Lechmere the serial killer?

[Abby Normal]

Abby,
The "comebacks" were what I considered to be points not previously discussed between Fish and myself.

The majority of points were discussed some time ago, Fisherman and I did not agree then, nothing has changed, I see little point in repeating stuff when neither side appears able to budge, and notice I do so neither.

we all have our own views, which can, and I only say can, lead to a high level of intransigence on all sides.




I fully agree with you about some of the ideas proposed on here, and while I do not agree with Fish, I do admire his work, and the time he has committed to the case. I have said so more than once.

There is no knee jerk reaction, I just do not see a demonstrable link between the two sets of murders, again discussed with Fisherman a few months back.

Yes there are some similarities, but they are not precise and are in my opinion little more than coincidence, I just do not see that two sets of murders committed in the same city are necessarily linked because of that fact that is all.

The same applies to the time frame question.

It is certainly not a crackpot idea, and obviously deserves attention and analysis, however having done that I see no probably link at present, perhaps time and more research will alter that.

With regards to Lech being the killer, much the same applies, he is certainly worth looking at, far more so than many ideas put forward. again I do not see any hard evidence and we may disagree on that, so be it.

Regards


steve

Thanks el
a well said and level headed post and I appreciate it.
I also apologize for my previous remarks.

[Fisherman]

Great and well thought out responses, fish.
Also indicated by the fact that el can onlyrespond with a couple of peripheral come backs and he doesn't even address the majority of your main points.

I'm amazed by the knee jerk reaction against the torso man and ripper possibly being the same man. Or against lech being the killer. I don't get it. It's like people get hysterical about it. Like its the end of the ******* world or something. Neither idea is any where near the crackpot theories of posters like Pierre and Trevor, or theories like the diary or royal conspiracy which obviously do need to be ridiculed.

Fish
You brought up one great and significant point. The rarity of serial killers who mutilate a body after the victim has died. There is a study out there done which shows the percentage of killers who engage in post mortem mutilation, and even remove internal organs, and the percentage is so low, that based on that alone, one could reasonably conclude that the torso man and ripper were the same man. You don't even need to bring up all the other uncanny similarities such as the flaps of skin.

Keep it up fish. I have to warn you though if you keep debating so well, you will soon to be attacked By your detractors about your grammatical errors. Lol!

I totally agree, Abby - a search for eviscerating killers in the London area will turn up extremely few such men over the years. They are - thank God! - quite rare creatures, and so when two such men go to work in the same town, at the same time, there is every reason to accept that they may be one and the same.

When we look at what makes the police accept the idea that a serial killer is at large, we can see that a matter of cutting from sternum to pelvis would suffice by a long way. Add all the rest of the ingredients, and we get two things:
A near certainty that we are dealing with just the one killer.
A hoard of pissed of posters who seem personally offended by the suggestion.

My grammatical errors are for free, by the way.

[Elamarna]

Great and well thought out responses, fish.
Also indicated by the fact that el can onlyrespond with a couple of peripheral come backs and he doesn't even address the majority of your main points.

Abby,
The "comebacks" were what I considered to be points not previously discussed between Fish and myself.

The majority of points were discussed some time ago, Fisherman and I did not agree then, nothing has changed, I see little point in repeating stuff when neither side appears able to budge, and notice I do so neither.

we all have our own views, which can, and I only say can, lead to a high level of intransigence on all sides.

I'm amazed by the knee jerk reaction against the torso man and ripper possibly being the same man. Or against lech being the killer. I don't get it. It's like people get hysterical about it. Like its the end of the ******* world or something. Neither idea is any where near the crackpot theories of posters like Pierre and Trevor, or theories like the diary or royal conspiracy which obviously do need to be ridiculed.

I fully agree with you about some of the ideas proposed on here, and while I do not agree with Fish, I do admire his work, and the time he has committed to the case. I have said so more than once.

There is no knee jerk reaction, I just do not see a demonstrable link between the two sets of murders, again discussed with Fisherman a few months back.

Yes there are some similarities, but they are not precise and are in my opinion little more than coincidence, I just do not see that two sets of murders committed in the same city are necessarily linked because of that fact that is all.

The same applies to the time frame question.

It is certainly not a crackpot idea, and obviously deserves attention and analysis, however having done that I see no probably link at present, perhaps time and more research will alter that.

With regards to Lech being the killer, much the same applies, he is certainly worth looking at, far more so than many ideas put forward. again I do not see any hard evidence and we may disagree on that, so be it.

Regards


steve

[Abby Normal]

Actually what you're saying Abby adds to Bury's candidacy for being the Ripper. Not that he isn't the leading suspect anyway.

Cheers John

hi John
no worries. as you already know Bury has a special place in my heart. : )

[John Wheat]

Actually what you're saying Abby adds to Bury's candidacy for being the Ripper. Not that he isn't the leading suspect anyway.

Cheers John

[Abby Normal]

Elamarna: Please, just what are you saying i am trying to pass off as "accepted fact"?

I am not saying that you are passing anything off as "accepted fact" - I am warning against such a thing. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark, led on by how you first said that I am passing things off as accepted fact (which I am not) and then went on to try and convince the boards that I am so infatuated with Lechmere that I cannot think straight. I would have preferred a fairer discussion; starting out by claiming your opponent is not fully reliable is not a nice thing to do.
You see, I CAN think VERY straight and I dislike hints in any other direction. You disagree with what I think, and that is fine, but you need to realize that this may well owe to a disability on YOUR behalf to think straight.

I see no facts suggested, just an opinion on what happens when one becomes one eyed on a subject.

So it is not a fact that women in both series had their abdominal walls removed in large panes?
It is not a fact that women from both series had parts of their colons removed?
It is not a fact that both killers cut victims open from sternum to pelvis?
It is not a fact that medicos judged both killers to be so skilled with the knife as to compete with a surgeons ability?
It is not a fact that both killers took away both exually and non-sexually related body parts from their victims?

Is that what you are claiming, Steve? Or are you saying that you did not claim as a fact that I am too infatuated with Lechmere to be a useful discussion partner? if so, good on you.


The attempt at a smart crack reply actually achieves nothing, and just demonstrates the point i raised..

There really is no need for it is there?

You have so far managed to claim that the geographical correlation and the time correlation are of no consequence and you have seemingly denied the existence of numerous very clear facts. I find it a bit hard to discuss with somebody with that kind of an agenda. But weīll get it straightened out, no doubt.

PS. Where are the examples of people who removed the abdominal walls in large panes from their victims...?

Great and well thought out responses, fish.
Also indicated by the fact that el can onlyrespond with a couple of peripheral come backs and he doesn't even address the majority of your main points.

I'm amazed by the knee jerk reaction against the torso man and ripper possibly being the same man. Or against lech being the killer. I don't get it. It's like people get hysterical about it. Like its the end of the ******* world or something. Neither idea is any where near the crackpot theories of posters like Pierre and Trevor, or theories like the diary or royal conspiracy which obviously do need to be ridiculed.

Fish
You brought up one great and significant point. The rarity of serial killers who mutilate a body after the victim has died. There is a study out there done which shows the percentage of killers who engage in post mortem mutilation, and even remove internal organs, and the percentage is so low, that based on that alone, one could reasonably conclude that the torso man and ripper were the same man. You don't even need to bring up all the other uncanny similarities such as the flaps of skin.

Keep it up fish. I have to warn you though if you keep debating so well, you will soon to be attacked By your detractors about your grammatical errors. Lol!

[Jon Guy]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;391048]

So Dew memoirs are a primary source? Would that be correct?

There are a few definitions of historical primary sources but the salient point seems to be that the source is created at the time of the event.

[Fisherman]

It's ludicrous. Fisherman can barely make a case for Lechmere murdering Nichols but he's now the Ripper AND the Thames Torso Killer.

The main matter argued here is that the Ripper and the torso killer were one and the same, not that Lechmere was responsible in both instances. Personally, I think he was.
However, what you are supposed to assess - whether the two series had the same originator - is not dependent on Lechmere at all. And the evidence for it is rich.

Donīt thank me, Iīm just happy to be able to help out.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;391047]

For the record, when someone is reminiscing, as Reid is in this instance, it is a secondary source.[/QUOTE

Of course it's not secondary he was there at the time of the murder he was directly involved

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So Dew memoirs are a primary source? Would that be correct?

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Jon Guy;391043]For the record, when someone is reminiscing, as Reid is in this instance, it is a secondary source.[/QUOTE

Of course it's not secondary he was there at the time of the murder he was directly involved

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

I'm hoping someone sensible other than myself will return to this thread. Lechmere responsible for two series of murders. Get real he was a witness who found one body. The Torso Murders never happened. This theory is just as fanciful.

It's ludicrous. Fisherman can barely make a case for Lechmere murdering Nichols but he's now the Ripper AND the Thames Torso Killer.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Please, just what are you saying i am trying to pass off as "accepted fact"?

I am not saying that you are passing anything off as "accepted fact" - I am warning against such a thing. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark, led on by how you first said that I am passing things off as accepted fact (which I am not) and then went on to try and convince the boards that I am so infatuated with Lechmere that I cannot think straight. I would have preferred a fairer discussion; starting out by claiming your opponent is not fully reliable is not a nice thing to do.
You see, I CAN think VERY straight and I dislike hints in any other direction. You disagree with what I think, and that is fine, but you need to realize that this may well owe to a disability on YOUR behalf to think straight.

I see no facts suggested, just an opinion on what happens when one becomes one eyed on a subject.

So it is not a fact that women in both series had their abdominal walls removed in large panes?
It is not a fact that women from both series had parts of their colons removed?
It is not a fact that both killers cut victims open from sternum to pelvis?
It is not a fact that medicos judged both killers to be so skilled with the knife as to compete with a surgeons ability?
It is not a fact that both killers took away both exually and non-sexually related body parts from their victims?

Is that what you are claiming, Steve? Or are you saying that you did not claim as a fact that I am too infatuated with Lechmere to be a useful discussion partner? if so, good on you.


The attempt at a smart crack reply actually achieves nothing, and just demonstrates the point i raised..

There really is no need for it is there?

You have so far managed to claim that the geographical correlation and the time correlation are of no consequence and you have seemingly denied the existence of numerous very clear facts. I find it a bit hard to discuss with somebody with that kind of an agenda. But weīll get it straightened out, no doubt.

PS. Where are the examples of people who removed the abdominal walls in large panes from their victims...?

[Jon Guy]

Reids interview is a primary source from someone directly involved.

For the record, when someone is reminiscing, as Reid is in this instance, it is a secondary source.

[Fisherman]

I do wish people would read what a reply says and why before passing comment.


I did not bring it up, it was Abby who said that facial mutilations were a similarity, I was just pointing out that such a comment was hard to back up with evidence.



steve

Thatīs just fine, Steve. The crux of the matter, though - as I pointed out - is that there WAS facial damage done to women in both series.
In the Riper series, all we know is that there was facial damage to two out of a handful oc victims. The comparison os therefore relevant.
And - as I also pointed out - there are very many other common factors, that cannot, ought not and will not be skipped over.

[Elamarna]

[/B]
I am certainly not being being ridiculous; while I admire the work you put into this case;, the obsession with proving one man as the killer, blinds one, a case of not seeing "the wood for the trees".

Thatīs YOUR stance. Donīt try to pass it off as "accepted fact", Steve.

Please, just what are you saying i am trying to pass off as "accepted fact"?

I see no facts suggested, just an opinion on what happens when one becomes one eyed on a subject.

The attempt at a smart crack reply actually achieves nothing, and just demonstrates the point i raised..

There really is no need for it is there?


Steve