Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

[John Wheat]

So no answers to my questions? More of the same old, same old? And you STILL seem to believe that I would think that Lechmere was under suspicion in 1888? Plus you seem to think that we may rely on how the police could never have failed?

And after all that, YOU call ME blinkered?

Yes, I think the police failed to see Lechmeres potential as the culprit. I think they failed to investigate him. And I don’ t think the name issue made them think, for the simple reason that they never asked about his real name, nor found out about it.

Do you need me to point out present-day Closeaus to clinch my point, or...? Just say the word, and I will accomodate.

There's a lot of your own dubious opinion in this quote and no actual facts as per usual Fisherman. Maybe if you dealt in actual facts people would take what you say more seriously then again that's not going to happen as the facts point to the pitfalls of your theory.

[Trevor Marriott]

So no answers to my questions? More of the same old, same old? And you STILL seem to believe that I would think that Lechmere was under suspicion in 1888? Plus you seem to think that we may rely on how the police could never have failed?

And after all that, YOU call ME blinkered?

Yes, I think the police failed to see Lechmeres potential as the culprit. I think they failed to investigate him. And I don’ t think the name issue made them think, for the simple reason that they never asked about his real name, nor found out about it.

Do you need me to point out present-day Closeaus to clinch my point, or...? Just say the word, and I will accomodate.

You have no point!!!!!!

So you with the help of Edward and the distant living relative of Lechmere have been able to put Lechmere forward as suspect despite him being interviewed at length both by the police and at the inquest, The same forces who were privvy to his account, and the reasons he gave for the use of the differnet names, the same forces who clearly found nothing wrong with his account, and had no grounds to suspect him.

But researchers should now pack away their books because our intrepid super sleuths have solved not only the Whitechapel murders, and in doing so identified Jack the Ripper, but all the bodies and body parts washed up in the thames over a 40 year period were down to this same man.

But wait i am waking from a dream, or is it a nitemare either way thank God it isnt real

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

There's a lot of your own dubious opinion in this quote and no actual facts as per usual Fisherman. Maybe if you dealt in actual facts people would take what you say more seriously then again that's not going to happen as the facts point to the pitfalls of your theory.

”People”?

[Fisherman]

You have no point!!!!!!

So you with the help of Edward and the distant living relative of Lechmere have been able to put Lechmere forward as suspect despite him being interviewed at length both by the police and at the inquest, The same forces who were privvy to his account, and the reasons he gave for the use of the differnet names, the same forces who clearly found nothing wrong with his account, and had no grounds to suspect him.

But researchers should now pack away their books because our intrepid super sleuths have solved not only the Whitechapel murders, and in doing so identified Jack the Ripper, but all the bodies and body parts washed up in the thames over a 40 year period were down to this same man.

But wait i am waking from a dream, or is it a nitemare either way thank God it isnt real

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sutcliffe was interviewed by the police at least nine (9) times before he was arrested.

That didn’ t make them realize he was the killer, did it?

So maybe, just maybe, the police will not always realize who they are dealing with, would that not be fair to say?

The period of torso and ripper murders I believe Lechmere killed in was 16 years long, not 40. You ARE aware that serial killers have been active for as long and longer times? Of course you are - that was why you felt compelled to write 40, was it not. Its either conscious distortion or ignorance, you see. There are no alternatives.

As for what I think researchers should do, you are ever so welcome to go on researching Feigenbaum. Who knows, one of these days you may perhaps be able to put him in Calais or some other place near Britain. Wouldn’ t that be progress! Then, we can really all pack up and go home and forget about Lechmere, ending that nightmare of yours.

I am done with you for now, Trevor. Have a wonderful life.

[John Wheat]

”People”?

Yes people.

[Fisherman]

Yes people.

”Some people”, you mean? In that context, have you noticed that ”some people” - even many people - don’ t take your favoured suspect William Bury seriously?

You see, that’ s the way it goes. But not all people who don’ t take various suspects seriously are themselves taken seriously by ”some people”, if you follow me.

Me, I’ m happy about the ones who take Lechmere seriously and not surprised by those who don’ t. There is a large measure of predictability built into this matter, you see.

In the end, if a retired murder squad leader says that Lechmere is of tremendous interest, and if that is so unpalatable to ”some people” that they reason that he must have been misinformed about the case, then one really could not ask for much more.

Say hello from me to your people, John!

[John Wheat]

”Some people”, you mean? In that context, have you noticed that ”some people” - even many people - don’ t take your favoured suspect William Bury seriously?

You see, that’ s the way it goes. But not all people who don’ t take various suspects seriously are themselves taken seriously by ”some people”, if you follow me.

Me, I’ m happy about the ones who take Lechmere seriously and not surprised by those who don’ t. There is a large measure of predictability built into this matter, you see.

In the end, if a retired murder squad leader says that Lechmere is of tremendous interest, and if that is so unpalatable to ”some people” that they reason that he must have been misinformed about the case, then one really could not ask for much more.

Say hello from me to your people, John!

Other retired Police don't share the same view as your retired murder squad leader such as Trevor Marriot who has made his views on Lechmere clear earlier in this very thread.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sutcliffe was interviewed by the police at least nine (9) times before he was arrested.

That didn’ t make them realize he was the killer, did it?

So maybe, just maybe, the police will not always realize who they are dealing with, would that not be fair to say?

The period of torso and ripper murders I believe Lechmere killed in was 16 years long, not 40. You ARE aware that serial killers have been active for as long and longer times? Of course you are - that was why you felt compelled to write 40, was it not. Its either conscious distortion or ignorance, you see. There are no alternatives.

As for what I think researchers should do, you are ever so welcome to go on researching Feigenbaum. Who knows, one of these days you may perhaps be able to put him in Calais or some other place near Britain. Wouldn’ t that be progress! Then, we can really all pack up and go home and forget about Lechmere, ending that nightmare of yours.

I am done with you for now, Trevor. Have a wonderful life.

Sutcliffe did not find any of the bodies did he? nor did put himself at the crime scenes. It is not unusual in murder investigations for witnesses to be re interviewed.
Just for clarification purposes and to explain to you why Sutcliife was interveiwed that many times it was because with each murder that took place a seperate incident room was set up. In those days there were no computers and so any information coming into each incident room was enterered onto a card indexing system making it difficult for each incident room to know what information was on each index system.

For your information Feigenbaum can be placed in London as late as 1891 on a merchant Ship from the same merchant shipping line that had ships in London on the dates of the murders.=Case Closed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Other retired Police don't share the same view as your retired murder squad leader such as Trevor Marriot who has made his views on Lechmere clear earlier in this very thread.

Trevor does not even understand my stance, John. He firmly believes that I am of the meaning that the Victorian police suspected Lechmere. Why would I put any trust at all in somebody who very clearly demonstrates that he does not understand what I have been saying for a decade now? Any suggestions on that one, John?

Besides, how would the views an ordinary murder squad member who has invested in another suspect than Lechmere trump the views of a murder squad leader with a 96 per cent clearing rate and with an academic title, and who is NOT himself entrenched in the case, least of all by way of favoring a suspect?

Do you think that Trevors stance does in any way rule out Andy Griffiths? How would that work? Tell us, please!

As I told you, your own suspect is discarded by many and laughed at by some. That is how it goes. What this does not mean is that you are disallowed to promote Bury out here. And as far as I am concerned, I do not laugh at it, although I do rule Bury out. He is nevertheless one of very few suspects that has a little something going for him, whereas most do not.

That is how I feel I must reason; there must be some respect for the facts. We must be able to promote any suspect we honestly believe in, and that is what I am doing in Lechmeres case. But you would prefer to run him off the boards.
Why is that, John? Could you explain why he, out of all suspects, do not belong to the discussion? A man we know was at a murder site at a remove in time where a nearly decapitated victim would go on to bleed for many minutes, a man we know had a working trek route that would have taken him right by or close to the murder sites unelss he avoided the closest routes, a man who disagreed with the police about what he had said and done on the murder night?

To make such a man an unlikely killer, evidence as to WHY this would be so must be produced. And ”I think he would have run” is an opinion, not evidence and much less so a fact.

Your misgivings really don’ t amount to much, do they? Once they are looked into, they seem to be led on more by a personal grudge than by any genuine interest in the case. Correct me if I am wrong, please.

[Fisherman]

Sutcliffe did not find any of the bodies did he? nor did put himself at the crime scenes. It is not unusual in murder investigations for witnesses to be re interviewed.

Witnesses? Sutcliffe was no witness. The fact of the matter is that the police failed to nail him, it is that simple. A policeman who pointed out to his superiors that Sutcliffe was a dead ringer for the sketch drawn from information from a REAL witness was told that he would find himself handling traffic issues if he didn’ t back down! That was the quality of the Yorkshire Ripper taskforce work. The police had all the reasons in the world to apprehend him, but they failed to do so. And the reason is that they were crappy, there are no two ways about it. The police ARE crappy at times, and the Victorian police was muck less equipped in terms of psychology and technique than the hamfisted Sutcliffe force.
So don’ t give me the ”different story” crap, the Yorkshire Ripper case was the largest murder case in Britain, ant it failed miserably.

Just for clarification purposes and to explain to you why Sutcliife was interveiwed that many times it was because with each murder that took place a seperate incident room was set up. In those days there were no computers and so any information coming into each incident room was enterered onto a card indexing system making it difficult for each incident room to know what information was on each index system.

Do you think the Victorian police were better or less equipped, Trevor...?


For your information Feigenbaum can be placed in London as late as 1891 on a merchant Ship from the same merchant shipping line that had ships in London on the dates of the murders.=Case Closed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

”As late as”? You are aware that is TOO late, are you not? The Ripper murders occurred three years BEFORE that, at a remove in time when you cannot put Feigenbaum in Calais, can you?
As a contrast, I can put Lechmere in Britain in 1888.
In London, even.
In the East End.
In Whitechapel.
In Buck’ s Row.
At around 3.45 on the morning og August the 31st.

Each to his own.

This really isn’ t going your way, is it?

[John Wheat]

Trevor does not even understand my stance, John. He firmly believes that I am of the meaning that the Victorian police suspected Lechmere. Why would I put any trust at all in somebody who very clearly demonstrates that he does not understand what I have been saying for a decade now? Any suggestions on that one, John?

Besides, how would the views an ordinary murder squad member who has invested in another suspect than Lechmere trump the views of a murder squad leader with a 96 per cent clearing rate and with an academic title, and who is NOT himself entrenched in the case, least of all by way of favoring a suspect?

Do you think that Trevors stance does in any way rule out Andy Griffiths? How would that work? Tell us, please!

As I told you, your own suspect is discarded by many and laughed at by some. That is how it goes. What this does not mean is that you are disallowed to promote Bury out here. And as far as I am concerned, I do not laugh at it, although I do rule Bury out. He is nevertheless one of very few suspects that has a little something going for him, whereas most do not.

That is how I feel I must reason; there must be some respect for the facts. We must be able to promote any suspect we honestly believe in, and that is what I am doing in Lechmeres case. But you would prefer to run him off the boards.
Why is that, John? Could you explain why he, out of all suspects, do not belong to the discussion? A man we know was at a murder site at a remove in time where a nearly decapitated victim would go on to bleed for many minutes, a man we know had a working trek route that would have taken him right by or close to the murder sites unelss he avoided the closest routes, a man who disagreed with the police about what he had said and done on the murder night?

To make such a man an unlikely killer, evidence as to WHY this would be so must be produced. And ”I think he would have run” is an opinion, not evidence and much less so a fact.

Your misgivings really don’ t amount to much, do they? Once they are looked into, they seem to be led on more by a personal grudge than by any genuine interest in the case. Correct me if I am wrong, please.

I think you have mislead Griffiths.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
For your information Feigenbaum can be placed in London as late as 1891 on a merchant Ship from the same merchant shipping line that had ships in London on the dates of the murders.=Case Closed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hypothetically speaking....We have a man who had killed a woman by cutting her throat in Cornwall in 1896. We know that he visited London in 1891 but we have no evidence that he visited at any other time. The murder wasn’t of a prostitute though and it took place in a house with other people present. There was no attempt at mutilation. There was a perfectly good train service though so he could easily have got to London though. Then someone that knew our man claims that he’d told him that he’d fantasised about killing and mutilating women. This man doesn’t bother reporting it to the police he just goes straight to the Press for publicity. No one can corroborate this though as no one else was present when it allegedly took place.

Would the police consider this man a good suspect? Or even a suspect at all?

Id go for the latter. Our second man would be shelved with the cranks that surface when a murder occurs.

[Fisherman]

I think you have mislead Griffiths.

Fine. All you have to do then is to prove it, because that is how it works. Put up or shut up is the street term for it, I believe.

[Fisherman]

Hypothetically speaking....We have a man who had killed a woman by cutting her throat in Cornwall in 1896. We know that he visited London in 1891 but we have no evidence that he visited at any other time. The murder wasn’t of a prostitute though and it took place in a house with other people present. There was no attempt at mutilation. There was a perfectly good train service though so he could easily have got to London though. Then someone that knew our man claims that he’d told him that he’d fantasised about killing and mutilating women. This man doesn’t bother reporting it to the police he just goes straight to the Press for publicity. No one can corroborate this though as no one else was present when it allegedly took place.

Would the police consider this man a good suspect? Or even a suspect at all?

Id go for the latter. Our second man would be shelved with the cranks that surface when a murder occurs.

I don’ t think they would consider him a suspect, but they would certainly recognize that there would be a public demand to have him looked into. Otherwise, I agree with everything you say, Herlock.

[John Wheat]

Fine. All you have to do then is to prove it, because that is how it works. Put up or shut up is the street term for it, I believe.

I don't need to prove it. It's obvious. Also I note there is no proof of Lechmeres guilt just a lot of cobblers dreamt up by the deluded.