Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Pierre]

Hi Fisherman,

I have read all your posts on this forum and I now understand that you are right. Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

It is easy to see that you are right.

1. Lechmere was found with a victim.
2. Lechmere lied about his name.
3. Lechmere lied about having seen at policeman at the murder site.

Simple: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

And the motive was that his mother was domineering, since she married more than once.

And therefore Lechmere was a psychopath.

And the trigger was Lechmere moving away from his mother.

And he killed on his way to work.

And Mary Kelly was killed by Lechmere on his way to work and also, all the torso killings was done by Lechmere.

Thank you.

Pierre

[MysterySinger]

And it's been on telly so that proves it.

[Geddy2112]

Was the sarcasm font on the OP or not I could not tell...

[Fisherman]

And it's been on telly so that proves it.

Bless you, yes indeed!
The one snag is that Kos, Dru, Tumblety et al have ALSO been on telly, so there an awfully large bunch of Rippers proven...

[Pierre]

Bless you, yes indeed!
The one snag is that Kos, Dru, Tumblety et al have ALSO been on telly, so there an awfully large bunch of Rippers proven...

Aha! But they were not found WITH the body!!!

[Henry Flower]

What a shame; I was really enjoying seeing the zero replies there, but somebody had to go and spoil it.

Pierre, given that you are a famous historian who has solved this case, given that you know who did it, and how it was covered up, why are you so obsessed with Fisherman and his Lechmere work? It should be absolutely irrelevant to you, and yet you seem strangely, bitterly obsessed. Wouldn't your time be better spent hunting down that final smidgeon of evidence for which you've spent over a year unsuccessfully scouring "the archives"?

At least Fisherman has the integrity to put his cards on the table, unlike you, you hypocrite.

[Pierre]

What a shame; I was really enjoying seeing the zero replies there, but somebody had to go and spoil it.

Pierre, given that you are a famous historian who has solved this case, given that you know who did it, and how it was covered up, why are you so obsessed with Fisherman and his Lechmere work? It should be absolutely irrelevant to you, and yet you seem strangely, bitterly obsessed. Wouldn't your time be better spent hunting down that final smidgeon of evidence for which you've spent over a year unsuccessfully scouring "the archives"?

At least Fisherman has the integrity to put his cards on the table, unlike you, you hypocrite.

Dear Henry,

You very often use an unpolite and belittling language. It blurrs the contents of your texts if there are any such.

In this post we see words like "obsessed", "bitterly" and "hypocrite". The meaning of the post is lost due to this type of language.

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Dear Henry,

You very often use an unpolite and belittling language. It blurrs the contents of your texts if there are any such.

In this post we see words like "obsessed", "bitterly" and "hypocrite". The meaning of the post is lost due to this type of language.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre, no it isn't, you are a liar as usual.

Maybe if I typed the whole post in bold font you'd get the point.

Any excuse to avoid a question, as usual. You are pathetic.

[Pierre]

Pierre, no it isn't, you are a liar as usual.

Maybe if I typed the whole post in bold font you'd get the point.

Any excuse to avoid a question, as usual. You are pathetic.

Who do you think was Jack the Ripper?

[Henry Flower]

Who do you think was Jack the Ripper?

I do not think that there is now or ever will be sufficient data to answer that question. But the question is not of vital importance to me, and anyway what I "think" is of no importance; I come to this site partly to study the history of the area in which I spend a lot of my time, I come here to learn, but I also do enjoy engaging with some of the more fantastical and deluded theorists. The people who decide on a suspect and then begin retro-fitting their "research" and their "data" - an approach that would doubtless lead to someone announcing their interest in the case by claiming to have "found him".

Human vanity and delusions always fascinate me. I find you amusing because of your clumsily immature expressions of vanity, your declarations of ethical and methodological purity, and your transparent hypocrisy: talking down to others for a year, telling them they won't understand your exalted methods, and downright mocking them with sarcasm as you have done with Fisherman here, are all OK in your book, but for me to call you a hypocritical coward and an ass, well, that is just different isn't it? That's unacceptable!

No Pierre, it isn't. You are equally nasty but in a passive-aggressive way. You veil your nastiness just as you veil your suspect.

I do not believe the Whitechapel murderer will ever be definitively identified, and it matters not a jot to me whether he is or not, whether he was one man or a set of coincidences. I come here to learn about a place and an era I love, to satisfy a craving to study the most outlying extremities of human depravity, and to engage with some who are thoughtful, educated and insightful, and others who are conceited, deluded, hypocritical and dishonest.

I find it all tremendously rewarding, and I can't wait to amuse myself with your theory when you have notified all the relatives and finally set your terrified suspect before the hungry pack.

[paul g]

Prove me wrong .

Pierre here you go in print pass it to a legal rep see if there is a case for slander.

" you have lied yes Lied on your threads not mis lead but lied full blantant lies.
You are a liar with possible mental issues bordering on delusions and I would hazard a guess in my opinion you somewhat believe what you post.
There is no research there is no data FACT.
These are the descriptions I will describe you as
1A fantasist.
2 A liar
3 A hypocrite
Sue me if you like

[Abby Normal]

Nothing else to see here. Thank you. Move along now.

[John Wheat]

Aha! But they were not found WITH the body!!!

Hi Pierre

I still think found a body is more accurate.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Hi Pierre

I still think found a body is more accurate.

Cheers John

If he was innocent, then he found a body and was subsequently found with that body. So, if innocence applies, BOTH versions are correct.

If innocence does NOT apply, only one is correct.

Interestingly, this means that Pierre cannot be wrong in this instance. Who would have thought that?

[Darryl Kenyon]

You are pathetic, you are a hypocrite. No wonder people find it difficult to post on here.