Historical Lechmere

[Rainbow]

I mean almost everyone can create a motive that suits his suspect, thats why I don't believe in this motive approach to solve the case..

Who would ever know that the Zodiac motive was to take slaves for his afterlife ? for example

Find him, then ask him what was his motive..


Rainbow°

[Fisherman]

Joe Barnett


http://www.casebook.org/suspects/barnett.html

Yes, I know - I was just wondering how he came into the picture. Maybe I missed something, I donīt know.

[Rainbow]

Joseph Barnett...?

Joe Barnett

http://www.casebook.org/suspects/barnett.html

[Fisherman]

Well since not everybody agrees as to the number of victims there were for JTR, it's not necessarily correct to say that there "had" to be a target at 1 or 5, no matter what a certain Police official may have written.

What was Joe Barnet's motive to murder Kelly anyway - as far as I know they weren't wed so he was already free to marry again if he wished (and in some departments it is said he did so to Mary Ann Cox??). As you say, anyway, that's a different thread.

What was Charles Cross's motive for murdering Polly (and was there ever any proof, or hint, that he was insane)?

Iīll leave Barnett out, if you donīt mind. As for Lechmere, the "normal" motive for a serial killer is to exert control over other people, whether it is to satisfy sexual urges or something else. The fewest serialists are insane, in the technical meaning of the word. Generally speaking, they are fit to plead, and they usually know that they are doing something they are not supposed to do. They just donīt care, since they write their own rules.

[MysterySinger]

Well since not everybody agrees as to the number of victims there were for JTR, it's not necessarily correct to say that there "had" to be a target at 1 or 5, no matter what a certain Police official may have written.

What was Joe Barnet's motive to murder Kelly anyway - as far as I know they weren't wed so he was already free to marry again if he wished (and in some departments it is said he did so to Mary Ann Cox??). As you say, anyway, that's a different thread.

What was Charles Cross's motive for murdering Polly (and was there ever any proof, or hint, that he was insane)?

[Fisherman]

Yes, it will be a good idea for a new thread too

To compare William Nichols with Joseph Barnett

One had killed the target woman first , and continue to kill more 4 women

And one had killed 4 women first, and then he killed the target woman

William Nichols vs. Joseph Barnett

Well well well... I need a cup of coffee..


Rainbow°

Joseph Barnett...?

[Rainbow]

Yes, it will be a good idea for a new thread too

To compare William Nichols with Joseph Barnett

One had killed the target woman first , and continue to kill more 4 women

And one had killed 4 women first, and then he killed the target woman

William Nichols vs. Joseph Barnett

Well well well... I need a cup of coffee..


Rainbow°

[Fisherman]

In the case of Polly, William Nichols seems to have had a stronger motive for wanting her gone than did Lechmere and he was having a bad time of it, but I'm not suggesting that he was Jack.

Do, by all means. All you need to prove is why William Nichols would kill four or five MORE victims, and of course, that he was in place at the murder sites.

The suggestion is NOT a good one, and the two are worlds apart in terms of viability.

[Pierre]

Obviously, Steve, Pierre misunderstood my post to you.

Anyway, that matters little - with the rate heīs making progress at right now, we can all pack up and go home soon. I canīt wait to hear what really happed back then!

Do you mean that not knowing who Jack the Ripper was is the only reason you are here?

[Pierre]

In the case of Polly, William Nichols seems to have had a stronger motive for wanting her gone than did Lechmere and he was having a bad time of it, but I'm not suggesting that he was Jack.

However, a question for Pierre - does "ambition" form any part of his hypothesis as to why JTR felt the need to kill? Talking here about the kind of ambition that Shakespeare embeds in Macbeth - Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself, But in a person who finds that ambition thwarted.

Hi MysterySinger,

Ambition as in Macbeth is not an element.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

For Godīs sake, Steve, keep at it. You have a LOT of work before you.

Hi fisherman,

I certainly do, the research i started last week as literally swamped me in data.

so taking ages to asses it all, compare and contrast. do have some initial thoughts which i will share ASAP, looking forward to your input in helping to get rid of the rubbish.


As for Pierre and Rainbow, i was merely commenting to Rainbow, that Pierre will have an answer for the 2 murders, and it will be full and long.

no comment as i hope you see on if it will be plausible, because obviously we have no idea.



Steve

[MysterySinger]

In the case of Polly, William Nichols seems to have had a stronger motive for wanting her gone than did Lechmere and he was having a bad time of it, but I'm not suggesting that he was Jack.

However, a question for Pierre - does "ambition" form any part of his hypothesis as to why JTR felt the need to kill? Talking here about the kind of ambition that Shakespeare embeds in Macbeth - Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself, But in a person who finds that ambition thwarted.

[Fisherman]

Obviously, Steve, Pierre misunderstood my post to you.

Anyway, that matters little - with the rate heīs making progress at right now, we can all pack up and go home soon. I canīt wait to hear what really happed back then!

[Pierre]

For Godīs sake, Steve, keep at it. You have a LOT of work before you.

He doesnīt. He is the best and most critical thinker here.

You, on the other hand, have big problems with your theory. Many of them have been critically discussed by Steve.

I have also been strongly criticized by Steve. I do appreciate this. It helps me. It takes the case forward.

Now, there is a whole chain of motive explanations, causal explanations and functional explanations for the murders in 1888-1889, from Nichols to McKenzie. The motive explanations are strong and detailed and tightly connected to the two other types of explanations in this historical chain.

I will do my best now to break it.

I can also tell you, Fisherman, that the problems of the double event are fully solved.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

For Godīs sake, Steve, keep at it. You have a LOT of work before you.