Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Mr Lucky]

at a murder scene.. while the victim was still bleeding, at the time of death too

I don't care if he has one child or eleven, I don't care if he gave his real name or a false one, I don't care if he has a motive or not, if he lived happily ever after or not.....he is the prime suspect till he clear himself infront of a court

Look you've turned up with your rational arguments based on evidence and tried reasoning with ripperologist, people who by definition have a irrational belief system. It's not going to work as this thread demonstrates.

Let's briefly look at the primary axioms maintained by the ripper industry regarding the Buck's-row murder since the 70's

A. The murders were done by someone who wasn't there.
B. Everyone is lying except Charlie Cross, the man who was there and lied about his name.

Once someone accepts this and becomes a ripperologist they are beyond reasoning with, and quite simply you, I and everyone else is wasting their time trying.

thank you Damaso and Abby for being rational

There are some exceptions, but 90% simply are not worth the effort.

[Elamarna]

Look you've turned up with your rational arguments based on evidence and tried reasoning with ripperologist, people who by definition have a irrational belief system. It's not going to work as this thread demonstrates.

Let's briefly look at the primary axioms maintained by the ripper industry regarding the Buck's-row murder since the 70's

A. The murders were done by someone who wasn't there.
B. Everyone is lying except Charlie Cross, the man who was there and lied about his name.

Once someone accepts this and becomes a ripperologist they are beyond reasoning with, and quite simply you, I and everyone else is wasting their time trying.



There are some exceptions, but 90% simply are not worth the effort.

Why is it that people who do not agree with your view point are deemed to have an "irrational belief system" and "beyond reasoning"

And of course they are Ripperologists and you are not.

The view expounded in the last few pages on this particular thread by the proponents of Lechmere has been:


1. Lechmere is guilty.

2. lechmere is guilty and everyone must agree, it is not open to debate.

3. Lechmere is guilty, if anyone disagrees and gives arguments against they are fools with closed minds.

Compare this to the sensible DEBATE last week with Fisherman over bloodflow.

At the end of which despite my still not seeing Lech as the killer, a degree on common ground was reached.


Steve

[drstrange169]

I despise the term ripperologist. To me it glorifies a women abuser and callous murderer. As I noted earlier, the people, their history and their environment are what draws me in.

The other day Debra Arif discovered some information on Ada Wilson a woman lost in history, LOVE that stuff.

I guess, if the name has any coinage value, suspect driven people could more accurately be called ripperolgists as the killer is their main focus. And focus can so easily lead to obsession.

[drstrange169]

Hello John,

>>I like your quote on your posts. However my question is when has an expert ever actually bolstered the Lechmere theory?<<

The quote is what Fisherman wrote, so the label "expert" was his. In that specific case he was talking Arthur Ingrams in his "Conspiracy" television show.

What staggered me about the quote, and it goes to what I just wrote in the previous post about focus and obsession, is that if Fish hears something that suits his theory he said he has no interest in cross checking to see if it is actually true.

[Fisherman]

One should go to Milan more often - a really nice city. Arriving back, one notes that not much changes. Take this thread, for in stance!

To be perfectly honest, not much of interest has been said at all. Itīs all rehashing, and this who see through that are the only ones who have been able to produce something of value. Like Mr Lucky, who says: "..rational arguments based on evidence and tried reasoning ... (is) ...not going to work as this thread demonstrates."

...and who follows up with the astonishing and astonishingly true observation about: "...the primary axioms maintained by the ripper industry regarding the Buck's-row murder since the 70's

A. The murders were done by someone who wasn't there.
B. Everyone is lying except Charlie Cross, the man who was there and lied about his name."

Thatīs the long and the short of things. But when Steve takes a look at it, he arrives at the conclusion that people reading the thread have been subjected to the outrageous demands that:

"1. Lechmere is guilty.

2. lechmere is guilty and everyone must agree, it is not open to debate.

3. Lechmere is guilty, if anyone disagrees and gives arguments against they are fools with closed minds."

We cannot have that, can we?

Of course we canīt!

So hereīs the revised version:

1. Lechmere is very probably guilty.

2. Lechmere is very probably guilty, but everybody does not have to agree, since any- and everybody is allowed to draw their conclusions on more or less good grounds. People who used to deduce that the world is flat were allowed to think so as long as they had not been proven wrong. The exact same applies here.

3. Lechmere is very probably guilty, if anyone disagrees and give arguments against they are probably not very well read up on the case or they are not weighing the facts in a logical manner.

Fairīs fair.

[John Wheat]

Hello John,

>>I like your quote on your posts. However my question is when has an expert ever actually bolstered the Lechmere theory?<<

The quote is what Fisherman wrote, so the label "expert" was his. In that specific case he was talking Arthur Ingrams in his "Conspiracy" television show.

What staggered me about the quote, and it goes to what I just wrote in the previous post about focus and obsession, is that if Fish hears something that suits his theory he said he has no interest in cross checking to see if it is actually true.

I know it's Fisherman's quote Dusty. I'm well aware of Fisherman's flaws he twists things, embellishes things and down right lies to back up his pet theory.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

One should go to Milan more often - a really nice city. Arriving back, one notes that not much changes. Take this thread, for in stance!

To be perfectly honest, not much of interest has been said at all. Itīs all rehashing, and this who see through that are the only ones who have been able to produce something of value. Like Mr Lucky, who says: "..rational arguments based on evidence and tried reasoning ... (is) ...not going to work as this thread demonstrates."

...and who follows up with the astonishing and astonishingly true observation about: "...the primary axioms maintained by the ripper industry regarding the Buck's-row murder since the 70's

A. The murders were done by someone who wasn't there.
B. Everyone is lying except Charlie Cross, the man who was there and lied about his name."

Thatīs the long and the short of things. But when Steve takes a look at it, he arrives at the conclusion that people reading the thread have been subjected to the outrageous demands that:

"1. Lechmere is guilty.

2. lechmere is guilty and everyone must agree, it is not open to debate.

3. Lechmere is guilty, if anyone disagrees and gives arguments against they are fools with closed minds."

We cannot have that, can we?

Of course we canīt!

So hereīs the revised version:

1. Lechmere is very probably guilty.

2. Lechmere is very probably guilty, but everybody does not have to agree, since any- and everybody is allowed to draw their conclusions on more or less good grounds. People who used to deduce that the world is flat were allowed to think so as long as they had not been proven wrong. The exact same applies here.

3. Lechmere is very probably guilty, if anyone disagrees and give arguments against they are probably not very well read up on the case or they are not weighing the facts in a logical manner.

Fairīs fair.

One small problem with all that is there is nothing to even indicate Lechmere might be guilty let alone any proof.

[Rainbow]

maybe Lechmere was cutting Nichols to the bone while you are still looking where was Bury and what the hell he was doing at 3:40 a.m. that morning...

[Rainbow]

You can't believe that Lechmere killed Nichols and went with Paul looking for a policeman



but you accept Bury as the ripper , although he also went to the police by his own free will to make a story and lie to them...



he he he

[Fisherman]

On the combination of the two gentlemen John Wheat and Dusty, all that needs to be said is that one calls the Lechmere theory bullshit and supports that take on bullshit only, whereas the other one claims that I am twisting and distorting the facts, and he does so against a backdrop of being a twister and distorter.

That really does not make for a reassuring companionship, but no doubt, these posters will have a lot to discuss and agree on! I have seen many companionships formed out here on the same type of grounds.

If Dusty thinks it is a good idea to try and peddle his distorsions on this thread, I will gladly pick a few examples from his recent posts that go to show what he stands for.

John Wheat? Not a chance.

[John Wheat]

You can't believe that Lechmere killed Nichols and went with Paul looking for a policeman



but you accept Bury as the ripper , although he also went to the police by his own free will to make a story and lie to them...



he he he

No I can't believe Lechmere killed Nichols because there is no actual evidence for it.

Bury on the other hand killed his wife using JTR M.O. strangulation followed by mutilation.

Bury also matches the psyche profiles.

[John Wheat]

On the combination of the two gentlemen John Wheat and Dusty, all that needs to be said is that one calls the Lechmere theory bullshit and supports that take on bullshit only, whereas the other one claims that I am twisting and distorting the facts, and he does so against a backdrop of being a twister and distorter.

That really does not make for a reassuring companionship, but no doubt, these posters will have a lot to discuss and agree on! I have seen many companionships formed out here on the same type of grounds.

If Dusty thinks it is a good idea to try and peddle his distorsions on this thread, I will gladly pick a few examples from his recent posts that go to show what he stands for.

John Wheat? Not a chance.

So you are unwilling to back up what you say is bullshit with examples then? Not surprising.

[Rainbow]

Bury on the other hand killed his wife using JTR M.O. strangulation followed by mutilation.

He must have killed Mackenzie then too, hasn't he ?!

[Columbo]

One should go to Milan more often - a really nice city. Arriving back, one notes that not much changes. Take this thread, for in stance!

So hereīs the revised version:

1. Lechmere is very probably guilty.

2. Lechmere is very probably guilty, but everybody does not have to agree, since any- and everybody is allowed to draw their conclusions on more or less good grounds. People who used to deduce that the world is flat were allowed to think so as long as they had not been proven wrong. The exact same applies here.

3. Lechmere is very probably guilty, if anyone disagrees and give arguments against they are probably not very well read up on the case or they are not weighing the facts in a logical manner.

Fairīs fair.

Glad you had a nice trip! I'm hoping to visit Milan again before I die.

Columb

[John Wheat]

He must have killed Mackenzie then too, hasn't he ?!

No Bury was dead at that point. Mackenzie is regarded by most as not being a Ripper victim.