Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

I am aware of your claim regarding the blood evidence,Fisherman.I am also aw are of other claims regarding the blood evidence.One source puts clotting as from 3-15 minutes after death,and each case is of an individual character.
Mys elf,I w ould believe that the blood around the neck wounds of Nichols could still be of a fluid nature,after 7 minutes,and give an impression of ooze.

I am more inclined to listen to Jason Payne-James on matters medical than to you, Harry. You must forgive me for that.

By the way, the blood would reasonably have been running for more than seven minutes if the killer was there before Lechmere.

[John Wheat]

A self-declaration as good as any.

As I said anyone disagrees with your ludicrous theory and you start throwing around second rate insults. You even quoted me this time showing a complete lack of imagination.

[John Wheat]

I am more inclined to listen to Jason Payne-James on matters medical than you, Harry. You must forgive me for that.

By the way, the blood would reasonably have been running for more than seven minutes if the killer was there before Lechmere.

Next you'll be going on about those Barristers. You're so predictable and boring.

[Fisherman]

I disagree. Someone murdered both Chapman and Kelly. There are some superficial similarities to Jackson in how her body was cut after death (the "flaps of skin"), but no clear indication that she was murdered, and the only organs missing were the intestines, which the Chapman/Kelly-murderer disregarded (I suggest they were only missing because nothing was holding them in after Jackson's body was divided up, so the dismemberer had to take them out).

Just saw this. Missing from Liz Jacksons body was, apart from the intestines, also the heart and the lungs, plus the uterus, that had been taken out whereupon the fetus was removed through an incision in the side. The uterus was thereafter bundled up in a package together with the placenta and chord and the two large flaps of the abdominal wall, and that package was floated down the Thames.

If it´s any comfort, John Wheat at least agrees with what you have said anyway.

[Fisherman]

...predictable and boring.

Next self-declaration.

[John Wheat]

Just saw this. Missing from Liz Jacksons body was, apart from the intestines, also the heart and the lungs, plus the uterus, that had been taken out whereupon the fetus was removed through an incision in the side. The uterus was thereafter bundled up in a package together with the placenta and chord and the two large flaps of the abdominal wall, and that package was floated down the Thames.

But which of the C5 had there body parts dumped in or around The Thames River?

[John Wheat]

Fisherman you said in another post do you want a slanging match now you've started one you wimp out.

[John Wheat]

Next self-declaration.

Yet again you quote me in an insult showing a lack of imagination everyone wishes you wouldn't show in your perverse quest to convict Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

...perverse.

Dear me.

[John Wheat]

Yes Fisherman it is a perverse quest and only you and a handful of crackpots can't see it.

[Fisherman]

But which of the C5 had there body parts dumped in or around The Thames River?

Why would somebody who killed a person in, say, Mitre Square, cut the body up in pieces and carry them along to the Thames to throw them in the water?

You may have missed this totally, but the suggestion is that the killer did away with some victims out in the open street, where there was no need to discard the body afterwards since it was not positioned in a place that could give away the killers identity. Conversely, he did away with a number of OTHER victims indoors, in a place that could be tied to him. And as a consequence of that, he cut these bodies up in parts and discarded them in the Thames.

Can you see how this works?

[Fisherman]

...crackpot

...and on he goes.

[John Wheat]

Why would somebody who killed a person in, say, Mitre Square, cut the body up in pieces and carry them along to the Thames to throw them in the water?

You may have missed this totally, but the suggestion is that the killer did away with some victims out in the open street, where there was no need to discard the body aftrewards since it was not positioned in a place that could give away the killers identity. Conversely, he did away with a number of OTHER victims indoors, in a place that could be tied to him. And as a consequence of that, he cut these bodies up in parts and discarded them in the Thames.

Can you see how this works?

Why the drastic variation? This is highly unusual for a serial killer.

[John Wheat]

...and on he goes.

Are you currently unable to come up with your own insults?

[John Wheat]

Why would somebody who killed a person in, say, Mitre Square, cut the body up in pieces and carry them along to the Thames to throw them in the water?

You may have missed this totally, but the suggestion is that the killer did away with some victims out in the open street, where there was no need to discard the body afterwards since it was not positioned in a place that could give away the killers identity. Conversely, he did away with a number of OTHER victims indoors, in a place that could be tied to him. And as a consequence of that, he cut these bodies up in parts and discarded them in the Thames.

Can you see how this works?

As per usual all you are doing is hammering a square peg into a round hole to suit your bullshit pet theory.