Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

I think not.

Steve

Then think again, Steve.

[Fisherman]

No probs. We all do it different ways.


Steve

Mmm - but we do not all remark on how others do it. Only some of us do that.

[Elamarna]

Think you may have misunderstood that one too, Steve. But whatever floats your boat.

I think not.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Yes, taking them one by one. On the whole, I find it better than answering without having read and understood at all...

No probs. We all do it different ways.


Steve

[Fisherman]

So now we even have a go at an apology.

I need say nothing else.


Steve

Think you may have misunderstood that one too, Steve. But whatever floats your boat.

[Fisherman]

I see you respond before reading my later post.

Steve

Yes, taking them one by one. On the whole, I find it better than answering without having read and understood at all...

[Elamarna]

THERE we go!

As for you always being big enough to admit your mistakes, I simply disagree. I find you admit the ones you cannot possibly deny, but keep the lid tightly on a number of other matters. Plus I think that we may not be best suited ourselves to judge how big we are.

Or small.

So now we even have a go at an apology.

I need say nothing else.


Steve

[Elamarna]

You are welcome to that interpretation. I see it very differently. And so do hundreds of people out on the net who are commenting on the theory.

If you close your eyes and ears, it should not bother you, though.

Are those the same I have read basing their views on a certain documentary. You know the one. The one with lots of speculation presented as historical fact.

If the information given is not a full representation of the facts, the views of those persons commenting on the internet will be wrong.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Which point says that one should not misrepresent other posters, Steve? You had a very clear post pointing out exactly where it went awry for you. Saying in retrospect that it did not is denying the obvious.

Has far as I can see that is not mentioned in the "Major Rules" of such.
However I disagree you were misrepresented. The quote provided was in your own words.

Steve

[GUT]

Well GUT, if the principle in my example rules, then we could say that Scobie is right.

But I have no interest in Scobie. Fisherman has a theory, he says. And he does not have to put forth any evidence for it.

So it is the guys with a theory without evidence. Again.

Ripperology.

Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly. From the C-5. No evidence.

Only propaganda.

Pierre

Fish has a theory without evidence you say....



At least he presents his theory, backs his man, gives his reasons.

More than I can say for someone here, you arrived thundering "I think I've solved it" and "One more piece of data".

I seem to recall something about "If I haven't solved it in ... (was it a year) I'll just withdraw".

Mmmmm

[Elamarna]

Eh - my post spoke of an ABILITY to read, not an inability. I celebrated how you were able to put John G right on the matter.

I really donīt know how I could be any clearer.

I see you respond before reading my later post.

Steve

[Elamarna]

To YOU it is not convincing.

To those who know legal matters and who are aware how qualified a queens councellor and barrister is when it comes to judging the viability of a court case, Iīm sure itīs a different stroy altogether. They will realize that Scobie knew what he was talking about.

But I can see why it is a very hard pill to swallow for you, I really can.

Why you say that circumstantial evidence can be more or less damning, I donīt know - I would have thought that everybody out here would be able to spell that out for themselves. This is why Scobie is udeful - he tells us that the amount of circumstantial evidence attaching to Lechmere is enough to form a prima faciae case. So that calls for either trying to denigrate Scobie (hard) or to try and lead on that he was misinformed, lied to or underinformed (much easier).

It was always going to be very predictable. But you know what, Steve? Itīs "not convincing".

No comments were made on Scobie's opinion.
No attempt to attack him, or say he was misinformed, lied to or underinformed. So mention any of those is unneeded and without purpose.

However once again we see the reverence with which the opinion of one "expert" is held.

Same old, same old.


Steve

[Henry Flower]

Pierre,

You still seem unduly irritated by the very existence of the Lechmere theory. Can I ask respectfully, how are your own researches progressing? Are you any closer to finding the remaining piece of evidence that confirms the identity of the killer, or announcing the solution? I know that the gogmagog letter turned out to be a basic but huge error of research, and the 'biological explanatory variable' also seemed to be a dead end. Oh, and likewise the Tennyson 'clue' was based on a hilarious misunderstanding (but you were not researching the murders specifically at that point, but rather 'the cultural production of literature' or something, so that's understandable). So many threads, so many dead ends, I don't know where to look to find the latest updates on your work. Could you be so kind as to point me in the right direction?

How do your university colleagues react when you tell them you're a ripperologist? I hope they indulge you. I'm sure you'll be back to publishing peer-reviewed papers and books very soon, once you've cracked the case.

Best

HF

[Pierre]

You are welcome to that interpretation. I see it very differently. And so do hundreds of people out on the net who are commenting on the theory.

If you close your eyes and ears, it should not bother you, though.

Hi Fisherman,

KELLY?

ANY EVIDENCE?

PLEASE?

My eyes and ears are open. I see and listen. I wait.

You are a journalist. You can write. Please write.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Actually

Yes
Yes
And
Yes.

Well GUT, if the principle in my example rules, then we could say that Scobie is right.

But I have no interest in Scobie. Fisherman has a theory, he says. And he does not have to put forth any evidence for it.

So it is the guys with a theory without evidence. Again.

Ripperology.

Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly. From the C-5. No evidence.

Only propaganda.

Pierre