Lechmere The Psychopath

[Mike J. G.]

...

I've asked you a few questions which you've blatantly avoided answering...Why is that?

Here's just one of them...

If this street had such a bad reputation, why didn't Paul run away upon seeing Lech in the middle of the street? Why is it only Lech who must surely be startled by the presence of another person on a dark and deadly street?

I think I know the answer: because it fits the Lech/Killer narrative to assume that Lech would run, but Paul wouldn't. Paul was a hard-man, apparently, a partially deaf, unobservant hard-man...this is what the Lech-crew would have us believe, lol.

[Rainbow]

Yes it did.

Have you checked the details of the blood flow idea with any independent person or scientific paper?

Do you realise the terrible problem with the hypothesis that you can place a tod based on it?

Or have you just taken what others on here have posted and accepted it.

Truly this afternoon we have had a series of vacious post lacking in detail, evidence and blatant untruths such as Paul was prevented from touching Nichols.
Why not actually go and read up before posting.


Steve

Steve, do you want to listen or not ?!

A prostitute will take her client to a private place where they can do the business without interrupting

that is one thing, the other thing, The policemen said clearly, there wasn't a soul around then

those two points is a certain clue, that the place was empty.

Then suddenly Paul was hurrying and spoten a man and a woman there

the woman was bleeding, if you want to ignore that its up to you

There wasn't a third player that ever been noticed before this moment or after it

Then came the other facts, giving another name, a false statement, the crimes happen in his route to work ...


Rainbow°

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes it did.

Have you checked the details of the blood flow idea with any independent person or scientific paper?

Do you realise the terrible problem with the hypothesis that you can place a tod based on it?

Or have you just taken what others on here have posted and accepted it.

Truly this afternoon we have had a series of vacious post lacking in detail, evidence and blatant untruths such as Paul was prevented from touching Nichols.
Why not actually go and read up before posting.


Steve

Absolutely! Don't know about you but I need a pint or ten!

Herlock

[Mike J. G.]

Steve, do you want to listen or not ?!

A prostitute will take her client to a private place where they can do the business without interrupting

that is one thing, the other thing, The policemen said clearly, there wasn't a soul around then

those two points is a certain clue, that the place was empty.

Then suddenly Paul was hurrying and spoten a man and a woman there

the woman was bleeding, if you want to ignore that its up to you

There wasn't a third player that ever been noticed before this moment or after it

Then came the other facts, giving another name, a false statement, the crimes happen in his route to work ...


Rainbow°

Do you listen? Apparently not.

So, the policeman saw nobody about, not even Nichols... And this proves what?

Clearly, there were people on that street that morning, we know of two of them, and we know of the victim. There's literally nothing to suggest that another person wasn't on that street, to keep implying that there wasn't is an exercise in stupidity.

[Mike J. G.]

I've asked you a few questions which you've blatantly avoided answering...Why is that?

Here's just one of them...

If this street had such a bad reputation, why didn't Paul run away upon seeing Lech in the middle of the street? Why is it only Lech who must surely be startled by the presence of another person on a dark and deadly street?

I think I know the answer: because it fits the Lech/Killer narrative to assume that Lech would run, but Paul wouldn't. Paul was a hard-man, apparently, a partially deaf, unobservant hard-man...this is what the Lech-crew would have us believe, lol.

Is it possible for you to address this, Rainbow?

[Rainbow]

I've asked you a few questions which you've blatantly avoided answering...Why is that?

Here's just one of them...

If this street had such a bad reputation, why didn't Paul run away upon seeing Lech in the middle of the street? Why is it only Lech who must surely be startled by the presence of another person on a dark and deadly street?

I think I know the answer: because it fits the Lech/Killer narrative to assume that Lech would run, but Paul wouldn't. Paul was a hard-man, apparently, a partially deaf, unobservant hard-man...this is what the Lech-crew would have us believe, lol.

Why are you angry, I cannot answer all of you at the same time,

Paul made it clear he was afraid, and he tried to avoid the man...

Lechmere was happily standing and looking and inviting others... Paul didn't hear Foot steps, didn't notice the woman directly by entering the row..

the conditions here are different... and even so, he was afraid and tried to avoid that situation, that is normal


Rainbow°

[Mike J. G.]

Why are you angry, I cannot answer all of you at the same time,

Paul made it clear he was afraid, and he tried to avoid the man...

Lechmere was happily standing and looking and inviting others... Paul didn't hear Foot steps, didn't notice the woman directly by entering the row..

the conditions here are different... and even so, he was afraid and tried to avoid that situation, that is normal


Rainbow°

Who said I was angry? You're the one who's using endless exclamation marks, mate, lol.

I'm basically just wondering how you can avoid answering so many questions while at the same time repeatedly asking questions which people have taken the time to answer tenfold.

Lechmere was happily standing there? You just imagined that, didn't you?

Paul never ran, though, so why would Lech? Who says Lech wasn't afraid when he saw Paul? You're literally embarrassing yourself with this obvious attempt to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

[Rainbow]

Then answer this cleaver, did Paul hear Lechmeres foot steps coming and he didn't run away ?


Rainbow°

[Patrick S]

Important because the place and the time frame and the bleeding don't give a much place for a third player

That what I can see

Rainbow°

No. That's what you've been told by Fisherman.

This 'blood evidence' simply doesn't exist. And even if it EVER existed (and it did not) it would no longer exist because no official records from the Nichols investigation have survived.

What we DO have is media reports. Of course, it's up to you to decide how much faith you'd like to place the contemporary reportage. I'll say that - speaking for myself alone - I don't place so much that I'm willing craft scientific "blood evidence" from those reports. Further, as with many things, media reports must be picked through, some selected, some disregarded, some gospel, some drivel, in order for this thing to limp forward. Fisherman and I recently had a discussion about Paul's statement in Lloyd's where it was suggested - not by me, of course - that the writer of that piece "spiced" things up to create a stir, because Paul's actual words were boring, bland. Not so - of course - with the reportage relating to this 'blood evidence'. In those cases words like "oozing" are given scientific merit and used as metrics to determine time of death and (even as time cannot be firmly established ANYWAY) "prove" that only Cross could have done it - unless we think it was the "phantom" (a name created because "someone else" makes it sound to reasonable).

I'm sure you see the problem here. I'm equally sure you won't admit to it. I am NOT at all sure you're not putting us on and - in truth - find this theory as implausible as most of us do.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Steve, do you want to listen or not ?!

A prostitute will take her client to a private place where they can do the business without interrupting

Obviously

that is one thing, the other thing, The policemen said clearly, there wasn't a soul around then

Which policeman and when?

those two points is a certain clue, that the place was empty.

It was empty when there was no one there. When there was someone there it was not empty. What are you talking about Rainbow? Try and make sense.


Then suddenly Paul was hurrying and spoten a man and a woman there

the woman was bleeding, if you want to ignore that its up to you


Paul was walking to WORK. He met Cross and saw the body. AGAIN stop assuming that she was 'bleeding' just because one person has suggested this.


There wasn't a third player that ever been noticed before this moment or after it

Because there was no one there to witness anyone!! But there were 2 people there; Mary Ann Nichols and her killer ( not Cross)

Then came the other facts, giving another name, a false statement, the crimes happen in his route to work ...

This is the last time I'll say read the research by David Orsam and others. THIS WAS NOT UNUSUAL. It was a name he'd used before. Please stop parroting the same myths. He gained no advantage from this. Understand? No advantage. He didn't hide. He went to the inquest. Come on Rainbow. You need far, far more than this to even raise a suspicion against Cross.
The fact that the crime happened on his route to work is evidence of INNOCENCE. What kind of idiot would kill at a spot that he, and very, very few other people passed each day on the way to work?!


Rainbow°

Look in the dictionary and find the word EVIDENCE.

There is NONE

[Mike J. G.]

It's just really odd to see the mental gymnastics on display in a Lechmere thread:

Lechmere should have ran.
Why didn't Paul run?
Paul was scared, he avoided Lech.
But he never ran, did he? How do you know Lech wasn't scared?
He had no fear, he was happily standing in the street.

Literally just pulling random nonsense from their backside and hoping people buy it.

[Elamarna]

Steve, do you want to listen or not ?!

A prostitute will take her client to a private place where they can do the business without interrupting

that is one thing, the other thing, The policemen said clearly, there wasn't a soul around then

those two points is a certain clue, that the place was empty.

Then suddenly Paul was hurrying and spoten a man and a woman there

the woman was bleeding, if you want to ignore that its up to you

There wasn't a third player that ever been noticed before this moment or after it

Then came the other facts, giving another name, a false statement, the crimes happen in his route to work ...


Rainbow°

Your reply as nothing to do with my previous reply.

It was about the blood issue and you have not addressed any of the issues raised. If you are not prepared to actually debate there is very little point in actually reading the nonsense in the post.

As for your points let's look at them.

1. No evidence that Nichols to anyone into Bucks Row. There is no evidence that Lech was a customer of Nichols. Where do you suggest they met?

2. Actually that is not what Thain said at all. And Neils comments are only relevant to the 10 minutes out of every hour he spent in Bucks Row.

3. No they do not prove that.

4.paul did not spot Nichols.lech pointer her out

5. We have no description from Paul or Lech with regards to bleeding. The blood flow idea is flawed in several areas, from basic concept to the reports of Neil and Mizen.

6. Why would he be noticed if he left before lech arrived. There are several escape routes. None require more than a slow walk.

7. What false statement? There is a dispute over what was said. One has to look at all the reports to get an idea of why this occurred. Having done this I am of the opinion that Mizen did not tell the truth.

False name? No a name he had been legally recorded under so it is not false.

Crimes 3 and 4 did not occur on his route to work.



Now counter any of my points with facts rather than just repeating a mantra.



Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Rainbow;418921]

Hi Rainbow,

I see that you enjoy the ideas about Lechmere. Tell me, what is the difference between history and the past?

- he didn't find the body, he was found by the body

Is that the past - or is it history written by Fisherman?

-a normal person will very well run away

Is it possible in 2017 to decide if a person in 1888, who we have never met and have no medical papers or other relevant papers for, was normal?

-He can't hide, unless he had two wings to fly, he was traped like a rat in a tube

The sources where Lechmere is referred to give no impression that Lechmere wanted to hide. How can you know if that motive existed in the past or if it is a motive invented by Fisherman?

-He took Paul away to find a police officer, so he can say what he wanted, and he did, he gave a false statement

Have you seen the results of Kattrup and David here? They have published many sources prooving that people in the past (who were not serial killers) actually did use their names in exactly the same way that Lechmere did. Do you ignore those examples - if you do, why?

-He attended the inquest because two person will recognise him now if he didn't

Was that an existing motive in the past for which we have sources - or is it a motive invented by Fisherman?

- He didn't give his direct and real name

He did exactly what many other people did: used his two legitimate names. Don´t you think that he would have used another name, a name not connected to his father or stepfather, if he actually (in the past, not in the history of Fisherman) wanted to hide his ID?

Regards, Pierre

[Mike J. G.]

Then answer this cleaver, did Paul hear Lechmeres foot steps coming and he didn't run away ?


Rainbow°

You earlier said that Paul spotted Lech in the street near the body, so why didn't he get scared and run?

You can't have your cake and eat it, Rainbow.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then answer this cleaver, did Paul hear Lechmeres foot steps coming and he didn't run away ?


Rainbow°

No because Lechmere was already there. Lechmere didn't run away when he heard Paul's footsteps because he had NOTHING to feel guilty about and therefore NO reason to run!

Rainbow why is that childishly simple fact so difficult for you to understand?