Inconsequent, Fishy? Did you mean inconsistent? If so I humbly apologise because I genuinely misunderstood your reasoning on this. I may have been thinking of the Hutchinson arguments Ben used to make, where his ripper could be both a brazen risk taker and
a worried risk dodger
at the same time. To me this always seemed like having it both ways. He came forward because he dared not run the risk of staying away, lest Sarah Lewis saw too much and he was dragged in as a suspect. If anyone challenged this view, okay then, he came forward for the pure thrill of being right under Abberline's nose and leading him a merry dance. In fact, Ben used to argue, it could have been a bit of both.
If this is nothing like your own reasoning regarding Lechmere's motivation for coming forward, on reading Paul's account, that can only be a good thing. But I genuinely
thought I had read at least one post of yours arguing that it was Paul, blabbing to the press about the 'man' who was first at the scene, who left Lechmere with little choice but to identify himself as that man and try to clear himself of any suspicion that might otherwise come his way. To me, that would suggest he weighed up the risks and decided that coming forward gave him the better chance of remaining free to kill again. If you were actually arguing that he chose to brazen it out with the police and at the inquest because he enjoyed the greater
risk involved in doing so, compared with staying well out of it, again that's fine, but he could have done that anyway, with or without Paul's supposed trigger. That's what I'm still confused about. Did Paul's article coax Lechmere out into the open [like some believe Lewis's testimony did for Hutch] or didn't it? By the same token, was it brazen
of him to give his name as Cross, or did he do that as a precaution
against certain people learning of his encounter with the dead prostitute? Change fearless/fearful to daredevil/dare not, and I think I may still have a point here about wanting it both ways.
A tad harsh, because there was no intent
on my part to falsely accuse you of anything, to confuse others, to distort the debate or to make you 'a less friendly poster', whatever that means. Maybe I am just too thick to grasp some of the subtleties of your arguments. And I'd sooner be called thick than dishonest.
So I'm 'spiteful' to you while you are merely 'mocking'? You should demand a refund of those charm school fees.