Lechmere in Miller´s Court

[Pierre]

It’s time to move Lechmere in a different direction. Let’s take the discussion out of Buck’s Row and into Miller´s Court.

Kelly was murdered on a Friday.

According to the idea of Fisherman, Lechmere should have killed Kelly on his way to work from his home in Doveton Street.

A) Did Lechmere kill Kelly on his way to work at about 3:45-04:15?

B) Did he find Kelly at the public house?

C) Did he find Kelly in the street?

D) Did he just knock on her door?

E) Why did Lechmere kill Kelly on this particular date?

F) Did Lechmere have a motive for killing on this particular date and if there is a motive explanation, what is it based on?

G) Is there any functional explanation for the murder?

H) Can one establish a series of events connected to the life of Lechmere on the sources from the Kelly murder?

I) Are there any sources at all to establish answers for the questions above?

Regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

It’s time to move Lechmere in a different direction. Let’s take the discussion out of Buck’s Row and into Miller´s Court.

Kelly was murdered on a Friday.

According to the idea of Fisherman, Lechmere should have killed Kelly on his way to work from his home in Doveton Street.

A) Did Lechmere kill Kelly on his way to work at about 3:45-04:15?

B) Did he find Kelly at the public house?

C) Did he find Kelly in the street?

D) Did he just knock on her door?

E) Why did Lechmere kill Kelly on this particular date?

F) Did Lechmere have a motive for killing on this particular date and if there is a motive explanation, what is it based on?

G) Is there any functional explanation for the murder?

H) Can one establish a series of events connected to the life of Lechmere on the sources from the Kelly murder?

I) Are there any sources at all to establish answers for the questions above?

Regards, Pierre

Why not put Lechmere to bed instantly by sharing your superior suspect and sources? Why so obsessed with demolishing Lechmere when you claim to be so close to closing the case?

It doesn't add up Pierre. Doesn't add up at all.

[Elamarna]

It’s time to move Lechmere in a different direction. Let’s take the discussion out of Buck’s Row and into Miller´s Court.

Kelly was murdered on a Friday.

According to the idea of Fisherman, Lechmere should have killed Kelly on his way to work from his home in Doveton Street.

A) Did Lechmere kill Kelly on his way to work at about 3:45-04:15?

B) Did he find Kelly at the public house?

C) Did he find Kelly in the street?

D) Did he just knock on her door?

E) Why did Lechmere kill Kelly on this particular date?

F) Did Lechmere have a motive for killing on this particular date and if there is a motive explanation, what is it based on?

G) Is there any functional explanation for the murder?

H) Can one establish a series of events connected to the life of Lechmere on the sources from the Kelly murder?

I) Are there any sources at all to establish answers for the questions above?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

Pretty sure there are no sources for A-D.


The others, I would say none are known at present.



Steve

[Pierre]

Why not put Lechmere to bed instantly by sharing your superior suspect and sources? Why so obsessed with demolishing Lechmere when you claim to be so close to closing the case?

It doesn't add up Pierre. Doesn't add up at all.

Not at all interested in "demolishing Lechmere" but in how Fisherman generates his hypotheses.

[Pierre]

Pierre,

Pretty sure there are no sources for A-D.

The others, I would say none are known at present.

Steve

I see. It would have been interesting if there was something though.

Regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

It’s time to move Lechmere in a different direction. Let’s take the discussion out of Buck’s Row and into Miller´s Court.

Kelly was murdered on a Friday.

According to the idea of Fisherman, Lechmere should have killed Kelly on his way to work from his home in Doveton Street.

A) Did Lechmere kill Kelly on his way to work at about 3:45-04:15?

B) Did he find Kelly at the public house?

C) Did he find Kelly in the street?

D) Did he just knock on her door?

E) Why did Lechmere kill Kelly on this particular date?

F) Did Lechmere have a motive for killing on this particular date and if there is a motive explanation, what is it based on?

G) Is there any functional explanation for the murder?

H) Can one establish a series of events connected to the life of Lechmere on the sources from the Kelly murder?

I) Are there any sources at all to establish answers for the questions above?

Regards, Pierre

A. No
B. No.
C. No.
D. No.
E. He didn't.
F. No.
G. Not for Lechmere as he didn't commit the murder.
H. No.
I. Yes.

At the end of the day Lechmere is a witness not a suspect.

Also Pierre stop messing about and name your suspect.

[Elamarna]

I see. It would have been interesting if there was something though.

Regards, Pierre

Agreed.
Maybe Fisherman has some info?

Do you have sources to allow you to answer B to D for your Man by the way?

That would indeed be interesting! !






Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;403012

Agreed.
Maybe Fisherman has some info?

Do you have sources to allow you to answer B to D for your Man by the way?

That would indeed be interesting! !

Hi Steve,

The sources I have does not indicate meeting Kelly at the public house or knocking on her front door.

The answers for these questions are no. The sources are not of high validity in the case of these two questions.

The sources indicate other things. And it may be the same for Fisherman with Lechmere. He may have a source or sources indicating something else which does not answer B and D.

It is very interesting therefore, when we start asking specific questions. Often we get the problem pointed out already by Plato: the sources just tell us the same thing and they do not answer specific questions.

Sometimes asking specific questions can create a possibility for understanding what is important in the case or what is not important, or a possibility to see what type of sources is missing, or what type of questions we should ask.

The ripperologic field is full of canonical questions I think, and those questions have been institutionalized, so they are not possible to understand from very many perspectives but rather from the "old perspecitves" (Trevor´s ciriticism for example). Such questions tend to not take the case forward, since they have been asked so many times over the years and they have not been answered in a reliable way. And often they do not offer new perspectives or generate new questions.

Of course, all these methodological problems are at hand all the time, and when we try to answer the old questions, we go to the same old sources with the same old perspectives, and get the same problem: no good answers.

But when you find sources that throws light on specific problems you may be able to understand not just why the questions are like they are, but also why the answers became what they became. And then you see the historiographical problems of the case: the writing of ripperology has determined what we are allowed to think and see. We are not aware of this problem when we read it - a lot of people are not - but all we see takes us away from any possibility to go to the sources with no bias.

And of course then - what is my own bias when I ask the questions above?

And do these questions help us to understand the case in any way?

Maybe they are just blurring our sight?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

A. No
B. No.
C. No.
D. No.
E. He didn't.
F. No.
G. Not for Lechmere as he didn't commit the murder.
H. No.
I. Yes.

At the end of the day Lechmere is a witness not a suspect.

Also Pierre stop messing about and name your suspect.

He is a witness, yes. But if Fisherman had some source(s) indicating that Lechmere killed Kelly, it would be interesting.

[GUT]

Why not put Lechmere to bed instantly by sharing your superior suspect and sources? Why so obsessed with demolishing Lechmere when you claim to be so close to closing the case?

It doesn't add up Pierre. Doesn't add up at all.

But I wouldn't expect it to add up, he has never been a pretend mathematician (as far as I recall), just a pretend scientist, pretend, sociologist, pretend psychologist and pretend historian.

Though he stuck with pretending to be an historian longer than any of the other jobs he has pretended to do.

[John Wheat]

He is a witness, yes. But if Fisherman had some source(s) indicating that Lechmere killed Kelly, it would be interesting.

That's not going to happen Pierre. I've more chance of winning the lottery and I've never brought a ticket.

[Henry Flower]

He is a witness, yes. But if Fisherman had some source(s) indicating that Lechmere killed Kelly, it would be interesting.

Says the man who claims to have every murder, every motive, date, location, and line of graffiti in the case all fully explained using his undisclosed sources.

I would've thought it would be of no interest at all.

Unless you are a monumental bs artist, of course.