Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Kattrup]

I find it a lot more difficult to understand how somebody with any level of understanding of these matters would care to raise a point like that. I have - VERY clearly - said that we are not sure of Maria Louisas connection to the trade until 1891, and that the major family connection to the business is not proven until at a later stage.

I have never said that the theories I point to are applicable to a 19:th century man.

However! There are NO scientific papers studying the relation between criminality and the meat and butchery business from Victorian days, and so if we want to look at that link, why would we not turn to what material there is? And with all respect, what is it in the trade that you suspect may have changed from a heartwarming and humanizing environment in the Victorian abattoirs into the alienating and cold slaughterhouses of modern days?

I find your objections ill founded and, quite frankly, more than a tad dumb. And the sad thing about that is that it does not surprise me much. You can do better, I know that. So why donīt you?

Do you remember the days when you said that you tried to stay away from the Lechmere threads? Those days are long gone, are they not? Now, you canīt help yourself, it seems. And that is where you go badly wrong, if I am not much mistaken.

Well, we all have our pet peeves. I guess one of mine is people citing academic articles without having read them!
Ill-founded indeed.
Many things changed from Victorian times, also in slaughterhouses. For instance, I believe a poster here (Gary Barnett, as I recall) has a special interest in knacker dynasties of the 19th century. The fact that it could be a family trade immediately sets apart the Victorian butchers from our modern slaughterhouse workers. Your second article deals with the shock and coping strategies of modern low class slaughterhouse employees. It must be very obvious that their modern and postmodern ways of making sense of their work will differ significantly from that of a young Victorian butcher who’s been brought up in the trade.

This is why historical methodology is needed when discussing the Ripper-cases, and why sociology is irrelevant. Something that has, by the way, been mentioned many times over the years when comparisons with modern serial killers have been made.

But I’m glad you think I can do better, thanks for the vote of confidence - I’m sure working and discussing together we can improve our understanding of the case.

[Kattrup]

hi kat
im just wondering does one just jump into a cats meat business? wouldnt ma lech and or family been involved somehow before?
and btw we dont know that lech "only tangentially... etc" . as far as we know, he could have been around it his whole life, no? you stated that as a fact is all im saying.

i find it highly interesting that ma lech had a cats meat business. would be a perfect chop shop bolt hole for a serial killer.

I don’t know how one enters the cats’ meat business, but the fact is that, as far as I know, 1891 is the earliest mention of it with regards to Lechmere’s mother.

If you wish to argue that there was an earlier connection, you must find a source which supports this.

Of course becoming a cats meat seller can stretch back in time from before 1891, but it becomes theoretical, which is what I stated or tried to, anyway: that Lechmere so far has no connection.

[Fisherman]

Well, we all have our pet peeves. I guess one of mine is people citing academic articles without having read them!
Ill-founded indeed.

If you are referring to me, you may want to find out whether or not I did read the material some year back or not before getting on your high horses, Kattrup. I spend a lot of time in academic environments and I have worked a lot with language matters in scientific papers, and so I know quite well what I need to read to understand such material. Sometimes it is more than enough, for example, to read the summary to get a good understanding about the topic dealt with. For example, the material I referred to was posted on account of how I wanted to make the point that meat and butchery work may have a desensitizing effect. And lo and behold - this was the exact point the material pointed out. Abattoirs = rising criminality, if we want to be less prudent and academic.

Having said this, I believe that there is little need to say that I find your participation if this specific part of the debate embarrassing. But since I donīt want you to think I am not doing things to the full, I will do it the proper and informative way:

I find your posts on this subject embarrassing.

There!

[Kattrup]

If you are referring to me, you may want to find out whether or not I did read the material some year back or not before getting on your high horses, Kattrup. I spend a lot of time in academic environments and I have worked a lot with language matters in scientific papers, and so I know quite well what I need to read to understand such material. Sometimes it is more than enough, for example, to read the summary to get a good understanding about the topic dealt with. For example, the material I referred to was posted on account of how I wanted to make the point that meat and butchery work may have a desensitizing effect. And lo and behold - this was the exact point the material pointed out. Abattoirs = rising criminality, if we want to be less prudent and academic.

Having said this, I believe that there is little need to say that I find your participation if this specific part of the debate embarrassing. But since I donīt want you to think I am not doing things to the full, I will do it the proper and informative way:

I find your posts on this subject embarrassing.

There!

Okay. I was slightly intrigued, thought I'd help you a bit with some research, but I guess our conversation here is over

[Fisherman]

I’ ll try to get over the loss.

[John Wheat]

Lechmere is a witness and should never have been made into a suspect.

[John Wheat]

If you are referring to me, you may want to find out whether or not I did read the material some year back or not before getting on your high horses, Kattrup. I spend a lot of time in academic environments and I have worked a lot with language matters in scientific papers, and so I know quite well what I need to read to understand such material. Sometimes it is more than enough, for example, to read the summary to get a good understanding about the topic dealt with. For example, the material I referred to was posted on account of how I wanted to make the point that meat and butchery work may have a desensitizing effect. And lo and behold - this was the exact point the material pointed out. Abattoirs = rising criminality, if we want to be less prudent and academic.

Having said this, I believe that there is little need to say that I find your participation if this specific part of the debate embarrassing. But since I donīt want you to think I am not doing things to the full, I will do it the proper and informative way:

I find your posts on this subject embarrassing.

There!

Pot calling the kettle black.

[John Wheat]

I don’t know how one enters the cats’ meat business, but the fact is that, as far as I know, 1891 is the earliest mention of it with regards to Lechmere’s mother.

If you wish to argue that there was an earlier connection, you must find a source which supports this.

Of course becoming a cats meat seller can stretch back in time from before 1891, but it becomes theoretical, which is what I stated or tried to, anyway: that Lechmere so far has no connection.

The only connection Lechmere has to the Ripper murders is that he found a body. Lechmere has no connection to the Torso murders. Only a lunatic would suggest he was the hand in both sets of murders.

[John Wheat]

Off topic now I think, David B. This is a Lechmere thread.

In any case, my post was directed to Fisherman, to warn him not to waste his time arguing with your funny little alter ego, which has no business being on these boards at all.

I couldn't be the centre of the universe, could I, while you already occupy that lofty position.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes because Lechmere proponents never high jack other threads. Also I would say the Baron has more right than many others to be on the threads. Pushing there own stupid suspects.

[Fisherman]

Oooooh, itīs that ever subtle Mr Wheat again, simmering away in his personal puddle of fear and phobia. Keep up the good work, John, you are nearly there, trust me. Lechmere WILL go away, and so will any idea of a common originator of the Ripper and the Thames Torso murders. And itīs all your doing! Thereīs no stopping you; you seem hewn out of a block of granite and you are very bit as eloquent too.

So, what am I to do here? Take the subtly baited, finely sharpened hook? Absolutely not. I donīt stand a chance of changing Mr Wheats beliefs, they are as set in his mind as **** on the floor of a pigsty, and so it would be a complete waste of time.

So no, John, not this time. Either. I am busy peddling my fraudulent teachings about Lechmere and the Thames Torso murders to people less resilient than yourself.

Bye now!

PS. "High Jack". Funny!!

[John Wheat]

Oooooh, itīs that ever subtle Mr Wheat again, simmering away in his personal puddle of fear and phobia. Keep up the good work, John, you are nearly there, trust me. Lechmere WILL go away, and so will any idea of a common originator of the Ripper and the Thames Torso murders. And itīs all your doing! Thereīs no stopping you; you seem hewn out of a block of granite and you are very bit as eloquent too.

So, what am I to do here? Take the subtly baited, finely sharpened hook? Absolutely not. I donīt stand a chance of changing Mr Wheats beliefs, they are as set in his mind as **** on the floor of a pigsty, and so it would be a complete waste of time.

So no, John, not this time. Either. I am busy peddling my fraudulent teachings about Lechmere and the Thames Torso murders to people less resilient than yourself.

Bye now!

PS. "High Jack". Funny!!

So you admit that your guff about Lechmere is fraudulent then. We'll that's some sort of progress. As for my beliefs being set in stone. You seem totally convinced about Lechmere being Jack and The Torso Killer and the culprit to many other murders on no evidence whatsoever.

PS Glad you liked my joke.

[Fisherman]

So you admit that your guff about Lechmere is fraudulent then. We'll that's some sort of progress. As for my beliefs being set in stone. You seem totally convinced about Lechmere being Jack and The Torso Killer and the culprit to many other murders on no evidence whatsoever.

PS Glad you liked my joke.

John, John...! How can I both admit that the Lechmere theory is fraudulent AND be totally convinced that Lechmere was Jack and the Torso killer? That would be inpossible, surely you can understand that?

Iīll help out - I was being ironic. In actual fact, I am more or less certain that Lechmere was the Ripper and the Torso killer. It is beyond reasonable doubt, as far as Iīm concerned.

I am equally certain, by the way, that the domestic killer of yours had nothing at all to do with either series of murders.

Now we really should not take up any more place with this old quarrel of ours out here. Letīs be good boys.

PS. "Joke". Funny!!

[John Wheat]

John, John...! How can I both admit that the Lechmere theory is fraudulent AND be totally convinced that Lechmere was Jack and the Torso killer? That would be inpossible, surely you can understand that?

Iīll help out - I was being ironic. In actual fact, I am more or less certain that Lechmere was the Ripper and the Torso killer. It is beyond reasonable doubt, as far as Iīm concerned.

I am equally certain, by the way, that the domestic killer of yours had nothing at all to do with either series of murders.

Now we really should not take up any more place with this old quarrel of ours out here. Letīs be good boys.

PS. "Joke". Funny!!

I'm well aware you were being ironic. I of course have a different view point to yours. I am certain Bury was the Ripper and also that Lechmere is an innocent man. Fair enough about not taking up any more place with this old quarrel of ours.

[Scott Nelson]

Neither Lechmere or Bury. It was the gas-fitter Henry DeFries on Middlesex Street.

[John Wheat]

Neither Lechmere or Bury. It was the gas-fitter Henry DeFries on Middlesex Street.

Exactly who is Henry DeFries? /is this some sort of joke?