Lechmere the serial killer?

[David Orsam]

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.

Well I've counted the number of question marks in your OP in the Lechmere Minsinterpreted thread. Number: zero.

I've also counted the number of times you used the word "perhaps" in that post. Number: zero

You were quite emphatic:

"I have analysed the narrative given by Lechmere at the Nichols inquest and I believe that Lechmere has been misinterpreted.

....

The sentence about not seeing a policeman in Buck´s Row is no lie. They did not see a policeman in Buck´s Row. They "heard a policeman coming". And that is what they told Mizen.

Mizen got it a bit wrong when he interpreted the narrative on the night of the murder. So Mizen did not lie at the inquest. And he did not have to be in a great hurry to get to the murder site either. The reason why he did not run to the murder site in a hurry, was that the carmen had heard a policeman coming. That was Neil."

So there you were saying "They did not see a policeman in Buck's Row" without any qualification.

If you are now saying that perhaps you are wrong about this then perhaps you are also wrong about Lechmere seeing a policeman and perhaps you've got everything wrong.

[Henry Flower]

David,

What Pierre states about the utter integrity of his methodology, and what Pierre actually does are two entirely separate things, you shouldn't confuse them. If Pierre can compartmentalise them so should you.

Capiche?

[David Orsam]

What Pierre states about the utter integrity of his methodology, and what Pierre actually does are two entirely separate things, you shouldn't confuse them. If Pierre can compartmentalise them so should you.

Capiche?

In fairness Henry, Pierre's methodology did produce a letter published in a newspaper in the first week of November 1888 which not only predicted the name and address of the next victim but the date on which she would be murdered. Modestly, he doesn't talk about it much these days but when you see these kinds of results you can't not fail not to not take his methods seriously. Like he says, what is the use of history if history is not telling us what really happened in the past?

[Henry Flower]

Like he says, what is the use of history if history is not telling us what really happened in the past?

Quite so. That is certainly among my five favourite things wot history does. The other four being;

~ the funny names of the dead persons
~ diagrams of the best battles
~ different ways of strapping the ancient sandals
~ external, internal, lateral, and posterior source criticism

I think that's history covered.

[GUT]

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 don´t 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

You sure post here a lot for someone with no specific personal interest in the topic.

[Henry Flower]

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.

Oh right, so.... just like everyone else who posts on these boards then?

[John Wheat]

Stupid thread title. Stupid thread.

[Fisherman]

Stupid thread title. Stupid thread.

A truly worthy contribution.

[Aldebaran]

Stupid thread title. Stupid thread.

Oh yes? Would you care to explain what is preventing you from starting another *smart* thread with a *smart* title? If you think this one is so stupid, then why waste your time, given that you deem even the title stupid from the word "go", reading it?

[Henry Flower]

Stupid thread title. Stupid thread.

Stupidest comment on stupid thread. Congratulations.

[John Wheat]

A truly worthy contribution.

Better than clogging up the site with a crackpot theory.

[John Wheat]

Oh yes? Would you care to explain what is preventing you from starting another *smart* thread with a *smart* title? If you think this one is so stupid, then why waste your time, given that you deem even the title stupid from the word "go", reading it?

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

[John Wheat]

Stupidest comment on stupid thread. Congratulations.

Whatever.

[Aldebaran]

Whatever.

Quoth the Smartie:

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

I can think of many better ways of wasting my time. I can imagine a "smart title" of yours. "Jack Was Bad" comes to mind.

[Aldebaran]

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:

I think Jack would have been a functioning alcoholic in as much as alcohol not effecting him too much while murdering except that some of his mutilation may have been effected by him being sloppy in some of the cutting with some of the C5.

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.