Lechmere The Psychopath

[Paddy Goose]

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 won´t even say "nice try", since any such try is more of a dumb one.

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

[John G]

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.

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. 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.

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.

[John G]

I know your frustration, John. Simply become a happy warrior and realize that you're not working to change Christer's mind, but to give others information by presenting your argument and allowing them to decide for themselves. Trusting, for course, they'll make the obvious, more reasonable choice.

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.

[Elamarna]

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

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

[Jon Guy]

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.

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.

[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

[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 won´t 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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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 doctor´s 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

[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 won´t even say "nice try", since any such try is more of a dumb one.

[Fisherman]

Hi John

What Paul actually said was that potentially they could kill.

Steve

Hey! One more poster who can read!!

[harry]

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