Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

So, Herlock, four dumb and hostile posts, and you got them all back with interest.

Can you see now why I prefer a poster like R J Palmer? He disagrees with me too, but he does so with elegance and afterthought, and he has no interest at all to do it your hideous way.

Read and learn. Again.

[Elamarna]

I donīt 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...

Christer

Mumpsimus means someone who rigidly sticks to their opinions despite being shown to be incorrect.

There are issues more important on judging the case, you may well argue so: however those issues are not backed by fact, but by speculation and invention.

The historical evidence does not point towards Lechmere as the killer of Mary Ann Nichols.
However it is fair to say neither does it discount him, but the balance of probability is that he is merely a witness, there is absolutley nothing in the records to argue for any more than that.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, Herlock, four dumb and hostile posts, and you got them all back with interest.

Can you see now why I prefer a poster like R J Palmer? He disagrees with me too, but he does so with elegance and afterthought, and he has no interest at all to do it your hideous way.

Read and learn. Again.

And yet again you are blind to the insulting arrogance towards others that you displayed in your response to RJ.

4 posts - 4 meaningless responses.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh and your post #692

An insulting response to Caz.

Do we sense a pattern here?

[Fisherman]

Iīll take the time to explain a little closer why R J Palmer does things the way they should be done. And before the idea is voiced, it is not because he partly agrees with me!

The ones who cannot debate out here say that whatever I propose, I only do it because I support Lechmere as the Ripper. I supposedly have no critical thinking, but instead only say and think things because I have a feverish desire to nail Lechmere as the killer.

Thatīs the unfortunate debating technique of a number of posters out here.

So where does R J Palmer differ?

Well, he actually CHECKS what I suggest to see if there is anything in it. And lo and behold, he checked the door matter and found that - just as I say - that the body could have been obscured from Richardson.

Now, once he notes that, he can do one of two things. He can either

1. Recognize that my point was correct, or he can

2. Say that I only suggested it because I support Lechmere as a suspect.

The thing about point 2 is that we can actually admit that I was correct about the obscuring of the body and STILL claim that I only pointed it out because I am infatuated with the idea of Lechmere as the killer.

The trouble with such an approach is that once we resort to it, we demonstrate a total disregard for the facts of the case, instead opting for attacking the poster who supplied these facts.

In other words, we demonstrate a biased unwillingness to apply a correct value to the case facts if they are given by somebody we do not like. We let personal affairs get in the way of the facts, quite simply.

Now, I donīt know if R J Palmer regards me as a rotten egg and a waste of space on Mother Earth. He may or he may not, and he is entitled to whatever stance he has on the issue.
The overriding fact is nevertheless that he does not let whatever disregard he may - or may not - have for me as a person interfere with how he understands the case and my take on it.

It is exactly as it should be, and the outcome of it is that neither him nor me waste any time on calling each other a babboons behind or something similar. Consequently, we can focus on the case, and he knows perfectly well that the second he suggests that I say what I say only because I am infatuated with Lechmere, his judgment goes on sale on E-bay. And cheap too.

And funnily, that has nothing to do with whether it would be true or not that I am a Lechmere zealot with lacking judgment. Itīs not about that, itīs about recognizing information for itīs inherent value.

[Fisherman]

Christer

Mumpsimus means someone who rigidly sticks to their opinions despite being shown to be incorrect.

Steve

Thanks - that means that I have nothing to worry about then, since I have not been shown to be incorrect.

Any opinion to the contrary should be very detailed and correct - or left out.

And then there was silence...

[Herlock Sholmes]

. And as I say, it is all based on what you say: we are all dealing with the same facts.

There was a name swop.

The clothing covered the wounds.

He did go to work through the killing fields.

He did have ties to the Stride and Eddowes murder sites.

He did disagree with the police over what was said.

He did appear at the murder scene at a time when the victim was still bleeding.

He did not come forward until after Robert Paul had mentioned him.

A list of factors pointing to Lechmere’s guilt compiled by you.

My point.

If Paul re-arranged the clothing and not Lechmere how does this increase the likelihood of Lechmere’s guilt?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The thing about point 2 is that we can actually admit that I was correct about the obscuring of the body and STILL claim that I only pointed it out because I am infatuated with the idea of Lechmere as the killer.

Point one - I’d be surprised to learn that Roger’s garden was an exact replica of the yard of 29 Hanbury Street.

Point two - no one has said that a door cannot be seen through as far as I’m aware?

Point three - the point that has been made is that the position that Richardson would have had to have been in is an unlikely one. And then we have Richardson, who saw the body, in position, says that he couldn’t possibly have missed it. This makes it overwhelmingly likely that it wasn’t there.

[Elamarna]

Thanks - that means that I have nothing to worry about then, since I have not been shown to be incorrect.

Any opinion to the contrary should be very detailed and correct - or left out.

And then there was silence...

Christer

Such have been posted many times, your refusal to accept that you have been shown to be incorrect on many issues is both touching and of course a confirmation of the condition.


There is no silence Christer, the areas of inaccuracy are numerious and are not for this post or thread, the work will be with you soon.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Point one - I’d be surprised to learn that Roger’s garden was an exact replica of the yard of 29 Hanbury Street.

Point two - no one has said that a door cannot be seen through as far as I’m aware?

Point three - the point that has been made is that the position that Richardson would have had to have been in is an unlikely one. And then we have Richardson, who saw the body, in position, says that he couldn’t possibly have missed it. This makes it overwhelmingly likely that it wasn’t there.

The issue is how you say that I only think what I do because I am infatuated with Lechmere whereas he would not touch that kind of debating technique with a ten foot pole. That, and that alone, is what this discussion is about. That is where you differ totally, and not to your advantage, Iīm afraid.

[Fisherman]

Christer

Such have been posted many times, your refusal to accept that you have been shown to be incorrect on many issues is both touching and of course a confirmation of the condition.


There is no silence Christer, the areas of inaccuracy are numerious and are not for this post or thread, the work will be with you soon.



Steve

Just as I predicted - not a single example. And why? Because what you suggest is not true.

As I say, there is not a single matter where you can show that I have been incorrect. And it takes more than "Oh, there have been lots of examples" to change that.

Put up or shut up, Steve. It is your credibility (well...) that is on line here, so think long and hard.

By the way, promising that unpublished work can somehow in advance prove me wrong in retrospect is a very odd thing to do. VERY odd!

But "odd" is par for the course out here when some posters get in the swing...

Now a sleepless night awaits me on account of your foreshadowings. You really should not frighten me like this, Steve.

Nighty-night.

[Elamarna]

Just as I predicted - not a single example. And why? Because what you suggest is not true.

As I say, there is not a single matter where you can show that I have been incorrect. And it takes more than "Oh, there have been lots of examples" to change that.

Put up or shut up, Steve. It is your credibility (well...) that is on line here, so think long and hard.

By the way, promising that unpublished work can somehow prove me wrong in retrospect is a very odd thing to do. VERY odd!

If you insist, a few examples

Shall we start with the Mizen's testimony, which was not just wrong as presented by yourself a few months ago, but highly disingenious.

And of course we have general press reports, presented as Interviews with named police officers.

And the less said about the documentary the better I think.


While I may from time to time speculate on some issues, I do not base an entire theory on nothing but speculation.

All that the pro Lechmere camp have is the "name" issue.

And even that may fade away, if he used the name Cross at Pickfords, which recent research suggests is certainly a very real possibility.

My credibility is fine according to those who matter.



Steve

[Elamarna]

J.

Now a sleepless night awaits me on account of your foreshadowings. You really should not frighten me like this, Steve.

Nighty-night.

Promise the boggy man won't come and get you Christer, and even if he did guarantee it won't be Mr Lechmere.

Nighty night

[Herlock Sholmes]

The issue is how you say that I only think what I do because I am infatuated with Lechmere whereas he would not touch that kind of debating technique with a ten foot pole. That, and that alone, is what this discussion is about. That is where you differ totally, and not to your advantage, Iīm afraid.

If I or anyone else believes that someone’s opinion on any aspect of the case might be coloured by their support of a certain suspect then that opinion should be spoken. A few examples.

In an earlier post, which you have not addressed, I mentioned the fact that you have used the fact that the abdominal wounds on Nichols were covered by her clothing (unlike in the other murders) as a point of evidence in favour of Lechmere being guilty. The inference being that he heard Paul approach, decided to engage with him and therefore needed to cover up the fact that she was very obviously dead. My point was that as it was Paul that re-arranged the clothing how can this be used as a point to incriminate Lechmere?

Next, you continue to use the name issue as a point in favour of Lechmere’s guilt. Despite the fact that he used his stepfather’s surname, his own Christian names and his own address. Surely the worst attempt to deceive the police in the history of crime?

We have modern day, multiple expert medical testimony that TOD estimation can be wildly wrong due to a myriad of factors. Even more so in the 19th century. Yet despite this you still refuse to accept that Philips could have been wrong and that Chapman might not have been in the yard when Richardson was there.

These are three of the reasons that lead myself and others to the view that some
of your reasoning is skewed in favour of suiting the ‘Lechmere is guilty’ viewpoint.

I have no suspect to support. The Ripper’s identity may or may not be discovered one day. I have no inclination to prevent that discovery either to keep a ‘hobby’ alive or because of any personal feelings towards you. I don’t believe that Walter Sickert was Jack The Ripper but not because I have an agenda with Patricia Cornwall. I re-entered this thread a while ago with the intention of not getting into a ‘slanging match’ as you have termed it. I’ve re-read my posts and am confident that I had been polite and respectful until you changed the tone with a condescending and insulting post. So I can say that some of us don’t have some deep seated issue with being disagreed with. And that if anyone has in ‘issue’ with anyone it appears to be you that has an issue with me.

If I disagree with you I’ll continue to say so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you are consistent Fish then I could probably predict your next post (although you’re not going to take the usual path after I’ve posted this.)

You have been insulted/misrepresented/lied about etc.

I explain that the first insults/misrepresentations etc came from you.

And then you respond with “boo-hoo” get over it.