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

[Fisherman]

Your theory has been debunked that is a fact. There is only one person that is deluded. You are so immmersed in the belief of what you postulate that you are unable to accept anything that shatters your theory, and belive me it has been shattered. The sad thing is that you may have been able to pick up a few other deluded individuals who also believe you

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Happy wallowing to you too, Trevor!

[AlanG]

I think Lechmere either used Hanbury Street OR Old Montague Street. Victims were found along both routes, and since Lechmere worked right between where these routes took him, he - as one of few people, I would imagine - had a choice in that respect.

I suspect quite a lot of people also used those routes to work! The discrepancies in the times of the murders would trouble me, if Lechmere was the killer on his way to work. Obviously, we don't know his shift patterns etc.

[Fisherman]

I suspect quite a lot of people also used those routes to work! The discrepancies in the times of the murders would trouble me, if Lechmere was the killer on his way to work. Obviously, we don't know his shift patterns etc.

No, we don’ t know his shift patterns. But we know that Monday to Saturday was the ordinary working week. And it is of very little interest if others also walked the streets that were Lechmeres logical working routes - in a giant metropolis, that must ALWAYS be so. That is not what tells the story. What tells the story is that a suspect we are checking for viability in the canonical cases seemingly fits the bill like a glove. If three similar and odd murders are perpetrated in London, Glasgow and Dublin on consecutive days and our suspect was seemingly in those cities on those days, it is of minuscule interest if many others also were. That does not detract from how the suspects culpability is immensely strengthened. If this was not so, why check for geography at all?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

That is not what tells the story. What tells the story is that a suspect we are checking for viability in the canonical cases seemingly fits the bill like a glove.

Unless Richardson was right. Door angles and peripheral vision included, of course. Yes, dodgy shoe, knife claims and a questionable chat with Chandler are considered. Makes me wonder why this hasn't been debated elsewhere....

In all seriousness, looking forward to the book. We don't have to agree with the final "whodunit" to appreciate some scholarly, well researched work. If you can get to the UK for a book signing, feel free to sign mine "Al Bundy's Eyes is a tosser, all the best, Fish"

That'll be a collector's item, Christian.

[Fisherman]

Unless Richardson was right. Door angles and peripheral vision included, of course. Yes, dodgy shoe, knife claims and a questionable chat with Chandler are considered. Makes me wonder why this hasn't been debated elsewhere....

Me too. "Richardson", did you say...? Who´s he?

In all seriousness, looking forward to the book. We don't have to agree with the final "whodunit" to appreciate some scholarly, well researched work. If you can get to the UK for a book signing, feel free to sign mine "Al Bundy's Eyes is a tosser, all the best, Fish"

That'll be a collector's item, Christian.

If you persist in calling me Christian, I´ll sign your book to Bud Bundy´s Eyes.

Anyway, I think it is important to make the point that it is whether or not Lechmere had paths that likely were consistent with the murder spots and rough times (and he DID), not whether the Spitalfields streets were trodden by other Eastenders. The argument "many others must have walked those streets" are in my view on par with "somebody had to find her".

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

If you persist in calling me Christian, I´ll sign your book to Bud Bundy´s Eyes.

Anyway, I think it is important to make the point that it is whether or not Lechmere had paths that likely were consistent with the murder spots and rough times (and he DID), not whether the Spitalfields streets were trodden by other Eastenders. The argument "many others must have walked those streets" are in my view on par with "somebody had to find her".

Sorry, Christian is Casebooks first edition, signed etc collector. The guy with all the tatty books.

[AlanG]

No, we don’ t know his shift patterns. But we know that Monday to Saturday was the ordinary working week. And it is of very little interest if others also walked the streets that were Lechmeres logical working routes - in a giant metropolis, that must ALWAYS be so. That is not what tells the story. What tells the story is that a suspect we are checking for viability in the canonical cases seemingly fits the bill like a glove. If three similar and odd murders are perpetrated in London, Glasgow and Dublin on consecutive days and our suspect was seemingly in those cities on those days, it is of minuscule interest if many others also were. That does not detract from how the suspects culpability is immensely strengthened. If this was not so, why check for geography at all?

I agree. I also agree with Al Bundy's comment about scholarly research. I am for the most part playing devils advocate. I have just re-watched the tv programme you were in. It has divided opinion between myself and my Wife. Thanks for discussing parts of your theory with me. I really am looking forward to reading your book, all the best with it.

[harry]

Fisherman,
A simple means to prevent being found a liar is not to lie.No one you mentioned is attempting to destroy your theory,that was done ages ago.A general principle is that when a person makes a claim,he should be prepared to supply information that proves the claim.You claimed the Nichols murder to be unique,for reasons only you can say,but refuses to divulge evidence that make it so.Such a situation can lead one to justify a belief that you are lying.Only you can resolve the matter by posting what is unique about the Nichols murder.Perhaps you could also explain how this unique element affects the claim of Cross being her murderer.So calm down,take a truth pill,and explain.

[Fisherman]

I agree. I also agree with Al Bundy's comment about scholarly research. I am for the most part playing devils advocate. I have just re-watched the tv programme you were in. It has divided opinion between myself and my Wife. Thanks for discussing parts of your theory with me. I really am looking forward to reading your book, all the best with it.

My apologies to your wife for any inconvenience the docu may have caused.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
A simple means to prevent being found a liar is not to lie.No one you mentioned is attempting to destroy your theory,that was done ages ago.A general principle is that when a person makes a claim,he should be prepared to supply information that proves the claim.You claimed the Nichols murder to be unique,for reasons only you can say,but refuses to divulge evidence that make it so.Such a situation can lead one to justify a belief that you are lying.Only you can resolve the matter by posting what is unique about the Nichols murder.Perhaps you could also explain how this unique element affects the claim of Cross being her murderer.So calm down,take a truth pill,and explain.

Sorry, Harry, but you have again managed to disqualify youself from any further debate with me.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry, Harry, but you have again managed to disqualify youself from any further debate with me.

Why dont you just answer the question I am sure all the readers on this thread are waiting with baited breath for your answer, or shall I answer it for you and say there is nothing unique about the Nichols murder, this unique aspect you refer to is another that you have invented and is another example of you creating a mystery where there is none to be created.

Can I ask when you first became involved with Edward in this project?

https://www.trevormariott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Why dont you just answer the question I am sure all the readers on this thread are waiting with baited breath for your answer, or shall I answer it for you and say there is nothing unique about the Nichols murder, this unique aspect you refer to is another that you have invented and is another example of you creating a mystery where there is none to be created.

Can I ask when you first became involved with Edward in this project?

www.trevormariott.co.uk

Yes, you can - but I am not answering. That is the deal I offer people who make claims and accusations the way you do; you go glip of answers and I save time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, you can - but I am not answering. That is the deal I offer people who make claims and accusations the way you do; you go glip of answers and I save time.

There are no claims or accusation merely people stating facts and flaws which disprove your theory which you wont accpet.

For your information many years ago long before you ever became involved with Edward and the living relative of Lechmere I was approached one night at one of my theatre talks by the relative. Who relayed to me her suspicions about her long departed relative. I went to great lengths to explain the reasons why Lechmere should not be regarded as a prime suspect, the same reasons which have been discussed many times on here.

Several years later at another theatre I was again approached this time by Edward and the same relative who were told excatly the same reasons.

However following this both were clearly not willing to accept that there was no evidence to suggest Lechmere was the Ripper,but fortuitously they came upon you a newspaper hack who was searching for that elusive diamond in the rough story which would create fame and fortune for all parties with you becoming the mouthpiece with both Edward and the realtive later fading rapidly into the back ground, and I wonder why, was it because they have now realised that there is no evidence against Lechmere and have left you out on a limb clutching at straws in an attempt to prop up this misguided theory that has no foundation and is sadly lacking in prime evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Nope. Not biting, Trevor.

[harry]

Nope.Not biting ,Trevor. Obviously no teeth to bite with.