meat trade!" All falsehoods. Thankfully I'm there to set them straight.