Lechmere the serial killer?

[Henry Flower]

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).

Indeed. Given that Pierre thinks he is on the verge of revealing the identity of the Ripper, why is he obsessively wasting his time continually trying to discredit Fisherman's theory? Why not devote the time instead to finishing his own research and revealing to the world the killer's name? Along with concrete evidence placing him at all five crime scenes at the times the crimes were committed?

The answer of course is that he is playing a tedious game and probably has far less going for his own theory, with its references to Hilliard paintings found in the positioning of MJK's corpse, than Fisherman does for his, hence his obsessive attempts to discredit the Lechmere idea.

Oh - and new forum rules guys: Pierre is allowed to obsessively attack Fisherman's ideas on a public forum, but David is NOT allowed to respond. Pierre makes the rules now.

Pierre, get over yourself, you're not in charge here.

[GUT]

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

That's so true.

Then you need to tie someone to each scene.

Guess that's why this is not mystery that is unlikely to ever be solved.

[Pcdunn]

That's so true.

Then you need to tie someone to each scene.

Guess that's why this is not mystery that is unlikely to ever be solved.

NOT unlikely to be solved? So it will get solved eventually, Gutster? How's that?

[Columbo]

NOT unlikely to be solved? So it will get solved eventually, Gutster? How's that?

It's not solved? Are you saying Walter Sickert didn't do it?

Columbo

[GUT]

NOT unlikely to be solved? So it will get solved eventually, Gutster? How's that?

Not should have been an, bloody crook eyes and auto correct.

[GUT]

Indeed. Given that Pierre thinks he is on the verge of revealing the identity of the Ripper, why is he obsessively wasting his time continually trying to discredit Fisherman's theory? Why not devote the time instead to finishing his own research and revealing to the world the killer's name? Along with concrete evidence placing him at all five crime scenes at the times the crimes were committed?

The answer of course is that he is playing a tedious game and probably has far less going for his own theory, with its references to Hilliard paintings found in the positioning of MJK's corpse, than Fisherman does for his, hence his obsessive attempts to discredit the Lechmere idea.

Oh - and new forum rules guys: Pierre is allowed to obsessively attack Fisherman's ideas on a public forum, but David is NOT allowed to respond. Pierre makes the rules now.

Pierre, get over yourself, you're not in charge here.

Pierre has been telling everyone how to do things, including how to think, from the moment he arrived on the scene.

Remember he has after all, bar one piece of data (that being in his pseudo scientist days) solved it. Strange how long that last bit of data has taken.

[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.

Sorry for the late reply on this.

Kosminski and Druitt were mentioned as suspects by contemporaries so they are legitimate suspects, as is Tumblety. James Kelly was at least sought for questioning, so we have contemporary suspects that cannot (as far as our knowledge and what remains of the files) be tied to a murder scene.

Most murderers are not tied to a crime scene visually like Lechmere but through other means (DNA, fingerprints etc) that were not available in 1888 as we all know.

But let's be fair. As I've stated a dozen times before, this is a very, very interesting theory but there is no real evidence to accuse Lechmere of anything other than he found the body. If Paul had found it we would be scrutinizing him.

Columbo

[GUT]

Sorry for the late reply on this.

Kosminski and Druitt were mentioned as suspects by contemporaries so they are legitimate suspects, as is Tumblety. James Kelly was at least sought for questioning, so we have contemporary suspects that cannot (as far as our knowledge and what remains of the files) be tied to a murder scene.

Most murderers are not tied to a crime scene visually like Lechmere but through other means (DNA, fingerprints etc) that were not available in 1888 as we all know.

But let's be fair. As I've stated a dozen times before, this is a very, very interesting theory but there is no real evidence to accuse Lechmere of anything other than he found the body. If Paul had found it we would be scrutinizing him.

Columbo

True on all counts.

[David Orsam]

Given that Pierre thinks he is on the verge of revealing the identity of the Ripper, why is he obsessively wasting his time continually trying to discredit Fisherman's theory?

It's a funny thing. I had thought that Pierre's obsession with Fisherman's theory was that it tied in with his own theory in that Lechmere had seen a policeman murdering Nichols so that when he told Mizen he was "wanted by a policeman" he was giving him a coded message that it was a policeman wot done it but he was otherwise too scared to say anything.

But he seems to have abandoned this now and thinks that Lechmere's mention of a policeman to Mizen was because he had heard the distinctive footsteps of a police officer (PC Neil) walking towards Bucks Row and Mizen misunderstood what he was telling him about this. And that doesn't seem to help him with his own theory.

[Henry Flower]

It's a funny thing. I had thought that Pierre's obsession with Fisherman's theory was that it tied in with his own theory in that Lechmere had seen a policeman murdering Nichols so that when he told Mizen he was "wanted by a policeman" he was giving him a coded message that it was a policeman wot done it but he was otherwise too scared to say anything.

But he seems to have abandoned this now and thinks that Lechmere's mention of a policeman to Mizen was because he had heard the distinctive footsteps of a police officer (PC Neil) walking towards Bucks Row and Mizen misunderstood what he was telling him about this. And that doesn't seem to help him with his own theory.

David, you don't need my advice, but do you really think there is anything positive to be gleaned from attempting to divine the thoughts or motives of a joker/great scholar like Pierre?

[Pierre]

Pierre has been telling everyone how to do things, including how to think, from the moment he arrived on the scene.

Remember he has after all, bar one piece of data (that being in his pseudo scientist days) solved it. Strange how long that last bit of data has taken.

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

[Henry Flower]

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

Sorry to hear you're so busy Pierre. But school holidays are just around the corner so I presume you'll have more time to crack the case before you start college.

[John Wheat]

Sorry to hear you're so busy Pierre. But school holidays are just around the corner so I presume you'll have more time to crack the case before you start college.

[John Wheat]

Surely the title of this thread should be Lechmere the Witness.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388277]

It's a funny thing. I had thought that Pierre's obsession with Fisherman's theory was that it tied in with his own theory in that Lechmere had seen a policeman murdering Nichols so that when he told Mizen he was "wanted by a policeman" he was giving him a coded message that it was a policeman wot done it but he was otherwise too scared to say anything.

That is an hypothesis and I want to try and disprove it.

But he seems to have abandoned this now and thinks that Lechmere's mention of a policeman to Mizen was because he had heard the distinctive footsteps of a police officer (PC Neil) walking towards Bucks Row and Mizen misunderstood what he was telling him about this. And that doesn't seem to help him with his own theory.

I do not abandon hypotheses, I try them. I have questions marks. Those are tools. Perhaps Lechmere saw a policeman. Perhaps he heard a policeman.

My own hyptheses for those questions are better than Fishermans.

Fisherman is convinced that Lechmere was a liar. He even constructed the concept of the "Mizen scam" from that hypothesis. Instead, he should try to disprove it.

I am doing my best to disprove my own hypotheses. I know the weaknesses and the advantages of them.

Therefore, it will never be your job to try and disprove me. I do it myself.

What is the use of history if history is not telling us what really happened in the past?