Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Thanks gary
    I agree.

    I think people need to also remember that even with all this back and forth debate that no one has yet to totally debunk any of the points in favor of his suspect hood. None of the points fish argues has been ruled out.

    I also find it extremely interesting that ma lech owned a cats meat shop, and the posibility that the young lech was around alot of butchery and gore and ma lech in charge.
    The fact that no one has totally debunked any of the points in favor of Lechmere as a suspect means nothing. Lechmere was a witness and some crackpot has drawn up a bunch of **** in a vain attempt to turn him into a suspect. With the points as they are it's up to said crackpot to prove these points not for others to disprove them. Also on the subject of cat meat butchers there is evidence Bury was at one point a cat meats butcher.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      I don't see anything odd in that photo of (the older) CAL and, besides, the nature of photography at the time lent itself to people adopting unnatural expressions..
      Yes, and Patricia Cornwell seems to have been captivated by that sinister photo of Sickert.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
        Abby,

        You've seen the photo of CAL, right?

        I'm with you on the 'visceral feel' thing. Science doesn't come into it. Just imagine being Robert Paul and being confronted by that visage.

        Not saying Lech is my man, but anyone who dismisses him as a 'crap suspect' is talking crap.

        Gary
        I agree on not dismissing him Gary, but lets not use how he looks in a photo, while i know what you mean, the very same can be said for man photos of suspects.


        Seriously, he is not a "crap suspect" by a very long way, he is one of less than 20 who can even be considered viaable in my view from the 300+ mentioned.



        All the best


        Steve

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
          I agree on not dismissing him Gary, but lets not use how he looks in a photo, while i know what you mean, the very same can be said for man photos of suspects.


          Seriously, he is not a "crap suspect" by a very long way, he is one of less than 20 who can even be considered viaable in my view from the 300+ mentioned.



          All the best


          Steve
          Are you suggesting that just because he found the body that makes him a suspect. There is not one scrap of evidence that points to him being regarded as suspect in the murder of Nicholls or any other of the women. He is crap suspect.

          In the grand scheme of things, evidence is what suspects are based on not personal opinions, if that were the case there would be no unsolved crimes in the world.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            Conversely, anyone who thinks he is a suspect based on what is known is also talking the same crap

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk.
            Trevor,

            I may disagree with you here, not for the first time, but i trust not too seriously tbis time. I think one can refer to CAL as a viable suspect because he lived local, was in the area at the time and may have had the opportunity (heavily dependent on TOD, of course).
            Almost sounds like i am defending the pro Lechmere cause.

            However saying he is viable does not make him a good suspect. He is far better than any named who were not in London, or who are accounted for elsewhere at the time. Those are the "crap" suspects.

            He remains in my 3rd rung of possibilities close to crossing to the 2nd team so to speak, but the promise from earlier performances has not be fulfilled with any solid evidence to justify that promotion.

            Of course he would not be a suspect in police terms, but then few if any would be.


            Steve
            Last edited by Elamarna; 09-13-2018, 02:14 AM.

            Comment


            • As with all suspects there are varying degrees in people’s opinions on Lechmere’s candidature. No one will be surprised when I say that my own position is that I’m, at the very least, as confident that Lechmere wasn’t the ripper as Fish is that he was. I understand ‘interest’ in him and I accept that like 99% of suspects he cannot be categorically exonerated but I see very little there apart from the fact that he was there at the time. It baffles me how someone can feel ‘confident’ about him. Well, actually it doesnt
              Regards

              Herlock






              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                he is one of less than 20 who can even be considered viable in my view from the 300+ mentioned.
                I wonder if he'd be in the Top Twenty if we factored in the 3,000+ (or whatever) potential Rippers that are yet to be mentioned, all of whom lived closer to the epicentre of the murders than Cross.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                  The fact that no one has totally debunked any of the points in favor of Lechmere as a suspect means nothing. Lechmere was a witness and some crackpot has drawn up a bunch of **** in a vain attempt to turn him into a suspect. With the points as they are it's up to said crackpot to prove these points not for others to disprove them. Also on the subject of cat meat butchers there is evidence Bury was at one point a cat meats butcher.
                  Is there evidence that Bury was a cat's meat butcher? Or just a reference to his having worked for a horse-slaughterer? Knackers were required by law to keep detailed records of all the animals they processed and the larger firms employed clerks to do so. Bury was a factor's clerk at one point, wasn't he? I think it's far more likely that he would have been keeping the knacker's books than slaughtering.

                  As Abby says Ma Lechmere was at one stage running a cat's meat business, but as far as I know there's no evidence that she was doing so in or prior to 1888.

                  There is some evidence that makes me think it's likely that CAL at some stage carried horse flesh for Harrison, Barber. But that would most likely have been boiled meat that already had the bones removed. Preparing that for retail sale would have required next to nothing in the way of butchery skills or equipment.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    I wonder if he'd be in the Top Twenty if we factored in the 3,000+ (or whatever) potential Rippers that are yet to be mentioned, all of whom lived closer to the epicentre of the murders than Cross.
                    Gareth, I know you disapprove of the use of this word, but how many of those 3,000 were found with a recently killed victim?

                    Robert Paul is trudging to work in the wee small hours and spies a man a short distance away from a prostrate women whom he subsequently discovers had been horribly murdered. A man with those hooded, reptilian eyes��. I bet he had his doubts about Lechmere.

                    Epicentre, schmepicentre. Let me ask you a question. If a man who lived in the City developed homicidal tendencies and decided to go out and slaughter prostitutes in the early morning would he be more likely to hang about outside the Bank of England looking for victims or take a walk to Spitalfields or Whitechapel?

                    As Sir Edmund Hilary might have said if he had been asked why he'd murdered women near the Whitechapel Road, Commercial Street and Aldgate - 'Because they were there.'
                    Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-13-2018, 03:32 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                      that would most likely have been boiled meat that already had the bones removed. Preparing that for retail sale would have required next to nothing in the way of butchery skills or equipment.
                      Jack the Mincer.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                        Jack the Mincer.
                        With those little legs, most probably.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          Are you suggesting that just because he found the body that makes him a suspect. There is not one scrap of evidence that points to him being regarded as suspect in the murder of Nicholls or any other of the women. He is crap suspect.

                          In the grand scheme of things, evidence is what suspects are based on not personal opinions, if that were the case there would be no unsolved crimes in the world.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Finding the body makes everyone a de facto suspect, until their cleared. You of all people should know that, but dosnt surprise me you dont.

                          And no he isnt a crap suspect trevor, crap suspects are ones like feigenbaum, remember him? Lol
                          "Is all that we see or seem
                          but a dream within a dream?"

                          -Edgar Allan Poe


                          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                          -Frederick G. Abberline

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            I wonder if he'd be in the Top Twenty if we factored in the 3,000+ (or whatever) potential Rippers that are yet to be mentioned, all of whom lived closer to the epicentre of the murders than Cross.
                            I honestly serious doubt that.

                            Steve

                            Comment


                            • Epicentre, schmepicentre. Let me ask you a question. If a man who lived in the City developed homicidal tendencies and decided to go out and slaughter prostitutes in the early morning would he be more likely to hang about outside the Bank of England looking for victims or take a walk to Spitalfields or Whitechapel?
                              Probably neither, Mr. B.

                              If he was a “marauder”-type of offender, as most serialists are, experience and research would indicate a likelihood of a City-based Jack branching out in different directions from his bolt hole, as opposed to “commuting” into the same small, concentrated pocket of one particular locale to carry out each crime. It wasn’t as if that specific region of Whitechapel and Spitalfields was the only Mecca for prostitute-seekers. There was plenty of action to be found in Clerkenwell, Shoreditch etc, as well as the City itself.

                              I’ll leave it to the David Canters and the Kim Rossmos of this world to provide a psychological explanation for this frequently observed “epicentral” phenomenon, but it does appear to hold true. “Commuters” are reportedly very rare, especially where no other form of transport is involved. Indeed, I can’t think of a single “on-foot” offender whose base was located outside the region circumscribed by the crime scenes.

                              All the best,
                              Ben

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                                Gareth, I know you disapprove of the use of this word, but how many of those 3,000 were found with a recently killed victim?
                                How many of the other people who discovered a body were "found"? It's a bit harsh to tar and feather Cross simply because Nichols happened to be the only case where two witnesses arrived at the site of her murder within barely a minute of one another.

                                And, as I've pointed out to Fisherman, Cross was not "with" the body, but was standing in the road. And, far from being "found", he called Paul's attention and it was they, together, who walked across and jointly inspected the body.
                                Epicentre, schmepicentre. Let me ask you a question. If a man who lived in the City developed homicidal tendencies and decided to go out and slaughter prostitutes in the early morning would he be more likely to hang about outside the Bank of England looking for victims or take a walk to Spitalfields or Whitechapel?
                                Why would our hypothetical City-dweller leg it all the way to Bucks Row or Berner Street, when there were unfortunates aplenty in and around Aldgate, say?

                                More generally, there were areas of poverty, prostitution and ill-repute to choose from throughout London; indeed, there were areas in the East End besides Whitechapel where a would-be prostitute killer wouldn't have wanted for victims. I posted an almost-contemporary survey here once, a kind of "prostitutes' census" if you like, which showed that Poplar had as many, if not more, than Whitechapel. (That was quite a while back, but I'll see if I can dig it out when I get home this evening.)
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X