View Single Post
  #899  
Old 06-28-2017, 07:56 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
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.

Love,

Caz
X
Yes, you were completely wrong in claiming that I have ever said that Lechmere was spooked by the interview, and I am relieved to hear that you have now understood that.

As you know, I am of the meaning that if Lechmere was the killer, then he was also a psychopath. Psychopaths do not spook, simple as.

Sadly, you persist by saying: ". 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."

I have said that more than one time - but it does not mean that I think that Lechmere was in any way spooked. He was instead seemingly careful and proactive and willing to take great risks.

I sincerely hope we are done with this miscomprehension of yours. I donīt mind being heavily criticised for what I think, but I am quite opposed to having what I DONīT think pointed to as weaknesses in my theory.

Maybe you could ask before posting next time? It would help.

Thank you.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote