Lechmere the serial killer?

[John Wheat]

Steve!

What the esteemed John Wheat wrote was amongst other things that the docu was poorly filmed and edited, and in that context, I believe that the judgment of the general tv viewer carries weight.

John seems to work to an agenda based on personal bitterness, owing to how I have pointed out to him that William Bury is at best a secondary figure in the Ripper errand, whereas Lechmere remains a real suspect, knit firmly to the case. In that context, I ascribe very little value to his views, but I find it a bit annoying when he tries to peddle his ignorance as something of value out here.

Many thanks for your kind words about the docu, by the way. Personally, I think Blink Films made a very good job, and I was thoroughly impressed with the level of research and knowledge they put into the documentary. That too is why I detest John Wheats vomiting over it -I became personal friends with the film crew, and I will not stand silently by when their efforts are tarnished by somebody who has - to the best of my knowledge - contributed nothing at all to the field of Ripperology.

Fisherman I wrote poorly filmed and edited from the viewpoint of a professional film director. The documentary contained a ridiculous level of bias. You have failed miserably to point out that Bury is anything other than by the far the best candidate for the Ripper murders. You have also failed to convince anyone but the odd crackpot that Lechmere was anything other than a witness. You yourself have contributed nothing to the field of Ripperology. All you've done is taint the name of a clearly innocent man. If you are personal friends with the film crew then you're views on them and the documentary will clearly be tainted.

[John Wheat]

Thatīs probably why the ones who commented on it were all very positive and said it was one of the best documentaries on the Ripper they had ever seen, then. You are welcome to look at the thread and see for yourself. Hereīs a few examples:

Pinkmoon: Just watched it very interesting....

Mr Barnett: Enjoyed it enormously. Just about to watch it again.

Tom Wescott: That's a step up from most Ripper docs.

Bridewell: Thanks, Christer, for an interesting programme.

Plus, of course, the tv viewers have rated the docu highly.

Thanks for flaunting your poor judgment!

Sorry but I don't give a monkeys about the handpicked views of a few members of this site. Ditto a few TV viewers. As for my poor judgement that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black if ever I've heard it.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman I wrote poorly filmed and edited from the viewpoint of a professional film director. The documentary contained a ridiculous level of bias. You have failed miserably to point out that Bury is anything other than by the far the best candidate for the Ripper murders. You have also failed to convince anyone but the odd crackpot that Lechmere was anything other than a witness. You yourself have contributed nothing to the field of Ripperology. All you've done is taint the name of a clearly innocent man. If you are personal friends with the film crew then you're views on them and the documentary will clearly be tainted.

Yawn.

Even if God descended from the skies and told you that Bury was not the Ripper, you would pronounce it "bullshit" and question what God had contributed.

I have been published numerous times on a number of issues in Ripperology, and I have been part of a documentary that has won much acclaim. That, regardless of what you think, IS contributing to the field of Ripperology. Whether I am correct or not has no bearing on it all, since nobody can prove their respective cases against different Ripper suspects. Those who have put in time and effort to try and clarify what they think have nevertheless contributed to Ripperology.

As far as I can tell, you do not belong to these people. Your contribution seemingly consists of baseless vomiting and uniformed spewing, ignorant spitting and ridiculous miscomprehensions. Unfortunately, it is not enough to secure you a stance as a very particular man in this respect - others are on par with you, unfortunately, and some even exceed you.

That, perhaps, can be a comfort to you.

But I have spent far too much time on far too little substance now, so I will reserve my time for better things. They are many.

[John Wheat]

Yawn.

Even if God descended from the skies and told you that Bury was not the Ripper, you would pronounce it "bullshit" and question what God had contributed.

I have been published numerous times on a number of issues in Ripperology, and I have been part of a documentary that has won much acclaim. That, regardless of what you think, IS contributing to the field of Ripperology. Whether I am correct or not has no bearing on it all, since nobody can prove their respective cases against different Ripper suspects. Those who have put in time and effort to try and clarify what they think have nevertheless contributed to Ripperology.

As far as I can tell, you do not belong to these people. Your contribution seemingly consists of baseless vomiting and uniformed spewing, ignorant spitting and ridiculous miscomprehensions. Unfortunately, it is not enough to secure you a stance as a very particular man in this respect - others are on par with you, unfortunately, and some even exceed you.

That, perhaps, can be a comfort to you.

But I have spent far too much time on far too little substance now, so I will reserve my time for better things. They are many.

Even if God descended from the skies and told you that Lechmere was not the Ripper, you would pronounce it "bullshit" and question what God had contributed.
Wether you've been published or not on the field of Ripperology you have contributed nothing as you are so clearly wrong on Lechmere. You clearly think that any old bullshit is contributing to the field of Ripperolgy it isn't. As for my contribution seemingly consisting of baseless vomiting and uniformed spewing, ignorant spitting and ridiculous miscomprehension's. Again that is another case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390809][QUOTE=Pierre;390806][QUOTE=Fisherman;390802]


YOU ARE LYING, FISHERMAN. You wrote this:

The interesting thing is that neither Andy Griffiths not James Scobie thought I was in a fantasy world. Contrary to that, they thought the killer had been found.

This is your lie:

"...they thought the killer had been found."

James Scobie said that there was a prima faciae case that suggests that Lechmere was the killer.

NO. THAT IS NOT HIS WORDS. THE WORDS ARE: "What we would say is he got a prima facie case to answer which means it is a case good enough to put before a jury that suggests that he was the killer".

SO FISHERMAN: The case that suggests he was the killer is what one could have put before a jury. THAT IS ALL.

He also said, in a snippet that did n ot make the docu, that it would be ridiculous to believe in the amount of coincidences required for Lechmere not to have been the killer, or something to that effect.

"BELIEVE IN" is not "They THOUGHT the killer had been found".

Andy Griffiths is quoted on the docu as saying that given the extent of the injuries and how fresh they were, they had to have been inflicted when Lechmere was with her.

NO. He says that the possibility of another person killing Polly Nicholls is "remote". And his comment is BASED ON YOUR INFORMATION TO HIM!

The words you use are NOT spoken by Andy Griffith in your movie.

SO NOW YOU HAVE LIED AGAIN AND EVEN ADDED MORE LIES TO YOUR FIRST LIE.

Plus, of course, I have in an earlier post said that Griffiths told me in person that he believed that we had found the right man, but that was off the camera.

I DONīT CARE ABOUT WHAT GRIFFITH TOLD YOU. HE HAS BASED HIS IDEAS ON YOUR IDEAS. YOU ARE MISLEADING EVERYONE HERE.

So I am telling the truth, and you are falsely accusing me of lying.

YOU ARE LYING AND YOU ACCUSE ME OF FALSELY ACCUSING YOU. LOOK WHAT I WRITE ABOVE: I QUOTE YOUR OWN MOVIE. I AM TELLING YOU THE TRUTH. YOU ARE LYING AND MISLEADING PEOPLE HERE.

But why would it matter anyway? Arenīt we supposed to have fed both Griffiths and Scobie misleading information?

There is a large bunch of morons out on these boards, maybe we can agree on that?

NO. PEOPLE ARE NOT MORONS. THEY ARE JUST NOT HISTORIANS. AND YOU ARE ONE OF THEM.

Pierre

[Harry D]

If it hasn't escaped your notice, Fish places an overemphasis on Lechmere being at the scene of the crime. As if that's the be all and end all. For he has no other choice, because there's nothing else that can tie Lechmere to the murders, he has to overegg that one innocuous detail. Lechmere wasn't seen at any other murder site, he had no known record of violent or deviant behaviour, and if he did it had no effect on his personal or professional life, and for a man that took to the streets butchering women, a few policeman's footsteps away from the hangman's noose, he showed remarkable restraint to curb his bloody desires after a twelve-week episode of unprecedented violence.

[IchabodCrane]

As a part time visitor to these boards, reading this admittedly very entertaining thread - the acrimony of the debate is really funny for the neutral reader - made two things click for me the first time about the Lechmere aspect of the case. Unfortunately in two opposite directions.

I understood for the first time the idea behind the 'Mizen Scam': Lechmere wanted to avoid being taken back to Buck's row by Mizen, that is why he told him there was another PC waiting for him there. OK. Sorry I had missed that one so far. That makes halfway sense to me. And then he denied having said this at the inquest. OK, because he wanted to cover his ass.

On the other hand, I would have to ask myself neutrally, which behaviour better fits an innocent vs. a guilty Lechmere: walking on when he hears someone approaching from the entrance of Buck's Row, or waiting up for the second person. I would say the natural reaction for an innocent discoverer of a lifeless person would definitely be to wait and get the next available person to have a look together at the passed out person. A natural reaction for a guilty killer would probably be to walk on as if nothing had happened because there was still some distance between the newcomer and himself, and there would be no chance of identificiation.

Then there is still the very strange statement in the inquest reports that 'they then heard a policeman coming'.

So I still have ambiguous feelings about Lechmere as a suspect. After all he is the only person found alone with one of the murdered women, so definitely should have been investigated more, maybe then we would know more today - and could save some of the acrimony

IchabodCrane

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390828][QUOTE=Fisherman;390809][QUOTE=Pierre;390806]

YOU ARE LYING, FISHERMAN. You wrote this:



This is your lie:





NO. THAT IS NOT HIS WORDS. THE WORDS ARE: "What we would say is he got a prima facie case to answer which means it is a case good enough to put before a jury that suggests that he was the killer".

SO FISHERMAN: The case that suggests he was the killer is what one could have put before a jury. THAT IS ALL.



"BELIEVE IN" is not "They THOUGHT the killer had been found".



NO. He says that the possibility of another person killing Polly Nicholls is "remote". And his comment is BASED ON YOUR INFORMATION TO HIM!

The words you use are NOT spoken by Andy Griffith in your movie.

SO NOW YOU HAVE LIED AGAIN AND EVEN ADDED MORE LIES TO YOUR FIRST LIE.



I DONīT CARE ABOUT WHAT GRIFFITH TOLD YOU. HE HAS BASED HIS IDEAS ON YOUR IDEAS. YOU ARE MISLEADING EVERYONE HERE.



YOU ARE LYING AND YOU ACCUSE ME OF FALSELY ACCUSING YOU. LOOK WHAT I WRITE ABOVE: I QUOTE YOUR OWN MOVIE. I AM TELLING YOU THE TRUTH. YOU ARE LYING AND MISLEADING PEOPLE HERE.



NO. PEOPLE ARE NOT MORONS. THEY ARE JUST NOT HISTORIANS. AND YOU ARE ONE OF THEM.

Pierre

Well Pierre I think you've spotted a liar.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

If it hasn't escaped your notice, Fish places an overemphasis on Lechmere being at the scene of the crime. As if that's the be all and end all. For he has no other choice, because there's nothing else that can tie Lechmere to the murders, he has to overegg that one innocuous detail. Lechmere wasn't seen at any other murder site, he had no known record of violent or deviant behaviour, and if he did it had no effect on his personal or professional life, and for a man that took to the streets butchering women, a few policeman's footsteps away from the hangman's noose, he showed remarkable restraint to curb his bloody desires after a twelve-week episode of unprecedented violence.

Yep Lechmere happened to find body so what? Someone had to. There is nothing else whatsoever that links him to the crimes. As for Lechmere then showing remarkable restraint Fisherman argues that as Lechmere was the Ripper therefore he was also the Torso Killer or something.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

After all he is the only person found alone with one of the murdered women, so definitely should have been investigated more, maybe then we would know more today - and could save some of the acrimony

IchabodCrane

Proponents of the Lechmere theory assume amongst may other things that the police at the time were total buffoons. They also blither on about Lechmere being found with a body, this is pure schematics. Lechmere found a body there is a difference. They go on as if Lechmere was caught with a bloody knife in his hand.

Cheers John

[Harry D]

On the other hand, I would have to ask myself neutrally, which behaviour better fits an innocent vs. a guilty Lechmere: walking on when he hears someone approaching from the entrance of Buck's Row, or waiting up for the second person. I would say the natural reaction for an innocent discoverer of a lifeless person would definitely be to wait and get the next available person to have a look together at the passed out person. A natural reaction for a guilty killer would probably be to walk on as if nothing had happened because there was still some distance between the newcomer and himself, and there would be no chance of identificiation.

Hello, IchabodCrane. I'm with you wholeheartedly on this point. Serial killers have been known to return to the scenes of the crimes, but I can't imagine there are many who have hung around after a fresh kill when they could've made good their escape. I also firmly believe that splitting-up after meeting Paul would've been a preferable scenario for Lechmere if he was the killer. If he did bump into a copper on his own, he could pull the "scam" without the fear of being contradicted by his companion, or he could avoid an encounter with a policeman altogether and be home free.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390828][QUOTE=Fisherman;390809][QUOTE=Pierre;390806]

YOU ARE LYING, FISHERMAN. You wrote this:



This is your lie:





NO. THAT IS NOT HIS WORDS. THE WORDS ARE: "What we would say is he got a prima facie case to answer which means it is a case good enough to put before a jury that suggests that he was the killer".

SO FISHERMAN: The case that suggests he was the killer is what one could have put before a jury. THAT IS ALL.



"BELIEVE IN" is not "They THOUGHT the killer had been found".



NO. He says that the possibility of another person killing Polly Nicholls is "remote". And his comment is BASED ON YOUR INFORMATION TO HIM!

The words you use are NOT spoken by Andy Griffith in your movie.

SO NOW YOU HAVE LIED AGAIN AND EVEN ADDED MORE LIES TO YOUR FIRST LIE.



I DONīT CARE ABOUT WHAT GRIFFITH TOLD YOU. HE HAS BASED HIS IDEAS ON YOUR IDEAS. YOU ARE MISLEADING EVERYONE HERE.



YOU ARE LYING AND YOU ACCUSE ME OF FALSELY ACCUSING YOU. LOOK WHAT I WRITE ABOVE: I QUOTE YOUR OWN MOVIE. I AM TELLING YOU THE TRUTH. YOU ARE LYING AND MISLEADING PEOPLE HERE.



NO. PEOPLE ARE NOT MORONS. THEY ARE JUST NOT HISTORIANS. AND YOU ARE ONE OF THEM.

Pierre

Thatīs a lot of effort placed on a faulty message.

[Fisherman]

IchabodCrane:
I understood for the first time the idea behind the 'Mizen Scam': Lechmere wanted to avoid being taken back to Buck's row by Mizen, that is why he told him there was another PC waiting for him there. OK. Sorry I had missed that one so far.

I donīt know whether this should make me happy or sad, Ichabod. I would have thought that there was no way anybody could miss out on it...? On the other hand, if the failure to grasp what I am talking about hinges on a low degree of pedagogics on my behalf, then there is hope that a number of naysayers will see the logic of the theory in the future too.

I can only urge you to try and take in the rest of the matter too. For example, what does ot tell us that Mizen did obviously not set his superiors straight when they believed that Neil was the finder of the body?

I will answer that myself: This was so because Mizen did not object to the idea that Neil WAS the finder. And why did he not object to it? Because a carman had told him that they had been sent by a PC to fetch help. Naturally, Mizen felt sure that this PC would have been Neil, who he found at the murder spot when he arrived.

If Mizen had instead been told that the carmen were the finders, and if nothing had been said by Lechmere about another PC, then Mizen would have needed to correct matters when he realized that his colleagues believed that John Neil was the finder.

There we have it: a very clear indicator that Mizen WAS told by Lechmere that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row.

One has to study the different parts in detail to see what happened, and one has to spend a lot of time reading all the articles. Itīs good to hear that you have taken step one!

On the other hand, I would have to ask myself neutrally, which behaviour better fits an innocent vs. a guilty Lechmere: walking on when he hears someone approaching from the entrance of Buck's Row, or waiting up for the second person. I would say the natural reaction for an innocent discoverer of a lifeless person would definitely be to wait and get the next available person to have a look together at the passed out person. A natural reaction for a guilty killer would probably be to walk on as if nothing had happened because there was still some distance between the newcomer and himself, and there would be no chance of identificiation.

Yes, an innocent person who heard another person approaching would in ll probability try to get help from that person, I fully agree. This is how people normally react.
The thing is, Lechmere was quite probaby very much aware of this too, so if he wanted to bluff it out, using that scenario would be a smart thing to do.
What you need to ask yourself in this context is why Paul did not hear Lechmere walking 30-40 yards in front of him for hundreds of yards? Why did he not see Lechmere in Bath Street, under the brewery lamps? If they walked the same pavement, with a lamp outside Schneiders in the distance, why did he not see the silhouette of Lechmere in front of him?
Why is it that Paul only noticed Lechmere as he arrived up at the murder site?

As for walking quietly away, when there was a person approching the body, who may even be a PC, and who could quite easily raise the alarm very quickly, it would involve huge risks to try and sneak away, risks that were out of the carmans control. By bluffing it out, everything was in his control. And that is something psychopaths will inevitably choose: control.
I think we are fooling ourselves if we reason that a confident serial killer and a huge and willing risktaker would function in the same manner that ordinary people do.

Then there is still the very strange statement in the inquest reports that 'they then heard a policeman coming'.

That one makes no sense, and is probably a misreporting. Only the DT has it.
How do you read it?

So I still have ambiguous feelings about Lechmere as a suspect. After all he is the only person found alone with one of the murdered women, so definitely should have been investigated more, maybe then we would know more today - and could save some of the acrimony

I have given up on the last point. There are too many people out here that are not able to conduct a serious debate for that to happen. But otherwise, you are of course correct.

[John Wheat]

There are too many people out here that are not able to conduct a serious debate for that to happen. But otherwise, you are of course correct.
[/B]

Lechmere as the Ripper is not a serious debate.

[GUT]

Lechmere as the Ripper is not a serious debate.

Even funnier is who is first to get abusive if you disagree with the theory