Lechmere The Psychopath

[GUT]

Have you heard about the pilots doing sucessfull surgery on their patients?

Have you heard about the surgeons flying planes all over the world?

Have you heard about the queens councellors and barristers writing history?

Pierre

Actually

Yes
Yes
And
Yes.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Henry Flower;421891]

Have you heard about the historians investigating and solving crimes? Nope me neither.

Maybe that's something a Pretend Historian could do, though. Over to you, Pierre.

Did you see what I wrote, Henry?

[Henry Flower]

[QUOTE=Pierre;421884]

Have you heard about the pilots doing sucessfull surgery on their patients?

Have you heard about the surgeons flying planes all over the world?

Have you heard about the queens councellors and barristers writing history?

Pierre

Have you heard about the historians investigating and solving crimes? Nope me neither.

Maybe that's something a Pretend Historian could do, though. Over to you, Pierre.

[Fisherman]

The axis of Ripperology is Fisherman and his alt-Greek Chorus who come here every day to post about this?

How can the rest of us ever thank you guys enough.

Paddy

I can think of a thousand ways that would be better than the party I am being treated to as of now, Paddy.

By the way, I said that the Lechmere theory forms a large part of the axis that ripperology has revolved around the last few years, Paddy. I never said that I am the axis.

But it is perfectly in line with how the discussion normally goes.

[Fisherman]

John G: We I'm certainly not a huge fan of Trevor Marriott, or his suspect for that matter. But yes, I would acknowledge that on occasion I've been as guilty as anyone in using inflammatory language, although overwhelmingly in response to similar language used against me, and even of submitting posts which lack objectivity.

Okay, so whilst you sometimes are justifiedly annoyed and cannot hold back an inflammatory comment, it applies that you are nevertheless the better part in the exchanges you participate in on this score. Is that correct?

Although, that said there's nothing wrong with being passionate about the subject. And yes, I'll acknowledge that your an experienced and knowledgeable poster, and some of your posts are undoubtedly of the highest quality.

Thanks for that. And I will willingly concede that I not some, but many times express myself in a way that is not consistent with well-behaved posting. I loose my patience, quite simply, and just like you, I think that this is to a degree justifiable. For example, I have repeatedly over the last few days been subjected to the statement on my behalf that I think doctors infallible. It is a stupid thing to say, and I absolutely loathe it. And so, when the cup is filled and this crap runs over the brim, I find it VERY hard to keep silent about it, especially since I am convinced that some posters say this not because they think this is my actual position but instead for the sheer hell of it.
Thatīs the problem with public boards - you are forced to rub shoulders with people who are not here for reasons of interest and honesty only.
In the end, it is never a good thing to loose your temper. I do it in periods nowadays, it seems, and I would rather not.
But thatīs more to say that I am likely to regret some things in the future too, and less to say that I will never do it again.

That said, I change my mind all the time on the issues, even in respect of arguments I've previously passionately held, such as Stride and Kelly being definite Ripper victims. The problem, however, is that once you commit yourself totally to a particular suspect you effectively box yourself in, even to the point where you end up defending the almost indefensible.

Pick ONE such thing on my behalf, and I will in the coolest and calmest way possible show you why I (probably) disagree. I do not think I have ever defended almost indefensible matters in favour of the theory I subscribe to, so I am genuinely curious about whether you are speaking about me here.
I think you can be very keen on a suspect and stay inquisitive and reasonably unbiased nevertheless. And I think that arguing the opposite is absolutely disastrous, because it would mean that no suspect that cannot be proven as the killer would be one suggested in a respectable fahsion. They would all be doomed to denial, no questions asked.
Maybe the inherent danger about that approach is not obvious to everybody. It should be, though.

[Pierre]

THERE we go!

As for you always being big enough to admit your mistakes, I simply disagree. I fond 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.

The victims of Jack the Ripper were very small.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Thanks for your wise words, Patrick. And I'm sure I'll very much enjoy being a happy warrior! I'm also certain that I'll never change Christer's mind, because he's gone too far down the road with his passionate commitment to the Lechmere suspect cause. Unfortunately, as with anyone else who's totally committed to a single suspect, in those circumstances objectivity goes totally out of the window.

If you can lead that on, you stand a fair chance of people thinking that I am a fanatic with no ability to judge matters correctly.

Then again, if they read what the two of us argue, you are toast, John.

If you find the risk worth taking, so be it.

[Fisherman]

In case anyone is confused I misread Fisherman's post, it happens.
I am big enough to admit my mistakes, as always. Hopefully before others point them out to me.

For such I apologize.

So a better last line would have been:

"that certainly does indicate an ability to read and comprehend."

Steve

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.

[Fisherman]

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

steve

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.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421880]

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.

Have you heard about the pilots doing sucessfull surgery on their patients?

Have you heard about the surgeons flying planes all over the world?

Have you heard about the queens councellors and barristers writing history?

Pierre

[Fisherman]

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

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.

[Fisherman]

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

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.

[Pierre]

Thanks for your wise words, Patrick. And I'm sure I'll very much enjoy being a happy warrior! I'm also certain that I'll never change Christer's mind, because he's gone too far down the road with his passionate commitment to the Lechmere suspect cause. Unfortunately, as with anyone else who's totally committed to a single suspect, in those circumstances objectivity goes totally out of the window.

One can also choose the position of standing on the ground, looking at a tree, seeing a stem, branches and leaves, but saying:

"This is not a tree".

One may feel like an idiot, but who cares?

Is it a tree?

That can be a good position.

Or is it the position of an idiot?

Pierre

[Fisherman]

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

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".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock
I have read quite a few newspaper accounts of excited crowds in Bucks Row but only had time to find this one, which still confirms the fact.

I think Paul may have received a pint or two for his story from the reporter. Maybe, relocating to a nearby pub to tell his story. Can`t prove it, but this certainly happened, which is why there are so may press reports later in the series of witnesses who apparently knew the victims well.

Hi Jon

It's hard to guess why Paul's story in Lloyds differs so significantly from his subsequent version of events?

Regards
Herlock