Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

The trouble with you is that you are so blinkered, you cannot see, or accept anything that goes against what you really and honestly believe is the truth, that Lechmere killed Polly Nichols, and that he was the killer of all the other victims, and if that's not crazy enough, you want people to accept he was the torso killer, when there is almost no evidence to suggest they were the victims of murder.

Put all the facts and evidence in all of those case, against what you keep asking people to believe is the truth, and there you can see how others perceive your manipulation of the facts, and the evidence to suit your theories.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oki-doki - this goes to the administrators of the boards. Don´t say I didn´t give you the chance to avoid it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When the killer killed Nichols he dropped the skirt down, possibly because he heard Lechmere approach, her skirts we’re near her middle just obscuring the wounds, Paul pulled them down for decency’s sake. If Lechmere had killed her and wanted to insure that no one suspected abdominal wounds he would have expended the extra 0.437 seconds of effort to pull the skirts down fully.

But he didn’t!!

Did he

[Herlock Sholmes]

My suggestion is that if Lechmere had done the cutting and was through with it as Paul arrived, then he would probably have covered both the abdominal wounds and the neck ditto. It would be strange if he covered the abdominal wounds only and left her with a gaping wound to the neck in full view.
What I think may have happened then is that Paul, when pulling the clothes down over her knees, actually uncovered the neck wound as he left.

To my mind, it does not increase or decrease Lechmere´s viability as the killer.

Does anyone else see the problem with Fish’s statement? I cant seem to make him understand.

He’s saying in one breath that if Lechmere was the killer he’d have rearranged the clothes to cover the wounds and yet, in the next breath, he says that Paul pulled her clothes over her knees?!

Robert Paul at the Inquest:

The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.

Paul pulled the clothes down, after Lechmere arrived. Therefore they were up when Paul got there. Therefore Lechmere hadn’t covered the abdominal wounds. Therefore..........

[harry]

Take You,Fisherman? I already have,with a pinch of salt.Must have been an effort to admit it is only beliefs you are peddling.Beliefs manipulated into an imaginable bogey man named Cross,without a single piece of genuine evidence that points to him as a killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My suggestion is that if Lechmere had done the cutting and was through with it as Paul arrived, then he would probably have covered both the abdominal wounds and the neck ditto. It would be strange if he covered the abdominal wounds only and left her with a gaping wound to the neck in full view.
What I think may have happened then is that Paul, when pulling the clothes down over her knees, actually uncovered the neck wound as he left.

To my mind, it does not increase or decrease Lechmere´s viability as the killer.

Then why do you persist in putting this point on ‘why Lechmere was guilty’ lists?

[Trevor Marriott]

That has nothing at all to do with manipulating the evidence and facts, though. It is a much more grave allegation than disagreeing with you, and as you hopefully understand, I cannot tolerate it.

One last chance, Trevor - explain to me or explain to the administrators.

The trouble with you is that you are so blinkered, you cannot see, or accept anything that goes against what you really and honestly believe is the truth, that Lechmere killed Polly Nichols, and that he was the killer of all the other victims, and if that's not crazy enough, you want people to accept he was the torso killer, when there is almost no evidence to suggest they were the victims of murder.

Put all the facts and evidence in all of those case, against what you keep asking people to believe is the truth, and there you can see how others perceive your manipulation of the facts, and the evidence to suit your theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Oh, you are resorting to the misspelling category. And you want me responsible for the documentary - that was a success that has gotten much acclaim as one of the best Ripper documentaries ever.

Of course.

What I am saying is that you have not proven me wrong when it comes to the many things pointing to Lechmere.

I could offer how I said that Lechmere´s mother lived in Cable Street at the time of the Stride murder - that was incorrect too, and it has later emerged tnhat she lived even closer, in Mary Ann Street.

From me to you - I was wrong there. Champagne!

Where does misspelling come into it?
The examples i gave are about factual inaccuracies.
Claiming things as fact when they are not is not about misspelling.


One of the best production wise agreed, factually all over the place, and as you are the lead, you have to take a degree of responsibility surely even if the final call was not yours


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

DeAngelo was not known to have been in the streets where the crimes occurred in his case.

Neither was Cross, apart from ONE instance - Bucks Row, which is by no means proven as the place where Nichols' killer actually picked her up. If anything, it's arguably more likely that she was picked up elsewhere, i.e. away from Cross's route to work.

[Fisherman]

As far as is known,no involvement in the killing of Nichols was ever ascribed by the police to anyone.Cross discovered the body while on his way to work.That is his sworn evidence,and it was accepted.I believe him(Cross),as no one has provided evidence that Cross was ever in the company of Nichols prior to,or at the moment she was killed.Of course he could have been,as could a number of other persons,but could have been can never be considered as incriminating evidence,so there is no suspect,and never was,in her killing.Cross is innocent,untill proven otherwise.

And Richardson can also be believed.The reason I say that,is because it was the one statement that could have been tested by a police officer sitting on the steps and my belief is that this was done,hence no official rejection of his(Richardson) claim,under oath,that he would have seen a body had there been one to see.

Yes, we choose ourselves who we believe. Take me, for instance. I don´t believe you.

[Fisherman]

Perhaps because, in Cross's case, the geographical pattern is that he lived nearly a mile away from the easternmost victim (Nichols), and that subsequent murders occurred further away still. Attempts to fit the murders with Cross's "work-trek" (or mummy's address) become increasingly tenuous from Chapman onwards, with the only undisputed correlation having been in Bucks Row - which is by no means proven as the place where Nichols actually picked up her killer (or vice versa).

In terms of geographical profiling, a killer resident in the heart of Spitalfields fits better with the distribution of murders than one who lived in Doveton Street, Bethnal Green.

The pertinent fact is that Lechmere is known to have traversed the killing grounds on a dialy basis, however, just as he had ties to the Stride and the Eddowes murder sites.
DeAngelo was not known to have been in the streets where the crimes occurred in his case. But his proximity was nevertheless regarded as a very condemning factor.
So in essence, Lechmere is much harder tied to the specific murder sites than DeAngelo ever was to the VR and EAR sites.

Do you have an explanation for why we would grade down Lechmere in interest relating to this information?

[Fisherman]

You have been told the same things many times, by many people on this forum, and I dont intend to keep repeating those same flaws in your theory, and the misguided belief you put in your experts and what they say.

As stated i do not intend to engage further with you on this topic. I have a life away from Ripperology to live, its a shame you dont

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That has nothing at all to do with manipulating the evidence and facts, though. It is a much more grave allegation than disagreeing with you, and as you hopefully understand, I cannot tolerate it.

One last chance, Trevor - explain to me or explain to the administrators.

[Trevor Marriott]

I want your explanation to why you said that I manipulated the evidence and I want it now. You either explain it to me or to the administrators of the boards, and I would prefer if you had the stature to say it to my face.

You have been told the same things many times, by many people on this forum, and I dont intend to keep repeating those same flaws in your theory, and the misguided belief you put in your experts and what they say.

As stated i do not intend to engage further with you on this topic. I have a life away from Ripperology to live, its a shame you dont

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

That´s how it works in reality: point to a geographical pattern where the killer fits in, and you have a very good case.
When it comes to Lechmere, this does not apply.

Does anyone know why?

Perhaps because, in Cross's case, the geographical pattern is that he lived nearly a mile away from the easternmost victim (Nichols), and that subsequent murders occurred further away still. Attempts to fit the murders with Cross's "work-trek" (or mummy's address) become increasingly tenuous from Chapman onwards, with the only undisputed correlation having been in Bucks Row - which is by no means proven as the place where Nichols actually picked up her killer (or vice versa).

In terms of geographical profiling, a killer resident in the heart of Spitalfields fits better with the distribution of murders than one who lived in Doveton Street, Bethnal Green.

[harry]

As far as is known,no involvement in the killing of Nichols was ever ascribed by the police to anyone.Cross discovered the body while on his way to work.That is his sworn evidence,and it was accepted.I believe him(Cross),as no one has provided evidence that Cross was ever in the company of Nichols prior to,or at the moment she was killed.Of course he could have been,as could a number of other persons,but could have been can never be considered as incriminating evidence,so there is no suspect,and never was,in her killing.Cross is innocent,untill proven otherwise.

And Richardson can also be believed.The reason I say that,is because it was the one statement that could have been tested by a police officer sitting on the steps and my belief is that this was done,hence no official rejection of his(Richardson) claim,under oath,that he would have seen a body had there been one to see.

[Fisherman]

Another point made in the docu about DeAngelo is that as the Visalia Ransacker was active in the early seventies, DeAngelo lived in Exeter, just a few minutes away. Then, as the Visalia Ransacker disappeared, the East Area Rapist appeared in Sacramento. At that stage, DeAngelo had moved to Auburn, 250 miles away from Exeter and Visalia, but only half an hours car ride from Sacramento.
This point has been crucial to the investigators. Although DeAngelo - as far as I know - has not been placed on the exact streets where the rapes took place, the information that he had close proximity to both crime series geographically is a point that tends to confirm to the investigators that they have the right man.

That´s how it works in reality: point to a geographical pattern where the killer fits in, and you have a very good case.
When it comes to Lechmere, this does not apply.

Does anyone know why? Can anyone provide a sensible explanation? Because others may have walked those streets too? As if nobody but DeAngelo walked the Exeter, Visalia, Auburn and Sacramento streets?