Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Actually, I must of course wish you all out here a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. We Swedes celebrate Christmas on the 24th, not on the 25th, so theres another occasion where I am some way ahead of the rest of you...

    Have a wonderful holiday, all!

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by FrankO View Post

    Yes, Christer, you've written Vincent van Gogh correctly ('van' instead of 'Van')! Hope (but I trust you do) you pronounce it correctly, too (i.e. not as 'ven go')!

    God helg! Happy Holidays!
    I believe I know how its pronounced, Frank. But I dont pronounce it that way, Im afraid. I find Dutch a very unforgiving language and so I cheat - but I take heart in how the Dutch themselves are generally very good when it comes to using English.

    As for painters, I find it odd how Pieter de Hooch and Van Gogh spell their names very differently but pronounce them rather alike. Then again, a Dutchman may find that too indiscriminating a statement...?

    God Jul och Gott Nytt r to you too, Frank!

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Have you asked yourself this:

    If Aaron Kosminski, Montague Druitt, Charles le Grand, Jacob Levy, George Chapman, Lewis Carroll, Vincent van Gogh, William Bury, James Kelly, Francis Tumblety, Robert Mann, James Hardiman, William Gull, James Stephen, Joseph Barnett or any other of the suspects or somebody who was never a suspect managed to squeeze in before Charles Lechmere arrived and was interrupted by the carman, deciding to flee the scene - then why did that somebody take care to cover up the wounds before he did so? It seems not to have been any of his priorities at the other murder scenes? You see, in my humble opinion, if Lechmere was the killer and stayed put at the site as he heard Paul approaching, then he and he alone would have a rational reason for doing so. It becomes a logical act when looked upon in this manner, whereas it is an anomaly otherwise.
    Any thoughts on that?
    Yes, Christer, you've written Vincent van Gogh correctly ('van' instead of 'Van')! Hope (but I trust you do) you pronounce it correctly, too (i.e. not as 'ven go')!

    God helg! Happy Holidays!

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Stacker View Post
    In my opinion, this is a very likely possibility, and its so frequently ignored. It would help explain why Nicholls was mutilated much less than 3 of the 4 later C5 victims.
    Have you asked yourself this:

    If Aaron Kosminski, Montague Druitt, Charles le Grand, Jacob Levy, George Chapman, Lewis Carroll, Vincent van Gogh, William Bury, James Kelly, Francis Tumblety, Robert Mann, James Hardiman, William Gull, James Stephen, Joseph Barnett or any other of the suspects or somebody who was never a suspect managed to squeeze in before Charles Lechmere arrived and was interrupted by the carman, deciding to flee the scene - then why did that somebody take care to cover up the wounds before he did so? It seems not to have been any of his priorities at the other murder scenes? You see, in my humble opinion, if Lechmere was the killer and stayed put at the site as he heard Paul approaching, then he and he alone would have a rational reason for doing so. It becomes a logical act when looked upon in this manner, whereas it is an anomaly otherwise.
    Any thoughts on that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
    Hi Stacker,

    ...we do have a hotly anticipated new book on this very subject due soon.

    By that one person who believes that Lechmere was the killer, even!
    And will it address this very issue? Indeed it will!
    And will those experts alluded to comment on it? For sure!

    Who knows, Al, in days to come, we may find ourselves in a situation where I am not the only person on planet Earth who favours Charles Lechmere as the killer. Time will tell.

    Leave a comment:


  • Al Bundy's Eyes
    replied
    Hi Stacker,

    I'd have thought the prevailing belief was more inclined to be the other way round? I certainly wouldn't say it's 'discarded', unproven yes, debatable, but most would be in agreement that it's a likelihood.

    Your question kind of leans towards there being a "pro Lechmere" consensus, which is definitely not the case. A handful of people (well, one really) think he was the killer. For the others who believe he found Polly on his way to work, his approaching footsteps scaring off the killer is perfectly plausible. I can't honestly say it's frequently ignored.

    However, we do have a hotly anticipated new book on this very subject due soon.

    ​​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


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

    In my opinion, this is a very likely possibility, and its so frequently ignored. It would help explain why Nicholls was mutilated much less than 3 of the 4 later C5 victims.
Working...
X