Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

With Lechmere as Jack the Ripper, people will be forever stuck in Buck´s Row.

What a very odd thing to say. Too little time has been spent in Bucks Row by the students of the case, otherwise the carman would have become a suspect much earlier.

But I can assure you that I am reasonably up to scratch, regardless of which murder spot we are discussing.

[Fisherman]

Pierre

Yes, but Fisherman has no answers.

Actually I do, I just haven´t given them to you this time. They can, however, be found all over the boards.

[Pierre]

I didn't know that, but then again that kind of proves my point. The production company knew the graphic was wrong but proceeded anyway. They did it to make Cross look more ominous and guilty.

Now if Edward had told you that Christer knew the graphic was wrong but insisted the production company use it anyways that would be a problem with Christer's credibility, but since he wasn't involved with the post production or have say on the final cut, He shouldn't be blamed for it.

On the location in Bucks row, in retrospect it would've been more accurate but again the director on-site I'm sure was looking for the best shot and chose (rightly or wrongly) to shoot in a different location then the original murder site. Christer could shed some light on that. They could've filmed anywhere in Buck's Row at this point as the only thing that is original is the length of Buck's Row. The murder site no longer exists, so as long as they timed thier walk to the original site and reported that accurately, it wouldn't really matter where they filmed the cardboard cutout.

Columbo

With Lechmere as Jack the Ripper, people will be forever stuck in Buck´s Row.

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=Pierre;389659]

Hi Columbo,

Yes, but Fisherman has no answers.



You mean the Whitechapel murders and the dismemberment murders. I think we need evidence for it. I hypothesize that the same serial killer did the C-5, MacKenzie, the Whitehall victim, the Pinchin Street victim and perhaps Jackson.

But there must be connections to the murders, otherwise I dismiss them.

Regards, Pierre

I didn't notice it wasn't answered. Anyway that's what we're exploring, whether or not we can make a connection between the two.

Columbo

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Columbo;389617]

Hi Pierre,
didn't you post this earlier on this thread?

Hi Columbo,

Yes, but Fisherman has no answers.

What do you think about the two sets of murders being committed by the same hand?

You mean the Whitechapel murders and the dismemberment murders. I think we need evidence for it. I hypothesize that the same serial killer did the C-5, MacKenzie, the Whitehall victim, the Pinchin Street victim and perhaps Jackson.

But there must be connections to the murders, otherwise I dismiss them.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

I would so love to see a bit less pissing, and a bit more discussion about 'orrible murders on this board.

Believe me, so would I.

[Columbo]

I would so love to see a bit less pissing, and a bit more discussion about 'orrible murders on this board.

One of the pitfalls of an open forum. But some good info comes through if you can wipe away the BS.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Columbo:
... not to be a douche but even though it would've been historically accurate if Fisherman had given the entire baxter account in the documentary, I doubt he didn't because of some malicious, fradulent attempt on his part to decieve people, especially since there is some documented record of it for all to see.

What I would like to hear is how the fraud would be construed and how it would work. The part where Baxter elaborates further on the matter of how the Ripper seemed to have phantomlike qualities is left out, yes - but why would people think Lechmere a less viable candidate if it was added...?
Would they go "Ah, so there was a chance that the killer could have sneaked out of Bucks Row even if he had blood on his person. So that clears the carman!" ?
The whole suggestion is ridiculous.
And the view that the killer had a phantomlike propensity to senak in and out unseen from the sites was a very common view. There is any amount of such quotations available from policemen and press articles as well as from later day authors, so the suggestion was an extremely common one.
It therefore seems abundantly clear that having a stab at me was the only real driving force behind the "outrage". So much for that!

So moving on to the torso murders I hope.

You´d wish. But let´s try!

Again I know only what I've read here so far about them but (again this has been mentioned on other threads) I believe this killer would have a location that was relatively safe since he would most certainly have to be inside and to dismember would take some time. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

The Torso killer must have had one or more boltholes to do his work. It is not easy to establish where it was since parts were dumped from different spots along the river, and also because the part could be washed up river with the tide on occasion.

[Ginger]

I would so love to see a bit less pissing, and a bit more discussion about 'orrible murders on this board.

[Columbo]

Another thought had just occured to me that this person may have lived outside the city limits, maybe in a secluded country house with a barn or basement. I'm not familiar with the housing in 1870-1890's, but I'm also thinking a private residence with a basement would be a safe bet as well.

Columbo

[Columbo]

There is more factual reason to suspect Lechmere than any other suspect. Much more. And if you are speaking principles, you should recognize that much as some people are convicted killers, it is not an allowed thing to drop other deeds in their laps on no evidence at all. The exact same thing goes for those named by the Victorian police; if there was just the one killer, then we KNOW that the rest were not guilty.
But "sullying" their memories is okay by you.

Now, did you not want to discuss the Baxter words? You said I wanted to avoid it, but here I am, very willing to discuss it with you.

You can begin by telling me how what Baxter said would in any way add to or take away from how Lechmere could be the guilty party.

Once you got that answer correct, we can move on to other questions on the same errand. I would not want you to get the idea that I am evading it.

By the way, you are correct to say that you cannot speak for Lechmeres relatives, just as I am correct to say that Edward and I can, to an extent.
Glad we got that straightened out.

Personally I don't take Baxter's opinion as fact. It was a supposition on his part. Granted people do use it to bolster the theory but he wasn't an active investigator outside of the inquest so it doesn't matter in the big scheme of this topic other than apparently his entire opinion wasn't given accurately.

And not to be a douche but even though it would've been historically accurate if Fisherman had given the entire baxter account in the documentary, I doubt he didn't because of some malicious, fradulent attempt on his part to decieve people, especially since there is some documented record of it for all to see. There are several JTR and other docus that do the same thing. they paraphrase testimony, eyewitness accounts, even the written record while they're reading it on camera! It's a little unfair to call him a huckster just for that. The other items mentioned by Dusty are not ones I'm even closely equipped to deny or support so have fun

So moving on to the torso murders I hope. Again I know only what I've read here so far about them but (again this has been mentioned on other threads) I believe this killer would have a location that was relatively safe since he would most certainly have to be inside and to dismember would take some time. Anyone have any thoughts on that?

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Double posting.

[Fisherman]

I can't speak for Lechmere's relatives. Some people get a thrill from the idea they were related to an infamous figure. Regardless of what they think, I stand by my own principles that it's tasteless to sully a dead man's memory based on nothing more than flimsy circumstantial evidence. And of course you'll respond "That goes for every suspect! At least Lechmere was there!" Many of the popular suspects (Bury, Klosowski, Kelly) were convicted killers, while those who weren't (Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety) were suspected by contemporary policemen. So while they weren't necessarily guilty of the Ripper crimes, there is just cause for suspecting them. Lechmere, not so much.

There is more factual reason to suspect Lechmere than any other suspect. Much more. And if you are speaking principles, you should recognize that much as some people are convicted killers, it is not an allowed thing to drop other deeds in their laps on no evidence at all. The exact same thing goes for those named by the Victorian police; if there was just the one killer, then we KNOW that the rest were not guilty.
But "sullying" their memories is okay by you.

Now, did you not want to discuss the Baxter words? You said I wanted to avoid it, but here I am, very willing to discuss it with you.

You can begin by telling me how what Baxter said would in any way add to or take away from how Lechmere could be the guilty party.

Once you got that answer correct, we can move on to other questions on the same errand. I would not want you to get the idea that I am evading it.

By the way, you are correct to say that you cannot speak for Lechmeres relatives, just as I am correct to say that Edward and I can, to an extent.
Glad we got that straightened out.

[Harry D]

...to how we are ruthlessly depressing the Lechmere family by falsely painting the carman out as the Ripper. We´ve seen it all in that department, Harry, some of it coming from you.

I can't speak for Lechmere's relatives. Some people get a thrill from the idea they were related to an infamous figure. Regardless of what they think, I stand by my own principles that it's tasteless to sully a dead man's memory based on nothing more than flimsy circumstantial evidence. And of course you'll respond "That goes for every suspect! At least Lechmere was there!" Many of the popular suspects (Bury, Klosowski, Kelly) were convicted killers, while those who weren't (Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety) were suspected by contemporary policemen. So while they weren't necessarily guilty of the Ripper crimes, there is just cause for suspecting them. Lechmere, not so much.

[Fisherman]

It's no wonder you want to swiftly move on from this subject, Fish. drstrange169 has called you out for misquoting Baxter for your own ends. It appears that much of the case for Lechmere relies on taking things out of context.

Swiftly? It has been discussed for a week now, and nothing has changed. And it is not as if it has never happened before that accusations have been thrown, ranging from how we did the event in St Johns in order to gain finacially from it, to how we are ruthlessly depressing the Lechmere family by falsely painting the carman out as the Ripper. We´ve seen it all in that department, Harry, some of it coming from you.
But by all means, set up a fresh new thread about it, and we can all drop in there from time to time and add a thought or two.
As for Dusty and the fine art of misquoting things, well ...