What happened to Lechmere......

[John Wheat]

John Wheat: To Fisherman

You have not proven how Bury could be something else other than the Ripper or a copycat killer. Again I have asked on numerous occasions how Bury was not either the Ripper or a copycat killer and no one has proven how this could be the case. I'd have thought someone wishing to do so would star with a phrase such as Bury needn't necessarily be the Ripper or a copycat killer because...but no.

If you cannot see the logical fault you are making with the information I have provided you with, then there is nothing more I can do. You can lead a horse to water, but...

I have not commented on what you said about James Earl Ray because I don't know enough about James Earl Ray to make an informed comment.

Then make a comment on what you have been told, John - J E Ray shot King at long range with a rifle, so he perpetrated an extremely unusual deed.
John F Kennedy was shot at long range with a rifle.
Ray was a southerner, so he could well have been in Dallas on the Kennedy murder day.

We KNOW that Ray was a killer, and we KNOW that he had killed in the exact same, very unusual way that Kennedy was also killed in.

There is no information about Oswald having had any track record of violence, let alone killing.

Therefore, using your logic, we must set aside the family man with no track record of violence, since we have a BETTER candidate who MAY have been in Dallas in November 1963.

Ergo, using the "Wheat logic", James Earl Ray is a much better bid for the killers role than Oswald.

This is the scenario you are working to with Bury: To hell with anybody who may have been at the site and who acted oddly - if I can find a violent man who I know performed the same kind of unusual deed, he must be the better bid.

There you are. If itīs lunacy, it is your lunacy - I work the other way around, prioritizing a suspect we know were at the murder site over the rest of the violent world. Which, incidentally, is the accepted way of working for the police.

As regards the Lechmere doc. Perhaps I should have asked the question. Is there anything in the Lechmere doc that hasn't been mentioned on these message boards at least once?

Most of it will have been discussed out here. More has been added since the docu. New material is surfacing all the time.

To Lechmere

All Lechmere has going for him as a suspect. And I use the word suspect losely. Is that he found one body and gave a bogus name which could easily be traced back to him in any case. The rest is a load of circumstantial nonsense.

I don't trust you as regards Lechmere so why would I listen to you about James Earl Ray?

Cheers John

[Pierre]

To Pierre

1877-1887 is not 1889. Bury didn't live in Whitechapel in 1888. Could you explain how Bury isn't either the Ripper or a copycat killer?

Cheers John

Hi John,

My point is that we need a bigger sample to put Bury in his context if you would like to use "being a murderer" and "mutilating" a murder victim as criteria to analyse the possibility of Bury, or anyone else, being Jack the Ripper.

Since we only have these criteria for making claims about Bury being Jack the Ripper - living in Whitechapel is no criteria for being a killer - we must hypothesize that he may just be one of many other killers.

That is - if you donīt have any more indications pointing towards Bury?

So, to put it simple, he "wasnīt Jack the Ripper" because there is nothing connecting him to the murders claimed to be done by Jack the Ripper.

And since that is a fact (?), many others could have been Jack the Ripper too, if you only use the criteria of "being a murder" and "performing mutilations".

Because living in Whitechapel is no criteria for being a murderer, and being in Whitechapel at the time of each Ripper murder is only a necessary condition that does not make anyone a killer.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

You are fooling absolutely nobody, Pierre. Scobie said "when the coincidences mount up - and they DO in his case (meaning Lechmere) - it becomes one coincidence too many".

If that is not accepting that Lechmere is a good bid for the killerīs role, I donīt know what is.

He said "a jury would not like that" about the picture Lechmere represented.

He said "the timings and geography really have him" or something along that line.

He said that we had a prima faciae case, enough to warrant a modern day trial, "suggesting that he was the killer".

Thatīs what Scobie said. Apart from what he said that you did NOT hear, material that was cut away from the docu, for example where he spoke more about how silly it would be to accept all the anomalies about Lechmere as mere coincidences.

What I say is something else: I am spending no more time on poppycock like this. Goodbye to you. Go research that suspect of yours and donīt forget to believe in him. He needs all the support he can get.

You, that is.

Hi Fisherman,

OK. So now you put it to us that Scobie thinks that "Lechmere is a good bid for the killerīs role". Has he said that?

No, he has merely said that he could test this in a trial.

According to Scobie, Lechmere was only a possible case for the court.

He was not "a good bid for the killerīs role".

You are twisting words, Fisherman, trying to support you hypothesis. And I understand you. You have a lot invested in your theory. But please be honest. You are as able as I am to see here that you are putting words in the mouth of the barrister that he has not spoken. And there is no need to. You could argue well enough from his statements anyway. You only put your own credibility into question.


So Scobie was not, and has not said that he was:
"very positive to the idea of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper." and he has not said that Lechmere is:
"a good bid for the killerīs role"


AND VERY IMPORTANT: Where in the movie does he say what you state above that he says: "suggesting that he was the killer"?


Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

OK. So now you put it to us that Scobie thinks that "Lechmere is a good bid for the killerīs role". Has he said that?

No, he has merely said that he could test this in a trial.

According to Scobie, Lechmere was only a possible case for the court.

He was not "a good bid for the killerīs role".

You are twisting words, Fisherman, trying to support you hypothesis. And I understand you. You have a lot invested in your theory. But please be honest. You are as able as I am to see here that you are putting words in the mouth of the barrister that he has not spoken. And there is no need to. You could argue well enough from his statements anyway. You only put your own credibility into question.


So Scobie was not, and has not said that he was:
"very positive to the idea of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper." and he has not said that Lechmere is:
"a good bid for the killerīs role"


AND VERY IMPORTANT: Where in the movie does he say what you state above that he says: "suggesting that he was the killer"?


Regards, Pierre

Yawn! Iīll do it the same way as usual, Pierre, but with a "twist".

This time is the last time we exchange words, you and I. That is because I find you wanting in so many departments.

You take it upon yourself to claim that I "twist words". But you cannot be arsed to keep yourself informed about the facts.

So here is my send off to you, after which I will try and spend my time in a more useful way. Like I said, itīs along the same lines as ever: I answer a question of yours, whereby you have managed to make a complete fool of yourself.

Question: Where in the movie does he say what you state above that he says: "suggesting that he was the killer"?

Answer: 42 minutes and 52 seconds into the documentary.

Farewell, Pierre.

[Fisherman]

To Lechmere

All Lechmere has going for him as a suspect. And I use the word suspect losely. Is that he found one body and gave a bogus name which could easily be traced back to him in any case. The rest is a load of circumstantial nonsense.

I don't trust you as regards Lechmere so why would I listen to you about James Earl Ray?

Cheers John

So as to avoid being called arrogant.

You just follow your instincts and distrust people who donīt agree with you. That should get you to places.

[Pierre]

Yawn! Iīll do it the same way as usual, Pierre, but with a "twist".

This time is the last time we exchange words, you and I. That is because I find you wanting in so many departments.

You take it upon yourself to claim that I "twist words". But you cannot be arsed to keep yourself informed about the facts.

So here is my send off to you, after which I will try and spend my time in a more useful way. Like I said, itīs along the same lines as ever: I answer a question of yours, whereby you have managed to make a complete fool of yourself.

Question: Where in the movie does he say what you state above that he says: "suggesting that he was the killer"?

Answer: 42 minutes and 52 seconds into the documentary.

Farewell, Pierre.

OK. In this part of the documentary he just says the same thing again. A case suggesting that Lechmere could be a killer is good enough to put before a jury. That is all he says. And since he hasnīt tried Lechmere and there has been no case to put before a jury, we can not judge Lechmere. And in his own time, they did not put such a case before the jury, because Lechmere was not a suspect.

Thanks, Fisherman.

Regards, Pierre

[drstrange169]

Hello Gut,

>>If they were engaged unloading and unloading heavy items, hob nails would be their footwear. <<


The system at Broad Street was one where drivers were assigned a loaded cart for delivery.

I still wear metal toe and heels on my street shoes and thanks to this thread I just realised they need re-newing!

[drstrange169]

>>Imagine, if you will, the sound of a woman walking on high heel shoes...<<

Jack the cross dresser?

[John Wheat]

So as to avoid being called arrogant.

You just follow your instincts and distrust people who donīt agree with you. That should get you to places.

To Fisherman

No I am not that bothered about being called arrogant. Generally I don't distrust people who disagree with me however in your case I think your judgment's bad.

Cheers John

[drstrange169]

Hello John,

>>As regards the Lechmere doc. Perhaps I should have asked the question. Is there anything in the Lechmere doc that hasn't been mentioned on these message boards at least once?<<

I'm probably the most vocal critic of the TV show but, I did enjoy watching it and I thought Fisherman was very good in it. Fish is a big guy, if we ever come to physical blows he might win!

Well worth watching, it's just that nobody should get too get to carried away with the claims it makes.

[Pcdunn]

The animation depicting how close Lechmere was to the body is very misleading, given his own words that he stopped in the street near her body once he saw it WAS a body. In my opinion, anyway.

[GUT]

The animation depicting how close Lechmere was to the body is very misleading, given his own words that he stopped in the street near her body once he saw it WAS a body. In my opinion, anyway.

And Paul's evidence that that was where he was when Paul saw him.

The opinion of any expert is only as good as the information he is given to work with

[SuspectZero]

Hello John,

>>As regards the Lechmere doc. Perhaps I should have asked the question. Is there anything in the Lechmere doc that hasn't been mentioned on these message boards at least once?<<

I'm probably the most vocal critic of the TV show but, I did enjoy watching it and I thought Fisherman was very good in it. Fish is a big guy, if we ever come to physical blows he might win!

Well worth watching, it's just that nobody should get too get to carried away with the claims it makes.

I watched that show. I found interesting and thought it made a credible argument for Lechmere as JTR.

[Fisherman]

Hello John,

>>As regards the Lechmere doc. Perhaps I should have asked the question. Is there anything in the Lechmere doc that hasn't been mentioned on these message boards at least once?<<

I'm probably the most vocal critic of the TV show but, I did enjoy watching it and I thought Fisherman was very good in it. Fish is a big guy, if we ever come to physical blows he might win!

Well worth watching, it's just that nobody should get too get to carried away with the claims it makes.

I think the problem is to establish exactly how far you SHOULD get carried away - and what is too much. Maybe - just maybe - we should allow people to decide for themselves instead of advicing them not to listen to "the propaganda"?

Maybe saying such a thing is getting too carried away?

[Fisherman]

The animation depicting how close Lechmere was to the body is very misleading, given his own words that he stopped in the street near her body once he saw it WAS a body. In my opinion, anyway.

In everybodys opinion, I would say. That was one of the very few things in the docu that was obviously taking it a step (or two) too far. It was discussed when the docu aired and both Edward and I immediately recognized this.
We did not make the docu ourselves - Blink Films did, and they made the rules. Overall, though, they did a very good job, methinks.