Lechmere The Psychopath

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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...