Lechmere the serial killer?

[Pierre]

Hi,

Let us hypothesize that Lechmere killed Polly Nichols. And let us say, for the simplicity of the hypothesis, that it happened just the way Fisherman wants everyone to believe it happened.

But this one murder is not enough for hypothesizing that Lechmere was a serial killer, at least not for the hypothesis that Lechmere killed Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly. There are differences in the signature between Nichols and Chapman-Eddowes-Kelly, not to mention Stride.

So comparing the signatures is far from enough when we try to answer this question:

What evidence is there that Lechmere killed Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly?

And this question will make us more capable to give the answer for the next question:

Was Lechmere the serial killer in Whitechapel 1888?

Regards, Pierre

[Mayerling]

Hi,

Let us hypothesize that Lechmere killed Polly Nichols. And let us say, for the simplicity of the hypothesis, that it happened just the way Fisherman wants everyone to believe it happened.

But this one murder is not enough for hypothesizing that Lechmere was a serial killer, at least not for the hypothesis that Lechmere killed Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly. There are differences in the signature between Nichols and Chapman-Eddowes-Kelly, not to mention Stride.

So comparing the signatures is far from enough when we try to answer this question:

What evidence is there that Lechmere killed Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly?

And this question will make us more capable to give the answer for the next question:

Was Lechmere the serial killer in Whitechapel 1888?

Regards, Pierre

For a change Pierre I agree with you. There has to be some connection between Lechmere and the other four named victims of the "Canonical Five". Nothing I have been reading has suggested any yet.

We do have several alternatives:

1) Lechmere is only related to the Nichols murder. (Note I did not say was or was not the killer).

2) The Nichols murder may have to be taken out of the "Canonical Five", if Lechmere was only her killer.

3) Somebody has to find the connecting links between Lechmere and the other four of the "Canonical Five". If not under the name "Lechmere" possibly under the name "Cross".

I am remaining neutral on the issue of Lechmere's guilt - although I am fairly sure he just helped find Nichols' body and that was that.

Regards,

Jeff

[David Orsam]

But this one murder is not enough for hypothesizing that Lechmere was a serial killer, at least not for the hypothesis that Lechmere killed Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly. There are differences in the signature between Nichols and Chapman-Eddowes-Kelly, not to mention Stride.

You've already made this post on the forum Pierre. I distinctly recall it because I pointed out in response that if Jack the Ripper murdered the canonical five women then you only need to solve one of the murders and you have found Jack the Ripper. You don't need to prove every single one, assuming the premise I have stated is correct.

Why are you repeating yourself?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;388157]For a change Pierre I agree with you. There has to be some connection between Lechmere and the other four named victims of the "Canonical Five". Nothing I have been reading has suggested any yet.

We do have several alternatives:

1) Lechmere is only related to the Nichols murder. (Note I did not say was or was not the killer).

Hi Jeff,

Yes, that is the hypothesis in this thread. And the advantage of making such an hypothesis is that we get a chance to leave the eternal discussion about the minutiae in Buck´s Row behind us and Fisherman will have to provide the theory with data for the other murders, giving connections to Lechmere. So let´s just say that "we think he killed Nichols". But the rest? They are the left as a big question mark, and he must focus on that, if he wants us to believe in his theory, that is.

2) The Nichols murder may have to be taken out of the "Canonical Five", if Lechmere was only her killer.

That can be a consequence, yes.

3) Somebody has to find the connecting links between Lechmere and the other four of the "Canonical Five". If not under the name "Lechmere" possibly under the name "Cross".

Yes, and there must be some evidence, since he is postulated to be a SERIAL killer. One does not become such a killer without killing more than one.

I am remaining neutral on the issue of Lechmere's guilt - although I am fairly sure he just helped find Nichols' body and that was that.

I see. And I think that the Lechmere hypothesis is at a low difficulty level. It would be very easy to take anyone from the past who found a dead body and start constructing that person as a killer. This means that Fisherman´s theory is of low quality, since he allows a lot of "garbage in" in his theory, i.e. data which have a low significance and represent weak, very weak, indications for Lechmere being a serial killer.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

You've already made this post on the forum Pierre. I distinctly recall it because I pointed out in response that if Jack the Ripper murdered the canonical five women then you only need to solve one of the murders and you have found Jack the Ripper. You don't need to prove every single one, assuming the premise I have stated is correct.

Why are you repeating yourself?

Do not tell me about what points I have made. You are not the patrolman and keeper of order on this forum. Do not tell me what I "need". You know nothing about it and it is not your business. Stop disturbing me when I discuss with others.

[Columbo]

You've already made this post on the forum Pierre. I distinctly recall it because I pointed out in response that if Jack the Ripper murdered the canonical five women then you only need to solve one of the murders and you have found Jack the Ripper. You don't need to prove every single one, assuming the premise I have stated is correct.

Why are you repeating yourself?

I recall it as well. I'm also guilty of repeating myself.

I believe Fisherman has said the connection with the rest of the murders and Lechmere is tenuous at best, even though he does believe Lechmere did those as well as others.

But as there is dispute as to which are victims of Jack the Ripper, solving Nichol's murder does not necessarily solve the others.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Hi,

Let us hypothesize that Lechmere killed Polly Nichols. And let us say, for the simplicity of the hypothesis, that it happened just the way Fisherman wants everyone to believe it happened.

But this one murder is not enough for hypothesizing that Lechmere was a serial killer, at least not for the hypothesis that Lechmere killed Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly. There are differences in the signature between Nichols and Chapman-Eddowes-Kelly, not to mention Stride.

So comparing the signatures is far from enough when we try to answer this question:

What evidence is there that Lechmere killed Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly?

And this question will make us more capable to give the answer for the next question:

Was Lechmere the serial killer in Whitechapel 1888?

Regards, Pierre

None at all, unless you count the route theories put forth.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

Do not tell me about what points I have made. You are not the patrolman and keeper of order on this forum. Do not tell me what I "need". You know nothing about it and it is not your business. Stop disturbing me when I discuss with others.

I wasn't telling YOU what you "need". I meant "you" in the sense of "one".

So I'll repeat the post, changing "you" to "one" if it helps (although it now means a lot of "ones" in there).

You've already made this post on the forum Pierre. I distinctly recall it because I pointed out in response that if Jack the Ripper murdered the canonical five women then one only needs to solve one of the murders and one has found Jack the Ripper. One doesn't need to prove every single one, assuming the premise I have stated is correct.

Now I've explained why I have repeated my post, perhaps you can explain you are repeating yourself?

And just to clarify, if I want to tell you what points you have already made on this forum I am perfectly entitled to do so.

[Columbo]

Do not tell me about what points I have made. You are not the patrolman and keeper of order on this forum. Do not tell me what I "need". You know nothing about it and it is not your business. Stop disturbing me when I discuss with others.

Ladies, Ladies, please! no catfights

Columbo

[Damaso Marte]

The strongest evidence for Nichols's killer also being the killer of the other C5 - or at least Chapman - is the strong similarity between these killings.

There are very few people in the world who think Nichols and Chapman were killed by different hands. In my mind, if you've proven that a specific person killed Nichols or Chapman, you've proven that they've killed the other one too.

[Damaso Marte]

And on top of that, the statement "this suspect can only be tied to one murder scene" seems an odd critique to make on a Ripperology forum. This is Ripperology: the vast majority of our suspects cannot be tied to even a single murder scene!

There is no evidence placing Aaron Kozminski at a single murder scene. There is no evidence placing Severin Koslowski at a single murder scene. There is no evidence placing Montague Druitt at a single murder scene - or even in Whitechapel! Some of our top suspects cannot even be confidently placed on Earth during the fall of 1888, because we're not 100% sure that they existed.

By being definitely present at one of the murder scenes, or even by definitely being present in Whitechapel during the killing spree, Charles Lechmere has more tying him to these murders than almost any other suspect.

[Columbo]

And on top of that, the statement "this suspect can only be tied to one murder scene" seems an odd critique to make on a Ripperology forum. This is Ripperology: the vast majority of our suspects cannot be tied to even a single murder scene!

There is no evidence placing Aaron Kozminski at a single murder scene. There is no evidence placing Severin Koslowski at a single murder scene. There is no evidence placing Montague Druitt at a single murder scene - or even in Whitechapel! Some of our top suspects cannot even be confidently placed on Earth during the fall of 1888, because we're not 100% sure that they existed.

By being definitely present at one of the murder scenes, or even by definitely being present in Whitechapel during the killing spree, Charles Lechmere has more tying him to these murders than almost any other suspect.

That's true and it's been pointed out before. As per your other comment about annie chapman and nichols having the same murderer, they probably did but Stride is debated as a ripper victim along with Mary Kelly. So you have to define who the victims were before you can accuse anyone.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

And on top of that, the statement "this suspect can only be tied to one murder scene" seems an odd critique to make on a Ripperology forum. This is Ripperology: the vast majority of our suspects cannot be tied to even a single murder scene!

We're all waiting for the Great Reveal, Damaso. When Pierre produces a suspect who can be tied to more than one murder scene (albeit probably through metaphorical language or basic misunderstanding).

[John G]

We're all waiting for the Great Reveal, Damaso. When Pierre produces a suspect who can be tied to more than one murder scene (albeit probably through metaphorical language or basic misunderstanding).

Personally, I don't think I can bear the suspense much longer. I await the denouement with bated breath!

In fact, wouldn't it be wonderful if the Great Reveal is disclosed in the form of a metaphysical puzzle? Or then again, perhaps not!

[Elamarna]

Personally, I don't think I can bear the suspense much longer. I await the denouement with bated breath!

In fact, wouldn't it be wonderful if the Great Reveal is disclosed in the form of a metaphysical puzzle? Or then again, perhaps not!

Hi all

Just to clarify the great reveal will be:

1. A police official, ( be that high officer, low position or one assumes someone like a doctor working for the police).

2. This individual is apparently not directly linked to the London police at the time.

3. He appears to be able to spend large amounts of time away from his position, staying in digs, almost in hiding. So is he actually employed at the time?

4. The murders start, stop and then start again for personally reasons.

5. He apparently likes hunting, and has an understanding of Eastern honour punishments.

6. The authorities know who he is, but rather than arrest him, they send him away, because apparently of the reputation and power of two families.

7. They then allow him to return in 89 and start again, and still do nothing.


If you disagree with any of that Pierre, I will be most surprised.


Steve