Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Pierre]

Colombo,
The one series of crimes are committed in isolation,at a place that is secure and allows time.
The other series are committed in public places.
Why the difference?

Known in the West End. Not known in the East End.

[drstrange169]

Hello Columbo,

>>I still like your idea of a thread comparing newspapers and the reliability of them, especially for Nichols.<<

I started a thread, here,

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9768

Worth reading just for Wickerman's indispensible coverage of the Mary Kelly inquest.
I'm currently working on Mrs Nichols inquest coverage.

[drstrange169]

>>Baxter did not say...<<

Quite bizzare that you of all people should try and correct someone for getting Baxter wrong.

[Fisherman]

"It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person."

There are no ifs or buts here. Baxter is saying that in his opinion the killer must have been bloodstained. However, he does speculate that with all the butchers frequenting the area, this could've facilitated his escape. You quoted him out of context and cherry picked the part that would implicate Lechmere.

Letīs try the full quote, and letīs once more look at the allegations you are making, shall we?

"It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person. If, however, blood was principally on his hands, the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with blood- stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row in the twilight into Whitechapel-road, and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic."

1. The reason the quotation was made was to elucidate how there was a general feeling that the killers undetected escape was a remarkable feat. That was what I was underlining, and nothing else. I could have used a number of other people to do the exact same thing, and that would have served the exact same purpose.

2. Baxter has absolutely no idea to what extent there was blood on the killer, which he shows by allowing for varying degrees of blood. I think he is voicing to a degree what people generally thought (But SURELY he must have been very much bloodied?). By the way, if the blood was only on the hands of the killer, it also applies that he could have put them in his pockets and thatīs that problem tended to. Do you think that such a person, according to Baxter, would look MORE guilty? That blood was NEEDED to imply innocence...?

3. Baxter clearly points out that his appearance "MIGHT" have failed to attract attention, meaning once more that he is building his reasoning not on any established fact but instead on a supposition that the killer may have been bloodied to a smaller or lesser degree.

4. Any which way, regardless if Baxter thinks that there will have been no, very little, little, some or a lot of blood on the killer, that would in no way implicate Lechmere in any fashion. And if you are saying that any quotation that spoke of how it was astonishing that the killer made his escape points to Lechmere, then you have a large number of other quotations that establish that this was exactly what was thought.

I can assure you that if my mind was set on deceiving people, the result would be a lot more subtle and less ridiculous than what you are suggesting. How that would look is something that you will never see, however, since such a thing will never come about.
Are we done pissing now? If not, you may have to piss on your own. There is a limit for how stupid we should allow us to get. Or there ought to be, at least.

[Fisherman]

>>Baxter did not say...<<

Quite bizzare that you of all people should try and correct someone for getting Baxter wrong.

Yes, and that YOU of all people should be involved in ANY discussion about quoting people at all. What a laugh!

As I told Harry D, the more probable thing is that he will have to do his pissing on hiw own fortwith. But when I did so, I forgot about you.

You can of course piss together, and so you will not miss me too sorely.

Goodbye, gentlemen.

[drstrange169]

>>Goodbye, gentlemen.<<

If only.

[Fisherman]

>>Goodbye, gentlemen.<<

If only.

I know. But I had to call you something, didnīt I?

[drstrange169]

That's actaully quite funny.

[Harry D]

Letīs try the full quote, and letīs once more look at the allegations you are making, shall we?

"It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person. If, however, blood was principally on his hands, the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with blood- stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row in the twilight into Whitechapel-road, and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic."

1. The reason the quotation was made was to elucidate how there was a general feeling that the killers undetected escape was a remarkable feat. That was what I was underlining, and nothing else. I could have used a number of other people to do the exact same thing, and that would have served the exact same purpose.

2. Baxter has absolutely no idea to what extent there was blood on the killer, which he shows by allowing for varying degrees of blood. I think he is voicing to a degree what people generally thought (But SURELY he must have been very much bloodied?). By the way, if the blood was only on the hands of the killer, it also applies that he could have put them in his pockets and thatīs that problem tended to. Do you think that such a person, according to Baxter, would look MORE guilty? That blood was NEEDED to imply innocence...?

3. Baxter clearly points out that his appearance "MIGHT" have failed to attract attention, meaning once more that he is building his reasoning not on any established fact but instead on a supposition that the killer may have been bloodied to a smaller or lesser degree.

4. Any which way, regardless if Baxter thinks that there will have been no, very little, little, some or a lot of blood on the killer, that would in no way implicate Lechmere in any fashion. And if you are saying that any quotation that spoke of how it was astonishing that the killer made his escape points to Lechmere, then you have a large number of other quotations that establish that this was exactly what was thought.

I can assure you that if my mind was set on deceiving people, the result would be a lot more subtle and less ridiculous than what you are suggesting. How that would look is something that you will never see, however, since such a thing will never come about.
Are we done pissing now? If not, you may have to piss on your own. There is a limit for how stupid we should allow us to get. Or there ought to be, at least.

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.