Lechmere the serial killer?

[Dane_F]

GUT. You know nothing about how busy I am at work. The JtR-case is not my first priority. And I have no specific personal interest in it. For me Jack the Ripper is just a serial killer in the past. But naturally I will not spend time on this if I donīt have to. So I would like to get rid of the case as soon as possible. But given what I must do, we will have to wait a few months before I can tell you any news. And of course we will have to discuss - together - how such news should be reported to everyone.

Kind regards, Pierre

For someone so busy you have ample time to post pages of text and even start new threads here.

The fact you are well over 2000 posts in less than a year would indicate you actually do have quite a bit of a personal interest in the case. The fact you are so interested in refuting the theory on Lechmere instead of doing the needed research also lends credence to this view.

I'm always reading here but just find little reason to delve into the bickering now instead spending my time digging for the interesting nuggets of information, but I thought this post especially humorous. For that I must congratulate you, it takes a bit for me to post now-a-days.

[harry]

Why hypothesize? One shouldn't try to change the information that is already there,and it would be impossible to show how many persons could be implicated simply on account of being familiar with either the victims or the scenes of their deaths.

[John Wheat]

What the hail--since I'm about to get banned, anyway, might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. John, just to prove to you I am a fair-minded gal, I did a search on the smart threads you might have started up. "Jack an alcoholic?" looked liked there might be plenty of food...er, drink...for thought there. so I gave it a shot. Here is a quote from John Wheat:



Brilliant! Yes, John, the deranged killer could certainly have done a better job when all is said and done. Neatness counts. Now, having imbibed of your wisdom, I find I have a hangover. Done with him.

Considering a lot of serial killers have drink problems and I may well be right what's wrong with my assertion Jack would have been a functioning alcoholic etc.

[Henry Flower]

I have started up threads with smart titles. Do your research.

John, you might find the following procedure useful:

A) Find a reliable sane adult, with friends, maybe a job, who doesn't still live in mummy and daddy's house

B) Ask them to read the comment I've quoted above

C) When they've finished laughing, ask them whether or not someone who wasn't a total douchebag would write such a thing

You're welcome

[John G]

GUT. You know nothing about how busy I am at work. The JtR-case is not my first priority. And I have no specific personal interest in it. For me Jack the Ripper is just a serial killer in the past. But naturally I will not spend time on this if I donīt have to. So I would like to get rid of the case as soon as possible. But given what I must do, we will have to wait a few months before I can tell you any news. And of course we will have to discuss - together - how such news should be reported to everyone.

Kind regards, Pierre

"As soon as possible"? I'm assuming this statement is a typographical error, particularly as, to my mind, you give every impression of having virtually abandoned your theory/suspect.

[Pierre]

For someone so busy you have ample time to post pages of text and even start new threads here.

The fact you are well over 2000 posts in less than a year would indicate you actually do have quite a bit of a personal interest in the case. The fact you are so interested in refuting the theory on Lechmere instead of doing the needed research also lends credence to this view.

I'm always reading here but just find little reason to delve into the bickering now instead spending my time digging for the interesting nuggets of information, but I thought this post especially humorous. For that I must congratulate you, it takes a bit for me to post now-a-days.

Thanks, Dane F.

Best wishes, Pierre

[wigngown]

Touché.

[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.

[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

[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, thatīs 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 donīt 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.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390680]

Yes, thatīs 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 donīt 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 Buckīs 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 Buckīs 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 Buckīs 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

[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 Buckīs 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 Buckīs 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 Buckīs 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.

[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!"

[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

[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.