Lechmere The Psychopath

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

I knew precisely what your game was from the outset.

So when I say that Nichols was freshly killed, it is a game?

But when you say that she was long dead it is something else?

And all the while, I am correct whilst you are wrong...

Mine was an entirely throwaway phrase, which I explained fully when Abby questioned me about it, and re-explained to you subsequently, together with other phrases to illustrate my point... and a very minor point it was.

Throwaway? Happy-go-lucky? Lighthearted?

I see.

In contrast, your favourite phrase "Lechmere was found next to a freshly-killed victim" - which you've repeatedly used - is in an entirely different league. It is not only inaccurate, but demonstrably paints Lechmere in a more sinister light than the evidence permits.

It is indefinitely more accurate that saying that Nichols was long dead. Lechmere was found at the murder site, he was standing close by the victim and she had not been dead for more than minutes - she was still bleeding and the blood was in the process of coagulating.

Long dead, however, she was NOT.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;419971]

Hi Patrick,

Some important comments here.

We must begin with an assumption: that Charles Cross killed Mary Ann Nichols. We must then move to another assumption, one that it completely dependent upon the first: that Charles Cross was a psychopath - because whoever killed Nichols was Jack the Ripper and Jack the Ripper was a psychopath. Seems somewhat circular, but, let's press on.

Hypothesis 1: "Lechmere was a killer" must be separated from hypothesis 2: "Lechmere was a psychopath".

INDEPENDENTLY of hypothesis 1, the duty of Fisherman is to give sources for hypothesis 2.

This means he has two big claims for which he must give sources.

He can not build hypothesis 2 on the non confirmed hypothesis 1.

He can not build hypothesis 2 on false premises.

It seems as if this all began with a notable discovery, and - of course - an assumption. The discovery, of course, is that fact that Charles Cross' given name was Charles Lechmere. The following assumption is that he gave the name Cross because - and this will sound familiar - he killed Polly Nichols. And was Jack the Ripper. And was, therefore, a psychopath.

Fisherman referred to an article in this thread where criteria for psychopathy is given. For defining a psychopath, the person must score 30 I think it was on a set of items. Being a killer is NOT one of those.

Fisherman must give sources for Lechmere scoring 30 points . That is the method for confirming hypothesis 2.

So then we take a closer look at the man. We find he was married to the same woman for 50+ years, raised 10 children, maintained employment at Pickfords for 20+ years, became a business owner in his retirement, and left his wife a comfortable sum upon his death. Of course, none of this is assumption. We KNOW these things as they're part of the historical record. What we do not find in the historical record is any evidence of violence, incarceration, arrest, commitment. It could be argued - and I have - that the content of the KNOWN historical record indicates that one doesn't find arrest records, etc., because they do not exist. And based upon what we KNOW, the absence of such records makes perfect sense.

Our hypothesis 1: Lechmere was a family man who lived in Whitechapel and worked at Pickfordīs. Are there any sources confirming this?

Yes. So this is an established fact.

We know he called Paul's attention to Nichols body. We know he went with Paul and found PC Mizen. We know he appeared at the inquest and offered testimony. One might interpret these high level actions as those of a man who found a woman in the street, and told others what he'd found. His actions are consistent with that. His actions are consistent with what most "normal" people would do.

Our hypothesis 2: Lechmere found Nichols on his way to work. Are there any sources confirming this?

Yes. So this is an established fact.

Unless of course he wasn't normal at all......and here we go again, that circle Sam mentioned, he killed Nichols, and was Jack the Ripper, because he was a psychopath.

And here is Fisherman with his hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2. He has no evidence for either of these and they are not confirmed by any sources.

So it is NOT AN ESTABLISHED FACT that "Lechmere was a killer".

And it is NOT AND ESTABLISHED FACT that "Lechmere was a psychopath".

Therefore, Fisherman should NOT have tried to sell these unconfirmed hypotheses. They should have remained with him until he could confirm them.

And round and round we go.

There is no need to go round anymore.

Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

So when I say that Nichols was freshly killed, it is a game?

Read my post again, and please quote me (and yourself) in full: I didn't say she was "long dead", but that she was "long dead in the scheme of things".

Similarly, my point was not that you merely said that "Nichols was freshly killed", but that you repeatedly used the phrase, in full: "Lechmere was found next to a freshly-killed victim".

It is indefinitely more accurate that saying that Nichols was long dead.

"Long dead in the scheme of things", meaning... etc etc. (I'm not going to explain it to you again.)

Your agenda-driven, incorrect and oft-repeated assertion that "Lechmere was found next to a freshly-killed victim" is a totally different matter, both in terms of factual content and in terms of its impact on how people perceive Cross's actions that night.

[Elamarna]

Payne-James did not mention the abdominal wounds? Thatīs new to me. He mentioned them and was aware that they were severe. None of us knows exactly how severe, so that was about all he could do.

Taking up more space with this seems a bad idea to me.

Please stop playing semantics. It really is so transparent.
No solid argument so attempt to divert what is being said. No problem be my guest.

He does NOT mention the views of Llewellyn on the wounds. Neither the idea they were before the Neck or that they were the killer cuts.

He does NOT SAY they are serve, he says less so when compared to others in the series.
The diagram used shows no long deep vertical cuts.

Of course when I argued the very point that he did not have an accurate picture of the wounds you argued against, now you present the same argument yourself.

What we are witnessing is a degree of intellectual gymnastics and flexabilty that is truly outstanding.

No time is being wasted, important points are being exposed, for which no reasonable response as been given.



Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Long dead, however, she was NOT

For ****'s sake. My full phrase was "long dead in the scheme of things", and I've already explained - multiple times - what I meant by that.

Stop the selective misquoting.

[Pierre]

Please stop playing semantics. It really is so transparent.
No solid argument so attempt to divert what is being said. No problem be my guest.

He does NOT mention the views of Llewellyn on the wounds. Neither the idea they were before the Neck or that they were the killer cuts.

He does NOT SAY they are serve, he says less so when compared to others in the series.
The diagram used shows no long deep vertical cuts.

Of course when I argued the very point that he did not have an accurate picture of the wounds you argued against, now you present the same argument yourself.

What we are witnessing is a degree of intellectual gymnastics and flexabilty that is truly outstanding.

No time is being wasted, important points are being exposed, for which no reasonable response as been given.

Steve

I agree with all of this.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

For ****'s sake. My full phrase was "long dead in the scheme of things", and I've already explained - multiple times - what I meant by that.

Stop the selective misquoting.

There is no misquoting. There is misrepresenting on your behalf. In the scheme of things.

She was not long dead, no matter how we look upon it.

[Fisherman]

Pierre

Points noted.

What I find fascinating is that Payne-James, whom Christer uses for much of his medical "evidence" actually ignores the view that the abdomenial was first and the cause of death.
I wonder why?
I have asked but not got a reply to that point.


Steve

You have had all the answers you are going to get, but you donīt accept them, it seems.

I did not make the docu.

I donīt know whether Payne-James mentioned the order of the cutting, and if that was cut away.

How on earth do you expect me to be able to tell?

[Fisherman]

Read my post again, and please quote me (and yourself) in full: I didn't say she was "long dead", but that she was "long dead in the scheme of things".

Similarly, my point was not that you merely said that "Nichols was freshly killed", but that you repeatedly used the phrase, in full: "Lechmere was found next to a freshly-killed victim". "Long dead in the scheme of things", meaning... etc etc. (I'm not going to explain it to you again.)

Your agenda-driven, incorrect and oft-repeated assertion that "Lechmere was found next to a freshly-killed victim" is a totally different matter, both in terms of factual content and in terms of its impact on how people perceive Cross's actions that night.

I am no more agenda-driven than you are - making a crusade to claim that a man who was found close to a recently killed woman was not found close to a recently killed woman is as clear-cut an example as we are going to get of an agenda.

[Fisherman]

Please stop playing semantics. It really is so transparent.
No solid argument so attempt to divert what is being said. No problem be my guest.

He does NOT mention the views of Llewellyn on the wounds. Neither the idea they were before the Neck or that they were the killer cuts.

He does NOT SAY they are serve, he says less so when compared to others in the series.
The diagram used shows no long deep vertical cuts.

Of course when I argued the very point that he did not have an accurate picture of the wounds you argued against, now you present the same argument yourself.

What we are witnessing is a degree of intellectual gymnastics and flexabilty that is truly outstanding.

No time is being wasted, important points are being exposed, for which no reasonable response as been given.



Steve

I did not make the docu. How many more times must I say it before it sinks in?

I cannot possibly know why Payne-James do not talk about the order of the cutting and the severity of the abdominal ditto.

Is that clear by now? Or is it playing semantics to point it out to you?

[Elamarna]

You have had all the answers you are going to get, but you donīt accept them, it seems.

I did not make the docu.

I donīt know whether Payne-James mentioned the order of the cutting, and if that was cut away.

How on earth do you expect me to be able to tell?

How can one possible accept a non answer.

You were the one who suggested it may have been cut from the documentary, not I

Steve

[Paddy Goose]

Cross found the body. He wasn't found close to the body. Or not close. Or anything. He wasn't found at all. He found.

He was the finder. Not the findee.

Paddy

[Fisherman]

How can one possible accept a non answer.

You were the one who suggested it may have been cut from the documentary, not I

Steve

And it could have. And therefore we cannot know what Payne-James may have said or not. And therefore you should not claim that it is for me to explain. It is no such thing.

[Fisherman]

Cross found the body. He wasn't found close to body. Or not close. Or anything. He wasn't found at all. He found.

He was the finder. Not the findee.

Paddy

Yes, and Paul did not spot him.

Itīs a world full of geniuses.

Goodnight.

[Paddy Goose]

Goodnight