Lechmere the serial killer?

[John Wheat]

Stupid thread title. Stupid thread.

[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?

[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 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

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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 Buckīs Row is no lie. They did not see a policeman in Buckīs 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.

[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?

[John Wheat]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.