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

  • Pcdunn
    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.
    Just want to say that I agree with you. The idea that Paul found Cross kneeling next to the victim (who is supposedly "still warm" as another poster says further down this thread) is so wrong and does not agree wirh the paper accounts.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    Thanks for correcting me, duly noted.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pcdunn
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    In answer to the question posed by this thread, I've never read of anyone discarding the possibility that Charles Lechmere was the ripper, and I've read an awful lot of comments about him. the issue is just the degree of value attached to his candidature.
    Dusty, that isn't the question posed by the OP's title. They want to know why people discard the possibility that Charles really did just interrupt the real Ripper, not that he WAS the Ripper.

    Leave a comment:


  • IchabodCrane
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Of course, I am convinced that if the police had the information about Lechmere that we have today, they would have considered him their prime suspect. I actually think they would have considered him the killer too, come to think of it.
    Well they would have asked him some interesting questions, that is for sure.
    Most notably
    - did you hear any steps or saw anyone or anything moving away when you entered Bucks row?
    - also, where he was and which way to work he took on the early morning of August 7th, the night of the Martha Tabram murder
    - they would tell him very clearly that the fact that he was alone with the victim means he has to be considered a suspect and then work from his reaction

    Next, they would have put him on a list and checked with him and his family members his whereabouts Saturday morning September 8th, after the next murder. If not cleared by then, they would have repeated the same for Sunday September 30th after midnight.

    And all these records if they existed would give some interesting reading and surely would save us a lot of ink in our current day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    One must admire Trevor for his staunch defense, at least. He reminds me of a valiant knight. The Black Knight to be more precise:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    The only ‘futility’ hear Trevor is the apparently pointless attempt to drill into you the fact that WE ARE NOT UNDERTAKING A POLICE INVESTIGATION! Why won’t you let this sink in?

    We are under absolutely zero obligation to adhere strictly to the same terminology that the police use so why are you intent on saying that we are? Why are you so intent on ploughing on? I honestly can’t make up my mind whether you genuinly don’t understand this or if you’re just continuing bloody-mindedly. It really is elementary stuff Trevor. Pleeeeese try and understand. It doesn’t matter if we call someone a suspect or a person of interested or a cheese sandwich. It’s irrelevant.

    All that we can do is debate the positives and negatives of each SUSPECT.

    And just to add to this weirdness you yet again accuse me of trying to prove Lechmere a killer when I’ve stated at least twice but possibly three times on this thread that I don’t think that he was the ripper.

    And the only issue with Feigenbaum is that you seem to believe that 3,500 miles don’t matter! That’s not bias of course though

    Please get a grip Trevor.
    Of course, I am convinced that if the police had the information about Lechmere that we have today, they would have considered him their prime suspect. I actually think they would have considered him the killer too, come to think of it.

    Unless, of course, they were led by an early ancestor of Trevor´s. Then again, would not such a man be in the American Midwest, looking for the culprit...?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    I never thought I’d live to see the day when I was on a Lechmere thread with Fish and I’m defending Lechmere’s status as a suspect.
    These are truly weird times, Herlock. I promise I won´t start calling you a Lechmereian, though - at least not until you have read my book. If it persuades you, then I´d be proud to call you part of the gang!

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Maybe because you are as deluded as he is, and both of you have no basic understanding of how suspects are determined, You both clearly do not understand the terms "Person of interest","likely suspect" and "prime suspect" In the real world of criminal investigations these are valid catergories are there are clear differences.

    Which catergory does Lechmere fit into? In my opinion based on what is known I would say none of them. Does finding a body make someone a suspect or even a person of intereset, based on what has been presented no.

    In the light of what has been presented on Feigenbaum he must be regarded as a likely suspect for one some or perhaps all of the murders, If it could be conclusively proven that he was in London at the time of the murders then he would be elevated to a prime suspect, and there are very few of them in Ripperology.

    This thread has been hijacked by both you and Fish and turned into a Feigenbaum debate in an attempt to deflect away from the original Lechmere thread. So I will leave you both to continue your futile attempts to show Lechmere was a killer.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    The only ‘futility’ hear Trevor is the apparently pointless attempt to drill into you the fact that WE ARE NOT UNDERTAKING A POLICE INVESTIGATION! Why won’t you let this sink in?

    We are under absolutely zero obligation to adhere strictly to the same terminology that the police use so why are you intent on saying that we are? Why are you so intent on ploughing on? I honestly can’t make up my mind whether you genuinly don’t understand this or if you’re just continuing bloody-mindedly. It really is elementary stuff Trevor. Pleeeeese try and understand. It doesn’t matter if we call someone a suspect or a person of interested or a cheese sandwich. It’s irrelevant.

    All that we can do is debate the positives and negatives of each SUSPECT.

    And just to add to this weirdness you yet again accuse me of trying to prove Lechmere a killer when I’ve stated at least twice but possibly three times on this thread that I don’t think that he was the ripper.

    And the only issue with Feigenbaum is that you seem to believe that 3,500 miles don’t matter! That’s not bias of course though

    Please get a grip Trevor.

    Leave a comment:


  • paul g
    replied
    Here is some definitions of the above Trevor.

    A prime suspect or key suspect is a person who is considered by the law enforcement agency investigating a crime to be the most likely suspect. The idiom "prime suspect" believed to have originated in 1931. "Key suspect" is seen as early as 1948. ... Having the most likely motive to commit the crime.

    suspect verb [T] (THINK LIKELY)
    to think or believe something to be true or probable:

    A “person of interest” refers to someone who authorities believe might have information pertinent to a crime. .

    Here are some definitions which one does your suspect fall into Trevor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    I never thought I’d live to see the day when I was on a Lechmere thread with Fish and I’m defending Lechmere’s status as a suspect.
    Maybe because you are as deluded as he is, and both of you have no basic understanding of how suspects are determined, You both clearly do not understand the terms "Person of interest","likely suspect" and "prime suspect" In the real world of criminal investigations these are valid catergories are there are clear differences.

    Which catergory does Lechmere fit into? In my opinion based on what is known I would say none of them. Does finding a body make someone a suspect or even a person of intereset, based on what has been presented no.

    In the light of what has been presented on Feigenbaum he must be regarded as a likely suspect for one some or perhaps all of the murders, If it could be conclusively proven that he was in London at the time of the murders then he would be elevated to a prime suspect, and there are very few of them in Ripperology.

    This thread has been hijacked by both you and Fish and turned into a Feigenbaum debate in an attempt to deflect away from the original Lechmere thread. So I will leave you both to continue your futile attempts to show Lechmere was a killer.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    I never thought I’d live to see the day when I was on a Lechmere thread with Fish and I’m defending Lechmere’s status as a suspect.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    I am glad you are able to give the above self appraisal of yourself

    You have made Lechmere a suspect based on no evidence at all, Lechmere is akin to the majority of those would be suspects that appear on the list of 100, none of them have any evidence to support their suspect status either.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    You claim to be objective Trevor but that’s not how you’re approaching this when you use phrases like ‘wild speculative.’ As I’ve said, I don’t think that Lechmere was our man (though of course I could be totally wrong) but I can still see that he’s not wildly speculative compared to a man, and apologies to all for being repetitive but I’ll keep saying it, that you can’t even place in the same country as the victims. How much more basic a requirement for suspecthood can there be. It must be right at the top of any league table of requirements. Ok, I’ll put it at number 2.

    1. Must have been alive at the time.

    2. Must have been in the same country as his proposed victims.

    Not ‘well, he might have been’ or ‘it’s possible that he could have travelled...’ those aren’t good enough.

    That’s it. Until you can prove, at the very least, that he was in England at the time of the murders every other fact or inference about him is pretty irrelevant. And yet you consider it ‘wildly speculative’ to consider Lechmere? If you disregard every point that Fish has raised and just leave the fact that he was alone with the victim for a period of time just before a second person arrived it puts him, in that respect, ahead of all other suspects and so he has to be considered. We then evaluate him as individuals. We won’t all agree of course but you seem to want to use this notion of terminology (suspect or non-suspect or person of interest or whatever) to remove him and any suspect apart from Feigenbaum from the conversation.

    Why are you so keen to try and ‘erase’ suspects by using this nonsensical terminology argument? Do you think that by discussing Lechmere the real killer might be evading us??

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    I am glad you are able to give the above self appraisal of yourself

    You have made Lechmere a suspect based on no evidence at all, Lechmere is akin to the majority of those would be suspects that appear on the list of 100, none of them have any evidence to support their suspect status either.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk




    Trevor, Charles Lechmere was at the murder site, alone with the victim, at a remove in time when Polly Nichols would still go on to bleed for many minutes. That is not "no evidence at all".

    Lechmere´s logical working paths would take him right past the Whitechapel murder sites. That is not "no evidence at all".

    He is recorded as having disagreed with the police over what was said and done on the murder night. That is not "no evidence at all".

    He is closely linked to the area where Stride was killed. That is not "no evidence at all".

    His old working trek from James Street to Broad Street would have passed right by Mitre Square. That is not "no evidence at all".

    He used another name than the one he was registered by and otherwise used when in contact with authorities as he spoke to the police and inquest. That is not "no evidence at all".

    Carl Feigenbaum killed a woman in USA. That is not "no evidence at all". It IS evidence, but not evidence that he was in any way involved in the Ripper murders.

    And really, I don´t have to give myself any "self appraisal". All I have to do is to position myself next to you and boy, will I look good!

    Now, if there is nothing more...?
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-25-2021, 08:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    . Lechmere was not seen to murder Nichols or any other victim - Feigenbaum was
    Lechmere was not seen standing over a victim brandishing a long bladed knife- Feigenbaum was
    Are you so desperate that you’re trying to make two points out of one?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    The proven killer is Feigenbaum.

    Wow congrats you managed to get something right at last

    He is however not the proven killer of Nichols.

    Nor is Lechmere

    In that case, he is not even a suspect, whereas Lechmere is.

    A suspect only by your wild speculative theory

    Being a killer does not mean that you are the killer of every victim across the planet. You make yourself funny over how I ascribe many London victims to Lechmere, but you have no problems reasoning that if Feigenbaum killed in the U S, then he must be the Ripper too.

    It’ s called utter hypocrisy..

    And plain dumb.
    I am glad you are able to give the above self appraisal of yourself

    You have made Lechmere a suspect based on no evidence at all, Lechmere is akin to the majority of those would be suspects that appear on the list of 100, none of them have any evidence to support their suspect status either.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk





    Leave a comment:

Working...
X