Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Scott Nelson]

..Or Edward Bury. James Bury? Whatever that guy's name was.

[Scott Nelson]

Sorry, I meant William Bury.

[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?

[Scott Nelson]

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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

[Fisherman]

I’ ll try to get over the loss.

[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]

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!