What happened to Lechmere......

[Harry D]

Poor Lechmere. A family man who kept a steady job and provided for his wife & children, gets his name dragged through the mud by the armchair detectives. All because he happened to find the first Ripper victim on his way to work.

[Fisherman]

Poor Lechmere. A family man who kept a steady job and provided for his wife & children, gets his name dragged through the mud by the armchair detectives. All because he happened to find the first Ripper victim on his way to work.

He is misunderstood alright.

[Fisherman]

He is misunderstood alright.

Otherwise, you are fishing with way too coarse gear.

[Harry D]

He is misunderstood alright.

Well done. Acceptance is the first step to recovery.

[Pierre]

He was found with the body of Polly Nichols. Alone. The corpse being VERY freshly killed.

Hi Fisherman,

Letīs use a simple little risk/chance scale and see if we can hypothesize a risk/chance for Lechmere being the murderer of Polly Nichols.

The more points he gets, the higher the risk/chance that Lechmere was the murderer of Polly Nichols (and nobody else since there are no sources pointing to it).

He gets one (1) point for a high risk/chance, half a point (0,5) for a low risk/chance and no (0) point for no risk/chance:

1. People who find murder victims by themselves are alone with the victims. = 0 points on the risk/chance scale.

2. People who find people who have found murder victims by themselves perceive of those people as being alone with the victims.
= 0 points on the risk/chance scale.

The risk/chance of the person you find at a murder site of being the murderer depends on the character of the murder site:

3. If the murder site is an empty house were no one is living, the risk/chance is high that the person you find with a body is the murderer.
= 0 points on the risk/chance scale.

4. If the murder site is a street were people are walking on their way to work, the risk/chance is low that the person you find with a body is the murderer.
= 0,5 point on the risk/chance scale.

The risk/chance of the person you find at a murder site being the murderer depends on the characteristics of the murder.

5. If there is a lot of blood on the victim, there should be blood on the killer.
= 0 points on the risk/chance scale.

6. If the victim has been disembowelled, there must be blood on the killer.
= 0 points on the risk/chance scale.

The risk/chance of the person you find at the murder site being the murderer depends on his behaviour.

7. If the person is attacking you, the risk/chance of this person being the murderer is high.
= 0 points on the risk/chance scale.

8. If the person is running away from you, the risk/chance of this person being the murderer is high.
= 0 points on the risk/chance scale.

9. If the person stays with you on the murder scene and examines the murder scene with you, the risk/chance of this person being the murderer is low.
= 0,5 point on the risk/chance scale.

10. If the person is walking with you to find a police constable, the risk/chance of this person being the murderer is low.
= 0,5 point on the risk/chance scale.

Now, how high is the risk/chance that Paul had found a murderer in Buckīs Row or: How high is the risk/chance that Lechmere was the murderer of Nichols?

The risk/chance is 1,5 out of 10. That is 15 percent. And those 15 percent depend on your ability to find good arguments and interpret very sparse sources. And these sources are only giving information for this very week suspect in the case of Polly Nichols. There are no other sources.

So I must say that you are doing a really good job, Fisherman. I admire you.

But I think the real killer would only laugh at you and find you very amusing.

He is now ruling your life from his grave.

Kind regards, Pierre

[John G]

The above post reinforces my suspicion that Pierre is a statistician (hey, that rhymes!)

Pierre, are you trying to solve the mystery via statistical analysis? Because you know what Arthur Balfour said about statistics.

There is also an obvious grammatical error: "week suspect", should be "weak suspect". This fact, coupled with Pierre not knowing who JM Barrie is, reinforces my suspicions that Pierre is not an English graduate.

[John Wheat]

Pierre

I have to say as regards Lechmere your talking alot of sense.

Cheers John

[drstrange169]

>The biggest problem in the cross theory is that it, like so many others relies on the police being to stupid to find their bums with a mirror on a stick. And thus to stupid to carry out the most basic of investigations.<<

Spot on, Gut.

Certainly investigation has become more sophisticated with the passing of years, but basics are always basics.

Plus things change over the years.

Today a person with different names is a definite red flag. In Victorian England's East End they were almost de riguer. It's these little anomalies that modern investigations often fall down on. And, because it's the biggest thing they have got, it's why Xmereites push the name thing so much, whilst in fact, it's importance is seemingly slight in the scheme of things.

The future is a different world to the past.

[drstrange169]

>..since the Nichols murder came early in the series; some say it was the first, even. So at that stage, they had no knowledge of what was to come<<

It's this kind of twisting of the known evidence that Xmere theory is built on.
Mrs. Nichols murder was always regarded by the people at the time as part of a series.

Up to a late hour last evening the police had obtained no positive clue to the perpetrator of the latest of the three murders which have so recently taken place in Whitechapel. The murder committed in the early hours of Friday morning of the woman now known as Mary Ann Nicholls has so many points of similarity with the murders of the two other women in the same neighbourhood - one, Martha Turner, as recently as 7th August, and the other less than twelve months previously - that the police admit their belief that the three crimes are the work of one individual. All three women were of the same class, and each of them was so poor that robbery could have formed no motive for the crime. The three murders were committed within a distance of 200 yards of each other. In the earliest case a thrust into the body sufficed to cause the victim's death, in the second some 30 stabs were inflicted before Martha Turner was left to die on the door steps of the model dwellings in George yard, and in the latest case the woman was so violently attacked that she was nearly disembowelled. These facts have led the police almost to abandon the idea of a gang being abroad to wreak vengeance on women for not supplying them with money. Detective Inspector Abberline, of the Criminal Investigation Department, and Detective Inspector Helson, J Division, are both of opinion that only one person, and that a man, had a hand in the latest murder. It is understood that the investigation into the George Yard mystery is proceeding hand in hand with that of Buck's row."

Daily News (my emphasis's)

No investigation , modern or old, has knowledge of what is to come.
It is ,however reasonable for investigators from any age to assume a series of any kind will continue.

Does anyone here, for example, believe that there will be no more Terrorist attacks in 2016?

[drstrange169]

Hello Pierre,

Risk analysis is useless without the statistics to show why some actions would be awarded one point and others none. Otherwise it's just personal opinion.

[Fisherman]

>..since the Nichols murder came early in the series; some say it was the first, even. So at that stage, they had no knowledge of what was to come<<

It's this kind of twisting of the known evidence that Xmere theory is built on.
Mrs. Nichols murder was always regarded by the people at the time as part of a series.

Up to a late hour last evening the police had obtained no positive clue to the perpetrator of the latest of the three murders which have so recently taken place in Whitechapel. The murder committed in the early hours of Friday morning of the woman now known as Mary Ann Nicholls has so many points of similarity with the murders of the two other women in the same neighbourhood - one, Martha Turner, as recently as 7th August, and the other less than twelve months previously - that the police admit their belief that the three crimes are the work of one individual. All three women were of the same class, and each of them was so poor that robbery could have formed no motive for the crime. The three murders were committed within a distance of 200 yards of each other. In the earliest case a thrust into the body sufficed to cause the victim's death, in the second some 30 stabs were inflicted before Martha Turner was left to die on the door steps of the model dwellings in George yard, and in the latest case the woman was so violently attacked that she was nearly disembowelled. These facts have led the police almost to abandon the idea of a gang being abroad to wreak vengeance on women for not supplying them with money. Detective Inspector Abberline, of the Criminal Investigation Department, and Detective Inspector Helson, J Division, are both of opinion that only one person, and that a man, had a hand in the latest murder. It is understood that the investigation into the George Yard mystery is proceeding hand in hand with that of Buck's row."

Daily News (my emphasis's)

No investigation , modern or old, has knowledge of what is to come.
It is ,however reasonable for investigators from any age to assume a series of any kind will continue.

Does anyone here, for example, believe that there will be no more Terrorist attacks in 2016?

Hi, Dr (very)Strange!

So you are at it again? "Twisting", was it? Okay, then letīs look at what I said:

"...since the Nichols murder came early in the series; some say it was the first, even. So at that stage, they had no knowledge of what was to come"

I trust you can accept that this is an exact quotation, representing the exact wording I used? Good!

Now, in what context did I use it? Well, I said that the police back then could not lay the geographical puzzle, leading them to Lechmere. In tat context, I said that the Nichols murder was an early murder in the series (and added that it is often regarded as the first one).

It therefore applies that the police would not be able to pinpoint Lechmere as the probable killer, going on the murder spots AT THAT STAGE.

The idea that all three killings (Smith, Tabram and Nichols) were part of the same series was firts and foremost a press invention. But even if it was not, what did the police have? Bucks Row, George Yard and the corner of Wentworth and Brick Lane.

How would that make them conclude that Lechmere was the probable killer?
It is not until we add Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly that we can see that they all fit woth the paths of Lechmere in rather a unique fashion. They are tied to him in relation to not one but three (3) points on the map:
22 Doveton Street, The Broad Street depot and 1 Mary Ann Street. It is the interconnection of these three points that make him a very useful suspect.

But at the early stage of the Nichols murder, the police had three bits only to work with, and two of the killings were very close to each other, suggesting that the epicenter was represented by that smallish area.

Now I will let you soak up the limelight as you either rationally explain how this is twisting anything at all or - preferably - admit that you got it wrong again.

[Fisherman]

Hi Pierre!

Since I work from a grading where I give knowledgeable posters one full point, average posters 0,325 points and posters who get things wrong repeatedly no points at all, I am sorry, but I must inform you that I am not too impressed with your numerical judgment of Charles Lechmere.

[John G]

Hello Pierre,

Risk analysis is useless without the statistics to show why some actions would be awarded one point and others none. Otherwise it's just personal opinion.

Excellent point. This makes me question my original theory that Pierre has a degree in statistics-perhaps I should submit the theory to a probability analysis!

[GUT]

Hello Pierre,

Risk analysis is useless without the statistics to show why some actions would be awarded one point and others none. Otherwise it's just personal opinion.

And as a general rule, come down to opinion when deciding what points to allocate to each item on the list.

[John Wheat]

John Wheat: To Fisherman

I still think it is ludicrous to suppose Lechmere was the Ripper purely because he found a body and supposedly another victim was on his route to work.

And why lay that at my door? I have listed 31 points, ONE of them being how he was found alone with the body of Nichols. That is a different story, John: being found alone with the body is the REASON why he needs to be researched, not the convicting factor.
In a sense, somebody has to find the body (we have heard that before, have we not?). Then again, that somebody does not have to hide his real name, to get ointo the dispute with the police about what was said etcetera, etcetera (30 etceteras).

I assume the police at the time weren't totally incompetent and as they considered Lechmere a witness I see no reason to consider him as anything other than that.

But you know how competent they were, John - they were competent enough bot to speak with more than a tiny fraction of the Bucks Row dwellers, for example. And we both know - I know that I do - that there have been many cases where the police have failed to pinpoint a killer who they interviewed until very late in the process, and sometimes only on account of slip-ups ny the killers themselves.

Personally, I believe that a large number of serial killers have walked free on account of the inability of the police to understand their real role. And I am equally convinced that sometimes, there has been no real chance to cotton on to things, whereas the police have made more or less grave mistakes on other occasions.

If you do not agree with that, please let me know. I will inevitaby call you naive for it, though.

As regards me working from an agenda where a suspect of my own takes precedence this is surely a major case of pot calling the kettle black. Your tunnel vision as regards Lechmere's guilt is frankly astounding. Just for your own interest I do have a favoured suspect.

But it is no secret that I am working from the assumption that Lechmere was the killer, John - it is all over the boards and threads. That, however, does n ot have to mean that I am a poor judge of evidence. If that was the case, then you need to go call all policemen who follow convictions of their own agenda-ridden morons who should be hindered to raise their voice.

Ridgway and Gacy, for example, were tracked down by dogged policemen who never gave an inch, and who were proven right in the end. They were cinvinced by the overall evidence picture that they were on the right track, and they never backed down.

I take pride, in many a way, in being of the same ilk. But I also take pride in being prepared every second along the way to let go of my grip once anything surfaces to disprove Lechmereīs guilt! That is just as important.



By the way, itīs Bury you are backing, is it not? Take my word for it, John - it was not him...

To Fisherman

None of the 31 points indicate Lechmere's guilt. The false name as you keep harping on about could easily be traced back to him anyway. I'm sure many serial killers have walked free largely because of the Police's inability to understand there real role. I do agree with you on that point however I very much doubt Lechmere was one of them.

Yes I do believe there is a strong possibility that Bury was the Ripper. It is a fact that Bury murdered Ellen Bury in a violent manner strangling her before mutilating her with a knife. This is something Lechmere nor any other alleged Ripper suspect ever did.

As for something surfacing to disprove Lechmere's guilt for 100% I think this is unlikely because it is now 2016. However even if this did happen I doubt you would believe it.

Cheers John