Lechmere Continuation Thread

[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.

[drstrange169]

That's actaully quite funny.

[Fisherman]

>>Goodbye, gentlemen.<<

If only.

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

[drstrange169]

>>Goodbye, gentlemen.<<

If only.

[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.

[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.

[drstrange169]

>>Baxter did not say...<<

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

[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.

[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.

[Harry D]

Have you not noticed that an effort has been made to remove the pissing from this thread? How about adjusting to that?
I will answer one thing only, and for the simple reason that you got it wrong:
Baxter did not say that he "supposed" that the killer had blood on his person - he said that IF he had, then that MAY explain how he could have slipped away unnoticed. And saying that it would suit my "agenda" is rather disingenious when you cannot tell me HOW that supposedly works. Baxter would not have predisposed that the killer was a butcher, but instead that he would be able to pass for one in their company.

"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.

[Fisherman]

Nope, but keep believing that if you want.



I think a law-abiding citizen such as Lechmere deserves the benefit of the doubt over convicted killers. You do know that during a murder investigation, police will often see if the murder can be linked to a known perpetrator, right? Why is that?



Only after being backed into a corner.



Baxter supposed that the killer should have blood on his person, and the corollary of this was the butcher theory. By quoting Baxter out of context you are deliberately misleading people to suit your own agenda.

Have you not noticed that an effort has been made to remove the pissing from this thread? How about adjusting to that?
I will answer one thing only, and for the simple reason that you got it wrong:
Baxter did not say that he "supposed" that the killer had blood on his person - he said that IF he had, then that MAY explain how he could have slipped away unnoticed. And saying that it would suit my "agenda" is rather disingenious when you cannot tell me HOW that supposedly works. Baxter would not have predisposed that the killer was a butcher, but instead that he would be able to pass for one in their company.

I would, however, be quite content to see my last question go unanswered if that is part of your accepting that this discussion is over.

[Harry D]

There is more factual reason to suspect Lechmere than any other suspect. Much more.

Nope, but keep believing that if you want.

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.

I think a law-abiding citizen such as Lechmere deserves the benefit of the doubt over convicted killers. You do know that during a murder investigation, police will often see if the murder can be linked to a known perpetrator, right? Why is that?

You said I wanted to avoid it, but here I am, very willing to discuss it with you.

Only after being backed into a corner.

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.

Baxter supposed that the killer should have blood on his person, and the corollary of this was the butcher theory. By quoting Baxter out of context you are deliberately misleading people to suit your own agenda.

[Fisherman]

That's bothered me too. Why risk relative safety for a thrill kill? How many times was JTR almost caught as opposed to the Torso murderer being safely behind closed doors?

I want to know more about the surgical connection that has been mentioned.

Columbo

To begin with, we are only making the assumption that the torso killer had a safe bolthole to work in. Although the suggestion as such is quite probable, it is by no means a certain thing.

The surgical connection? I donīt know that such a connection has been made. What was suggested in both series, principally in the Rainham and Chapman cases, was that a man with surgical or anatomical expertise was responsible.

In both series it was however evident that no surgeon would undertake what was undertaken by the killer.

In both series, we have a very skilled knifework on display, leaving clean incisions with no frays.

In both series, we have the removal of inner organs, both sexually oriented (Chapmans and Eddowes uteri and Jacksons ditto) and not sexually oriented (Eddowesī kidney and a whole lot of organs in the Kelly case, as well as heart and lungs in the Rainham case, for example).

In both series, we have examples of the abdomen being ripped from breastbone to pubes (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, plus the Rainham torso, Liz Jackson and the Pinchin Street torso.

In both series, the neck was cut on the bulk of the victims, either very deeply or severing the head entirely.

In both series, we have examples of part of the colon having been removed, something that requires that the colon is severed in TWO places, so we are not dealing with collateral damage.

In both series, we have examples of the abdominal wall having been cut away in large panes, leaving the contents of the abdomen on display.

The series are timewise overlapping.

The series both occurred in the same town, and one of the torso victims was dumped in the midst of Ripper country.

In both series, there were prostitutes involved as victims, and there is nothing gainsaying the idea that all victims were prostitutes.

And all the while that this was knowledge open to anybody, there was always a mantra saying that the two series could not possibly have the same originator.

[Fisherman]

That's a great line for a written forum.

Columbo

I hear what you say.

[Columbo]

>>The "free space" behind Andy Griffiths in the picture is the road into the construction site. If it was a "free site", why do you think there is a fence between the pavement and the open street? It was fenced off to prohibit any traffic but the construction traffic.<<

The aerial shot makes in very clear the area I circled was NOT cordoned off, as do the other two shots.
End of.

That's a great shot too. The lighting is pretty cool. So has the surrounding streets positions changed much in layout since 1888?

Columbo