Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    You keep using the fact that the clothes were pulled down as a point in favour of Lechmere’s guilt but if it was Paul that re-arranged the clothing how can this be?

    My point about the neck is one that’s been made before. How could Lechmere have known that Paul wouldn’t have decided to check for life by checking the neck, thus discovering that her throat had been cut?
    You may have missed that I already answered that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    I’ll ‘read and learn’ when you take the goggles off.
    Fine. Start.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Sadly Christer, but not surprisingly it is you who fails to grasp the facts. Apart from the name issue the rest of the arguments against him fail to either convince in the slightest or in some cases to even stand up to serious scruntiny.

    However you mumpsimusness is clearly never going to change.



    Steve
    I don´t even know if I am to be offended, Steve. I never heard the expression mumpsimusness before, but if you are on track it must mean "factual correctness".

    No matter what you may think, there are issues that are much more important to me when it comes to judging the case. Of course, you may be of the meaning that you are the much better judge...

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    So you reason that the name swap is the major argument for Lechmere as Nichols´ killer?

    You really have not grasped much, have you?
    Sadly Christer, but not surprisingly it is you who fails to grasp the facts. Apart from the name issue the rest of the arguments against him fail to either convince in the slightest or in some cases to even stand up to serious scruntiny.

    However you mumpsimusness is clearly never going to change.



    Steve
    Last edited by Elamarna; 09-09-2018, 10:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    We of course know nothing of the sort. What we know is that Thomas Cross signed him Cross in the 1861 census, but whether he himself used that name other than in combination with cases of sudden and violent death - that we do not know and ought not pretend as if we did.
    Wow.

    Even planting subliminal messages now

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Unless you noticed, you are now arguing against yourself. Well, well....
    It’s not my problem if you can’t understand this simple point Fish

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    He couldn´t. But that was not the issue. The issue was that you claimed that the neck wounds were not covered.
    You keep using the fact that the clothes were pulled down as a point in favour of Lechmere’s guilt but if it was Paul that re-arranged the clothing how can this be?

    My point about the neck is one that’s been made before. How could Lechmere have known that Paul wouldn’t have decided to check for life by checking the neck, thus discovering that her throat had been cut?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    The only arrogance around here lies in how you - and a couple of others - argue, Herlock. That is why R J Palmer´s contribution is an airfreshener and an example to anybody who wants to argue any sort of case out here. Read and learn, the sooner the better!
    I’ll ‘read and learn’ when you take the goggles off.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

    Such of course seriously undermines the major argument for Lechmere as the killer of Nichols...

    steve
    So you reason that the name swap is the major argument for Lechmere as Nichols´ killer?

    You really have not grasped much, have you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    No chance. Whoever signed it it was still an official document. Lechmere would have known that a document was being filled in. A document that would have existed and could have been referred to in the future. Someone saying “name please” is not the filling in of a document. It’s a conversation. To a working class Victorian, not as used to bureaucracy as we are, using Cross would have seemed like no issue.

    Try another line of obfuscation.
    Unless you noticed, you are now arguing against yourself. Well, well....

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    How is it suspicious that the clothing was pulled down when it was done by Robert Paul?

    “Exactly how do we know that the neck wounds were not hidden up to that point?“

    We don’t of course, but you’re trying to suggest that covering the abdominal wounds was a deception so how could Lechmere have known that Paul wouldn’t have decided to check her neck for a pulse?
    He couldn´t. But that was not the issue. The issue was that you claimed that the neck wounds were not covered.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    Remarkable then, that Lechmere the psychopath didn't walk into the hangman's noose, on the grounds that he was simply incapable of understanding how he could have been caught, regardless of who, how or when he chose to kill!

    He may as well have carried on mutilating Nichols in that case, right under Robert Paul's nose, if he was incapable of understanding how that could have got him buckled.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Too dumb to deserve an answer, Caz. Try again. Or better still, don´t.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
    We know that he was likely called Cross around the time he was listed as such on the census.
    We of course know nothing of the sort. What we know is that Thomas Cross signed him Cross in the 1861 census, but whether he himself used that name other than in combination with cases of sudden and violent death - that we do not know and ought not pretend as if we did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by FrankO View Post
    I more or less agree, Gareth. Psychopathic serial killers may come out of the woodwork in direct connection to one of their crimes when they fear they will be caught or become a serious suspect if they don’t, but I’ve never come across one who did so just to “play games”. In the end, even though they may grow bolder over time, I think none of them want to get caught and prefer to split unseen if they can.
    I don´t suggest that Lechmere contacted the police to play games, though, Frank. I suggest that he did it to save his behind - but that he may actually have enjoyed doing so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Arrogant.

    Arrogant.

    Nonsense. No one has suggested that.

    Unsurprising as you won’t take the opinions of medical experts on TOD’s over your own.

    Of course you would. It’s speaks against Lechmere being the Ripper.
    The only arrogance around here lies in how you - and a couple of others - argue, Herlock. That is why R J Palmer´s contribution is an airfreshener and an example to anybody who wants to argue any sort of case out here. Read and learn, the sooner the better!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X