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

[Trevor Marriott]

Some posts back, Dr Strange wrote that nobody has said that my theory cannot be correct. But actually, you have done precisely that, claiming that my theory has been "debunked". I think you are the only one who has gone public with that particular lie. And that is very helpful when it comes to gauging what kind of value one should ascribe to your posts.

Now, if you donīt mind, Trevor, maybe you could step aside and let those with a better grip on the case discuss it? All the rest of us, that is.

Your delusional obsession with Lechmere being the Ripper is what people see, but sadly you cannot see it and wont accept it, but you cant now because you have reached the point of no return. You have to keep propping him up now because of all that you have stated and all the press and media coverage you got. It take a brave man after all of that to say "I got it wrong"

You have never produced any primary evidence that points to him being considered by the police as any form of suspect. The suspect status you seek to rely on has been created by you and Edward Stow who noticeably and wisely keeps a low profile.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Might I suggest that you take time to read the chapter in my book on Feigenbaum then you will see that I obtained more evidence than the use of newspaper reports to categorise him as a likely suspect

all I have seen on this thread is you posting extracts from newspaper reports to negate newspaper articles others have posted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes Trevor you use a totally uncorroborated statement allegedly made by Feigenbaum to William Sanford Lawton. Which is ironic when considering how you dismiss MacNaghten’s ‘private information’ on exactly the same grounds.

[Fisherman]

It is fascinating in a way. We have Charles Lechmere who is documented as having been alone with a murder victim for an unestablished period of time. We know that this murder victim bled for many a minute after Lechmere left her. We know that the logical routes to work that can be identified for Lechmere are in sync with the canonical Whitechapel murders. We have him on record as disagreeing with the police over what was said and done on the murder night.

He is in every respect perfect police solution material.

And then we have an ex-murder squad policeman who calls the idea that he was the killer "delusional", who urges me to say "I got it wrong" and who is on record as stating that the theory has been "debunked"...? Without being able to point to one single detail where he can prove me wrong...? Instead he keeps repeating his mantra about unspecified delusions and non-exisatant debunking.

It could only happen in Ripperology.

Iīm sorry, Trevor, but I have no further time for these games. Present something to bolster your accusations or shut up.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes Trevor you use a totally uncorroborated statement allegedly made by Feigenbaum to William Sanford Lawton. Which is ironic when considering how you dismiss MacNaghten’s ‘private information’ on exactly the same grounds.

You are another who should read the chater of Feigenbaum before spouting your mouth off, and you will see what corroboration there is to confirm Feigenbaums status as a likely suspect for one, some or all of the murders, But as normal you and Fish hijack the thread by changing the topic by casting dispersions on another researchers work into a viable suspect to reflect away from the issue being discussed

Magnaghtens Memo is littered with errors which have been pointed out to you many times but your brain is so fixated in believing that Druitt could be the ripper based on what is written in the memo that you have become blinkered to all that has been produced to the contrary. MM is unsafe to rely on and William Sandford Lawtons interview would also be unsafe but there is corroboration to it.

You and Fish clearly have no perception on the meaning of the term evidence in criminal investigations might I suggest a Monday read might make you a bit more informed than you are at this moment in time, and also look at what the difference is between a person of interest,a likley suspect, and a prime suspect. the you both may wish to re catergorize your own suspects.

Let me help you there could be no prime suspect for Jack the Ripper in 1888. The term prime suspect only evolved in the 1930`s I fail to see how modern day researhers are able to catergorise their owm suspect ab being a prime suspect, when their is no evidence againt anyone to catergorsie them as a prime suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It is fascinating in a way. We have Charles Lechmere who is documented as having been alone with a murder victim for an unestablished period of time. We know that this murder victim bled for many a minute after Lechmere left her. We know that the logical routes to work that can be identified for Lechmere are in sync with the canonical Whitechapel murders. We have him on record as disagreeing with the police over what was said and done on the murder night.

He is in every respect perfect police solution material.

And then we have an ex-murder squad policeman who calls the idea that he was the killer "delusional", who urges me to say "I got it wrong" and who is on record as stating that the theory has been "debunked"...? Without being able to point to one single detail where he can prove me wrong...? Instead he keeps repeating his mantra about unspecified delusions and non-exisatant debunking.

It could only happen in Ripperology.

Iīm sorry, Trevor, but I have no further time for these games. Present something to bolster your accusations or shut up.

I dont need to present anything the facts speak for themselves.

I might shut up when you produce some evidence to show Lechmnere was the killer other than him being found with the body. A body which could have been found by Aunt Fanny on her way to work, would you have suspected her of being the killer. Someone had to find the body because it was lying in the street. You have created a suspect out of nothing more than that.

Do you really think that the killer would have waited around having heard footsteps walking towards him?

Take the Eddowes murder there is ever liklehood that the killer saw and heard the Pc coming down Chuch passage towards him did he stop the killing and wait for the police to come along and then said he had just come across the body, no, if he did hear the officer coming along he did the offski very quickly, which is what any other killer would have done.

and with regards to Lechmere if he had have been the killer do you think for one minute that close call would have made him cease his killing for some considerable time yet we have another killing a week later, Come on wake up to the real world.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The ignorance. The gall. The swaggering.

Trevor, you have claimed that the Lechmere theory is debunked and built on delusions. Donīt you think those kind of accusations take some substantiation?

Hereīs the deal: present one single piece of evidence meaning that the theory is debunked or one piece of evidence substantiating that it is delusional. And do not try your old cowardly line of claiming that you already have done so, because you have not and if you claim it, you are lying.

It is painstaking enough to lay out the outlines of a theory without having people like you spouting unsubstantiated accusations. You are perfectly entitled to think - or claim - that a theory is dumb or flawed, but if you are going to do so publicly, then you actually have a moral obligation to substantiate it.

That is all I am going to say, because unlike you - who claim that I am hijacking this thread for personal purposes - I have seen so many Lechmere threads go up in flames on account of people like you throwing out deeply inflammatory accusations without having anything to show for it but a pair of trousers around the ancles, that I have grown very tired about it.

You have once again made a fool of yourself, and you have once again been offered the possibility to amend it by substantiating your accusations - for once. "Take it or leave it" has rarely been a more appropriate urging.

If you produce some sort of substantiation, I will answer you. If you donīt, I will leave you deservedly uncommented on. I encourage you to do the same - let those with a genuine interest in discussing the case intelligibly do so without interfering with no other intention than inflaming, please.

PS. Only just saw your line in the above post: "I dont need to present anything the facts speak for themselves." That is the exact cowardly line of false accusations I am talking about. We actually DO need, all of us, to substantiate our claims. Try and leave that attitude behind and do what you ask me to do: Be strong and admit that you have nothing at all to show for your claims, that you made it all up and ended up in a cul-de-sac. Be that strong guy for once, Trevor.

PPS. Peter Sutcliffe was interviewed NINE times in relation to the Yorkshire Ripper murders, and kept on killing nevertheless. He was thus acutely aware that he was a person of interest to the police. Charles Lechmere was never treated as such a person of interest as far as we know. To try and make the point that he would never kill within a mere week after the Buckīs Row murder is therefore not factually viable. Other examples of serialists who killed in spite of being on the policeīs list of suspects are Gary Ridgway and John Wayne Gacy and many more. Read up! Get informed. There is no law against it.

[Fisherman]

Anybody who has not been scared off by the antics going on on this thread is very welcome to contribute to the discussion. With any luck, we can have a better discussion, based on the case material instead of personal grudges and unsubstantiated accusations.

[Trevor Marriott]

The ignorance. The gall. The swaggering.

Trevor, you have claimed that the Lechmere theory is debunked and built on delusions. Donīt you think those kind of accusations take some substantiation?

Hereīs the deal: present one single piece of evidence meaning that the theory is debunked or one piece of evidence substantiating that it is delusional. And do not try your old cowardly line of claiming that you already have done so, because you have not and if you claim it, you are lying.

It is painstaking enough to lay out the outlines of a theory without having people like you spouting unsubstantiated accusations. You are perfectly entitled to think - or claim - that a theory is dumb or flawed, but if you are going to do so publicly, then you actually have a moral obligation to substantiate it.

That is all I am going to say, because unlike you - who claim that I am hijacking this thread for personal purposes - I have seen so many Lechmere threads go up in flames on account of people like you throwing out deeply inflammatory accusations without having anything to show for it but a pair of trousers around the ancles, that I have grown very tired about it.

You have once again made a fool of yourself, and you have once again been offered the possibility to amend it by substantiating your accusations - for once. "Take it or leave it" has rarely been a more appropriate urging.

If you produce some sort of substantiation, I will answer you. If you donīt, I will leave you deservedly uncommented on. I encourage you to do the same - let those with a genuine interest in discussing the case intelligibly do so without interfering with no other intention than inflaming, please.

PS. Only just saw your line in the above post: "I dont need to present anything the facts speak for themselves." That is the exact cowardly line of false accusations I am talking about. Try and leave it behind and do what you ask me to do: Be strong and admit that you have nothing at all to show for your claims, that you made it all up and ended up in a cul-de-sac. Be that strong guy for once, Trevor.

PPS. Peter Sutcliffe was interviewed NINE times in relation to the Yorkshire Ripper murders, and kept on killing nevertheless. He was thus acutely aware that he was a person of interest to the police. Charles Lechmere was never treated as such a person of interest as far as we know. To try and make the point that he would never kill within a mere week after the Buckīs Row murder is therefore not factually viable. Other examples of serialists who killed in spite of being on the policeīs list of suspects are Gary Ridgway and John Wayne Gacy and many more. Read up! Get informed. There is no law against it.

Each case is judged on its merits and the evidence in support of that case, you have neither. You cannot compare a modern day serial killer to one 132 years ago, The world has changed since 1888.

No matter what you say, you cannot provide any corroboration to your belief that Lechmere was the killer other than him finding the body, and while you are looking at the definition of evidence, you might look up the definition of corroboration because you clearly dont understand the meaning of both if you did you would drop Lechmere as a suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I will leave Trevors post uncommented on for reasons given above. If he produces any substantiation for his deeply inflammatory accusations, that will change. But not before.

Back to the true aim for the thread now: fact-based discussion.

[Trevor Marriott]

I will leave Trevors post uncommented on for reasons given above. If he produces any substantiation for his deeply inflammatory accusations, that will change. But not before.

Back to the true aim for the thread now: fact-based discussion.

There is nothing to produce, you say Lechmere was the killer because he was found with the body, thats the only fact you seek to rely on. The rest of what you postulate is nothing more than your opinion and a mass of conjecture on your part.

I say someone had to have found the body, whoever it would have been doesnt make them the killer.

You need to show evidence to show he could have been the killer which you are unable to do, merely finding the body is not sufficient, even using two different names is not proof enough,because as has been said he was entitled to use either of the two names.

You can rant and rave and huff and puff all you like but those facts are not going to change and they are not sufficient evidence to make him a suspect. Did the police suspect him from his account given and the issues with his name? If there was any documents to show they did then your theory might be come a little more credible.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Me: I will leave Trevors post uncommented on for reasons given above. If he produces any substantiation for his deeply inflammatory accusations, that will change.

Trevor: There is nothing to produce.

Thank you for admitting it, Trevor.

[FrankO]

Yes, I know that, Joshua. What I am asking is whether the carmen actively denied having seen her eyes open. Frank says that "the carmen werenīt able to see her eyes wide open", and I am asking myself whether they actually professed to this themselves or whether it is something that is extrapolated from Neils testimony.

You’re a bit naughty here, Christer, because you know, of course, that neither of the carmen said they didn’t express in words that the eyes were open. So, yes, it’s just me saying that, had they seen that her eyes were wide open, I think they:
1. would have said so (as Joshua suggested) and
2. would have (re)acted differently than they actually did.
The fact that Paul touched her face and knelt down to hear her breathe only strengthens the notion that, at least, he didn’t see the wide open eyes.

There are a number of factors that must be weighed into the matter, one of them being that you can be unconscious with your eyes wide open. Presumably, you can be very drunk and have your eyes open too.

Regardless of whether they should be weighed in or not, even if we’d suppose that both Lechmere & Paul knew of these 2 possibilities and that they did see the eyes were wide open, I don’t think that these things would have made them (re)act in the way that they actually did. And I think you'll agree.

There is also the matter of the position of the head on Nichols; if it was turned away from the carmen to a degree, then it may have been hard to see the eyes,...

I know it’s no guarantee, but reading Neil’s statement, it certainly seems that he didn’t need to move the head to see her eyes were wide open. He put on his lamp, noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat, that she was lying on her back with her clothes disarranged and saw her eyes wide open.

I do think the dress DID get stuck under her, and this was, just as you seem to agree, why Paul could not pull the dress any further down than to the knees, in spite of trying. However, I donīt think the killer was unable to throw the clothing up over her. It would have greatly facilitated the cutting, as you agree, and if he could not do it, I believe he would have amended that problem in two seconds flat by cutting the garments open by way of knife.

I don’t know about the 2 seconds flat, but I’ll give you this one, Christer. But only because it's this time of year.

You are going to have to help me out here, Frank. Iīve seen this before, but I cannot identify a source. Where is it said that the carmen missed out on the open eyes? Could you source it for me, please? As for the gash in the throat, the carmen did see the hat and they did see how the clothing was up over her legs, she was visible from the other side of the street - it was not pitch dark at all, and so a great gash in a white neck would have stood out like a sore thumb, at least in my world. If there was anything they SHOULD see, that was it. I fail to see how they could possibly have missed it.

I understand that you fail to see this, but I don’t. Her clothes including the collar were dark and they may well have mistaken the dark blood for the dark collar. They could see things, but it was very dark, as not only they stated. There would always have been a transition from dark to light in the neck area and I think the throat wounds may even have been covered to some extent by the collar without her killer necessarily consciously interfering with it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are another who should read the chater of Feigenbaum before spouting your mouth off, and you will see what corroboration there is to confirm Feigenbaums status as a likely suspect for one, some or all of the murders, But as normal you and Fish hijack the thread by changing the topic by casting dispersions on another researchers work into a viable suspect to reflect away from the issue being discussed

Magnaghtens Memo is littered with errors which have been pointed out to you many times but your brain is so fixated in believing that Druitt could be the ripper based on what is written in the memo that you have become blinkered to all that has been produced to the contrary. MM is unsafe to rely on and William Sandford Lawtons interview would also be unsafe but there is corroboration to it.

You and Fish clearly have no perception on the meaning of the term evidence in criminal investigations might I suggest a Monday read might make you a bit more informed than you are at this moment in time, and also look at what the difference is between a person of interest,a likley suspect, and a prime suspect. the you both may wish to re catergorize your own suspects.

Let me help you there could be no prime suspect for Jack the Ripper in 1888. The term prime suspect only evolved in the 1930`s I fail to see how modern day researhers are able to catergorise their owm suspect ab being a prime suspect, when their is no evidence againt anyone to catergorsie them as a prime suspect.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don’t need to re-read your book Trevor. And yes we’ve gone through this before with you attempting to apply different standards to MacNaghten. It’s a thoroughly dishonest approach and you know it. So I’ll make this simple for you.

The statement allegedly given by Feigenbaum to Lawton took place in the prison cells. No one else heard it. Therefore no one can corroborate that Feigenbaum ever said anything of the kind about any desire to murder or mutilate women. The ‘content’ is largely irrelevant because Lawton could have simply made it up. How can we know? Any alleged facts that might tie up could have simply been ascertained at anytime during a conversation between the two. So what if he told him that he’d visited London? He could have learned that at any time.

And so Trevor - no one can corroborate that Feigenbaum ever told Lawton anything about a desire to murder and mutilate women and so by definition Lawton’s statement is UNCORROBORATED and so is unsafe to rely on.

.......

Druitt could have been the ripper. This is not an opinion it is a fact. I’ve ever said that he was the ripper or that he was even likely to have been the ripper but he could have been and no matter how much hysterical blathering you or others might come up with this FACT remains.

......

The suspect/person of interest argument is a tissue of drivel that you wasted everyone’s time with on another thread. As you might not have noticed we are not real policeman undergoing an ongoing investigation. If we make an error lives will not be lost. A guilty man won’t walk free or an innocent one end up on the gallows so this terminology is utterly irrelevant and a very childish distraction by you. In Ripperology a’ suspect’ is someone who has been named as a suspect by someone. That’s all. In a proper investigation of course the terminology is more important of course as the police have limited time and resources so they have to avoid wasting both. We have no such strictures and so terminology is largely irrelevant. Lechmere is a suspect as is Druitt as is Feigenbaum as is Lewis Carroll. We as individuals choose who to look at further. But even having explained this reasonably I just know that you’ll still go on about it. It’s a pointless fixation.


........


Few people have spent more time arguing with Fish over Lechmere than me. I don’t believe that he was the ripper but I could be wrong. He cannot be disproven and he’s the only suspect that can actually be placed at a crime scene at the right time. Unlike Feigenbaum who you can’t even place in the same country at the time. How can you jump up and down about a suspect that probably was even in the country at the time? So until you can prove that Feigenbaum was in England at the time he can be left on the shelf with Neill Cream and Vincent Van Gogh.

........

Its ‘aspersions’ by the way and not ‘dispersions.’ And how ironic is that? You are slagging off Fish as a researcher for having Lechmere as a candidate and yet you burst into tears when someone criticises your promoting of a suspect who’s crime was totally different to the ripper’s and who probably wasn’t even in the country at the time.

Feigenbaum should not be considered a suspect or much of a person of interest. If you trawled through every countries crime records you would undoubtedly find knife murders far more similar to the ripper’s that Feigenbaum’s.

Bias of staggering proportions

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Let me help you there could be no prime suspect for Jack the Ripper in 1888. The term prime suspect only evolved in the 1930`s I fail to see how modern day researhers are able to catergorise their owm suspect ab being a prime suspect, when their is no evidence againt anyone to catergorsie them as a prime suspect

A challenge for you Trevor. Please show me where I’ve called Druitt (or any suspect) a Prime Suspect. I’ll help you out.....I’ve never said it....ever. I’ve also never said.....I think that Druitt was Jack the Ripper.......ever. I’ve said that he might have been....which you cannot disprove and that, of the named suspects he’s my preferred one. It’s a personal opinion. That’s all.

What is it about mention one suspect’s name that causes adult men to turn into hysterical old women? I’ve never understood why Druitt has this effect on people? If anyone doesn’t see him as a possible or likely suspect then fine. No problem at all. Why do people get so wound up about him though. You can almost see the fingers going into the ears and hear the cry of “stop mentioning Druitt! Stop mentioning Druitt!.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don’t need to re-read your book Trevor. And yes we’ve gone through this before with you attempting to apply different standards to MacNaghten. It’s a thoroughly dishonest approach and you know it. So I’ll make this simple for you.

The statement allegedly given by Feigenbaum to Lawton took place in the prison cells. No one else heard it. Therefore no one can corroborate that Feigenbaum ever said anything of the kind about any desire to murder or mutilate women. The ‘content’ is largely irrelevant because Lawton could have simply made it up. How can we know? Any alleged facts that might tie up could have simply been ascertained at anytime during a conversation between the two. So what if he told him that he’d visited London? He could have learned that at any time.

And so Trevor - no one can corroborate that Feigenbaum ever told Lawton anything about a desire to murder and mutilate women and so by definition Lawton’s statement is UNCORROBORATED and so is unsafe to rely on.

.......

Druitt could have been the ripper. This is not an opinion it is a fact. I’ve ever said that he was the ripper or that he was even likely to have been the ripper but he could have been and no matter how much hysterical blathering you or others might come up with this FACT remains.

......

The suspect/person of interest argument is a tissue of drivel that you wasted everyone’s time with on another thread. As you might not have noticed we are not real policeman undergoing an ongoing investigation. If we make an error lives will not be lost. A guilty man won’t walk free or an innocent one end up on the gallows so this terminology is utterly irrelevant and a very childish distraction by you. In Ripperology a’ suspect’ is someone who has been named as a suspect by someone. That’s all. In a proper investigation of course the terminology is more important of course as the police have limited time and resources so they have to avoid wasting both. We have no such strictures and so terminology is largely irrelevant. Lechmere is a suspect as is Druitt as is Feigenbaum as is Lewis Carroll. We as individuals choose who to look at further. But even having explained this reasonably I just know that you’ll still go on about it. It’s a pointless fixation.


........


Few people have spent more time arguing with Fish over Lechmere than me. I don’t believe that he was the ripper but I could be wrong. He cannot be disproven and he’s the only suspect that can actually be placed at a crime scene at the right time. Unlike Feigenbaum who you can’t even place in the same country at the time. How can you jump up and down about a suspect that probably was even in the country at the time? So until you can prove that Feigenbaum was in England at the time he can be left on the shelf with Neill Cream and Vincent Van Gogh.

........

Its ‘aspersions’ by the way and not ‘dispersions.’ And how ironic is that? You are slagging off Fish as a researcher for having Lechmere as a candidate and yet you burst into tears when someone criticises your promoting of a suspect who’s crime was totally different to the ripper’s and who probably wasn’t even in the country at the time.

Feigenbaum should not be considered a suspect or much of a person of interest. If you trawled through every countries crime records you would undoubtedly find knife murders far more similar to the ripper’s that Feigenbaum’s.

Bias of staggering proportions

I dont have a problem with anyone scrutinizing the results of my investigation into Feigenbaum. What I do object to is the likes of you and Fish cristicising the work and making sweeping statements about it when neither of you have bothered to read the results in full. The term numpties springs to mind

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk