Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

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

  • #61
    [QUOTE=Elamarna;396606]

    Pierre,

    I see another EXCUSE to avoid publishing.
    It is clear to all that you consider yourself above peer review and superior to those who post here.
    No, it is "clear" to you, Steve. But it is not clear to me. And I think you should refrain from telling others what is "clear" to them. Surely, you can speak for yourself and David, your pal.

    True this is not a university it is a site which is recognised as one of the leading 2 or 3 knowledge bases on the subject on which you post and apparently carry out research, in the world.
    But why then act like babies if it is a "knowledge base"?

    It does not claim to be a university or a seat of higher education. however many of its users are of above average education
    But it should learn from such institutions how to behave.

    Pierre you claim to be not just highly educated but also an academic, which I must add there is no supporting evidence of other than you word.
    Who cares?

    However you should know as an academic that all research must be peer review.
    But there are no seminars here and no scientific papers. So?

    You may not like this but the only group of persons qualified to do such, are either those from this forum or from another such as Howard's site.
    That was a stupid thing to say. The world is full of universities with historians ready to do peer review.

    One would peer review medical ideas with medics and you would not have a paper on Egyptology reviewed by an expert in early 20th century Europe, unless they also had the background in Egyptology.
    Off topic.

    All I see is another attempt to justify not publishing; the ethical defence is gone, a busted flush!
    Of course you see only negative aspects. That is your bias. And is it the topic of this thread?

    Then it has been put forward that peer review is of little interest.
    Bla. Bla. Bla. And once more since I am practising to get to the same level as some of the others here: Bla.

    Now of course it's the forum is not able to peer review, it seems any excuse rather than face the true.
    Researchers do peer review. People here do bla bla bla and, donīt forget, bla.

    How do yo think I am doing?

    Regards, Pierre

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
      That's your fourth post today in this Lechmere thread. Three of them have basically been about you (two of them being designed to tell us that you know who done it, the other about how persecuted you are) while the fourth has just been literally "Bla bla bla".

      Nothing to say about Lechmere then?
      Pierre doesn't do suspects. Did you know he's a historian?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
        That's your fourth post today in this Lechmere thread. Three of them have basically been about you (two of them being designed to tell us that you know who done it, the other about how persecuted you are) while the fourth has just been literally "Bla bla bla".

        Nothing to say about Lechmere then?
        I am your demon, David. You are possessed. Call the Vatican.

        Lechmere? Who is that?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Pierre View Post
          I am your demon, David. You are possessed. Call the Vatican.

          Lechmere? Who is that?
          Well that's a load of bullshit.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
            Pierre doesn't do suspects. Did you know he's a historian?
            Suspects, in this case, are for the police from the 19th Century.

            I am not a 19th Century policeman.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
              Well that's a load of bullshit.
              Thanks!

              I am obviously learning.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                Lechmere? Who is that?
                Shows what he knows about the case.
                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


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                  Suspects, in this case, are for the police from the 19th Century.

                  I am not a 19th Century policeman.
                  Yes but how can you have allegedly solved the case without a suspect?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                    That's your fourth post today in this Lechmere thread. Three of them have basically been about you (two of them being designed to tell us that you know who done it, the other about how persecuted you are) while the fourth has just been literally "Bla bla bla".

                    Nothing to say about Lechmere then?
                    So what do I have to say about Lechmere?

                    Let us see.

                    Lechmere had a terrible personal problem which made him utterly depressed and extremely desperate. He tried very hard to get out of it, but for every step he took it just got worse.

                    When he tried to free himself from the problem, he was threatened. In fact, his whole existence was at stake. It was a matter of life or death.

                    And to make it stop and to save himself, he had to do something. He knew the methods of hunting and cutting. And when the most shameful day in his life was coming up, he could not stand it anymore. He had to do something to get a reaction and to let off steam.

                    Yes, there are sources showing that Lechmere had terrible problems at dates when the Whitechapel killer was active.

                    And there are sources showing that Lechmere was at several murder sites.

                    And there are sources that show that Lechmere was sent away after Kelly and then he came back!

                    And personal signature elements can be connected to Lechmere, and classical evidence is explained by Lechmere and his own personal problem.

                    And when he finally got rid of that problem, the murders stopped and Lechmere emigrated.

                    Finally, there is a confession, showing all the characteristics of Lechmere.

                    Is that what I have to say about Lechmere? NO. Why not? Because this is another history.

                    And I am a very simple historian. I did not ask for this.
                    Last edited by Pierre; 10-18-2016, 02:19 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                      So what do I have to say about Lechmere?

                      Let us see.

                      Lechmere had a terrible personal problem which made him utterly depressed and extremely desperate. He tried very hard to get out of it, but for every step he took it just got worse.

                      When he tried to free himself from the problem, he was threatened. In fact, his whole existence was at stake. It was a matter of life or death.

                      And to make it stop and to save himself, he had to do something. He knew the methods of hunting and cutting. And when the most shameful day in his life was coming up, he could not stand it anymore. He had to do something to get a reaction and to let off steam.

                      Yes, there are sources showing that Lechmere had terrible problems at dates when the Whitechapel killer was active.

                      And there are sources showing that Lechmere was at several murder sites.

                      And there are sources that show that Lechmere was sent away after Kelly and then he came back!

                      And personal signature elements can be connected to Lechmere, and classical evidence is explained by Lechmere and his own personal problem.

                      And when he finally got rid of that problem, the murders stopped and Lechmere emigrated.

                      Finally, there is a confession, showing all the characteristics of Lechmere.

                      Is that what I have to say about Lechmere? NO. Why not? Because this is another history.

                      And I am a very simple historian. I did not ask for this.

                      I'll give you simple

                      But no historian, just the other day you called an 1888 news report a secondary source, something no true historian would ever do.
                      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


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                        No, it is "clear" to you, Steve. But it is not clear to me. And I think you should refrain from telling others what is "clear" to them. Surely, you can speak for yourself and David, your pal.

                        So long as you feel free to tell people the unsubstantiated ideas that you do, I shall say what I want within the limits allowed.

                        Actually I don't even know David, other than to engage here, I know him as well as I do you, so if he is my pal, so are you.



                        Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                        But why then act like babies if it is a "knowledge base"?

                        Are you questioning this site is one of the leading knowledge bases on the subject?

                        How people behave does not effect that fact.


                        However if we are talking about behaviour, few here ever actually call another poster A Liar, I can however think of one who does ( at least 4 times to one person alone).



                        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                        But it should learn from such institutions how to behave.

                        I have witnessed far worse behaviour and language in an university than here, and that almost certainly in a far more prestigious institution than you have been privileged to work in.

                        If I am wrong I will of course apologize, however that will require the identity of the institution.




                        Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                        Who cares?



                        Well it seems you at least do not care about honesty or integrity.



                        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                        But there are no seminars here and no scientific papers. So?


                        What does that matter, you claim you are following academic principles of research, I call that claim questionable at best.


                        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                        That was a stupid thing to say. The world is full of universities with historians ready to do peer review.
                        It was not a stupid thing to say, I wait with baited breath to see which will allow their name to be linked to this subject.

                        You need experts on the subject, not just any academic.



                        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                        Off topic.

                        How can it be, you raised the issue of peer review in this thread, my statement is purely about peer review.

                        You obviously have no answer to the comment, why am I not surprised in the slightest?



                        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                        Of course you see only negative aspects. That is your bias. And is it the topic of this thread?

                        What an interesting reply to the mythical ethical problem.


                        Pierre, it is you who went off topic, which is so unfair on those who were engaged in the thread

                        I apologize to all of those persons for my doing so..



                        Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                        Bla. Bla. Bla. And once more since I am practising to get to the same level as some of the others here: Bla.

                        The response of a mature academic or a child?



                        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                        Researchers do peer review. People here do bla bla bla and, donīt forget, bla.
                        Many here are Researchers, it is not down to you to say they are not.

                        Unlike some they give details of any published works; they do not HIDE.



                        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                        How do yo think I am doing?
                        Very poorly, the responses appear uneducated at times and often poorly constructed,

                        And as for research, no evidence has ever been shown of any,other than reading this site and Sugden.


                        steve

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          Yes you do, but only because you have to have the last say, and to show the world you are right, and they are wrong

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          So do you still believe faughanbaum is the ripper? Why is that more acceptable then Lechmere?

                          Columbo

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Columbo View Post
                            So do you still believe faughanbaum is the ripper? Why is that more acceptable then Lechmere?

                            Columbo
                            I presume you mean Carl Feigenbaum? and he by reason of what is known about him makes him more of a viable suspect than Lechmere. but as there was never a jack the ripper he can only be considered as perhaps being responsible for one or more of these murders

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              I presume you mean Carl Feigenbaum? and he by reason of what is known about him makes him more of a viable suspect than Lechmere. but as there was never a jack the ripper he can only be considered as perhaps being responsible for one or more of these murders

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Strange, is it not, how your Mr Figtree never seems to have caught on, being the excellent suspect that he is? Remind me again, which victim was he found by?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                Strange, is it not, how your Mr Figtree never seems to have caught on, being the excellent suspect that he is? Remind me again, which victim was he found by?
                                He was not only found by a victim, but seen committing the murder !!!!!!!!!!!!

                                The long bladed knife which he used he dropped and was recovered by the police after he ran off.

                                Oh and not forgetting that he was later convicted of the murder and executed.

                                Based on that, which one do you think is likely to have been a cold blooded killer who used a knife ?

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X