Lechmere The Psychopath

[Sam Flynn]

[The circumstantial evidence] is therefore a hell of a lot more than anybody could ask for. And it puts every other suspect in the shade by comparion. No wait, not in the shade - in total darkness.

A bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.

[Fisherman]

Stride? Eddowes? Besides, what is there to suggest that all these womens' killer(s) picked them up in the very streets where they died, and not on the main roads where streetwalkers - if such they were - would tend to hang out?
Not "probable" at all. In many cases, the time of death is still in dispute, and we just don't know what shifts Lechmere was working on the days in question, if he was working at all, or even if he was in London on those days.
But we don't KNOW most of these things. It's just speculation.

Doing it again, I see.

I just pointed out that we donīt know, but it is a fair speculation to make, putting the rest of the suspects in the shade in this respect.

Stride and Eddowes? Lechmere covers them too, geographically speaking. But - and listen now - we donīt KNOW that Lechmere was there. We can only see that there are viable geographical ties. And once again, he is unique in this respect amongst the suspects.

Have you read up on where Maria Louisa Lechmere lived when Stride died, by the way?

[Fisherman]

You've added another variable in the form of the smoking gun evidence, which is a far, far more significant indicator of guilt. It's the strength of the smoking gun evidence that's relevant, not the percentage of "ordinary men" who happen to be serial killers. Given the figures - and it's probably more like 0.00002% than 0.2% - the latter is nowhere near strong enough to be a remotely useful diagnostic tool.

You are probably talking about statistics and not about serial killing, so I will not join that particular discussion.

If you think you have established any likelihood of Lechmeres guilt, itīs another story altogether.

You need to let me know.

[Fisherman]

Always clear when you struggle to answer, it always this is "very old hat" or something similar.
Well it's not! And all can see that is the case. Particularly the issue over the statement that the Police disagreed with Lechmere which is has far as we know untrue.

Steve

Yawn.

Oh - now it REALLY shows how flustered I am by your brilliant criticism. Bugger!!

[Sam Flynn]

We do not know that he used either route on the occasions of the deaths of Tabram, Chapman and Kelly, but we know that it is consistent with where he lived and worked to suggest that he did.

Stride? Eddowes? Besides, what is there to suggest that all these womens' killer(s) picked them up in the very streets where they died, and not on the main roads where streetwalkers - if such they were - would tend to hang out?

It is also probable that Tabram, Chapman and Kelly all died at roughly the time when he would have been en route to work

Not "probable" at all. In many cases, the time of death is still in dispute, and we just don't know what shifts Lechmere was working on the days in question, if he was working at all, or even if he was in London on those days.

There was no cctv that caught him, and there is no evidence that puts him there. All there is is a totally logical suggestion that fits with what we know.

But we don't KNOW most of these things. It's just speculation.

[Fisherman]

Truly amazing that 2 items raised by you only a few posts back, claiming both are attacks on you are now old hat.

It speaks for itself.


Steve

Yes, it tells us that I have provided all the material it takes to show that you were barking up the wrong tree. I need not go there again, therefore. Old hat, consequentially.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

How do you know that Lechmere passed the other murder sites at approximately the right times?

You know the exact answer to that question, Herlock. He lived in 22 Doveton Street, he worked at the Pickfords depot at Broad Street, the two simplest and fastest routes there were the Hanbury Street route and the Old Ontague Street route, both more or less equally timeconsuming. We know that he walked through Bucks Row at the night of the Nichols murder, he reasonably used it alwyas, since it was the only way through that made sense, and thereafter he would opt for the Hanbury Street route or the Old Montague Street route.
We do not know that he used either route on the occasions of the deaths of Tabram, Chapman and Kelly, but we know that it is consistent with where he lived and worked to suggest that he did. It is also probable that Tabram, Chapman and Kelly all died at roughly the time when he would have been en route to work

There was no cctv that caught him, and there is no evidence that puts him there. All there is is a totally logical suggestion that fits with what we know.

It was 1888. It is therefore a hell of a lot more than anybody could ask for. And it puts every other suspect in the shade by comparion. No wait, not in the shade - in total darkness.

It is a piece of circumstantial evidence that is breathtakingly interesting to anybody with an interest in the case, and a nail in the eye of the Lechmere naysayers.

And that is where it remains.

[Sam Flynn]

So if a person is standing with a smoking gun over a person with a fresh bullet hole in the forehead, the caliber of the hole corresponding to the smokoing gun, that circumstance has nothing to do with how we should place the holder of the gun in the 0,2% segment?

You've added another variable in the form of the smoking gun evidence, which is a far, far more significant indicator of guilt. It's the strength of the smoking gun evidence that's relevant, not the percentage of "ordinary men" who happen to be serial killers. Given the figures - and it's probably more like 0.00002% than 0.2% - the latter is nowhere near strong enough to be a remotely useful diagnostic tool.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman,

How do you know that Lechmere passed the other murder sites at approximately the right times?

[Elamarna]

And an even OLDER hat. Amazing.

Truly amazing that 2 items raised by you only a few posts back, claiming both are attacks on you are now old hat.

It speaks for itself.


Steve

[Elamarna]

And an even OLDER hat. Amazing.

Really are struggling it seems . Not amazing at all.

Steve

[Elamarna]

There is nothing much to comment on here for me. Itīs all VERY old hat.

Always clear when you struggle to answer, it always this is "very old hat" or something similar.
Well it's not! And all can see that is the case. Particularly the issue over the statement that the Police disagreed with Lechmere which is has far as we know untrue.

Steve

[Fisherman]

First point.

Try as much as you like Fisherman. I was not calling you dishonest, the a
Wording used is very clear:

"Let's all try and be honest here. Much of that circumstantial "evidence" is either highly debated or very far from strong".


It really does seem that you can view anything posted which disagrees with you view as an attack.

Second point on the figures.

There is no question that what I quoted was the words you posted. If it was misunderstood it was because it was poorly worded by yourself in the first place.
You were not misrepresented.

Steve

And an even OLDER hat. Amazing.

[Fisherman]

No, it won't. If those are the stats, those are the stats, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding a given murder. If you want to put Lechmere in the 0.2% segment, you need to find firm evidence other than his "ordinariness" in order to place him there.

So if a person is standing with a smoking gun over a person with a fresh bullet hole in the forehead, the caliber of the hole corresponding to the smokoing gun, that circumstance has nothing to do with how we should place the holder of the gun in the 0,2% segment?

That is another discussion?

If so, Iīd be happy to alter my take on things to: Yes, your figures are correct, but they do not involve and consider the surrounding circumstances.

Iīm quite flexible, as long as we get it right.

[Fisherman]

I'd emphasise that my illustrative figures aren't meant to be correct, as it's clearly not the case that fully 1% of all "ordinary men" have committed one or more murders! In reality, the "murderer" and "serial-killer" parts of the Venn Diagram would be significantly smaller, and the "non-killer" segment will be bigger still.

I would not worry about that for a second, Gareth. Nobody out here will question figures given by an anti-Lechmereian. Regardless.

And I certainly have no problems discussing things from this kind of a perspective, without trying to crucify people for making generalistic statements - it is sometimes useful.