Lechmere The Psychopath

[Patrick S]

I am fine when it comes to taking punches, Patrick. But having boxed as a young man, I am aware that not all punches are legal punches. Some will get you disqualified, as you may be aware.

As you are definitely aware, you and I have a history of throwing such illegal punches. And we have a more recent agreement not to go there again. And call me sensitive, but I have a not very nice gut feeling that tells me that we may be headed that way just the same.

Punch away, by all means. But keep it clean, and I will try my best to do the same.

I much prefer being able to have a debate than to be forced to shut it down.

I'm not sure what's brought this on....but okay. I'm in agreement.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: What's clear is this: I won't change your mind. You won't change my mind. But, that doesn't mean the debate isn't worthwhile.

Agreed. And I am slightly more optimistic - my changing my mind hinges on the other sides arguments. If they are good enough, I will change my mind. That does not have to mean that I make a 180 degree turn, it may just be that I look somewhat differently on an isolated phenomenon.

Thus, when you post something that I think the average frequenter of these pages may find somewhat....hard to accept, I'll point that out.

I do quite the same at times.

I don´t know how to define the "average reader" of these boards, but I would like to think that he or she is not automatically repelled by my theory.

You DO NOT feel as if these things harm your argument. You feel that they help your argument. You post. You stand behind what you post. Admirable indeed. But, I think that there is very much to be gained through debate on these points, however seemingly small.

Once more, I agree. If nothing else, we can clarify exactly what there is to work from. What I dislike very much is when things are claimed on my behalf though - if I should exemplify, I can take the recent post from Caz, where she portrays me as inconsequent by saying on the one hand that Lechmere - if the killer - was fearless, and on the other hand that he was easily scared.
She made a rot of a post, falsely claiming that I had said that Lechmere was spooked by Pauls interview, something I have not done. Plus I regard it as brazen, not cowardly, if a person comes forward to face the police and an inquest in spite of being guilty.

Such things are predestined to confuse people, to distort the debate and to make me a less friendly poster. The debate must be cleansed from things like these before it can become truly useful.

Of course, I could turn the other cheek, but Caz has a long tradition of being spiteful in her exchanges with me. It can only be compared to how I have just as long a tradition of mocking her for it.

Such things are hard to clear away. I find it amazing that you and I managed to do so, and I hope that we can make it work in the future too. I´d even welcome Caz on board that ship, come to think of it...

[Elamarna]

Yeah, sort of - any which way, Steve, it DOES take two to tango, and I think that neither of us has something to win by claiming that we are nothing but unfortunate victims.

For some reason we have descended into this bickering instead of concentrating on the case only. Presumably, it is because one or both of us find it hard to live with how we are not accepted as winners of the debate by our opponents.

You are quite possibly right on that. Of course in reality it does not matter one dot what each of us think of each other's arguments. It's for the world to ultimately judge.
You obviously sincerely believe what you post and the passion comes across, unfortunately such can also lead to blind spots even with the best of us. I too am guilty of this.

I truly believe that the only way we would convince you that Charles was not the Ripper would be to conclusively prove it was another. That is not meant as an insult but a respectfull appreciation of you belief.

I have never said that Lechmere cannot be the killer and indeed last September/ October I said he was a viable candidate. My view following months of research as changed somewhat. I will not rule him out and still consider him possible and above shall we say Bury. However while possible I believe it is highly unlikely.
So much which looks plausible at first hand fails the test when it is scientifically challenged.
I am sure we will debate with great passion come September/October this year when I publish my research here.
I am hoping for some good critique of section 2 btw.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: You are quite possibly right on that. Of course in reality it does not matter one dot what each of us think of each other's arguments. It's for the world to ultimately judge.
You obviously sincerely believe what you post and the passion comes across, unfortunately such can also lead to blind spots even with the best of us. I too am guilty of this.

Agreed all over. We are both missing out on many valuable opportunities to shut up.

I truly believe that the only way we would convince you that Charles was not the Ripper would be to conclusively prove it was another. That is not meant as an insult but a respectfull appreciation of you belief.

Yes, to conclusively prove that the Ripper was somebody else than Lechmere would make me change my mind. So would the presentation of any suspect who had more going for him than Lechmere. In a sense, I find it odd that the issue should come up - what am I to do? Say that people were correct all the time, when I genuinely feel that they were not?

I have sometimes heard the argument "but you won´t accept a single thing that goes against Lechmere.
Personally, I think it would look funny if I promoted him as the best suspect, but admitted that he probably came forward to the police out of a clean heart or something such.

I have never said that Lechmere cannot be the killer and indeed last September/ October I said he was a viable candidate.

To be frank, Steve, nobody who wishes to remain trustworthy can claim that Lechmere could not be the killer.

My view following months of research as changed somewhat. I will not rule him out and still consider him possible and above shall we say Bury. However while possible I believe it is highly unlikely.

So much which looks plausible at first hand fails the test when it is scientifically challenged.

Dear me. So I am about to be "scientifically challenged" now? And this is somehow a new approach?

Bear with me now, Steve, but I feel that I may find it hard to be "scientifically challenged" by a person who claims that there is data to prove that Paul was within earshot of Lechmere and Mizen on the murder night of Nichols.
I demand a lot more than that to accept that science is in any way involved.

I don´t doubt for a second, though, that you efforts will be cheered on by many posters out here. How scientific that is, is something that remains to be seen.

I am sure we will debate with great passion come September/October this year when I publish my research here.
I am hoping for some good critique of section 2 btw.

Section 2? Has it been published? And what was it about? If it has been published, please point out what it is you want me to comment on, and I will try and make time for it.

[Fisherman]

I think you all have had quite enough of me for today, so I am retiring as of now. Moreover, I´m off to celebrate midsummer (something we Swedes excel at) tomorrow, and won´t be back until Sunday.

See you all then, including Caz´s apologies for having claimed that I would have said that Lechmere was "spooked" by Pauls interview...

[Harry D]

As for that "clean criminal record", it only amounts to us not being familiar with what he was.

Ah, so the absence of a criminal record or any kind of skeleton in his closet still leaves Lechmere guilty until proven innocent? Is that how this works? However, no one dares pick holes in PC Mizen's less than stellar conduct that morning by letting two witnesses slip away without taking down any of their details. Oh, my mistake, Lechmere had already worked his Jedi mind tricks on the unsuspecting copper and his fellow carman.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: You are quite possibly right on that. Of course in reality it does not matter one dot what each of us think of each other's arguments. It's for the world to ultimately judge.
You obviously sincerely believe what you post and the passion comes across, unfortunately such can also lead to blind spots even with the best of us. I too am guilty of this.

Agreed all over. We are both missing out on many valuable opportunities to shut up.

I truly believe that the only way we would convince you that Charles was not the Ripper would be to conclusively prove it was another. That is not meant as an insult but a respectfull appreciation of you belief.

Yes, to conclusively prove that the Ripper was somebody else than Lechmere would make me change my mind. So would the presentation of any suspect who had more going for him than Lechmere. In a sense, I find it odd that the issue should come up - what am I to do? Say that people were correct all the time, when I genuinely feel that they were not?

I have sometimes heard the argument "but you won´t accept a single thing that goes against Lechmere.
Personally, I think it would look funny if I promoted him as the best suspect, but admitted that he probably came forward to the police out of a clean heart or something such.

I have never said that Lechmere cannot be the killer and indeed last September/ October I said he was a viable candidate.

To be frank, Steve, nobody who wishes to remain trustworthy can claim that Lechmere could not be the killer.

My view following months of research as changed somewhat. I will not rule him out and still consider him possible and above shall we say Bury. However while possible I believe it is highly unlikely.

So much which looks plausible at first hand fails the test when it is scientifically challenged.

Dear me. So I am about to be "scientifically challenged" now? And this is somehow a new approach?

Bear with me now, Steve, but I feel that I may find it hard to be "scientifically challenged" by a person who claims that there is data to prove that Paul was within earshot of Lechmere and Mizen on the murder night of Nichols.
I demand a lot more than that to accept that science is in any way involved.

I don´t doubt for a second, though, that you efforts will be cheered on by many posters out here. How scientific that is, is something that remains to be seen.

I am sure we will debate with great passion come September/October this year when I publish my research here.
I am hoping for some good critique of section 2 btw.r

Section 2? Has it been published? And what was it about? If it has been published, please point out what it is you want me to comment on, and I will try and make time for it.

Hi Fish

No many have claimed a scientific approach and it's not. Is there not a book which claims such in the title but as no science in it.
My approach is based on real science and numbers. It's a bit more convincing I hope that just opinion. It should make for good debate.

No section 2 I hope to have done by end of next month. It is witness statements, inquest reports, newspaper articles other than inquest and police reports.
My aim is to put it all together in one place. So it will be or use to any studying the case.
There will be limited analysis but most will be kept for part 3.

Cheers

Steve

[Pierre]

Hi Fish

No many have claimed a scientific approach and it's not. Is there not a book which claims such in the title but as no science in it.
My approach is based on real science and numbers. It's a bit more convincing I hope that just opinion. It should make for good debate.

No section 2 I hope to have done by end of next month. It is witness statements, inquest reports, newspaper articles other than inquest and police reports.
My aim is to put it all together in one place. So it will be or use to any studying the case.
There will be limited analysis but most will be kept for part 3.

Cheers

Steve

Very good, Steve.

But I think you could help Fisherman and others a bit with the definitions, since I do not think it is clear to all here.

What do you mean when you say "real science" - how do you define this concept as to the methodology and as to the theory of science?

And also, please Steve, what do you think are the advantages and problems with this approach for this particular research that you are doing?

Best wishes, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Very good, Steve.

But I think you could help Fisherman and others a bit with the definitions, since I do not think it is clear to all here.

What do you mean when you say "real science" - how do you define this concept as to the methodology and as to the theory of science?

And also, please Steve, what do you think are the advantages and problems with this approach for this particular research that you are doing?

Best wishes, Pierre

Hi Pierre

Happy to oblige

When I said real science I was referring to several books which have been written which claim to take a scientific approach and in fact all they do is present the facts (not always correctly) and then make what they claim is a scientific approach and conclusion and it's not, it's just the same old guess work


So in particular I am referring to the blood flow theory which I approach from the stand point of medical science and look at just what is and is not possible, of course references will be supplied.

And the other area is relative times, absolute ones are impossible but we can look at claims made about certain events and see if they are:
1. Viable.
2. Reasonable.
With regards to the time frame given by the sources.
We can then reflect on how this may effect what is claimed to have taken place..

The advantages with the first is clear. If something is shown to be either medically possible or impossible it will be very difficult to argue the point.
The disadvantage is that there will always be someone and I do not mean Fish, but just a generic someone who will argue "prove this is not an expecption" .
I however am very confident that the issue under discussion will be very clear cut and hard for that particular argument to be made.


The second has several issues, rather than disadvantages. It can always be argued that the timings are to a great degree speculation, and indeed they are if there is an attempt to use them as absolutes. That is one reason why in part 1 I have a wide range of options on timings.
I will look at what is possible, I will be attempting to both prove and disprove each hypothesis I present which involve the timing issues, the results should be interesting.

The main disadvantage from the position is that I may end up proving an idea I do not like and disproving one I do. Of course that is how science of all sorts works.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Steve, I look forward to reading the results of your research. It will be good to get a reasoned view of this 'episode' as a whole. With all the varying threads pulled together.

Regards
Herlock

[Sam Flynn]

A sign things aren't going well for you and what few "Lechmerians" remain on that tiny little raft of yours.

Not so few, though. Social media suggests that quite a number of people, having seen the Lechmere documentary, think that he's the number one suspect of all time.

I'm hoping against hope for a documentary pointing the finger at Diddles the cat. It might redress the balance somewhat.

[GUT]

Not so few, though. Social media suggests that quite a number of people, having seen the Lechmere documentary, think that he's the number one suspect of all time.

I'm hoping against hope for a documentary pointing the finger at Diddles the cat. It might redress the balance somewhat.

And the public on social media would probably think Diddles done it.

Most of them know nothing about the case, as one told me lately "but he was squatting over the body when the other bloke found him" mmmm or another 'But didn't that artist chap do it" (not sure if he meant Sickert or Van Gogh), or "The Royals, everyone knows it was them".

[harry]

How many suspects have been shown to be the Ripper using possibilities?Very many according to the books published,and all pretty evenly so.In the case of Cross I would say it is more so,but you cannot gain a conviction or convince persons,unless you prove a possibility.For instance was Cross in the company of Nichols when she was killed?,as the killer would have to be.It is possible,but not proven so.His(Cross) evidence denies the chance of that being the case.Cross lied?.Possible,but can it be proven he lied.Alternately,can Cross be believed.Certainly,the majority of his statements can be checked.Fair play demands a person's honesty can be accepted unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.So there is evidence Cross was truthful,and only possibilities he w as a liar.Evidence of innocence against possibilities of guilt.I go for the former.

[Elamarna]

Steve, I look forward to reading the results of your research. It will be good to get a reasoned view of this 'episode' as a whole. With all the varying threads pulled together.

Regards
Herlock

Hi Herlock

That was always one of the main reasons for doing this project. To pull the info into one area.

Unfortunately it still ends up as 3 distinct threads. The first was in the scene of crime section and as been up about w months or so.

The second will be in the witness section because it's about witnesses.
Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

That was always one of the main reasons for doing this project. To pull the info into one area.

Unfortunately it still ends up as 3 distinct threads. The first was in the scene of crime section and as been up about w months or so.

The second will be in the witness section because it's about witnesses.
Steve

Steve, I've just finished reading through part one. A great piece of research and a very exhaustive approach. You've pulled all the strands together and given reasonable, workable high and low estimates.

That map, with the overlay is brilliant. I wouldn't mind having that as an icon on my desktop for regular access. I clicked on the 'request desktop site' thing, as I though that might do it. Nothing happened though. Is there an easy way of access to the facility?

Anyway, great work. I look forward to part 2

Regards
Herlock