Lechmere the serial killer?

[Fisherman]

And serial killers tend not to be found with the victims, unless they've literally been caught red-handed. It's an instinctive part of survival behaviour to flee when you're faced with danger. Lechmere could've been on his merry way down Buck's Row before Paul met him in the middle of the street. Instead he decided to bluff it out, which must mean he was a psychopath and not an innocent witness.

An epic post!

I did not intend to respond to your antics anymore, but this is an opportunity that I cannot sidestep.

"Serial killers tend not to be found with the victims". Wow. Do singular killers tend to? A real whopper there, Harry!

"Itīs an instinctive part of survival behavior to flee when youīre faced with danger." Apparently, you have no idea about how a psychopath works. Not the slightest. It is a verfied and documetned fact that these people lack the startle reflex to a smaller or larger degree - meaning that they will not get scared by sudden surprises. It is equally documented that a psychopath wil not panic when others do. And all you have to say in that context is that it is no proven thing that Lechmere was a psychopath. Pathetic, to say the least.

But there is more: "Instead he decided to bluff it out, which must mean he was a psychopath and not an innocent witness."

Has it occurred to you that an innocent witness would not have anything to bluff about?

Itīs rare to see such a rot of a post. Thanks for laying your cards on the table.

And to think, you signed off with the LOL smiley.

Itīs you heīs laughing at, Harry. Goodnight.

[Harry D]

Scoff all you want, Fish. You're the one who's overblown an innocent bystander into the hall of shame of Ripper suspects. You have nothing, sir.

[Fisherman]

Scoff all you want, Fish. You're the one who's overblown an innocent bystander into the hall of shame of Ripper suspects. You have nothing, sir.

Coming from somebody who promotes a suspect he cannot even show to have been anywhere near any of the murder sites, that is actually rather funny.

Or sad.

It all depends on how you interpret things.

And that is an area where you not only lag helplessly behind, but also take pride in flaunting your shortcomings.

But this is not what we should use the forums for. Youīve had your say, youīve had your butt thrashed, and I have no intention to waste any more time on you.

[John Wheat]

Scoff all you want, Fish. You're the one who's overblown an innocent bystander into the hall of shame of Ripper suspects. You have nothing, sir.

You're not wrong Harry.

[Harry D]

Coming from somebody who promotes a suspect he cannot even show to have been anywhere near any of the murder sites, that is actually rather funny.

Or sad.

It all depends on how you interpret things.

And that is an area where you not only lag helplessly behind, but also take pride in flaunting your shortcomings.

But this is not what we should use the forums for. Youīve had your say, youīve had your butt thrashed, and I have no intention to waste any more time on you.

That's enough about my butt, thank you.

Once again you fire a parting shot and then try to claim the moral high-ground. I wish I could believe this is your last post on the matter but you have more last posts than Columbo had "one more thing". Too bad your investigative skills aren't on par.

And for the record, I don't promote said suspect, and I certainly don't seek to proselytize with a misinterpretation of the facts. All I do say is that for those exploring the single-killer theory, it would be wise to start with the convicted murderer and mutilator who was living in the East End at the time.

[John Wheat]

All I do say is that for those exploring the single-killer theory, it would be wise to start with the convicted murderer and mutilator who was living in the East End at the time.

No surely a random witness would be the place to start. Not a convicted murderer and mutilator who was living in the East End at the time with his prostitute wife. And who fled shortly after Mary Kelly's death. No surely a random witness is much more likely to be the Ripper.

[miss marple]

Why?

Miss Marple

[miss marple]

Just realised your being ironic

[Henry Flower]

Pierre. You are not a historian.

Pierre: I take it your suspect was found not standing alongside just one freshly bleeding victim, but all five? Congratulations - now your suspect is infinitely more viable than Cross.

Again, bravo Pierre, for all the effort you put into imitating a historian, for authoritatively telling everyone else they have blundered with the sources, and for telling us literally nothing concrete, testable, or debatable about your mythical suspect.

[Varqm]

Scoff all you want, Fish. You're the one who's overblown an innocent bystander into the hall of shame of Ripper suspects. You have nothing, sir.

Although we cannot eliminate Cross totally 100% because we do not know what he was doing before Paul saw him, I agree. An ordinary witness.He had nothing to add as to who was the killer and he could not have helped Mary - he was not a doctor.The least he could have done was cooperate with authorities and he did like the overwhelming majority of witnesses - professional and not, mistakes and all.

[Fisherman]

No surely a random witness would be the place to start. Not a convicted murderer and mutilator who was living in the East End at the time with his prostitute wife. And who fled shortly after Mary Kelly's death. No surely a random witness is much more likely to be the Ripper.

Men with a record of knife violence against women would be secondary to anybody conducting an investigation. If no other viable suspect with genuine ties to the murder spots could be identified, they would come into play, otherwise they would not.

That has not changed since the last time I told it to you. And - surprise, surprise - nor will it do so in days to come.

If we asked the question "Who is more likely to commit a violent knife deed, William Henry Bury or somebody who has no known record of violence?", then Bury would get the vote.

But when we look at a specific crime, Bury only becomes of interest when we can eliminate all the people who we know were involved at the crime scene. We donīt treat Bury as if we knew that he was there - but if no genuine suspect can be pointed to, we may make the assumption that Bury COULD have been there, and then we need to prove that he was until he can become a suspect.

It really is no harder than that.

[Fisherman]

Although we cannot eliminate Cross totally 100% because we do not know what he was doing before Paul saw him, I agree. An ordinary witness.He had nothing to add as to who was the killer and he could not have helped Mary - he was not a doctor.The least he could have done was cooperate with authorities and he did like the overwhelming majority of witnesses - professional and not, mistakes and all.

"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?

[John Wheat]

Men with a record of knife violence against women would be secondary to anybody conducting an investigation. If no other viable suspect with genuine ties to the murder spots could be identified, they would come into play, otherwise they would not.

That has not changed since the last time I told it to you. And - surprise, surprise - nor will it do so in days to come.

If we asked the question "Who is more likely to commit a violent knife deed, William Henry Bury or somebody who has no known record of violence?", then Bury would get the vote.

But when we look at a specific crime, Bury only becomes of interest when we can eliminate all the people who we know were involved at the crime scene. We donīt treat Bury as if we knew that he was there - but if no genuine suspect can be pointed to, we may make the assumption that Bury COULD have been there, and then we need to prove that he was until he can become a suspect.

It really is no harder than that.

I stand by my statement. What you fail to grasp is that Lechmere was a witness and nothing indicates anything else including all the bullshit about Lechmere. Bury on the other hand is a proven violent mutilator and murderer.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

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

[Fisherman]

I stand by my statement. What you fail to grasp is that Lechmere was a witness and nothing indicates anything else including all the bullshit about Lechmere. Bury on the other hand is a proven violent mutilator and murderer.

Cheers John

It says a lot about you when you turn to terms like "bullshit". I am not surprised in any way - a professed low level of understanding combined with a lacking will to learn makes for a pedagogic background to explain things.

You are welcome to stand by your statement, however. You are even welcome to shout it in the streets and squares. It remains wrong just the same.

I donīt "fail to grasp" that Lechmere was a witness. I know he was a witness - he testified in that capacity at the inquest.
That, however, does not mean that he could not have been the killer.

Somebody seems to have failed to grasp that, however.

Bury, on the other hand, tells us that the police did not have any caserelated suspect at the time. Therefore they did exactly what I keep telling you the police does: they go looking for other violent men, and try to eliminate them from the investigation.
Just like they did with Bury. He was a domestic strangling killer, he did not cut throats and he did not obtain organs from his victim (who was his own wife). And the police decided he was not their man.