Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

Lechmere contradicted Mizen in front of the jury and the coroner on 3 September, and Chapman killed on 8 September, dear old Fisherman.

Should I tell you that 8-3 =5 ?!


The Baron

We all know that, Iīm afraid. The distance between the murders is nevertheless eight days.

And this was your original statement:

"After disagreeing with Mitzen in front of the jury and the coroner, he wouldn't be sure that the Police will not suspect him and keep watching him, and go to kill again another woman in one week."

A week? Isnīt that 8-3+2 days? No?

Now, where on earth is the proof we are all waiting for? In that bag of yours?

[The Baron]

... and the "point" made by the Bag baron is that this was not comparable to the audaciousness proven by Lechmere if he spoke to Mizen with the knife in his pocket. Dahmer could do what he did, but Lechmere could not - or so we are told.

Thereīs a distinct smell leaking from that bag.

Smells Fishy doesnt it dear old Fisherman


The Baron

[The Baron]

Lechmere contradicted Mizen in front of the jury and the coroner on 3 September, and Chapman killed on 8 September, dear old Fisherman.

Should I tell you that 8-3 =5 ?!


The Baron

[Fisherman]

Let’s remember that Jeffrey Dahmer and one of his victims both talked to the police. The victim was allowed to be taken back by Dahmer to his apartment when the police were convinced it was a lovers spat. Victim was killed that night.

... and the "point" made by the Bag baron is that this was not comparable to the audaciousness proven by Lechmere if he spoke to Mizen with the knife in his pocket. Dahmer could do what he did, but Lechmere could not - or so we are told.

Thereīs a distinct smell leaking from that bag.

[Fisherman]

5 days Fish. 5 days.

You have to study your case better.

It is getting embarrassing for you.

Sleep deep old Fisherman.


The Baron

The proof, old bag? Where is it? Forget the ramblings and prove your point, please.

As for the five versus eigth days, it was you, not I, who originally wrote "a week".

[Columbo]

Let’s remember that Jeffrey Dahmer and one of his victims both talked to the police. The victim was allowed to be taken back by Dahmer to his apartment when the police were convinced it was a lovers spat. Victim was killed that night.

[The Baron]

5 days Fish. 5 days.

You have to study your case better.

It is getting embarrassing for you.

Sleep deep old Fisherman.


The Baron

[Columbo]

Yes, that is correct. I want proof.

I want proof that a serial killer who stood in front of the jury and coroner contradicting a policeman would not go killing again in eight (not five, Iīm afraid) days, and I want proof that Lechmere did believe that the police had him under surveillance and thought he was at risk to get caught if he killed again within eight days.

You see, if you canīt provide that proof, that amounts to proof that you ARE a bag of farts.

Trying to make it look as if no proof is needed wonīt do, so you can skip that tactic.

Are we done with this now? So that you can settle into your new role as a smelly methane-filled bag of a poster, claiming things as facts that he is patently unable to prove? Or do you want to inflate the bag further?

Bag of farts. Priceless!

[Fisherman]

The man wants a proof that a serial killer doesn't kill and take his weapon on himself and go to the police!



The Fisherman wants a proof that a serial killers who was standing in front of the jury and the coroner contradicting a policeman in a murder case wouldn't go killing in 5 days!


You live in the La La Land Fish, you lost for good your grasp on reality, those long long long days and nights you spent defending your poor theory left you in total darkness.


You don't have answers, and Lechmere is innocent.



The Baron

Yes, that is correct. I want proof.

I want proof that a serial killer who stood in front of the jury and coroner contradicting a policeman would not go killing again in eight (not five, Iīm afraid) days, and I want proof that Lechmere did believe that the police had him under surveillance and thought he was at risk to get caught if he killed again within eight days.

You see, if you canīt provide that proof, that amounts to proof that you ARE a bag of farts.

Trying to make it look as if no proof is needed wonīt do, so you can skip that tactic.

Are we done with this now? So that you can settle into your new role as a smelly methane-filled bag of a poster, claiming things as facts that he is patently unable to prove? Or do you want to inflate the bag further?

[The Baron]

You remind me of Ernest Hemingway in his "The old man and the sea"


man can be destroyed but not defeated

and by nightfall the sharks have almost devoured the marlin's entire carcass, leaving a skeleton consisting mostly of its backbone, its tail, and its head. Santiago knows that he is destroyed and tells the sharks of how they have killed his dreams. Upon reaching the shore before dawn on the next day, Santiago struggles to his shack, carrying the heavy mast on his shoulder, leaving the fish head and the bones on the shore. Once home, he slumps onto his bed and falls into a deep sleep"

You dont want to be defeated Fisherman, It is to late to admit for you.


The Baron

[The Baron]

The man wants a proof that a serial killer doesn't kill and take his weapon on himself and go to the police!



The Fisherman wants a proof that a serial killers who was standing in front of the jury and the coroner contradicting a policeman in a murder case wouldn't go killing in 5 days!


You live in the La La Land Fish, you lost for good your grasp on reality, those long long long days and nights you spent defending your poor theory left you in total darkness.


You don't have answers, and Lechmere is innocent.



The Baron

[Fisherman]

We are waiting here! Now, prove that:

-Lechmere wouldn't kill a woman and go searching for a policeman carrying the bloody knife he used on himself, or take with himself the only witness who saw him standing alone where the woman was.

-After disagreeing with Mitzen in front of the jury and the coroner, he wouldn't be sure that the police would not suspect him and keep watching him, and kill another woman after one week only.

Iīve taken the liberty to clean up your language somewhat, so that everybody understands the points you are trying to make. Do try and be a tad clearer when you try to supply the proof.

What can be proven, is a fact, remember, so you need to factually establish that things like these cannot happen, that they are somehow impossible.

While pondering how to negociate this rather unlucky mess you have gotten tangled up in, you may want to read up about Robert Hansen, another serial killer. He did not approach PV Mizen weith a knife in his pocket, but he did have numerous run-ins with the law during his 12 year killing spree, something that should have made him go through a metamorphosis and become a law-abiding citizen for the longest of times according to your reasoning.

Tell us, while you are at it, just how long WILL a serial killer wait before killing his second victim if he is uncertain about whether the police has him under surveillance? Is it two weeks? A month? 42 days? And just how do we know that Lechmere harboured any fear of being under surveillance...?

If you would be so kind as to expand on this, we could name your findings "Lex Baron" and work to the insights you provide.

By the way, you are correct on one matter. I am really a funny guy.

[Fisherman]

You don't have answers.

You just have "a beautiful mind"


The Baron

A post that has nothing to do with the factual matters at hand, of course.


You have no views - you just have a bag full of farts.

Come on now, big guy - make your claims count by way of thinking, reasoning and arguing intelligibly. You can do it!

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, makes Dahmer talking to the policemen before killing a boy the same as if Dahmer killed the boy, took the bloody knife on himself, and a witness who saw him alone with the boy, and went searching an talking to the poicemen after that!


You are so funny Fisherman, I like this!


The Baron

You are welcome to explain how it is less audacious by Dahmer to walk up to two coppers who are in custody of a young man who at any moment may be able to make the point that Dahmer is a killer than it is of Lechmere to speak to a PC with a knife in his pocket.

As for the questions you repeatedy claim I will not answer, I have pointed out that they have been asked and answered before, and you will therefore have to go look for the answers yourself.
Before you do that, you should know that the onus of proof is on you, since you claim that the two matters you posted would "destroy the Lechmere theory beyond recognition". Once you have proven that point - which is of course nothing but an ill grounded personal idea based on sheer ignorance - I will retract any claim I have made that Lechmere is the by far best suspect and the probale killer of not only the Ripper victims but also the Thames Torso victims.

No, Mr Baron - can you do that? You see, if you canīt, YOU are the one who eats humble pie.

Bon appetite!

[The Baron]

Yes, I made a lenghty answer because I wanted to be clear about how I see things in my answer to etenguy.

You will be relieved to hear that answers to you will - for obviious reasons - be much shorter.

You don't have answers.

You just have "a beautiful mind"


The Baron