Lechmere the serial killer?

[Columbo]

And on top of that, the statement "this suspect can only be tied to one murder scene" seems an odd critique to make on a Ripperology forum. This is Ripperology: the vast majority of our suspects cannot be tied to even a single murder scene!

There is no evidence placing Aaron Kozminski at a single murder scene. There is no evidence placing Severin Koslowski at a single murder scene. There is no evidence placing Montague Druitt at a single murder scene - or even in Whitechapel! Some of our top suspects cannot even be confidently placed on Earth during the fall of 1888, because we're not 100% sure that they existed.

By being definitely present at one of the murder scenes, or even by definitely being present in Whitechapel during the killing spree, Charles Lechmere has more tying him to these murders than almost any other suspect.

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

[GUT]

Indeed. 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? Why not devote the time instead to finishing his own research and revealing to the world the killer's name? Along with concrete evidence placing him at all five crime scenes at the times the crimes were committed?

The answer of course is that he is playing a tedious game and probably has far less going for his own theory, with its references to Hilliard paintings found in the positioning of MJK's corpse, than Fisherman does for his, hence his obsessive attempts to discredit the Lechmere idea.

Oh - and new forum rules guys: Pierre is allowed to obsessively attack Fisherman's ideas on a public forum, but David is NOT allowed to respond. Pierre makes the rules now.

Pierre, get over yourself, you're not in charge here.

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]

NOT unlikely to be solved? So it will get solved eventually, Gutster? How's that?

Not should have been an, bloody crook eyes and auto correct.

[Columbo]

NOT unlikely to be solved? So it will get solved eventually, Gutster? How's that?

It's not solved? Are you saying Walter Sickert didn't do it?

Columbo

[Pcdunn]

That's so true.

Then you need to tie someone to each scene.

Guess that's why this is not mystery that is unlikely to ever be solved.

NOT unlikely to be solved? So it will get solved eventually, Gutster? How's that?

[GUT]

That's true and it's been pointed out before. As per your other comment about annie chapman and nichols having the same murderer, they probably did but Stride is debated as a ripper victim along with Mary Kelly. So you have to define who the victims were before you can accuse anyone.

Columbo

That's so true.

Then you need to tie someone to each scene.

Guess that's why this is not mystery that is unlikely to ever be solved.

[Henry Flower]

We're all waiting for the Great Reveal, Damaso. When Pierre produces a suspect who can be tied to more than one murder scene (albeit probably through metaphorical language or basic misunderstanding).

Indeed. 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? Why not devote the time instead to finishing his own research and revealing to the world the killer's name? Along with concrete evidence placing him at all five crime scenes at the times the crimes were committed?

The answer of course is that he is playing a tedious game and probably has far less going for his own theory, with its references to Hilliard paintings found in the positioning of MJK's corpse, than Fisherman does for his, hence his obsessive attempts to discredit the Lechmere idea.

Oh - and new forum rules guys: Pierre is allowed to obsessively attack Fisherman's ideas on a public forum, but David is NOT allowed to respond. Pierre makes the rules now.

Pierre, get over yourself, you're not in charge here.

[Elamarna]

Personally, I don't think I can bear the suspense much longer. I await the denouement with bated breath!

In fact, wouldn't it be wonderful if the Great Reveal is disclosed in the form of a metaphysical puzzle? Or then again, perhaps not!

Hi all

Just to clarify the great reveal will be:

1. A police official, ( be that high officer, low position or one assumes someone like a doctor working for the police).

2. This individual is apparently not directly linked to the London police at the time.

3. He appears to be able to spend large amounts of time away from his position, staying in digs, almost in hiding. So is he actually employed at the time?

4. The murders start, stop and then start again for personally reasons.

5. He apparently likes hunting, and has an understanding of Eastern honour punishments.

6. The authorities know who he is, but rather than arrest him, they send him away, because apparently of the reputation and power of two families.

7. They then allow him to return in 89 and start again, and still do nothing.


If you disagree with any of that Pierre, I will be most surprised.


Steve

[John G]

We're all waiting for the Great Reveal, Damaso. When Pierre produces a suspect who can be tied to more than one murder scene (albeit probably through metaphorical language or basic misunderstanding).

Personally, I don't think I can bear the suspense much longer. I await the denouement with bated breath!

In fact, wouldn't it be wonderful if the Great Reveal is disclosed in the form of a metaphysical puzzle? Or then again, perhaps not!

[David Orsam]

And on top of that, the statement "this suspect can only be tied to one murder scene" seems an odd critique to make on a Ripperology forum. This is Ripperology: the vast majority of our suspects cannot be tied to even a single murder scene!

We're all waiting for the Great Reveal, Damaso. When Pierre produces a suspect who can be tied to more than one murder scene (albeit probably through metaphorical language or basic misunderstanding).

[Columbo]

And on top of that, the statement "this suspect can only be tied to one murder scene" seems an odd critique to make on a Ripperology forum. This is Ripperology: the vast majority of our suspects cannot be tied to even a single murder scene!

There is no evidence placing Aaron Kozminski at a single murder scene. There is no evidence placing Severin Koslowski at a single murder scene. There is no evidence placing Montague Druitt at a single murder scene - or even in Whitechapel! Some of our top suspects cannot even be confidently placed on Earth during the fall of 1888, because we're not 100% sure that they existed.

By being definitely present at one of the murder scenes, or even by definitely being present in Whitechapel during the killing spree, Charles Lechmere has more tying him to these murders than almost any other suspect.

That's true and it's been pointed out before. As per your other comment about annie chapman and nichols having the same murderer, they probably did but Stride is debated as a ripper victim along with Mary Kelly. So you have to define who the victims were before you can accuse anyone.

Columbo

[Damaso Marte]

And on top of that, the statement "this suspect can only be tied to one murder scene" seems an odd critique to make on a Ripperology forum. This is Ripperology: the vast majority of our suspects cannot be tied to even a single murder scene!

There is no evidence placing Aaron Kozminski at a single murder scene. There is no evidence placing Severin Koslowski at a single murder scene. There is no evidence placing Montague Druitt at a single murder scene - or even in Whitechapel! Some of our top suspects cannot even be confidently placed on Earth during the fall of 1888, because we're not 100% sure that they existed.

By being definitely present at one of the murder scenes, or even by definitely being present in Whitechapel during the killing spree, Charles Lechmere has more tying him to these murders than almost any other suspect.

[Damaso Marte]

The strongest evidence for Nichols's killer also being the killer of the other C5 - or at least Chapman - is the strong similarity between these killings.

There are very few people in the world who think Nichols and Chapman were killed by different hands. In my mind, if you've proven that a specific person killed Nichols or Chapman, you've proven that they've killed the other one too.

[Columbo]

Do not tell me about what points I have made. You are not the patrolman and keeper of order on this forum. Do not tell me what I "need". You know nothing about it and it is not your business. Stop disturbing me when I discuss with others.

Ladies, Ladies, please! no catfights

Columbo

[David Orsam]

Do not tell me about what points I have made. You are not the patrolman and keeper of order on this forum. Do not tell me what I "need". You know nothing about it and it is not your business. Stop disturbing me when I discuss with others.

I wasn't telling YOU what you "need". I meant "you" in the sense of "one".

So I'll repeat the post, changing "you" to "one" if it helps (although it now means a lot of "ones" in there).

You've already made this post on the forum Pierre. I distinctly recall it because I pointed out in response that if Jack the Ripper murdered the canonical five women then one only needs to solve one of the murders and one has found Jack the Ripper. One doesn't need to prove every single one, assuming the premise I have stated is correct.

Now I've explained why I have repeated my post, perhaps you can explain you are repeating yourself?

And just to clarify, if I want to tell you what points you have already made on this forum I am perfectly entitled to do so.