Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Lechmere the serial killer?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostThe 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostGUT. 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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostLike he says, what is the use of history if history is not telling us what really happened in the past?
~ 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Henry Flower View PostWhat 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?
Leave a comment:
-
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?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostI do not abandon hypotheses, I try them. I have questions marks. Those are tools. Perhaps Lechmere saw a policeman. Perhaps he heard a policeman.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
[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.
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.
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?Last edited by Pierre; 07-18-2016, 08:39 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Henry Flower View PostSorry 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostGUT. 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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GUT View PostPierre 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.
Kind regards, Pierre
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostIt'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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Henry Flower View PostGiven 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?
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Columbo View PostSorry 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
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: