Lechmere The Psychopath

[Jon Guy]

Cheers Jon.

Do we know for sure that there was a crowd there at that time of the day?

Regards
Herlock

Hi Herlock

Yes, there were crowds gathered outside the mortuary gates, and there were people hanging around the murder scene. The scenes described by the reporters who were amongst the crowd.

I`ll try and find the news paper source today.

At most, Paul would have worked a 12hr shift, so would have walked home through Bucks Row about 5pm/6pm at latest.

[Fisherman]

Fair enough. You are "not obliged to provide any facts at all!" But all those who wish to challenge you must present FACTS and hard EVIDENCE, lest they be shamed by the attempt!

Am I the only one who thinks this may not be Christer's finest hour? Again, going 'round with Christer accomplishes only so much. Others should weigh in at this point.

I will weigh in myself, if you donīt mind.

I agree that this is not my finest hour. My finest hour is instead tied to findings and discussions about the case.

Quibbles over the kind of matters that are quibbled over now do not offer the chance to produce your finest hour.

When was YOUR finest hour, Patrick? What is the best and most intriguing material you have brought to the table? I see a lot of criticism, based on an idea that Lechmere was probably a nice guy, and therefore LLewellyn must have been a fadt one and Mizen a dishonest one.

Does that amount to your finest hour? Or is it still to come?

[Fisherman]

At the end of the day nothing but a storm in a teacup.

Steve

That is the aptest description I have found so far when it comes to describing your post about how I have put a figure to doctorīs propensities to get things wrong.

A storm in a teacup. Much ado about nothing. A desperate attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Best forgotten.

[Fisherman]

In which case Fish, is it not questionable to post the likes of this:

"Exactly - he retains the exact position he always have had as the best suspect overall and the only truly factually based suspect. Nothing less, nothing more."

The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" post # 271.



Steve

A/ It should be plentyfully obvious that this is my impression.

B/ Even if it was not, I would say that it is correct anyway. There is more factual evidence connected to Lechmere than to any other suspect. It is circumstantial, but people can be hanged on circumstantial evidence.
If you wish to challenge this, you need to produce a barrister and queens councellor who can point to another suspect who also has a prima faciae case that according to the barrister and queens councellor is good enough to take to court.

[Fisherman]

Predictive text error. Your obviously mixing me up with yourself, as your the one prone to language errors!

I haven't denigrated Dr Llewellyn. It's not his fault that he was practising at a time when forensic science didn't even exist as she discipline. Were you not even aware of that.

A prize for minor surgery? Are you also unaware that even nurses carry out minor surgery these days.

I don't claim to be a medical expert, but Paul is and I believe he had given an opinion that the abdominal injuries would not be sufficient to kill. If he'd opined otherwise I'd have fully accepted that opinion. In fact, the irony is that even you've acknowledged that you have no idea how the abdominal injuries could have killed. But then you don't do irony, do you?

"Weird suggestions". Oh dear, it's back to the pantomime nonsense, I see.

I just want to make a comment about Post 1694. You made an implied threat to Steve, which is frankly a disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself for resorting to such outrageous tactics. Had you been drinking, by any chance? Either way you should apologize. However, I bet you don't, and what does that say about you?

You may need to read Pauls answer again as you got that wrong.

And you may need to read what made me very displeased with Steve before you comment on it. When he apologizes for having misrepresented what I said, I will apologize to him for becoming pissed by it. I really need to learn to let people piss all over me without getting frustrated about it.

What do YOUR posts say about YOU, John? Clever? Knowledgeable? Level-headed? Uninflammatory? Given to repeatedly imply that fellow posters are in the habit of drinking when you disagree with what they say? A keen disciple of the Marriott/Biggs team?

You tell me.

[harry]

What are the elements of the crime(The murder of Nichols),and how does circumstantial evidence prove Cross guilty?

[Fisherman]

Hi John

What Paul actually said was that potentially they could kill.

Steve

Hey! One more poster who can read!!

[Fisherman]

As for the angle "Now that the Lechmere theory has crumbled", it is too stupid to become irritated by.

It is the axis around which much of Ripperology has revolved for a good many years now. And it is as undamaged as ever.

Sorry, guys. I wonīt even say "nice try", since any such try is more of a dumb one.

[Elamarna]

That is the aptest description I have found so far when it comes to describing your post about how I have put a figure to doctorīs propensities to get things wrong.

A storm in a teacup. Much ado about nothing. A desperate attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Best forgotten.

Yes a desperate attempt, by You, not by me or anybody else.

Steve

[Elamarna]

A/ It should be plentyfully obvious that this is my impression.

B/ Even if it was not, I would say that it is correct anyway. There is more factual evidence connected to Lechmere than to any other suspect. It is circumstantial, but people can be hanged on circumstantial evidence.
If you wish to challenge this, you need to produce a barrister and queens councellor who can point to another suspect who also has a prima faciae case that according to the barrister and queens councellor is good enough to take to court.

Circumstantial evidence can in deed cause a conviction, however that is for a jury to decide, not the person presenting the case for the prosecution.

It is not factual by definition as it cannot be directly tied to the accused, it is presumed.

The argument often presented is that you reach a point of so much circumstantial evidence that it weights against the accused, actually if the said evidence is continually weak that is not the case.

Again this reliance on Experts is so touching, and legal opinions when looking at the same evidence vary greatly depending on the angle the expert is coming from. its a very grey area in very many ways.

The reply is not convincing.


steve

[Elamarna]

Hey! One more poster who can read!!

post #1505

"Were the abdominal wounds enough to kill? Probably, but in a timescale that would be longer than the neck"

That is in line with what I posted in #1749.

What Paul actually said was that potentially they could kill.

"However he doubted that the Aorta and Vena Cava would have been cut because of the depth of wound needed.
The other major vessels would in his opinion not kill fast enough to fit the time frame.

Basically he considers death by the abdominal wounds more unlikely than the neck."


How does that indicate an inability to read?


steve

[Jon Guy]

Hi Herlock

Yes, there were crowds gathered outside the mortuary gates, and there were people hanging around the murder scene. The scenes described by the reporters who were amongst the crowd.

I`ll try and find the news paper source today.

Sunderland Echo and Shipping Gazette 1st Sept 1888:
"All day long the streets which were the scene of the murder have been crowded."

[Elamarna]

You may need to read Pauls answer again as you got that wrong.

And you may need to read what made me very displeased with Steve before you comment on it. When he apologizes for having misrepresented what I said, I will apologize to him for becoming pissed by it. I really need to learn to let people piss all over me without getting frustrated about it.

What do YOUR posts say about YOU, John? Clever? Knowledgeable? Level-headed? Uninflammatory? Given to repeatedly imply that fellow posters are in the habit of drinking when you disagree with what they say? A keen disciple of the Marriott/Biggs team?

You tell me.

John's misunderstanding of Paul's position as already been pointed out to him, but it appears you may need to read all of his posts again as well.

You were not misrepresented, those quotes provided were the words typed. the truth is clear for all to see.

The comments directed at me in post #1694 were a truly pathetic and outrageous threat and against the rules of this forum: major rules point 6.


steve

[Elamarna]

As for the angle "Now that the Lechmere theory has crumbled", it is too stupid to become irritated by.

It is the axis around which much of Ripperology has revolved for a good many years now. And it is as undamaged as ever.

Sorry, guys. I wonīt even say "nice try", since any such try is more of a dumb one.

Actually its the axis around which a small hard core of people have argued for a good many years and achieved very little.

steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sunderland Echo and Shipping Gazette 1st Sept 1888:
"All day long the streets which were the scene of the murder have been crowded."

Cheers Jon.

Initially I just wasn't certain that the all day crowds were a fact. I am now so it's a likely explaination of how they found Paul. It shows that he wasn't exactly a 'shrinking violet,' though as no one would have known him. He put himself forward when he could have passed by.

Regards
Herlock