Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

Charles Allen Lechmere shouldn't be considered anything except a witness, because:

1.He wouldn't kill a woman and go searching for a Policeman carrying the bloody knife he used on himself, not only that, but taking with him the only witness who saw him standing alone where the woman was.

2.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.


Those two ponits alone destroy the Lechmere theory beyond recognition.


I challenge any Lechmere the ripper believer to prove otherwise.



The Baron

Well, that proves Lechmere´s innocence beyond reasonable doubt. We can all go home now.

You first.

[The Baron]

Charles Allen Lechmere shouldn't be considered anything except a witness, because:

1.He wouldn't kill a woman and go searching for a Policeman carrying the bloody knife he used on himself, not only that, but taking with him the only witness who saw him standing alone where the woman was.

2.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.


Those two ponits alone destroy the Lechmere theory beyond recognition.


I challenge any Lechmere the ripper believer to prove otherwise.



The Baron

[Elamarna]

Dear Trevor,

While we are answering questions related to the heart in another thread

I remembered you had STILL not given any response to the following.:

Round 2

A master butcher gave his opinion in relation the suggestion that a butcher could have been the killer

Yes you have merely repeated what you said yesterday.

The same questions still apply.

Why only one asked?

What did he say?

Who was he?

A link to the published or videoed opinion

Just saying someone has said something, is simply not good enough for adults.

So perhaps you could find time to give the answer requested several times now.



Steve

[Henry Flower]

There is no such thing as a motiveless crime, Henry. The motivation might be trivial, abstruse or even bizarre, but it's always there somewhere.

Yeah, thanks Garry. In the context of the discussion between Pi-error, Columbo and myself it shouldn't be too hard to make out what I actually meant.

In case it Is too hard for you, here we go. A crime that is sexual, that is based on the fulfilment of disordered sex drive, as many serial murders are, will not have a traditional motive that can explain times, dates, locations, everything - as Pierre claims his motive does. This is the stuff of melodrama and movies, not real life lust murders.

Of course there is a motive to all crimes. But a motive that is purely the satisfaction of something buried in the individual psyche will not function the way Pierre's melodramatic theory would want it to.

[Abby Normal]

As i indeed predicted you would say.


steve

and all metaphorical of course

[Garry Wroe]

A motiveless sex crime is a motiveless sex crime regardless of whether it is historical or contemporary, current or cold.

There is no such thing as a motiveless crime, Henry. The motivation might be trivial, abstruse or even bizarre, but it's always there somewhere.

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Pierre;399075]

Of course, and you shouldn´t accept anything without evidence.

Regards, Pierre

That's funny on a Lechmere thread.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Columbo;399033]

Sorry Pierre, I'm not able to accept your last list without proof.

Columbo

Of course, and you shouldn´t accept anything without evidence.

Regards, Pierre

[Columbo]

That I answered a post I had already answered before.

thanks, I wasn't sure. I've seen it before but didn't know.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

What does that mean?

That I answered a post I had already answered before.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Columbo;399033]

Sorry Pierre, I'm not able to accept your last list without proof.

Columbo

Columbo

I think that will apply to the majority of those on here.

And as I said he will not give details, and we are now, for a while at least , off the moral issue it seems, and on the I want to give the whole picture argument.

Pierre, don't worry that is not an attempt at a quote, just a summary.


Steve

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=Pierre;399007]

Hi Columbo,

radically different methods are ruling this case. It is a cold case from 1888-1889. Therefore it is an historical case. We use historical methods and historical sources.

There is no conviction.



Those are not the object for research here. There could be thousands of such crimes through time and today. We have one single historical case here. It calls for using idiographical methods.



Motivations do not make a serial killer. Serial killing does. But an historically well established and relevant motive is historically needed if you write history.



I think that all these items are required if you want to make an historical case. Otherwise your case will be very weak.



I have all the items in the fulfilled list and still I am not finished:

1. Time periods for starting, stopping, starting again and finally stopping.

2. A clear motive distinctly connected to these points in time.

3. A clear motive connected to the choice of murder dates.

4. Sources indicating that he was at the crime scenes.

5. Sources showing he had the skills to do what the killer did.

6. Historical sources explaining why he was not caught.

7. Historical sources explaining why the sources giving his motive, time periods, skills, and so on and so forth, exist.

8. Historical sources explaining the unexplained sources in the case.

9. It has to shed light on everything.

Regards, Pierre

Sorry Pierre, I'm not able to accept your last list without proof.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Double posting.

What does that mean?

[Elamarna]

I have all the items in the fulfilled list and still I am not finished:

1. Time periods for starting, stopping, starting again and finally stopping.

2. A clear motive distinctly connected to these points in time.

3. A clear motive connected to the choice of murder dates.

4. Sources indicating that he was at the crime scenes.

5. Sources showing he had the skills to do what the killer did.

6. Historical sources explaining why he was not caught.

7. Historical sources explaining why the sources giving his motive, time periods, skills, and so on and so forth, exist.

8. Historical sources explaining the unexplained sources in the case.

9. It has to shed light on everything.

Regards, Pierre

As i indeed predicted you would say.


steve

[Elamarna]

the vitriol and personal attacks coming from the other side is quite a shame too, and there is more off it.

Abby indeed, I would however dispute there is more, to me it looks about the same..

None of it achieves anything, other than to upset people


steve.