Lechmere the serial killer?

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390861]

So what are you saying here, Abby? That Bury is proven to have been a killer, while Lechmere is not?

Then why is not Bury a country mile ahead of Lechmere?

Hi Fish
well yes-he was a proven killer-of a woman-using a knife.
and he mutilated her abdomen.
was a person of interest at the time.
was known to abuse women, used prostitutes.
was in the area.
avg joe type.

however, my cons for him is that nothing ties him directly to the case and that IMHO McKenzie was more than likely a ripper victim (and leaning that the torsos are also) which of course would rule him out. for these reasons hes not a country mile ahead of lech, just a bit more-just my opinion.

I think Lech is a viable candidate and you have done an admirable job researching him and defending your position. I didn't even consider him a suspect at all until your work.

and as you know I favor Blotchy and Hutch as suspects A and 1. A with candidates like Bury and Lech a bit more down the line(with candidates like Chapman, Kelly and Koz). But I think, frankly all the candidates are weak-some just less weak than others.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;390858]

Hi John
Thanks-no worries. I think Bury and Lech are both viable suspects-Bury a bit more so.
They both have pros and cons IMHO.

re pierre-Im done with that joker until he gets serious and names his suspect and stops calling serious researchers like Fish "liars". How he gets away his crap and why people continue to try to engage in serious debate with him is beyond me. I used to give him the benefit of the doubt, but no more.

RE Lech-hes exactly the type of suspect that needs more looking into-like Richardson and Bowyer. Id like to see a little more serious debate and less personal stuff (I'm guilty too) on him.

So what are you saying here, Abby? That Bury is proven to have been a killer, while Lechmere is not?

Then why is not Bury a country mile ahead of Lechmere?

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;390692]

Hi Abby

I'm not defending Pierre but Lechmere is in no way a viable ripper suspect and none of the arguments for Lechmere being a suspect stack up. All there actually is in the Lechmere theory is that Lechmere found a body so what? Someone had to. The rest of it is bullshit. Having said that it is about time Pierre named his suspect.

Cheers John

Hi John
Thanks-no worries. I think Bury and Lech are both viable suspects-Bury a bit more so.
They both have pros and cons IMHO.

re pierre-Im done with that joker until he gets serious and names his suspect and stops calling serious researchers like Fish "liars". How he gets away his crap and why people continue to try to engage in serious debate with him is beyond me. I used to give him the benefit of the doubt, but no more.

RE Lech-hes exactly the type of suspect that needs more looking into-like Richardson and Bowyer. Id like to see a little more serious debate and less personal stuff (I'm guilty too) on him.

[Fisherman]

... people often get sick of the pigheaded and dogmatic.

Somehow, it does not seem to bother you.

[John Wheat]

Did you go back to the very beginning, Gut? Somehow, I donīt think you know the full history. And somehow, I am anything but certain that you are interested in it - it could spoil your picture.

Myself, I really could not care less. It is not about being "abusive", it is not about calling theories "bullshit", it is not about calling people "liars", it is not about discrediting experts who disagree with you.

It is about the strenght of the theory only, and once you can see how people prefer to attack yourself instead of the theory, you know you have a strong case.

It is that simple.

Yes but your theory is extremely weak. However people often get sick of the pigheaded and dogmatic.

[Fisherman]

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

Did you go back to the very beginning, Gut? Somehow, I donīt think you know the full history. And somehow, I am anything but certain that you are interested in it - it could spoil your picture.

Myself, I really could not care less. It is not about being "abusive", it is not about calling theories "bullshit", it is not about calling people "liars", it is not about discrediting experts who disagree with you.

It is about the strenght of the theory only, and once you can see how people prefer to attack yourself instead of the theory, you know you have a strong case.

It is that simple.

[Patrick S]

Good lord! Have people become so bored that they've started to discuss Lechmere again?

Is anyone taking bets on when Fisherman will bring up Andy Griffiths again?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

[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