Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[harry]

Cross is connected to the scene of Nichols killing.Not much doubt of that.There is no physical evidence that connects him to her murder.To kill her he would have had to be in her company at the time of death.That cannot be proven.
It is this lack of connection that is the stumbling block.That he might have lied about the time he was there,might seem a reasonable supposition,but how to prove it.Untill that is done,all talk of Cross as a suspect,is just talk.

[Fisherman]

Cross is connected to the scene of Nichols killing.Not much doubt of that.There is no physical evidence that connects him to her murder.To kill her he would have had to be in her company at the time of death.That cannot be proven.
It is this lack of connection that is the stumbling block.That he might have lied about the time he was there,might seem a reasonable supposition,but how to prove it.Untill that is done,all talk of Cross as a suspect,is just talk.

When John Neil saw Nichols, she was still bleeding from the wound in her neck. Since Neil did not see or hear the carmen in Bucks Row, and since the examination Lechmere and Paul did of the body would have taken around a minute (given that Paul said that the time elapsed from when he first saw the body to when the carmen reached Mizen was no more than four minutes at most), we are looking at a time of at the very least three minutes, and probably four, that had passed since Lechmere cut her neck - if he was the killer.
To this time, we must add a minimum of two minutes, and probably three, before Mizen arrived at Browns. And when she did, Nichols was "still bleeding" from the neck wound.
Adding this together, we find that Mizen arrived at the very earliest five minutes after Nichols was cut by Lechmere - if he was the killer - and more likely as much as around seven minutes after that time.
Jason Payne-James says that Nichols would reasonably have bled for minutes only after the neck was cut, and he favours a time of three to five minutes over a suggestion of seven minutes, which he finds a possibility, but thinks sounds too long a time to be likely.

Therefore, Harry, you are simply gravely mistaken when you say that it cannot be established that Lechmere was in company with Nichols as she was cut.
It cannot be definitely established, but it CAN be established that it is the probable thing that this was so.
Therefore, Charles Allen Lechmere was the probable killer of Polly Nichols, and logically, he was the man known as Jack the Ripper. This is where we end up factually.

[Fisherman]

I would like for John G and John Wheat - and anybody else with an interest in this - to answer the two questions I asked in my post 114.

[Henry Flower]

Right at this time I wish there wasn't, and then I would not have to read idiotic posts written by numpties like you, and several others on here. I know what I meant, everyone I speak to on this topic knows what I mean, but not some on here who are clearly permanent residents in numpty land.

Trev, you are one of the most widely ridiculed posters on the site, renowned for your poor grasp of facts, embarrassingly weak powers of reasoning, and routinely faulty logic. And your frequent use of the word "numpty" also reminds us what a tedious old bore you are.

It also reminds us that when you write something irredeemably stupid and someone calls you on it, you lack the basic psychological maturity to reply, "you're right, I should've phrased that differently". You're like a cross between an arrogant teen and a doddering old git using insults that the cool kids abandoned years ago. "Numpty" - grow up Trevor.

[Fisherman]

Trev, you are one of the most widely ridiculed posters on the site, renowned for your poor grasp of facts, embarrassingly weak powers of reasoning, and routinely faulty logic. And your frequent use of the word "numpty" also reminds us what a tedious old bore you are.

It also reminds us that when you write something irredeemably stupid and someone calls you on it, you lack the basic psychological maturity to reply, "you're right, I should've phrased that differently". You're like a cross between an arrogant teen and a doddering old git using insults that the cool kids abandoned years ago. "Numpty" - grow up Trevor.

I dunno - I think I prefer being called a numpty to a ******* idiot. Itīs kind of cute.
Since I am not going to get a factual answer anyway, I mean.

[John Wheat]

Two questions:

1. Do you agree that the more rare and odd a detail is, the larger the chance becomes that we are dealing with the same originator?

2. Do you agree that a killer cutting the abdominal wall away in large sections from his victims is very, very rare and odd?

1. Yes.

2. No.

[Fisherman]

1. Yes.

2. No.

Okay, then you will have information to offer about other serialists or killers who have cut away the abdomen in large sections from their victims, I take it? Thatīs the third question involved.

Because, you see, that is how such things are defined: If there are lots of other examples, it is not a rare and odd thing to do.
If there is just a few examples, it is still a rare and odd thing, but not completely unheard of.
If there are no other examples, it is unique.
And if you donīt know, you are not in a position to deliver any answer at all.
Everything hinges, therefore, on the examples that can be given.


I am waiting to hear about the finds you have made, and that forms a basis for your answer above.

[John Wheat]

Okay, then you will have information to offer about other serialists or killers who have cut away the abdomen in large sections from their victims, I take it? Thatīs the third question involved.

Because, you see, that is how such things are defined: If there are lots of other examples, it is not a rare and odd thing to do.
If there is just a few examples, it is still a rare and odd thing, but not completely unheard of.
If there are no other examples, it is unique.
And if you donīt know, you are not in a position to deliver any answer at all.
Everything hinges, therefore, on the examples that can be given.


I am waiting to hear about the finds you have made, and that forms a basis for your answer above.

To Fisherman

You'll be waiting along time because I haven't the time or the inclination to look at numerous serial murders in minute detail. However at the end of the day common consensus is that the Torso Killer and Jack the Ripper were two different killers but just because that doesn't fit your ludicrous pet theory you've dreamed up about Lechmere being The Torso Killer and Jack the Ripper you have to find bizarre ways to connect the two killings. The descriptions you blather on about are so vague and generalised they become meaningless and are certainly not definitive proof that The Torso Killer and JTR were one and the same. When you look at the JTR murders logically the only conclusion is that Bury is by far and away the most likely candidate and Lechmere is not even in the running nor is he for The Torso Murders. My favourite candidate for the Torso Killings is Henry Wentworth Bellsmith but you I'm sure you know my thoughts on JTR and The Torso Killer anyway.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: To Fisherman

You'll be waiting along time because I haven't the time or the inclination to look at numerous serial murders in minute detail.

I know, John - that is why I said that you are not in a position to deliver any answer at all to the question about how rare it is to cut away the abdominal wall in large sections.
But that did not bother you; you said that it was not a rare or odd thing, and you did so without any knowledge to back it up. Which is a pity since it turned your answers into a farce.
I can tell you that I made a rather extensive net search and came u with one (1) other case where this happened, and that was a killer who sectioned up the body in small parts and dried them for future consumption.
So it IS a very, very rare thing to do.

However at the end of the day common consensus is that the Torso Killer and Jack the Ripper were two different killers but just because that doesn't fit your ludicrous pet theory you've dreamed up about Lechmere being The Torso Killer and Jack the Ripper you have to find bizarre ways to connect the two killings.

No, wrong again. It WAS common consensus, but is no longer. All you have to do is to read the comments from the people out here who have a lot of knowledge on the cases. Debra Arif, Gary Barnett and Cris Malone have so far agreed that the suggestion is a very viable one. To me, it looks a lot more as if you are very bitter and determined to try and quash all you can that has anything at all to do with the theory generally, and me specifically. So far, it has not been a successful crusade, to be generous.

The descriptions you blather on about are so vague and generalised they become meaningless and are certainly not definitive proof that The Torso Killer and JTR were one and the same.

They are not vague at all. Taking away the abdominal wall in two, three or four large sections is an extremely specific matter, and it leaves us in no doubt whatsoever about what happened: the killer used his knofe to cut away the abdominal wall in sections, leaving a gaping hole where the wall used to be. It cannot be interpreted in any other way, and it is therefore not vague in the least.

When you look at the JTR murders logically the only conclusion is that Bury is by far and away the most likely candidate and Lechmere is not even in the running nor is he for The Torso Murders. My favourite candidate for the Torso Killings is Henry Wentworth Bellsmith but you I'm sure you know my thoughts on JTR and The Torso Killer anyway.

If that was true, then why are so very many people so very illogical as to refuse to believe in Bury as the likeliest candidate? Could it be that you are blinkered on the issue, or is it the rest of the world, the few Bury buffs aside, who have failed to understand the superiority of your analytical gifts?

In other words, apart from being wrong on all the rest - could it be that you are wrong on Bury to? Could life be that cruel?

[John Wheat]

John Wheat: To Fisherman

You'll be waiting along time because I haven't the time or the inclination to look at numerous serial murders in minute detail.

I know, John - that is why I said that you are not in a position to deliver any answer at all to the question about how rare it is to cut away the abdominal wall in large sections.
But that did not bother you; you said that it was not a rare or odd thing, and you did so without any knowledge to back it up. Which is a pity since it turned your answers into a farce.
I can tell you that I made a rather extensive net search and came u with one (1) other case where this happened, and that was a killer who sectioned up the body in small parts and dried them for future consumption.
So it IS a very, very rare thing to do.

However at the end of the day common consensus is that the Torso Killer and Jack the Ripper were two different killers but just because that doesn't fit your ludicrous pet theory you've dreamed up about Lechmere being The Torso Killer and Jack the Ripper you have to find bizarre ways to connect the two killings.

No, wrong again. It WAS common consensus, but is no longer. All you have to do is to read the comments from the people out here who have a lot of knowledge on the cases. Debra Arif, Gary Barnett and Cris Malone have so far agreed that the suggestion is a very viable one. To me, it looks a lot more as if you are very bitter and determined to try and quash all you can that has anything at all to do with the theory generally, and me specifically. So far, it has not been a successful crusade, to be generous.

The descriptions you blather on about are so vague and generalised they become meaningless and are certainly not definitive proof that The Torso Killer and JTR were one and the same.

They are not vague at all. Taking away the abdominal wall in two, three or four large sections is an extremely specific matter, and it leaves us in no doubt whatsoever about what happened: the killer used his knofe to cut away the abdominal wall in sections, leaving a gaping hole where the wall used to be. It cannot be interpreted in any other way, and it is therefore not vague in the least.

When you look at the JTR murders logically the only conclusion is that Bury is by far and away the most likely candidate and Lechmere is not even in the running nor is he for The Torso Murders. My favourite candidate for the Torso Killings is Henry Wentworth Bellsmith but you I'm sure you know my thoughts on JTR and The Torso Killer anyway.

If that was true, then why are so very many people so very illogical as to refuse to believe in Bury as the likeliest candidate? Could it be that you are blinkered on the issue, or is it the rest of the world, the few Bury buffs aside, who have failed to understand the superiority of your analytical gifts?

In other words, apart from being wrong on all the rest - could it be that you are wrong on Bury to? Could life be that cruel?

To Fisherman

It is still common consensus that JTR and The Torso Killer were separate serial killers. Unfortunately people are illogical you and frankly the evidence indicates that you are one of the least logical. I do however commend you on your argumentative skills, you have somehow managed to convince one or two that Lechmere was both JTR and the Torso Killer which makes you good at the aforementioned skill but not right.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: To Fisherman

It is still common consensus that JTR and The Torso Killer were separate serial killers.

Like I say, no itīs not. Itīs breaking up like glacier ice. However, one of these two suggestions are correct:
1. The torso killer and Jack the Ripper were one and the same.
2. The torso killer and Jack the Ripper were not one and the same.

To what degree do you think the true suggestion is affected by what "common consensus" tells us?

Unfortunately people are illogical you and frankly the evidence indicates that you are one of the least logical.

Itīs not the evidence suggesting that - it is you hoping to peddle it. And I donīt think you will find many takers. Try with Harry D, however, he would be happy to go along. And Trevor Marriot. And Pierre.
Quite a collection, come to think of it.

I do however commend you on your argumentative skills, you have somehow managed to convince one or two that Lechmere was both JTR and the Torso Killer which makes you good at the aforementioned skill but not right.

I wish I could give you the same recognition, but alas...

Now, do you want to discuss the case, or do you want a slanging match?Either way, you loose, but it may be less obvius to onlookers if you try the slanging match.
Just a piece of friendly advice.

[John Wheat]

John Wheat: To Fisherman

It is still common consensus that JTR and The Torso Killer were separate serial killers.

Like I say, no itīs not. Itīs breaking up like glacier ice. However, one of these two suggestions are correct:
1. The torso killer and Jack the Ripper were one and the same.
2. The torso killer and Jack the Ripper were not one and the same.

To what degree do you think the true suggestion is affected by what "common consensus" tells us?

Unfortunately people are illogical you and frankly the evidence indicates that you are one of the least logical.

Itīs not the evidence suggesting that - it is you hoping to peddle it. And I donīt think you will find many takers. Try with Harry D, however, he would be happy to go along. And Trevor Marriot. And Pierre.
Quite a collection, come to think of it.

I do however commend you on your argumentative skills, you have somehow managed to convince one or two that Lechmere was both JTR and the Torso Killer which makes you good at the aforementioned skill but not right.

I wish I could give you the same recognition, but alas...

Now, do you want to discuss the case, or do you want a slanging match?Either way, you loose, but it may be less obvius to onlookers if you try the slanging match.
Just a piece of friendly advice.

To Fisherman

Why would I compliment you on your argumentative skills if I wanted a slanging match? That's illogical thus resting my case on you being illogical. Although from the nature of your post it seems to be you who wants a slanging match. As for people being illogical I still believe generally they are.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

To Fisherman

Why would I compliment you on your argumentative skills if I wanted a slanging match? That's illogical thus resting my case on you being illogical. Although from the nature of your post it seems to be you who wants a slanging match. As for people being illogical I still believe generally they are.

Cheers John

Ah, of course. Thatīs correct - you have not uttered a derogatory word about me or my theory at all.

Ehrm.

Itīs good that you are now coupling your assertion that it is commonly accepted that the Ripper and the torso man were not one and the same with the insight that people generally are illogical.

You are making progress, John.

[John Wheat]

Ah, of course. Thatīs correct - you have not uttered a derogatory word about me or my theory at all.

Ehrm.

Itīs good that you are now coupling your assertion that it is commonly accepted that the Ripper and the torso man were not one and the same with the insight that people generally are illogical.

You are making progress, John.

To Fisherman

I was talking about my last post. Yes I think you're theory is ludicrous and so do many, many others. Which should indicate to you that it is. But as I said you're illogical. So what do I expect? Just out of interest who are these presumably numerous people who do think JTR and The Torso Killer are one and the same?

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: To Fisherman

I was talking about my last post.

Were you now? How does that change that thinking people are illogical means that the "common opinion" that the torso man and the Ripper are not one and the same is by extension therefore illogical?

Yes I think you're theory is ludicrous and so do many, many others.

No, they donīt. Contrary to you, I think most people are familar with simple logic.

Which should indicate to you that it is

So your assertion that there are people who think my theory is bad should indicate to me that it is?
So if I think you are a waste of space, it follows that you are? How interesting! Do elaborate on how that works!

But as I said you're illogical.

But why would I or anybody else care what you say, John? Give me one good reason. Because you are well informed? Because you are a truly discerning man? Because history has regularly proven you right on previous occasions? Because you have a conception of yourself that borders on narcissism?
There are so many possibilities. Which is it? Iīm sure the posters who spend a very sad Sunday evening reading this are dying to know.

So what do I expect? Just out of interest who are these presumably numerous people who do think JTR and The Torso Killer are one and the same?

You are going to have to wait and see. I canīt do all the work for you, John.