Lechmere the serial killer?

[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.

[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]

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[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?

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390810][QUOTE=John Wheat;390807]

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?

I think I've been quite restrained. As you keep going on about police procedure is to clear those in the area first thus the police of the time would so obviously have looked at Lechmere and cleared him. You can't have it both ways.

[John Wheat]

I'm starting to lose faith in Scobie and Gtiffiths. Solicitors aren't exactly infallible. If they think Lechmere was the Ripper then there either ill informed or stupid.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;390814][QUOTE=Fisherman;390810]

I think I've been quite restrained. As you keep going on about police procedure is to clear those in the area first thus the police of the time would so obviously have looked at Lechmere and cleared him. You can't have it both ways.

I am talking about the police procedure of today, John. Quite obviously, the victorian police did not do things the same way. So yes, I CAN have it both ways:
The victorian police missed out where todays police forces would in all probability never miss out.

[Fisherman]

I'm starting to lose faith in Scobie and Gtiffiths. Solicitors aren't exactly infallible. If they think Lechmere was the Ripper then there either ill informed or stupid.

"Starting to loose faith"?

Thatīs funny, John. Really funny.

In the choice between them and you when it comes to who is ill informed or the "S-word", Iīm afraid you are toast.

[John Wheat]

"Starting to loose faith"?

Thatīs funny, John. Really funny.

In the choice between them and you when it comes to who is ill informed or the "S-word", Iīm afraid you are toast.

Lets be honest the documentary on Lechmere was appalling. It was poorly filmed, poorly edited and the content was utter tosh. Everyone involved including your beloved James and Scobie should be ashamed of themselves. I therefore conclude that the opinions of any one involved in that documentary are worthless.

[Fisherman]

Lets be honest the documentary on Lechmere was appalling. It was poorly filmed, poorly edited and the content was utter tosh. Everyone involved including your beloved James and Scobie should be ashamed of themselves. I therefore conclude that the opinions of any one involved in that documentary are worthless.

Thatīs probably why the ones who commented on it were all very positive and said it was one of the best documentaries on the Ripper they had ever seen, then. You are welcome to look at the thread and see for yourself. Hereīs a few examples:

Pinkmoon: Just watched it very interesting....

Mr Barnett: Enjoyed it enormously. Just about to watch it again.

Tom Wescott: That's a step up from most Ripper docs.

Bridewell: Thanks, Christer, for an interesting programme.

Plus, of course, the tv viewers have rated the docu highly.

Thanks for flaunting your poor judgment!

[Elamarna]

Thatīs probably why the ones who commented on it were all very positive and said it was one of the best documentaries on the Ripper they had ever seen, then. You are welcome to look at the thread and see for yourself. Hereīs a few examples:

Pinkmoon: Just watched it very interesting....

Mr Barnett: Enjoyed it enormously. Just about to watch it again.

Tom Wescott: That's a step up from most Ripper docs.

Bridewell: Thanks, Christer, for an interesting programme.

Plus, of course, the tv viewers have rated the docu highly.

Thanks for flaunting your poor judgment!

Dear Fisherman,

May I add that while I do not agree with your conclusions, or all that was in the docu, it was far better than most on the Ripper.


I would however suggest that quoting the views of the general tv viewer is not of much use, given that most still seem to favour the "Final Solution" solution.


best regards

Steve

[Fisherman]

Dear Fisherman,

May I add that while I do not agree with your conclusions, or all that was in the docu, it was far better than most on the Ripper.


I would however suggest that quoting the views of the general tv viewer is not of much use, given that most still seem to favour the "Final Solution" solution.


best regards

Steve

Steve!

What the esteemed John Wheat wrote was amongst other things that the docu was poorly filmed and edited, and in that context, I believe that the judgment of the general tv viewer carries weight.

John seems to work to an agenda based on personal bitterness, owing to how I have pointed out to him that William Bury is at best a secondary figure in the Ripper errand, whereas Lechmere remains a real suspect, knit firmly to the case. In that context, I ascribe very little value to his views, but I find it a bit annoying when he tries to peddle his ignorance as something of value out here.

Many thanks for your kind words about the docu, by the way. Personally, I think Blink Films made a very good job, and I was thoroughly impressed with the level of research and knowledge they put into the documentary. That too is why I detest John Wheats vomiting over it -I became personal friends with the film crew, and I will not stand silently by when their efforts are tarnished by somebody who has - to the best of my knowledge - contributed nothing at all to the field of Ripperology.