Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charles Lechmere interesting link

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

  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Mr Barnett!

    Did you enjoy your evening out on the 25:th?

    All the best,
    Fisherman
    I did indeed, Fish. I opted for the very soggy afternoon tour. It was very interesting and I picked up a few things I wasn't aware of. The highlight (apart from the delicious bag of chips from Poppies on the corner of Hanbury Street) was seeing a photo of Lech.

    Am I missing something here? I thought your ref to Aug, 20th was just a throwaway response. Is that the case, or did something significant come to light on that date?

    MrB

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
    At least it gives meaning to your life and allows you space to vent and rant.
    Says he of the 3,000-plus posts. Hilarious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    At least it gives meaning to your life and allows you space to vent and rant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
    Moonbeggar
    Patrick's post is very easy to deny, as propositions come no where near to describing the 'Lechmere theory'.
    I'll add this to the list of absurd statements made by the Lechmere-a-cons, since my post has nothing to do with theory and is simply a list of things that Lechmere actually did. What you are unable to do, clearly, is tell me why on Earth a guilty man would do those things if his goal was not to be caught.

    At this point it's clear that you have either chosen to ignore the post(s) completely, or, it's taking you several days to construct your responses, and your having trouble doing so in a way that makes any sense whatsoever (Which is in and of itself the answer I expected: You've got nothing.).

    Now, we'll all wait for the big unveiling. Then, as seems to be the pattern here, we'll all say, "Wait. What? That doesn't make ANY sense!" You and Fisherman will blast everyone for being mean to you and saying nasty things about your "theory" and declare that Ripperology is akin to the Flat Earth Society. And the world will turn. We'll continue poking holes and laughing at you, alternately, and you'll continue with your con until you make a buck or two.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Cat's meat is the key, because of what it was made from.

    And canals are the thread that links everything together.

    Am I close?

    MrB
    Mr Barnett!

    Did you enjoy your evening out on the 25:th?

    All the best,
    Fisherman

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    No, Fisherman. You wrote "He did it. There can be very little doubt" on 6th August, so the "upgrade" in your guilt-conviction predated whatever exciting discovery/revelation/whatever occurred on the 20th.

    So now you've upgraded even further...to what, I wonder? 100% certainty that it was him?

    Wow.
    Ben!

    Has it occurred to you that:

    -70-30 actually means that you have very little doubt?

    -I am perhaps pulling your leg?

    -I may have been looking at something on the 6:th that resulted in me becoming convinced the 20:th?

    -people may feel more or less certain of things from day to day on a hunch basis?

    -more than one thing could have been added?

    As it happens, there is information that strengthens my case. But before you have any use for it, you must first be able to see the true implications of what went down on the murder morning. Working from what you wrote in your former post, you would never have picked up on part B since you think that part A never existed.

    Thats how it goes when we get things wrong.

    All the best,
    Fisherman
    Last edited by Fisherman; 08-28-2014, 11:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    Everyone likes an upgrade

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    On the 20:th of August.
    No, Fisherman. You wrote "He did it. There can be very little doubt" on 6th August, so the "upgrade" in your guilt-conviction predated whatever exciting discovery/revelation/whatever occurred on the 20th.

    So now you've upgraded even further...to what, I wonder? 100% certainty that it was him?

    Wow.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Cat's meat is the key, because of what it was made from.

    And canals are the thread that links everything together.

    Am I close?

    MrB

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    Moonbeggar
    Patrick's post is very easy to deny, as propositions come no where near to describing the 'Lechmere theory'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by moonbegger View Post
    Is this Breakthrough anything to do with Cats meat and Lechmere's ties to it ?

    Cats meat production in Bucks Row .. True .

    Cats meat shop front of 29 Hanbury street .. True .

    Cats meat shop next to Dutfields yard .. possible ..



    moonbegger .
    No, Moonbegger, it has nothing to do with the catīs meat business - although that issue is very interesting as such, and there is more to say about it than what has been said.

    It is something else, but thatīs as much as I intend to say at this remove in time. You can trust Edward though, when he says that matters will get worse for the fainthearted.

    All the best,
    Fisherman

    PS. Who said that it was a breakthrough? It may be, but Iīd like to make my own calls on such matters.

    Leave a comment:


  • moonbegger
    replied
    Is this Breakthrough anything to do with Cats meat and Lechmere's ties to it ?

    Cats meat production in Bucks Row .. True .

    Cats meat shop front of 29 Hanbury street .. True .

    Cats meat shop next to Dutfields yard .. possible ..



    Although the Patrick S post is very hard to deny ..

    moonbegger .
    Last edited by moonbegger; 08-28-2014, 12:51 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    I'm not one of them. I'm looking forward to what you guys found on August 20th. Since several others independently came to suspect Cross, his status as a potential suspect can't be totally off-base.
    But thatīs sound reasoning, Scott - how does that belong on this thread?

    All the best,
    Fisherman

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Decision Points

    I'll post this again, in hopes having the experts address the issues. Let's examine what we'll call Lechmere's decision points on August 31, 1888. We'll assume for this discussion that Charles Lechmere killed and mutilated Polly Nichols.

    1. Robert Paul approaches the crime scene. Lechmere has either just finished mutilating Nichols or is still in the process of doing so. Virtually caught in the act of murder, the killer:

    A. Runsinto the dark, deserted streets.
    B. AttacksPaul (Lechmere has a knife either in hand or on his person).
    C. Tries a ruse (my wife is drunk, etc.).
    D. Does nothing in hopes that Paul passes without noticing (or at least saying) anything.
    E. Approaches Paul, gets his attention, and asks him to "Come and see this woman.".

    2. Paul thinks Nichols may be alive. He asks Lechmere to move the body. Lechmere, having just killed and mutilated Nichols, may have (and probably does have blood on his person - it's definate that he has no way of knowing if he has blood on him or not). Moving the body will provide him a perfect alibi for the blood on his clothing. Lechmere:

    A. Helps lift Nichols and shouts, "Eh! I've gotten blood all over my coat!"
    B. Declines to move the body.

    3. Paul is still unsure if Nichols is alive or dead. But both he and the killer, Lechmere, are late for work. Lechmere decides to:

    A. Tell Paul he works in the other direction and will send a copper if he finds one on his way to work.
    B. Tell Paul he'll run ahead and see if he can find someone who can help, and just keep running until he feels he's out of danger of being caught.
    C. Go for a walk with Paul in search of a policeman to report the fact that a woman is lying in Buck's Row.

    4. Upon finding PC Mizen, Lechmere tells Mizen that:

    A. He thinks she's drunk.
    B. He thinks she's ill.
    C. That she's either drunk or ill and he agrees with Paul, he thinks she's alive.
    D. Tell Mizen, "For my part, I think she's dead."

    5. Mizen asks Lechmere his name. Lechmere, having just killed and mutilated a woman, wants to protect himself from arrest. So he:

    A. Tells him his name is Charles Lechmere. Since no suspicion has fallen upon him up to this point, why not?
    B. Make up a completely fake name, fake address, fake place of employment and disappear after the conversation with Mizen.
    C. Tell him your real first name and your adoptive father's last name along with your real home address and real place of employment.

    Really. THIS is your theory?

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
    For one or two others I fear for their blood pressure as things can (and absolutely certainly will) only get worse - much much worse for their poor rapidly beating hearts.
    I'm not one of them. I'm looking forward to what you guys found on August 20th. Since several others independently came to suspect Cross, his status as a potential suspect can't be totally off-base.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X