Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere The Psychopath

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    I think harry might have meant to say "KNOWN connections to the case". Because the way he wrote it makes really no point- as I responded, obviously they all do!!

    if he did mean KNOWN connection to the case before they were caught, then I would say some of them did even. they were witnesses or at least persons of interest and there they would have probably stayed if something else didn't break the case.

    The main point I was trying to make is that IMHO unless someone has an actual physical, at the time documented connection to the case-they can never really be a viable candidate, because you could basically fit any one up for the ripper ad nauseum.
    My point is that how often are serial killers witnesses or related to someone involved in the case? One of the main reasons that serial killings are so tough to solve is that they're seemingly random, motiveless crimes with no established link between murderer and victim. Most of the time serial killers are rumbled by forensics or plain luck, the former of which was not an option during 1888. So, the Ripper world is left grasping at straws, elevating witnesses to suspect status (Hutchinson, Lechmere) when there isn't the slightest evidence that they were the killer because the faceless phantom remains ever elusive.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
      Hi,

      What do you mean by

      "invariably bank holidays?

      Cheers, Pierre
      Ah I found it
      http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6187

      It seems I got confused by the title of the book 'The Bank Holiday Murders'. It seems Aug 31st was neither a bank holiday, nor other festive day, nor weekend, and thus stands out in the C5, as well as the extended C5+ of 1888.
      As was stated by Patrick S more comprehensively, 'on the way to work' could not have applied to all dates, so I was interested to learn about the theories of Lechmere proponents regarding the dates of the murders.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by IchabodCrane View Post
        Ah I found it
        http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6187

        It seems I got confused by the title of the book 'The Bank Holiday Murders'. It seems Aug 31st was neither a bank holiday, nor other festive day, nor weekend, and thus stands out in the C5, as well as the extended C5+ of 1888.
        As was stated by Patrick S more comprehensively, 'on the way to work' could not have applied to all dates, so I was interested to learn about the theories of Lechmere proponents regarding the dates of the murders.
        OK!

        Cheers, Pierre

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          Hi Abby

          Conversely, in the case of CL in my opinion, a 'known connection' can be used to turn a witness into a suspect. So we get Robert Mann and Albert Bachert for eg. I understand your point though. All options are rife with pitfalls. I used Bury as an example earlier (although I'm definately not promoting him)
          So, in that case we can give ourselves a choice:

          Cross/Lechmere- can definately be placed, for a period, alone with the victim at the time of her death / but no other evidence against him. Or:

          Bury - cannot be placed with any of the suspects / but was known to be violent, used prostitutes, lived within easy access to the murder sites and was a proven murderer of a woman using a knife.

          Regards
          Herlock
          Hi herlock
          You make a good point re your conversely argument-Mann and Bachert. I do see people trying to fit them up and people like them, so I totally see what your saying. they do have a connection to the case but its so peripheral I don't rally see these types as valid suspects. One reason is that they really don't have any "red flags" in connection to the case, unlike lech, IMHO who has several.

          re bury vs lech. I actually have Bury on my first tier of valid suspects-for all the reasons you mention, and also because at the very least he was a person of interest. so that's the type of connection I also look for.
          "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 Harry D View Post
            My point is that how often are serial killers witnesses or related to someone involved in the case? One of the main reasons that serial killings are so tough to solve is that they're seemingly random, motiveless crimes with no established link between murderer and victim. Most of the time serial killers are rumbled by forensics or plain luck, the former of which was not an option during 1888. So, the Ripper world is left grasping at straws, elevating witnesses to suspect status (Hutchinson, Lechmere) when there isn't the slightest evidence that they were the killer because the faceless phantom remains ever elusive.
            Hi Harry
            got it and thanks-point taken.
            "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

            Working...
            X