Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;398098]
QUOTE=Pierre;398092

Pierre

OK that is certainly true, of course the same would have applied to Paul, if he had arrived first.

I was not interpreting your question the way you intended, which was I now see was to ask why he may have found only her, rather than the general positioning of the bodies on his way to work. My mistake.

You did not make any mistake. You are brilliant as usual.

[Pierre]

Fisherman has made a journalists construct called "the Mizen Scam" to make a dead person look like a serial killer. That is a destruction of important sources.

The sworn police constable Mizen told everyone at the inquest that Cross stated to him that Cross had seen a policeman at the murder site.

The dress of the victim was pulled down. This is explained by the murderer being disturbed by the passing carman.

Regards, Pierre (and welcome to my land)

People are used to the theory about Lechmere. They have accepted the interpretation made by Fisherman. Therefore they can not look at the sources where Lechmere appears without the perspective of Fisherman.

[John Wheat]

Killers are not phantoms. They are persons. Do not try to give us all the impression that the sources you have twisted and misinterpreted are speaking of the supernatural.

According to the sworn testimony of PC Mizen, Cross told him there was a policeman in Buckīs Row.

People are starting to notice what Fisherman does with the sources. You could as Pierre says twisting and misinterpreting sources but it would be equally true to call it lying.

[John Wheat]

Fisherman has made a journalists construct called "the Mizen Scam" to make a dead person look like a serial killer. That is a destruction of important sources.

The sworn police constable Mizen told everyone at the inquest that Cross stated to him that Cross had seen a policeman at the murder site.

The dress of the victim was pulled down. This is explained by the murderer being disturbed by the passing carman.

Regards, Pierre (and welcome to my land)

That all seems obvious to me Pierre but possibly not others.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Pierre;398092]

QUOTE=Pierre;398083




Thanks Steve. But the reason Lechmere found Nichols - and not anyone else - was that Buckīs Row was the murder site closest to Lechmereīs home in Doveton Street.

Regards, Pierre

Either a major coincidence or more likely Pierre's right.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;398112]

Either a major coincidence or more likely Pierre's right.

Yes, I think I am right.

[John Wheat]

People are used to the theory about Lechmere. They have accepted the interpretation made by Fisherman. Therefore they can not look at the sources where Lechmere appears without the perspective of Fisherman.

Pierre if you haven't already gathered this I do not accept Fisherman's interpretation's unless they are right which is very rarely. His interpretation's are always loaded with his strange belief that Lechmere, a random witness was JTR and The Torso Killer. And he seems to want everyone else to believe this. I look at the sources ignoring Fisherman's perverted perspective about Lechmere. I think you are however doing others a bit of a disservice though as I think there are others who can smell the wift of Fisherman's bullshit.

Cheers John

[Trevor Marriott]

And of course you have proved nothing at all, as you do not have any such data/information and with out that, such a scenario may as well be fiction.




"if it were the case no organs were missing he must have said it at some point"


Trevor, you have ceratainly not proved that there were no missing organs, so that is no evidence at all, its a circular argument.


Lets be clear you do not have primary sources for it.

You should not then cite it saying "icing on the cake"


It is nothing of the sort.






We are not talking about a judicial situation, we are discussing history, and historical research.

You are again showing all that you do not understand the difference between Primary and Secondary sources, nor it appears the difference between Evidence and Sources.






They are not facts; they are sources, do you not understand the difference between a Fact and a Source as well as not understanding Primary and Secondary sources and Evidence and Sources.


If historical sources /facts do not come into it, then we might as well all give up on research now!


Yes history is there to be challenged, but we should not do so just for the sake of it, but where needed, because of new data or scientific advances which allow data to be reinterpreted.

We should not challenge by portraying fiction as fact



steve

Of course we should challenge history, when we feel that history may not be correct. In this case the challenge is to Dr Browns official statement. We should not readily accept the inference that researchers have drawn from it that the heart was missing from the room, when we have evidence from a senior officer who was at the scene, and who was in charge of Whitechapel CID at the time who says it wasn't.

We are dealing with evidence here, you cannot write off the judicial aspect to all of this in total favour of history.

Do you accept the following as being correct?

The only evidence to suggest the killer took the heart comes from Dr Brown

Dr Browns statement is ambiguous

There is nothing officially recorded in any official document to show that the heart was missing.

There is no other mention of the heart being taken by the killer from any other police officer at the time or over the ensuing years.

If you agree with all of those and I can see no reason why you would not, then pray tell us why the newspaper articles are wrong and Reid is mistaken?

I wait with baited breath

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Echo London Middlesex November 13, 1888

Well the police did a good job of keeping it quiet, so much so that they never even bothered to record it in any police or official document

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Henry Flower]

Of course we should challenge history, when we feel that history may not be correct. In this case the challenge is to Dr Browns official statement. We should not readily accept the inference that researchers have drawn from it that the heart was missing from the room, when we have evidence from a senior officer who was at the scene, and who was in charge of Whitechapel CID at the time who says it wasn't.

We are dealing with evidence here, you cannot write off the judicial aspect to all of this in total favour of history.

Do you accept the following as being correct?

The only evidence to suggest the killer took the heart comes from Dr Brown

Dr Browns statement is ambiguous

There is nothing officially recorded in any official document to show that the heart was missing.

There is no other mention of the heart being taken by the killer from any other police officer at the time or over the ensuing years.

If you agree with all of those and I can see no reason why you would not, then pray tell us why the newspaper articles are wrong and Reid is mistaken?

I wait with baited breath

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, it is 'bated' breath, not 'baited'. A derivation from the same root as 'abated'. In other words, I'm holding my breath. What do you think 'baited' breath would actually mean? What would you use to bait your breath, and what would you hope to catch with that bait?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, it is 'bated' breath, not 'baited'. A derivation from the same root as 'abated'. In other words, I'm holding my breath. What do you think 'baited' breath would actually mean? What would you use to bait your breath, and what would you hope to catch with that bait?

We cant all be as perfect as you

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

No need to wait for anything.

Of course we should challenge history, when we feel that history may not be correct. In this case the challenge is to Dr Browns official statement. We should not readily accept the inference that researchers have drawn from it that the heart was missing from the room, when we have evidence from a senior officer who was at the scene, and who was in charge of Whitechapel CID at the time who says it wasn't.

We are dealing with evidence here, you cannot write off the judicial aspect to all of this in total favour of history.

No we are dealing with sources, you still do not understand the difference
it would be truly comical if it was not sad.


The judicial aspect has no place in this historic research, other than to provide any documents from any proceeding proving what was said and by whom.

Of course if we were researching judicial procedure than of course it has a place. But we are not!

Do you accept the following as being correct?

The only evidence to suggest the killer took the heart comes from Dr Brown

No, Bond's report makes it clear the heart had been removed via the diaphragm.

Dr Browns statement is ambiguous

Not to me.

There is nothing officially recorded in any official document to show that the heart was missing.

A pertinent question is are there any official documents from the time disagreeing with Brown and Bond?




However lets apply the logic you did earlier today, when you said that if there were no missing organs, then Reid must have said so earlier than 1896.

We can assume that there were documents that have gone missing, because organ were taken and it must have been recorded.

Its the very same logic you applied and it is fatally flawed.

There is no other mention of the heart being taken by the killer from any other police officer at the time or over the ensuing years.

Why should a police officer mention it, again the same circular logic, no police office mentions it, so it cannot have happened, real amateur stuff.

If you agree with all of those and I can see no reason why you would not, then pray tell us why the newspaper articles are wrong and Reid is mistaken?

As you can see I don't and this is a major problem for someone whom it appears struggles to accept a view other than theirs is correct.

Provide me with data to prove your argument and I will agree.

Opinion btw is not data

I wait with baited breath

Not sure why you feel pleased, I would feel highly embarrassed to be so exposed so often.



steve

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;398134]No need to wait for anything.




No we are dealing with sources, you still do not understand the difference
it would be truly comical if it was not sad.


The judicial aspect has no place in this historic research, other than to provide any documents from any proceeding proving what was said and by whom.

Of course if we were researching judicial procedure than of course it has a place. But we are not!






No, Bond's report makes it clear the heart had been removed via the diaphragm.





Not to me.






A pertinent question is are there any official documents from the time disagreeing with Brown and Bond?




However lets apply the logic you did earlier today, when you said that if there were no missing organs, then Reid must have said so earlier than 1896.

We can assume that there were documents that have gone missing, because organ were taken and it must have been recorded.

Its the very same logic you applied and it is fatally flawed.








Why should a police officer mention it, again the same circular logic, no police office mentions it, so it cannot have happened, real amateur stuff.





As you can see I don't and this is a major problem for someone whom it appears struggles to accept a view other than theirs is correct.

Provide me with data to prove your argument and I will agree.

Opinion btw is not data




Not sure why you feel pleased, I would feel highly embarrassed to be so exposed so often.



steve[/QUOTE

No embarrassment from me I am quite happy with my assessment and evaluation of the facts and evidence and will stay on record and say no orgān was taken away from Kelly and that your assessment of the facts is biased and flawed because you cannot see what is clearly before your eyes,or you don't want to see!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

No embarrassment from me I am quite happy with my assessment and evaluation of the facts and evidence and will stay on record and say no orgān was taken away from Kelly and that your assessment of the facts is biased and flawed because you cannot see what is clearly before your eyes,or you don't want to see!

Trevor


Exactly the expected answer from one who cannot counter the arguments.

You asked if I agreed with your points, I answered, explain why I am wrong!


Precisely what facts are you talking about, I have seen you quote none at all.
Just unsubstantiated opinion.


I may be many things and have many failings Trevor; however having a closed mind is not one of those.

Indeed did I not asked you to provide data to make you argument and convince me?


It is obvious that you are unable to even attempt that.


Go on provide the arguments backed by data or evidence, which every you like considering that you appear not to be able to differentiate, and convince not just me , but others too.

If as you claim it is so clear and and before my eyes such a task should be easy.




Steve

[harry]

There were at least six other persons in the area,who were or could have been in Bucks Row within a few minutes,and I do not include people in houses.Each could possibly have been in Bucks Row just before Cross.None I consider the killer,but each had opportunity.Cross is not alone in that respect.