Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

>>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.

Yes, there is an opening into the area you circled. If there was not, the vehicles travelling in and out of the construction site would not be able to come through.

Are you having a problem with your ears, Dusty? I have told you over and over again that the area you point to was disallowed for us to work in.

I have told you over and over again that even if we WERE allowed to work in it, we would still have a fence to scale as we approached the southern pavement. So even if we WERE allowed to use the zone where the construction vehicles passed in and out, a reconstruction of the murder night meeting would involve Lechmere and Paul jumping the fence.

You are therefore exactly as wrong as you normally are when you try to understand anything relating to the Ripper case. And to boot, you have the audacity to imply that I am lying about this!!

I have already told you to contact Edward, who you think would never lie to you, and ask him to confirm or deny what I am saying. Please take that advice, and stop behaving like a total moron on this issue.

[Fisherman]

>>If the slander and manure throwing is based on an inability to write and understand the written word, then so much the worse.<<

F.Y.I. slander is about the spoken word, libel is the written word.

And libel is defined by whether the allegation is true or not. In this case it is demonstrably true.

Your only defensive could have been that you were mistaken, which is ok if you were, but as you’ve shown here you have no remorse for your actions, in fact you continue to promote them.

Slander can be based on an inability to write and/or understand the written word, so don´t try and correct something that is perfectly correct from the outset.

Language seems a stumbling block to you, so you may want to stay away from trying to correct me on such issues.

I have told you that if you had been speaking of a misrepresentation, you would have had a better case (although not a very good one), but that speaking about a lie is as unsavoury as it is wrongful.

That´s all there is to it and all there will ever be.

You may have noticed that people are beginning to ask for more ripperology and less pissing out here. I am trying to cater to that wish, and I advice you to do the same.

[drstrange169]

That's not what my inbox is telling me.

[Fisherman]

That's not what my inbox is telling me.

I can understand that. But we are able to put an end to the rot, if we collectively decide to make amense. And as I said, I have no problems with that. I can leave the pissing here and now, and noone would be happier than me.

You?

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, all

Gentlemen and Ladies, this thread has produced some interesting discussions and not a few passionate exchanges. The conversation has been enjoyable and rewarding.
We have considered evidence and waded through much conjecture during our examination of a certain man from Bethnal Green. This is the matter we are all here to debate, his viability, as a suspect.
I am surely not alone in finding myself recently wearied while reading through pages of conflict, regarding the production values of a particular televisual documentary.

Perhaps, if that specific matter be so contentious as to require the volume of discourse it has so far generated, an ideal approach might be to create a separate thread dedicated to that matter.

Yours, Caligo

[Fisherman]

Hi, all

Gentlemen and Ladies, this thread has produced some interesting discussions and not a few passionate exchanges. The conversation has been enjoyable and rewarding.
We have considered evidence and waded through much conjecture during our examination of a certain man from Bethnal Green. This is the matter we are all here to debate, his viability, as a suspect.
I am surely not alone in finding myself recently wearied while reading through pages of conflict, regarding the production values of a particular televisual documentary.

Perhaps, if that specific matter be so contentious as to require the volume of discourse it has so far generated, an ideal approach might be to create a separate thread dedicated to that matter.

Yours, Caligo

Thanks for that, Caligo. In fact, there is already a thread about the documentary:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8463

[Columbo]

Hello Columbo,

>>So let's discuss. I miss alot of things so please forgive any repeated questions. <<

To save confusion and the need to repeat questions, there is a threads set up to discuss this.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9649&page=21&highlight=torso

It has the huge plus that Debra A. has posted there, whereas she is probably giving this thread a wide berth.

Hello Dusty,

Thanks for the link. I did look that one over and it's pretty interesting. I'm trying to find a fresh angle on this and will probably start a new thread so we don't have all this clutter. There's so much info on this site it's very easy to repeat over and over. I still like your idea of a thread comparing newspapers and the reliability of them, especially for Nichols.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Y
Are you having a problem with your ears, Dusty? I have told you over and over again that the area you point to was disallowed for us to work in.

That's a great line for a written forum.

Columbo

[Columbo]

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?

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

[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

[Fisherman]

That's a great line for a written forum.

Columbo

I hear what you say.

[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 don´t 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 (Eddowes´ 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.

[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]

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]

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.