Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

The boards could and should be a source of insights and knowledge and not a stage for a vocifrrous concuction of misrepresention,rude accusation and a seemingly bottomless pit of ignorance.
Well said Fisherman,you have described yourself completely,as recent posts have shown,only criticism I can make is, you left out honesty and truthfullness.

I believe there is ample evidence,as given by Long,Cadosche and Richardson,to suggest a time of death of Chapman as being around 5.30 AM.

You are welcome to present any single case you can find where I have not been truthful. Once it becomes obvious that it is an impossibility for you, nothing more needs to be said about your approach.

Now that has been said, I am not going to waste any more time on you.

[harry]

The boards could and should be a source of insights and knowledge and not a stage for a vocifrrous concuction of misrepresention,rude accusation and a seemingly bottomless pit of ignorance.
Well said Fisherman,you have described yourself completely,as recent posts have shown,only criticism I can make is, you left out honesty and truthfullness.

I believe there is ample evidence,as given by Long,Cadosche and Richardson,to suggest a time of death of Chapman as being around 5.30 AM.

[Abby Normal]

Fisherman:

The Times coverage of the inquest, 11 Sept.

John Davis --(who went downstairs around 5:45)

"The front door was wide open, and he was not surprised at finding it so, as it was frequently left open at night..."

HOWEVER--we know it hadn't been left open, because:

John Richardson: (Daily Telegraph 13 Sept) describing leaving the building at roughly 4:55 or 5 a.m.:

"I shut the front door."


Ergo, between roughly 5 a.m. and 5:45 a.m. a person or persons unknown left the front door standing wide open. We can assume they either entered the building, left the building, or both.

What happened in that time frame that might explain it?

Hint: Long/Cadoche. You're up against 4 independent witnesses with no axe to grind, painting a pretty complete circumstantial picture of what must have happened. All the best.

Well done Rj

I dont beleive ive ever seen anyone bring this up before. Add to that..that anyone living there who left inbetween that time more than likely would have shut the door. Who dosnt shut the door to their house?

Also, a killer trying to skidaddle quickly and quietly probably would leave the door open IMHO.

Good post.

[rjpalmer]

Fisherman:

The Times coverage of the inquest, 11 Sept.

John Davis --(who went downstairs around 5:45)

"The front door was wide open, and he was not surprised at finding it so, as it was frequently left open at night..."

HOWEVER--we know it hadn't been left open, because:

John Richardson: (Daily Telegraph 13 Sept) describing leaving the building at roughly 4:55 or 5 a.m.:

"I shut the front door."


Ergo, between roughly 5 a.m. and 5:45 a.m. a person or persons unknown left the front door standing wide open. We can assume they either entered the building, left the building, or both.

What happened in that time frame that might explain it?

Hint: Long/Cadoche. You're up against 4 independent witnesses with no axe to grind, painting a pretty complete circumstantial picture of what must have happened. All the best.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How can you be certain that he would have blood on his person when you donīt know his position either?

Of course Jason Payne-James could not be certain of the positions - what he was certain of is that the deed could have been performed with little or no blood at all discernible on Lechmere. Iīm sure that you can think up alternative explanations where he got bloodied, though.

Again, now who is misinterpreting.

I’m not saying that Lechmere would or wouldn’t have gotten blood on him. What I’m saying is that Lechmere couldn’t have been anything like certain that he hadn’t gotten blood on him whilst killing in the dark. That’s the point I make that you seem to think strange. It’s not unreasonable therefore to think that a killer under those circumstances might want to check himself over for blood before he had to speak to anyone.

How can this point be construed as unreasonable?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the usual is feeling very depressed about how you reason, then you are right. You come back with the same arguments over and over again, and that is your prerogative. But it also applies that it must be my prerogative to simply avoid answering the same old, same old - or to point out why I find it useless.

One example, since you persist: You say that we do not know that Lechmere was violent. Again. For the umpteenth time.

So here goes again. For the umpteenth time:

We donīt know that he was NOT violent. We have no information either way. We know that many men who have been serialists have amazed their environment on account of how nobody had any idea that they were violent, not the neighbours, not the wifes, nobody.

But you still pursue this line! "We donīt know that he was violent". We donīt know IF he was violent, that is what we donīt know. And, most importantly, no matter that we donīt know this, the points of suspicion will not go away because of that!

We donīt have to have information speaking of a violent disposition to accept that many things point in his direction. Entertaining suspicion against somebody is not dependent of whether we can verify that he is violent or not.

Having to explain these things wears me down. If that is your ultimate goal, you should be delighted to hear that the process is underway.

You’ve been wearying me for longer than that. The ‘violent’ point is not one that i labour because it’s a very, very minor one. I only raise it when listing points. When we are basically box-ticking it’s a point that it’s reasonable to mention. I’m not saying for example that Bury was Jack the Ripper but we know that he was violent so it’s a slight plus point.

Let’s put it this way Fish. If tomorrow you found out that there was evidence of Lechmere being violent I’m sure that you’d never mention it

[Varqm]

No, I do not agree at all. I donīt think there is any realistic chance that Chapman died at around 5.30. And accordingly, it is not in any way the simpler explanation - it is the distorted one.

It is the simplest explanation.Of course it's possible Chapman was killed at 5;25-5;30,it's the most realistic.I believe in Cadosch's time because he was working and had a reason to check,not to be late.
Why is it the distorted one?

---

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman. You seem to have a pack of hounds at your heels, but in the two or three times we've exchanged messages you've struck me as a reasonable fellow, and I appreciated your research into 'Toppy,' so I do wish to treat you in a fair-minded way, and with respect.

If nothing else, I enjoy 'hand's on' Ripperology, and, as it so happens, I am currently visiting a house that has back steps and a spring door that automatically shuts, so I'll run a few experiments tomorrow morning and test your theory in a fair manner. Dawn was at 4:51 a.m., sunrise at 5.25 a.m., on Sept 8th, so I'll try to recreate the same conditions that Richardson experienced and see if I notice anything untoward in your suggestion. I'm at around 45 degrees latitude, and London is roughly 51.5, but it's the same time of year, so the conditions should be similar. I don't have a rabbit or a dull knife, so maybe I'll trim my toenails.

That said, all the talk is about the back door, what about the front door? Perhaps you may have addressed this earlier (I haven't read all of the thread) but doesn't the front door pose a bit of an issue? Richardson states quite clearly that he shut the front door on leaving the building, yet 30 or 40 minutes later the old codger John Davis came downstairs and found it swinging wide open. Clearly someone must have decamped from the building at around the same time that Mr. Cadoche heard strange noises in the neighboring yard? And surely that someone must have been the murderer? If not, who was it? What rascal opened this door and left it wide open to the street on a busy market morning if it was not our old friend Saucy Jack? Enjoy your evening.

Of course it could have been somebody else than the killer that left the door open. I donīt remember that detail, but Iīm sure you have it correct.

How about the person who exclaimed "No!" was the one leaving it open? Or another unfortunate who tried the door but changed her mind for some reason.

Again, I donīt think that Richardson must be regarded as having told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Again, I feel convinced that the killer left the premises well before Richardson did - IF Richardson did.

I welcome your little experiment, and I would be interested to hear the outcome. If nothing else, it should be able to produce an immaculate set of toenails.

On a side note, I do wish you had not said that you want to treat me with respect - it sounds as if you are rather nervously trying to pacify a completely unpredictable maniac.
Then again, maybe you are instead trying to set an example...?

[Fisherman]

Not exactly categorical is it?

So Lechmere, who might possible have had some blood on him(unknown in quantity or location on his person) and he would have no way of knowing himself whether he had or not, hung around to meet someone who might even have been a police officer not caring at all if that person had noticed that blood.

An added point. How could JJP give such an opinion (however cagey) when he couldn’t be certain of Lechmere’sposition in regard to the body at the time of death?

How can you be certain that he would have blood on his person when you donīt know his position either?

Of course Jason Payne-James could not be certain of the positions - what he was certain of is that the deed could have been performed with little or no blood at all discernible on Lechmere. Iīm sure that you can think up alternative explanations where he got bloodied, though.

[Fisherman]

You made a series of points. I made a post commenting on each. Because you don’t like those points you resort to the usual.

If the usual is feeling very depressed about how you reason, then you are right. You come back with the same arguments over and over again, and that is your prerogative. But it also applies that it must be my prerogative to simply avoid answering the same old, same old - or to point out why I find it useless.

One example, since you persist: You say that we do not know that Lechmere was violent. Again. For the umpteenth time.

So here goes again. For the umpteenth time:

We donīt know that he was NOT violent. We have no information either way. We know that many men who have been serialists have amazed their environment on account of how nobody had any idea that they were violent, not the neighbours, not the wifes, nobody.

But you still pursue this line! "We donīt know that he was violent". We donīt know IF he was violent, that is what we donīt know. And, most importantly, no matter that we donīt know this, the points of suspicion will not go away because of that!

We donīt have to have information speaking of a violent disposition to accept that many things point in his direction. Entertaining suspicion against somebody is not dependent of whether we can verify that he is violent or not.

Having to explain these things wears me down. If that is your ultimate goal, you should be delighted to hear that the process is underway.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Fisherman. You seem to have a pack of hounds at your heels, but in the two or three times we've exchanged messages you've struck me as a reasonable fellow, and I appreciated your research into 'Toppy,' so I do wish to treat you in a fair-minded way, and with respect.

If nothing else, I enjoy 'hand's on' Ripperology, and, as it so happens, I am currently visiting a house that has back steps and a spring door that automatically shuts, so I'll run a few experiments tomorrow morning and test your theory in a fair manner. Dawn was at 4:51 a.m., sunrise at 5.25 a.m., on Sept 8th, so I'll try to recreate the same conditions that Richardson experienced and see if I notice anything untoward in your suggestion. I'm at around 45 degrees latitude, and London is roughly 51.5, but it's the same time of year, so the conditions should be similar. I don't have a rabbit or a dull knife, so maybe I'll trim my toenails.

That said, all the talk is about the back door, what about the front door? Perhaps you may have addressed this earlier (I haven't read all of the thread) but doesn't the front door pose a bit of an issue? Richardson states quite clearly that he shut the front door on leaving the building, yet 30 or 40 minutes later the old codger John Davis came downstairs and found it swinging wide open. Clearly someone must have decamped from the building at around the same time that Mr. Cadoche heard strange noises in the neighboring yard? And surely that someone must have been the murderer? If not, who was it? What rascal opened this door and left it wide open to the street on a busy market morning if it was not our old friend Saucy Jack? Enjoy your evening.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"I donīt think that he must have had necessarily much or indeed any blood visible on his person".
(Jason Payne-James)

... but we of course payed him to say that, and he is just a simple liar anyway, misled by us and the devious film crew. And you are of course a MUCH better judge of this than him!!!

That is another alternative explanation.

Now I really donīt have any more time to spare for you. You have made the exact same statement before, and you have had the exact same answer before. You can lead a donkey to water...

Not exactly categorical is it?

So Lechmere, who might possible have had some blood on him(unknown in quantity or location on his person) and he would have no way of knowing himself whether he had or not, hung around to meet someone who might even have been a police officer not caring at all if that person had noticed that blood.

An added point. How could JJP give such an opinion (however cagey) when he couldn’t be certain of Lechmere’sposition in regard to the body at the time of death?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Iīll just do what I normally do when you have these fits, Herlock - I isolate one detail and scrutinize it:

"And we have the murders ceasing after Kelly. Oh, I forgot, that’s why you are so desperate to tie the Ripper Murders together with the Torso Killings."

I am not desperate to tie the series together. Nor do I have to. They do it by themselves. It takes sticking your head in the sand like an ostridge to miss out on that, and my have you stuck your head DEEEP in!

Burying my head in the sand like the majority who appear to disagree with you as well.

Oh, but I forgot, you have alternative explanations for this too: they both took out uteri, they both took out hearts, they both cut necks, they both abstained from physical torture and they both had a penchant for cutting away the abdominal wall in flaps - but they did so for wildly varying reasons (!), yes Sir!

It is okay not to have the capacity to see the implications of all this. It is okey to be ignorant. Totally (in both respects). Many people are, and as they say: it takes all kinds.
What is not okay is to produce the kind of crap you do and proudly flaunt it on public boards. It is even less okay to lack sorely in historical insights and try to hide that by accusing others of being the stupid ones.

A cynical twisting of the facts as ever.

You are talking out of your behind, Herlock, and the result is accordingly very meagre in terms of usefulness for the readers of these boards. I can only advice you not to overinvest in your capacity - but such advice is normally not appreciated for itīs good sense, and I donīt expect it to happen this time either

Stop with the whimpering victimhood. I disagree with you on many points. It’s allowed. Everyone is ignorant when they disagree with you. The only crap on here is your blatantly biased viewpoints where you will go to any length to shoehorn Lechmere in. If you don’t like being disagreed with then stick to fishing.

Itīs a shame. The boards could - and should - be a source of insights and knowledge and not a stage for a vociferous concoction of misinformation, rude accusations and a seemingly bottomless pit of ignorance.

And the boards shouldn’t be a constant stream of insulting arrogance where only you can be correct. You keep mentioning things like accusations when, as I’ve said before and anyone can read, they come from you in the first place.

It’s time that you learned that everything that you say isn’t the pinnacle of truth and learning.

It nevertheless is just that at times.

Deja-vu. Every thread. Polite debate until Fish gets tired of being disagreed with then it descends with Fish blaming everyone (usually me) but himself.

You made a series of points. I made a post commenting on each. Because you don’t like those points you resort to the usual.

[Fisherman]

And neither Paul or Mizen mention Lechmere having a speck of blood on him after cutting Polly Nichols throat and mutilating her abdomen.

"I donīt think that he must have had necessarily much or indeed any blood visible on his person".
(Jason Payne-James)

... but we of course payed him to say that, and he is just a simple liar anyway, misled by us and the devious film crew. And you are of course a MUCH better judge of this than him!!!

That is another alternative explanation.

Now I really donīt have any more time to spare for you. You have made the exact same statement before, and you have had the exact same answer before. You can lead a donkey to water...

[Fisherman]

And we have the ludicrous idea of Lechmere butchering a prostitute 15 mins before he has to be at work.

And the ludicrous suggestion that he found Polly elsewhere then took her to a spot that he passed every day at that time on the way to work. So that if he’d been caught later on in the series he couldn’t reasonably deny ever being in Buck’s Row at the rough time of the murder.

And the point that he stays put when he could easily have fled to safety.

Or that we cannot place him at any other crime scene. (And I don’t mean that his Aunty Barbara lived 4 streets away from Mitre Square either.)

And we have no evidence of Lechmere being violent.

And we have the murders ceasing after Kelly. Oh, I forgot, that’s why you are so desperate to tie the Ripper Murders together with the Torso Killings.

Oh and we can see why you are desperate for John Richardson to be either a liar or a half-wit.

Yes, the list goes on

Iīll just do what I normally do when you have these fits, Herlock - I isolate one detail and scrutinize it:

"And we have the murders ceasing after Kelly. Oh, I forgot, that’s why you are so desperate to tie the Ripper Murders together with the Torso Killings."

I am not desperate to tie the series together. Nor do I have to. They do it by themselves. It takes sticking your head in the sand like an ostridge to miss out on that, and my have you stuck your head DEEEP in!

Oh, but I forgot, you have alternative explanations for this too: they both took out uteri, they both took out hearts, they both cut necks, they both abstained from physical torture and they both had a penchant for cutting away the abdominal wall in flaps - but they did so for wildly varying reasons (!), yes Sir!

It is okay not to have the capacity to see the implications of all this. It is okey to be ignorant. Totally (in both respects). Many people are, and as they say: it takes all kinds.
What is not okay is to produce the kind of crap you do and proudly flaunt it on public boards. It is even less okay to lack sorely in historical insights and try to hide that by accusing others of being the stupid ones.

You are talking out of your behind, Herlock, and the result is accordingly very meagre in terms of usefulness for the readers of these boards. I can only advice you not to overinvest in your capacity - but such advice is normally not appreciated for itīs good sense, and I donīt expect it to happen this time either.

Itīs a shame. The boards could - and should - be a source of insights and knowledge and not a stage for a vociferous concoction of misinformation, rude accusations and a seemingly bottomless pit of ignorance.

It nevertheless is just that at times.