Lechmere The Psychopath

[Henry Flower]

Henry was asking about Pierre's post and I pointed out it was possibly in response to a previous post about doctors mistakes and a figure quoted. But if he wanted more he or anyone esles needed to check it and having done so decide if Pierre's comments looked more reasonable in that light

Steve, as this thread has already long ago descended into an endless cycle of recriminations, arguments over who said what and what they must have meant by it, and whether this or that comment constituted an insult / death threat / invitation to a swingers party - none of which gets us anywhere - let me just briefly join in and add my own petty contribution to the genre: I didn't think that Pierre's comments looked reasonable or unreasonable, it was just that I rather enjoyed his ditching the usual pretense of being a stuffy rank-pulling academic and adopting instead the tactic of gleeful mockery and dry sarcasm that he actually pulled-off with some elan. Hence I asked him whether he had been on the bottle.

I hope that clears up this vitally important point!

[Pierre]

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.

It is obvious that Fisherman is purely playing a game. There is no need for facts he says.

He has published a name and a photograph telling people that this is the Whitechapel murderer.

He has published a name and a photograph telling people that this is the torso murderer.

The man whoīs life he has made public is dead and can not complain.

So who can stop the game playing?

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;421492]

That was not what we were speaking of. And I never said that I have turned the theory into proven facts. It is a theory building on circumstantial evidence and the interpretation of that evidence.

So I am not obliged to provide any facts at all.

I am truly so sorry to hear this.

It is just a game for you, Fisherman.

For me the case is serious.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Just a quicke before I go - one that I will not name, but also one that ties mainly the 1873 torso case, the Chapman case, the Eddowes case, the Kelly case and the Jackson case closely together. These cases all exhibit elements of the same ritual, derived from the same experience in the killerīs past.
To my feeble mind, that is!

But not Nichols?

You must have Nichols in that set to connect the rest to Cross!

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Okay, then, so letīs pick this apart and be done with it!

A/ It should be clear to everybody that Llewellyn and his assessments was what we were speaking of, more specifically that you made the suggestion that he may have been wrong in saying that the vital parts had been damaged.
Now you of course want to wring things out of context, so this should be a timely reminder to you- I was speaking of LLewellyn and whether he would be able to tell if the inner organs of Nichols were damaged.

That was not what was written. Maybe you should have been clearer and not used The pleural "Doctors" and "they" .

B/ "it is in 99,999 cases because they ARE damaged" does not represent any percentage weighing. It says that the vessles and organs are damaged in 99,999 cases. It does not say in 99,999 casses out of a hundred, Iīm afraid. So I COULD have been speaking about ANY relation.

Percentage does not come into it.
It's not 99.999% its 99,999 cases that is 99 thousand 9 hundred and 99.
And yes I know some places use a comma, not seen it used often on this site.
You were asked what this meant at the time. Was it out of one hundred thousand?
It seems you either missed the several posts or chose not to respond, if you had we would not be debating this now.

C/ I Very clearly stated that I was not leaning against any statistics, thus making it abundantly clear that what I said was MY view, and not any statistically verifiable one.


D/ You wrote that I had offered a number for how ofte doctors are wrong, but that makes it sound as if I was giving a general figure. I was not, I was giving a figure for a specific case. And it applies that one can give a number of a 100 per cent certainty in some cases (doctors know that the earth is round) and a much lower certainty in other cases (doctors can always tell closely related diseases from one and other, without checking first). That effectively means that you CANNOT claim that I have given a figure for how often doctors are correct, without clarifying the exact matter I was speaking about. Withholding that information turns your suggestion to nothing but a simple lie.

And no one has claimed it was anything but your view
Henry was asking about Pierre's post and I pointed out it was possibly in response to a previous post about doctors mistakes and a figure quoted. But if he wanted more he or anyone esles needed to check it and having done so decide if Pierre's comments looked more reasonable in that light

E/ ... and this is my favourite point: if THIS is the best you can offer in terms of levelling a valid criticism against the Lechmere theory, then I may just as well uncork the champagne right now! Not only do you choose to criticize ME instead of my theory, but you also go out of your way to take it out of context and serve it up as if I had spoken generally about doctors.

It was not a critism of anything to do with the case against Lechmere; so do not try that one.
With regards to taking out of context, it really is a case of the pot calling the kettle Black, or people in glass house should not throw stones.

It seems it is considered ok to verbal abuse others, and to do the same as you are claiming is now done to you.
The level of indignation shown every time you feel you are portrayed differently to what you meant, not what you wrote is tiresome to say the least.

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

And I shall ignore the final comment; which some my view as a threat. I don't far too mature for that type of thing


Steve

[Pierre]

Just a quicke before I go - one that I will not name, but also one that ties mainly the 1873 torso case, the Chapman case, the Eddowes case, the Kelly case and the Jackson case closely together. These cases all exhibit elements of the same ritual, derived from the same experience in the killerīs past.
To my feeble mind, that is!

Cats meat?

[Jon Guy]

Just a quicke before I go - one that I will not name, but also one that ties mainly the 1873 torso case, the Chapman case, the Eddowes case, the Kelly case and the Jackson case closely together. These cases all exhibit elements of the same ritual, derived from the same experience in the killerīs past.
To my feeble mind, that is!

Thanks Christer, I am intrigued, and will now have to investigate further.

[Patrick S]

Just a quicke before I go!

Lucky bastard. I love quickies.

[Patrick S]

That was not what we were speaking of. And I never said that I have turned the theory into proven facts. It is a theory building on circumstantial evidence and the interpretation of that evidence.

So I am not obliged to provide any facts at all.

Your case is another matter - you claim that the theory has been damaged, but you have no facts to support the notion if I understand you correctly. it therefore applies that the theory, far from having been damaged, has been CRITICIZED only.

And whether that critique is valid and viable or not is another thing that can only be approached by means of interpretation.

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.

[Fisherman]

I agree with the ritual element, as it occurs throughout the series.
In Kelly`s case more so, as the killer had privacy, and we can see clear escalation of the mutilations in the series.

But what reason do you have in mind ?

Just a quicke before I go - one that I will not name, but also one that ties mainly the 1873 torso case, the Chapman case, the Eddowes case, the Kelly case and the Jackson case closely together. These cases all exhibit elements of the same ritual, derived from the same experience in the killerīs past.
To my feeble mind, that is!

[Fisherman]

Now, Iīve had just about as much as I can digest for an afternoon, so I will leave you for now. I entertain a hope that whatever surfaces will revolve more around the case and less about me...

[Jon Guy]

I donīt wonder about that at all. In my world, it was part of the ritual the killer subjected Kelly to, and he had a very clear and identifiable reason for doing it.

I agree with the ritual element, as it occurs throughout the series.
In Kelly`s case more so, as the killer had privacy, and we can see clear escalation of the mutilations in the series.

But what reason do you have in mind ?

[Patrick S]

Mizens risk would be a very obvious one, and he would stand very little chance to survive it.
Lechmereīs risktaking was breathtaking, but that is more or less to be expected from a cornered psychopath.

The two cannot and should not be compared, not if Lechmere was a killer and a psychopath who risked hanging if found out. it stands to reason that he would be immeasurably more willing to take any kind of risk. Plus, he may have enjoyed it as long as it payed off.

I'm sorry. Actually laughed out loud reading this. Lechmere's lies and scams makes sense because he's a psychopath. And we know he's a psychopath because he was Jack the Ripper. Yeah. Facts and Evidence. Indeed.

[Fisherman]

Great. I agree completely. First, let's have all the facts and evidence you have that Cross was a psychopath. Then let's have all the facts and evidence you have that Mizen told the truth, even though neither of the other two men who took the stand corroborate what he said. It's troubling that you develop scenarios completely lacking facts only demand facts and evidence from those who refute it. Again, I'm happy to let others digest statements like this one. Quite useful. Thanks.

That was not what we were speaking of. And I never said that I have turned the theory into proven facts. It is a theory building on circumstantial evidence and the interpretation of that evidence.

So I am not obliged to provide any facts at all.

Your case is another matter - you claim that the theory has been damaged, but you have no facts to support the notion if I understand you correctly. it therefore applies that the theory, far from having been damaged, has been CRITICIZED only.

And whether that critique is valid and viable or not is another thing that can only be approached by means of interpretation.

[Jon Guy]

Tell me something I did not know already, Jon ...

Yes, I know, I know :-)

So turn it around and ask yourself "which murder had the largest degree of grotesquely exhibited details"?

Well, I could argue that it was Eddowes, as she was grotesquely exhibited in a public place. But I get what you mean.