Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Framing Charles

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

  • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
    Fish, I've just tried to message you for details of the Lechmere book but your message box is full to capacity. What's it called please? Apologies if this is off topic but it seemed the best alternative.
    Hi,

    https://www.bookdepository.com/Cutti.../9789187611377

    I ordered mine from here and received it without issue.
    Thems the Vagaries.....

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

      Lechmere is not physically linked to any of the victims. Lechmere's actions are no more suspicious than anyone else who admitted to finding one of the victims.

      For geographical "evidence", let's look at Robert Paul. Martha Tabram's body was found a couple blocks from Paul's route to work, just like Lechmere. Polly Nichols was found on Paul's route to work. Annie Chapman was found on Paul's route to work.Catherine Eddowes was murdered closer to Paul's place of work than to Lechmere's place of work. Mark Kelly was murdered about a block from where Robert Paul worked.

      And that's without knowing where 30 Forster Street is on a modern map or anywhere else Robert Paul or members of his family lived.
      are you joking? you couldnt get any more physically linked to a victim than lech, he freaken touched her as she lay dead or dying. the rest regarding paul is ludicrous.

      he killed nichols and then circled back lol. yeah right.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
        Fish, I've just tried to message you for details of the Lechmere book but your message box is full to capacity. What's it called please? Apologies if this is off topic but it seemed the best alternative.
        "Cutting Point - solving the Jack the Ripper and the Thames Torso murders". Timaios Press. Available on all major literature sites on the net, like Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Waterstones ...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

          Lechmere is not physically linked to any of the victims. Lechmere's actions are no more suspicious than anyone else who admitted to finding one of the victims.

          For geographical "evidence", let's look at Robert Paul. Martha Tabram's body was found a couple blocks from Paul's route to work, just like Lechmere. Polly Nichols was found on Paul's route to work. Annie Chapman was found on Paul's route to work.Catherine Eddowes was murdered closer to Paul's place of work than to Lechmere's place of work. Mark Kelly was murdered about a block from where Robert Paul worked.

          And that's without knowing where 30 Forster Street is on a modern map or anywhere else Robert Paul or members of his family lived.
          I think Abbyīs post said everything that needs to be said, Fiver, with the possible exception of your "point" that I would not know where 30 Foster Street is on a modern map. Apart from it having nothiong at all to do with the discussion as such, I have actually visited the Sainsburys supermarket within which the site of old 30 Foster Street is situated today.

          There are two types of repondents in these kinds of matters: Those who say "Aha, point taken" and the ones - like you - who instead of becoming thankful when pointed in the right direction become bitter and feel a need to get back at people for what they perceive as criticism of themselves (regardless of that criticism is justified or not).

          In that vein, our exchange ends here for now.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            are you joking? you couldnt get any more physically linked to a victim than lech, he freaken touched her as she lay dead or dying. the rest regarding paul is ludicrous.

            he killed nichols and then circled back lol. yeah right.
            I don't think that was the point 'Fiver' was making.

            Yes, Lechmere was standing near a dead body in a darkened street at 3.40ish in the morning. This is highly suspicious.

            But that suspicion withers and dies on the vine, because he had an entirely plausible reason for being there. It was his route to work, and the timing is such that it coincides with the time he should have been there, given an ETA at Pickford and Co. at around 4 a.m.

            Had he been found in a street where he shouldn't have been, or at a time when he shouldn't have been there, there would have been actual reason for suspicion.

            So, there is really nothing to connect Lechmere to this murder; the theorists are left trying to connect Lechmere to one of the other murders, through geographical coincidences.

            What 'Fiver' seems to be saying is, what if it was the other way around? What if, by the merest chance, Paul left for work a minute and a half earlier? He would now be 40 seconds ahead of Lechmere, instead of 40 seconds behind him.

            Their roles would have been reversed,

            and using a similar set of geographical 'coincidences,' Robert Paul would be Jack the Ripper.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

              I don't think that was the point 'Fiver' was making.

              Yes, Lechmere was standing near a dead body in a darkened street at 3.40ish in the morning. This is highly suspicious.

              Iīd say around 3.45 and Iīd hasten to add that it was the circumstances that made his presence there suspicious in combinationwith the fact that no other killer could be found.

              But that suspicion withers and dies on the vine, because he had an entirely plausible reason for being there.

              You are aware, I take it, that many serial killers have had entirely plausible reasons to be in the vicinity of various murder spots? Sincw when are those who have such a plausible reason beyond any possible suspicion? Many serial killers have been opportunists. That means that they grab the opportunity as it comes along.

              It was his route to work, and the timing is such that it coincides with the time he should have been there, given an ETA at Pickford and Co. at around 4 a.m.

              He was late, though - or so he said. So he left home at 3.30. And should have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.37 - but happened to be in place there many minutes after that time. So much for schedules. And please try and free yourself from the idea that nobody who is on a schedule will deviate from it to kill. Many serial killers will.

              Had he been found in a street where he shouldn't have been, or at a time when he shouldn't have been there, there would have been actual reason for suspicion.

              There are other grounds for suspicion than geographical ones, R J. There are currently hundreds of unsolved murders, some of them doubtlessly parts of serial murder, along the US highways. Many serial murder cases have involved Lorry drivers who have picked up victims and killed them along the roads they have been travelling. Are we to reason that these men were innocent because they hdad a reason to be on the roads where the abductions/murders took place?

              So, there is really nothing to connect Lechmere to this murder; the theorists are left trying to connect Lechmere to one of the other murders, through geographical coincidences.

              So we should disconnect him and say he was never there? Donīt be daft, R J. You know as well as I do that he IS connected to the murder by way of having been in place at the murder site at the relevant time, a time when Nichols went on to bleed for many minutes after Charles Lechmere had been alone in the street with her. You also know that three other murders occurred along his logical pathways, that he disagreed with the police overe what was said, that he refused to help prop Nichols up and so on. There is ample reason to suggest him as the likely killer. That wonīt go away because somebody is waving his blind manīs cane at it.

              What 'Fiver' seems to be saying is, what if it was the other way around? What if, by the merest chance, Paul left for work a minute and a half earlier? He would now be 40 seconds ahead of Lechmere, instead of 40 seconds behind him.

              Their roles would have been reversed,

              and using a similar set of geographical 'coincidences,' Robert Paul would be Jack the Ripper.
              No, he would not, just as Lechmere is not Jack the Ripper for finding Nicholsīs body. He is the likely killer on accont of a weighing together of various circumstances that are specific to him, not to Paul. Paul wanted to prop Nichols up, for example, which would have given away what had happened to her. Different story. He did not disagree with the police. Different story. He did not have all four Whitechapel victims on his way to work. Different story. He did not have the links to St Georges that Lechmere had. Different story. He did not use an alias. Different story.

              You should try and read up on the whole matter. That would help a lot, methinks.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                I don't think that was the point 'Fiver' was making.

                Yes, Lechmere was standing near a dead body in a darkened street at 3.40ish in the morning. This is highly suspicious.

                But that suspicion withers and dies on the vine, because he had an entirely plausible reason for being there. It was his route to work, and the timing is such that it coincides with the time he should have been there, given an ETA at Pickford and Co. at around 4 a.m.

                Had he been found in a street where he shouldn't have been, or at a time when he shouldn't have been there, there would have been actual reason for suspicion.

                So, there is really nothing to connect Lechmere to this murder; the theorists are left trying to connect Lechmere to one of the other murders, through geographical coincidences.

                What 'Fiver' seems to be saying is, what if it was the other way around? What if, by the merest chance, Paul left for work a minute and a half earlier? He would now be 40 seconds ahead of Lechmere, instead of 40 seconds behind him.

                Their roles would have been reversed,

                and using a similar set of geographical 'coincidences,' Robert Paul would be Jack the Ripper.
                hi rj
                i fail to find the logic in this. everyone now knows that the person who discovers a body, especially a recently killed one, is defacto a suspect/ person of interest until cleared. its detective work 101. whether they had a reason to be there or not.

                added to that by his own admission, he places himself at the scene of crime at a time that gave him the opportunity to be the killer. and coroberated that paul didnt see or hear him walking ahead of him. and its always struck me as odd that hes seen near the body alone before trying to raise any alarm. and the blood evidence also points to the fact that he could have been her killer.

                now add the geo evidence, evidence that no other suspect can command and imho lech makes one of the least weak suspects.

                he certainly had the opportunity to be nichols killer at least.

                i kind of see your point about if paul left earlier but to me its a moot point as it didnt happen. as far as we know if paul left earlier he might have encountered a drunk polly nichols soliciting him or maybe dozing on the sidewalk.



                happy easter!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  "Cutting Point - solving the Jack the Ripper and the Thames Torso murders". Timaios Press. Available on all major literature sites on the net, like Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Waterstones ...
                  Thanks for that. I have a birthday approaching - and a wife who buys from Amazon so I'll see what turns up. It's one suspect book I'm looking forward to reading. If I am convinced by your arguments I'll be sure to let you know............
                  "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                    I don't think that was the point 'Fiver' was making.

                    Yes, Lechmere was standing near a dead body in a darkened street at 3.40ish in the morning. This is highly suspicious.

                    But that suspicion withers and dies on the vine, because he had an entirely plausible reason for being there. It was his route to work, and the timing is such that it coincides with the time he should have been there, given an ETA at Pickford and Co. at around 4 a.m.

                    Had he been found in a street where he shouldn't have been, or at a time when he shouldn't have been there, there would have been actual reason for suspicion.

                    So, there is really nothing to connect Lechmere to this murder; the theorists are left trying to connect Lechmere to one of the other murders, through geographical coincidences.

                    What 'Fiver' seems to be saying is, what if it was the other way around? What if, by the merest chance, Paul left for work a minute and a half earlier? He would now be 40 seconds ahead of Lechmere, instead of 40 seconds behind him.

                    Their roles would have been reversed,

                    and using a similar set of geographical 'coincidences,' Robert Paul would be Jack the Ripper.
                    And, unless I've overlooked it, there is no contemporary account which has him "standing over the body" of a murder victim. The body was at the side of the road and Lechmere was standing in the middle of the road trying to waylay the next person who came along. That, especially in an age before ready access to telephones, is exactly what an innocent person would do. There was no need for a guilty Lechmere to do any of it. He could have just legged it or walked round the corner. I think a man doing what an innocent passer-by would do is evidence that he was an innocent passer-by rather than a master criminal who chose to do it the hard way. That's how I see it - but I haven't read the book yet so I reserve the right to change my mind - or not as the case may be.
                    Last edited by Bridewell; 04-04-2021, 08:39 PM.
                    "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                      Hi,

                      https://www.bookdepository.com/Cutti.../9789187611377

                      I ordered mine from here and received it without issue.
                      Thanks for that.
                      "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post

                        And, unless I've overlooked it, there is no contemporary account which has him "standing over the body" of a murder victim. The body was at the side of the road and Lechmere was standing in the middle of the road trying to waylay the next person who came along. That, especially in an age before ready access to telephones, is exactly what an innocent person would do. There was no need for a guilty Lechmere to do any of it. He could have just legged it or walked round the corner. I think a man doing what an innocent passer-by would do is evidence that he was an innocent passer-by rather than a master criminal who chose to do it the hard way. That's how I see it - but I haven't read the book yet so I reserve the right to change my mind - or not as the case may be.
                        Just walk on, if anyone does raise a hue and cry “Gee I didn’t notice it” or “Just thought it was someone’s tarp” no need to scarper, after all he was a cold blooded psychopath who could con his way out of anything, or so we are told.
                        G U T

                        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                        Comment


                        • So, Colin and Gut, letīs provide you with some answers before I take my leave for some little time.

                          First the good old "standing over the body" thing, commented on dozens of times already.

                          It does not matter whether Lechmere was standing over the body, a yard from it, two yards from it, five yards from it or seven yards from it. The theory I am proposing is one where Lechmere killed Nichols and conned his way out of it. In such a scenario, it would be deeply improbable that he would sit on top of Nichols while explaining to Paul that he had only just seen the body as Paul arrived. What Lechmere would do would be to DISTANCE himself from the body in order to give the impression that he was not in any way in contact with it.

                          The one question that matters in this context is this one: Was Charles Lechmere close enough to the body to have backed away from it in order to fool Paul as the latter arrived? That is actually the one and only question that needs to be considered. Lechmere need not have to be standing over the body to answer to the requirements for geographical viability. He only needs to be close enough to have pulled the kind of scam I am suggesting, and in actual fact, if he was intent on fooling Paul, then the longer he was able to step away from Nichols, the better.

                          "The middle of the road" would be such a position, clear from the body, although I would say that "in the middle of the road" is much of a generic desription, more meaning "out in the road" than "exactly at the middle point of the road". From wall to wall, Bucks Row was around 25 feet, and so if Lechmere was in the exact middle of the road, and if Nicholsīs right side of the body was three feet put from the wall (which would easily allow for her hand to touch the gate, which it did), then there would be a distance of less than ten feet out to the middle of the road. And such a distance is covered in the fewest of steps, as you will know.

                          Colin tells us that being positioned in the middle of the road, waiting to waylay the next person arriving, is exactly what we should expect from an innocent person. The question then becomes what we should expect from a person who was trying to con his way out of a murder? Maybe to take up a position that signalled innocence? You see, the argument serves both sides equally well, and so the position Lechmere stood in could be indicative of innocence OR guilt.

                          But these are all side remarks. The real question we must discuss here is the age-old "He-would-never-have-stayed-put" one. Again.

                          I have commented on this issue a zillion times by now, and it still hasnīt gotten me any further than to Guts "after all he was a cold blooded psychopath who could con his way out of anything, or so we are told". As usual, the wording signals spite and disbelief; "we all know that the suggestion is ridiculous, nobody stays put at a murder site the way you suggest".

                          So how do we treat the matter? Well, I would suggest that those who really believe that this matter is a given and that no killer, regardless of his mental disposition, would choose to con his way out, actually lays down this "truth" when commenting on the matter. It would make things a lot simpler if you just said: No, he cannot be the killer, because it is impossible per se to do what you suggest he did". And then I can move on, accepting that you have chosen this route.

                          If, on the other hand, it is just a matter of you thinking that it is less likely to whatever degree that he did what I suggest he did, then I would urge you to try and put the issue to the side and do what one must do when accepting that Lechmere MAY have fooled his way out: Look at where the rest of the evidence leads us.

                          We are then faced with how the four Whitechapel murders all took place along his logical working treks. And a statistician concluded in my book that for anybody else than Lechmere to just randomly choose four murder spots along the twentyish streets I suggested as his logical working treks is one in five million. Of course, that is based on mathematics alone and does not consider that the routes Lechmere used would have been routes used by many people traversing the area from west to east or vice versa. Then again, I did not weigh in that all murders were early morning hour murders. If I had, the odds would have been increased very much. The object of the exercise was never to find the exact number for how likely an alternative killer would be. It was instead to lay down that regardless of the exact number, we must accept that it would be a very, very large one.

                          This alone makes for a very good reason to look harder at Lechmere.

                          And when we do, all the other stuff crops up:

                          -The Stride murder was very close by 1 Mary Ann Street, where his mother and daughter lived.

                          -The Eddowes murder was in a spot that seems to have the killer moving from Berner Street to Mitre Square roughly along the old working route from James Street that Lechmere walked for many years.

                          -These two murders took place on a Saturday night, normally the only night off for a common working man, and so the fact that they were not on his working treks or on his working trek hours becomes logical. The Whitechapel victims and murder times are not interchangable with the St George/Aldgate victims and times, and that is in perfect line with how Lechmere may have killed on working days along his working trek whereas he killed in his old haunts in St Georges on his night off.

                          -Lechmere declined to help Paul prop the body up, although he was the one calling Paul to assistance.

                          -Lechmere gave an alias instead of his registered name at the inquest.

                          -Lechmere disagreed with the police over what was said on the murder night. Moreover, the version of what he said that was given by Mizen would (by sheer coincidence) have been the perfect scam to allow Lechmere to pass the PC.

                          -The rag in Goulston Street was placed roughly inbetween 22 Doveton Street and Mitre Square. It could have been placed in any other direction, leading away from further suspicion against Lechmere, but it was not. It lay to the northeast from Mitre Square.

                          -The rag at St Philips, found the day after the Pinchin Street torso dumping was also placed along a line leading exactly from the railway arch up to Doveton Street. If we allow for a three degree span, there were 357 OTHER degrees in which the rag could have been found. It could have been placed to the west, the north, the southeast... anywhere. 357 degrees. But it wasnīt. It was in a direct line from the railway arch to Lechmereīs home.

                          -The one and only time a torso victim was dumped in Whitechapel, it was dumped in Pichin Street. Pinchin Street was a street Lechmere and his family always returned to and it would likely have played a role in Charlesī formative years. There were a little more than a thousand inhabited streets in Whitechapel (and tens of thousnads in the East End as a whole), and the body could have been dumped in any of them, 99 per cent of which had no documented links to Charles Lechmere. But it wasnīt. It was dumped in Pinchin Street.

                          -Lechmere could have found Nichols at any time in her bleeding cycle - or way out of it. But he "found" her at a stage when she would go on to bleed for many minutes, making him a perfect fit medically.

                          -Robert Paul could have arrived at any time, together with Lechmere as well as many minutes after Lechmere. But according to Lechmere, Paul arrived at the exact stage to supply Lechmere with a makeshift alibi. By coincidence.

                          -Lechmere said he left home at 3.30, and so he should have been in Bucks Row at 3.37, not at 3.45.

                          Now, before you start supplying all of these things with innocent alternative explanations, let me just say that we really should not do so when we find so many parameters that NEED innocent alternative explanations. We should instead say "Okay, it looks like we have our man".

                          If a woman is lying dead, beaten to death and still bleeding, on the ground with a man standing over her, holding a piece of bloody lead pipe in his hand, it is easy in the extreme to find innocent alternative explanations:

                          -Maybe he was just passing by? Is there a law against passing by?

                          -Maybe he saw her on the ground, badly beaten and with a lead pipe by her side, and he bent down and picked the pipe up? Is there a law against picking lead pipes up?

                          And Shazam - he does suddenly not have to be the killer. But hands on our hearts, gentlemen: he HAS to be the prime suspect and the (very) likely killer!

                          In Lechmereīs case, it applies that if he was not the killer of Polly Nichols, then somebody else was. After all, she WAS killed that night.

                          Now tell me: since no such other killer has been identified, and since no other person was reported to have left the area by any of the people involved, how on earth can this alternative killer be as likely or likelier the killer of Nichols as the man we have on record as having all the points above suggesting that he was the murderer?

                          Isnīt it instead a case of how we should not rule out that there MAY have been another killer and that all of the matters that point against Lechmere MAY have been coincidences or unlucky flukes, each and every one of them, unlikely though it may seem?

                          If another murderer is somehow MORE likely than Lechmere - just HOW DOES THAT WORK????

                          I will leave you to provide viable answers to that question, and I will read them with much interest. But I will not parttake in the debate for now.

                          Okay, here we go: We must expect that there was another killer than Lechmere because....?

                          Come on now.
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 04-05-2021, 07:56 AM.

                          Comment


                          • >>Paul wanted to prop Nichols up, for example, <<

                            Cross was the only person to mention this, hardly the action of someone trying to look innocent.
                            Plus, in not wanting to touch the body, Cross was no different from ALL the members of the club in Berner Street.

                            >>He (Paul) did not disagree with the police. <<

                            Yes he did, he accused Mizen of ignoring him when he told him about the body. Mizen denied his claim.

                            >>He did not have all four Whitechapel victims on his way to work.<<

                            Depends on where Paul drove his cart to, do you know? He certainly had the closest link to Annie Chapman's murder site.

                            >>He did not have the links to St Georges that Lechmere had. <<

                            How do you know? And how do you know Mrs Stride was definitely a jtr victim?

                            >>He did not use an alias. Different story.<<

                            How do you know?

                            One connection the two did have, neither was probably jtr.
                            dustymiller
                            aka drstrange

                            Comment


                            • ‘Alias’ is a loaded term. It suggests an attempt to conceal identity.

                              in this case we have a man using his stepfather’s name. Very different story.

                              Comment


                              • Well, I DID say that I was going to take a breather from the site, but I simply cannot resist to lay the last two posts in ruins. Life is short and sometimes we need to enjoy options that come along! Here we go, first Dustys collection of whoppers:

                                >>Paul wanted to prop Nichols up, for example, <<

                                Cross was the only person to mention this, hardly the action of someone trying to look innocent.
                                Plus, in not wanting to touch the body, Cross was no different from ALL the members of the club in Berner Street.

                                Of course, Stride was not Nichols and so TWO bodies are spoken of here. That is flaw number one. Flaw number two is tht we know that Lechmere DID touch the body. Flaw number three is that it matters not that Lechmere was the only one to mention it - it is neverthless on record. It does n ot go away, and he and Paul differed in this respect, which was what I said. So a lot of useless blabbering with no substance and no altering of the fact I mentioned.

                                >>He (Paul) did not disagree with the police. <<

                                Yes he did, he accused Mizen of ignoring him when he told him about the body. Mizen denied his claim.

                                No, since we know from the East London Advertiser that Mizen DID proceed to knock people up, he and Paul did NOT disagree. Another useless effort on Dustyīs behalf, therefore.

                                >>He did not have all four Whitechapel victims on his way to work.<<

                                Depends on where Paul drove his cart to, do you know? He certainly had the closest link to Annie Chapman's murder site.

                                This is a prime example of the reasoning Dusty engages in. I say that Paul would not have all four Whgitechapel victims on his way to work, and Dusty introduces Robert Paul on a cart! Which was not how he got to work. The carts were AT his work. More absolutely useless blabbering, and an answer to a question that was never asked.

                                >>He did not have the links to St Georges that Lechmere had. <<

                                How do you know? And how do you know Mrs Stride was definitely a jtr victim?

                                I know that Pau could not have had the same links that Lechmere had, of course, unless Ma Lechmere was also Pauls mother... As far as we know, Paul was not linked to St Georges, and normally what we know is what we go by. Some, however, need to go by what we donīt know.

                                >>He did not use an alias. Different story.<<

                                How do you know?

                                He was listed as Robert Paul and he was born Robert Paul as far as I understand. I know it is not good enough for you. But it is good enough for me.

                                One connection the two did have, neither was probably jtr.

                                THAT is where the question "How do you know?" comes in!!!

                                Over now to Gary Barnett, who writes:


                                ‘Alias’ is a loaded term. It suggests an attempt to conceal identity.

                                An alias is an assumed or alternative name. He was registered by the name Lechmere but used the name Cross. Cross is effectively an alternative name and therefore an alias.

                                in this case we have a man using his stepfather’s name. Very different story.

                                A very different story from what? I have never suggeted anything else, have I? And Paul never used an alternative name at all, as far as we know, so how does that make Lechmeres use of Cross "a very different story"? How does it tell him apart from Paul or put him on equal footing as Paul? Which was the question asked, of course.

                                The word alias is latin, meaning “at another time; (in the post-Augustan period) at another time or place, elsewhere, under other circumstances, otherwise”). Another way of putting it is that alias means that we do things otherwise. Using the name Cross instead of using the name Lechmere is a prime example of that.

                                I know that people who donīt like the idea of Lechmere as the killer are very eager to disallow various wordings and claims. I have had it said that I am castigating an innocent man, it has been claimed that Lechmere was not "found" near Nicholsīs body by Paul, itīs been claimed all sorts of things, and adding that we must not say that Lechmere used an alias at the inquest - when in fact we know perfectly well that this was exactly what he did - is just another addition to this particular branch of naysaying.

                                Now I will go away for some time, and this time it is a promise. However, before I do, I would like to point out that much as Mess:rs Gary and Duaty were eager enough to supply a number of misunderstanding and misrepresentations, neither of them were willing to answer the question I wanted an answer to:

                                HOW ON EARTH CAN THE SUGGESTED BUT UNSUBSTANTIATED ALTERNATIVE KILLER BE AS OR MORE LIKELY TO BE THE CULPRIT IN THE NICHOLS MURDER THAN CHARLES LECHMERE???

                                I am very intrigued to see that riddle solved, and I have high hopes to see it happen; it is not as if there is a lack of massively inventive problemsolving around here, is it?

                                Goodbye for now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X