Lechmere The Psychopath

[Rainbow]

Steve, have a look on 'It was Lechmere' thread

I said: post #70

You answer this

How long do expect to detect breathing movements in chest after the head was almost severed from the body?!

I am sure if I said this cup of tea is sweet, you are going to ask for a medical proof for it... it is just talking for the hell of talking ...

Rainbow°

So, your trials will not success dear Steve, I am the one who brought this evidence up!

You have to learn to live with it!

[ohrocky]

I am bemused! But then that often happens.

I have just conducted an experiment (although can't claim it is scientific). With one hand on my chest I have used my other hand to pull down my trousers. Then with one hand on my chest, I pulled my trousers up again.

My conclusion is that placing a hand on my chest to check I am still breathing, and messing around with my clothing, are certainly NOT mutually exclusive.

[Henry Flower]

Arguing with you is pointless.

I think most impartial readers of this exchange will agree with you there - but not for reasons that flatter you. Your debate with Steve looks to an impartial outsider something like this:

Steve: I'm unconvinced he definitely found breathing. Maybe he did, but we need some expert testimony on that score. Maybe we should wait unti -

Rainbow: No! It is pointless to argue with you! Paul definitely found definite breathing and therefore Lech was definitely the Ripper! There is no other possibility! Why won't you just stop arguing against logic!?

Steve: I'm just pointing out that there are conflicting repor -

Rainbow: NO! NO! NO! It is clear. The movement was very definitely breath and therefore only Lechmere was the Ripper. Any other interpretation is now impossible!

Steve: But why don't we wait and get some exper -

Rainbow: REEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!! NO! I will say it again and again until everyone accepts it: there was no time, she was breathing, Lechmere was the Ripper!!!! Guilty!!!!!

Steve: So when it was reported that Paul -

Rainbow: POINTLESS! CAN'T HEAR YOU! CAN'T HEAR YOU!!

I said it before and I will continue saying it, breathing evidence is conclusive in my mind that Lechmere was the ripper.

Fine. The inconclusive breathing evidence is conclusive of Lechmere's guilt in your mind. Not even Christer would make this argument, and I can only pray that if I ever find myself on trial accused of a crime I did not commit it's not your turn to do jury service

Will you "continue saying it" if someone with expertise says that it was simply not the case? We have a word for that.

[Elamarna]

Steve, have a look on 'It was Lechimere' thread

I said:




So, your trials will not sucess dear Steve, I am the one who brought this evidence up!

You have to learn to live with it!

You were very clear about the endotrachael in your some of your posts. There is no mention of blood flow or lack of. It's all endotrachael.


You were asked to back up your claim you never did. You could have mentioned blood flow; youu did not.
I pointed out that a cut treachea was very similar to a tracheostomy at least twice.
You did not comment to say you were talking about blood flow.

What is so funny is that you now try and suggest that I was not aware of this.

That is shameful and disingenuous.


Steve

[Henry Flower]

I am bemused! But then that often happens.

I have just conducted an experiment (although can't claim it is scientific). With one hand on my chest I have used my other hand to pull down my trousers. Then with one hand on my chest, I pulled my trousers up again.

My conclusion is that placing a hand on my chest to check I am still breathing, and messing around with my clothing, are certainly NOT mutually exclusive.

Fantastic! But I want to see video evidence! You know there's a book / documentary potential in this, right?

[Rainbow]

You were very clear about the endotrachael in your some of your posts. There is no mention of blood flow or lack of. It's all endotrachael.


You were asked to back up your claim you never did. You could have mentioned blood flow; youu did not.
I pointed out that a cut treachea was very similar to a tracheostomy at least twice.
You did not comment to say you were talking about blood flow.

What is so funny is that you now try and suggest that I was not aware of this.

That is shameful and disingenuous.


Steve

and in return my post

You answer this

How long do expect to detect breathing movements in chest after the head was almost severed from the body?!

I am sure if I said this cup of tea is sweet, you are going to ask for a medical proof for it... it is just talking for the hell of talking ...

Rainbow°

☺

[Fisherman]

Yes I agree on the time around a minute.

Given that Paul did not noticed Lechmere until he was fairly close, I know he did not give a figure but he certainly did not see Lechmere move, and Lechmere claimed to hear him at about 40 yards (about 25 seconds). why should we think it would be any different for Lechmere and another killer.
Hence my 30 to 40 seconds.

And yes I doubt any two will agree.

Steve

I identify three problems, as you may guess:

A/ Lechmere SAID he noticed Paul from 30-40 yards away, but I think he noticed him sooner than that - but he wanted to find a timerange that allowed for Paul not to have seen him and for himself not to have been able to be the killer.

B/ Lechmere would have been either crouching in the shadows (if he was the killer) as Paul approached or standing in the "middle of the road" (if he was innocent). Either way, he would have been much more difficult to spot. To notice a man moving ahead would predispose first and foremost that he was heard, and Lechmere would not make much of a sound. So we need more time for the phantom killer than 30-40 seconds, since he would be audible all the way.

C/ The third problem belongs to another shpere of details - if the phantom killer noted that Lechmere turned into Bucks Row and decided to make a runner, then why did he cover up the wounds on Nichols first? What was there to gain?

[Elamarna]

and in return my post




☺

It comes across that you see this as some game.

So be it.

I responded to your post, you have not replied in any real sense and obviously have no intention of doing so.

The replies are often ill informed, Mizen, the two men seen by Thain; bizarre, before is specific and WHILE is general or more often than not just repeating words over and over again.

The tendency to disregard expert opinion is truly amazing, will you accept that on the question of how soon breathing will stop if it does not fit your view I wonder?

I say here and now I will accept what ever it says and then construct a view around that.



Steve

[Henry Flower]

I identify three problems, as you may guess:

A/ Lechmere SAID he noticed Paul from 30-40 yards away, but I think he noticed him sooner than that - but he wanted to find a timerange that allowed for Paul not to have seen him and for himself not to have been able to be the killer.

B/ Lechmere would have been either crouching in the shadows (if he was the killer) as Paul approached or standing in the "middle of the road" (if he was innocent). Either way, he would have been much more difficult to spot. To notice a man moving ahead would predispose first and foremost that he was heard, and Lechmere would not make much of a sound. So we need more time for the phantom killer than 30-40 seconds, since he would be audible all the way.

C/ The third problem belongs to another shpere of details - if the phantom killer noted that Lechmere turned into Bucks Row and decided to make a runner, then why did he cover up the wounds on Nichols first? What was there to gain?

Maybe he was squeamish?!

[Fisherman]

Not even Christer would make this argument...

You make it sound as if I was next in line, anyhow. "Not even"?

I have tried - throughout - to always admit the possibility of alternative explanations to all the details involved in my accusation act against Lechmere. I sometimes think these alternative explanations a bit strained (to say the least) and I often enough run into people from the opposite side claiming things that are not anywhere near a fact as some sort of truth (Lechmere called himself Cross on a daily basis - yeah, right).

I think that one can support a suspect and at the same time entertain a level and balanced thinking. I make that assumption against a backdrop of knowing that if I am correct about Lechmere, then it is everybody ELSE who are dreaming up things and telling porkies...

But you are correct of course - not even I would do such a thing.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Well. There's been a lot posted about coincidences and all that. At some point "common sense solutions" matter. I mean, let's run it down:

Again? Oh, alright then.

Paul says he thought Nichols was breathing at 3:45am. We KNOW that when Neil shined his light, what is it, five, eight minutes later.....that her head has been (nearly) detached from her body. Thus, what's LIKELY is that Paul was mistaken. She wasn't breathing.

But that all hinges on how long we breathe after having had our necks cut. Which is what Steve is asking a medico to clarify. My own take is that a person with a neck severed to the bone and with very serious abdominal damage will not breathe for many a second, but I am prepared to stand corrected.

Cross waited for Paul to get to where he was. He called to him to look at the woman on the ground. Paul tried to avoid him. Cross persisted...."Come see.." Was this some grand ruse or simply a guy who acting like anyone (other than Rainbow) would had he found a woman lying on the street?...HE TOLD SOMEONE (rather than run screaming into the night). So, what common sense tell us is its LIKELY that he didn't kill Nichols.

But the fact that there was still blood running when both Neil and Mizen saw the woman makes my common sense go "Well, as there was nobody else there, it was likely Lechmere who did it". Which is in line with other factors surrounding the case too. It is therefore much a question of which questions we choose to ask.
Everybody knows that people who halt other people and ask for help when somebody is lying in the street, are normally good people.
But everybody also knows that bad people are very willing to deceive good people.
I would like to think I have as much common sense as the next man.

Mizen says he was told that he was "wanted" by a PC in Buck's Row. Cross says flatly that no one told him that was the case. Paul doesn't mention it, but he does mention that Mizen didn't much react to the news of a woman (Paul says a "DEAD" woman) and that he didn't say if he should come or not. What a great shame...since he'd been "told the woman was dead". Thus, its clear Mizen would benefit from selling a story about another PC. So...what's LIKELY is that Mizen fudged things a bit....to make him look....NOT QUITE as bad has Paul made him out in Lloyd's.

But it is totally unlikely that Mizen would accept that Neil was the finder if he had been told otherwise by the carman. When Mizen took the stand on the second day of the inquest, he would know that Lechmere was to witness after him. If he lied about matters, he would run the risk of getting fired. And Paul could be waiting in the wings for all Mizen knew. So common sense dictates that he did not lie.
You see? Once again, we change the angle we are looking from, and things look different.

I can give (and have given) dozens of such examples. But...I don't have the energy today.

Oh, I´m sure that you have all the energy you need, Patrick. Look at me, I´m sixty and I should be easily enough toppled over.

Common sense dictates that.

I'm coming to the end of coaching (and serving on the board of directors) a long season of baseball. If you think things are rough here, try dealing with 12-year old baseball parents pissed off because their kid didn't get the accolades he so richly deserves. Thus, my energy is sapped.

The only thing worth commenting on here is that it's clear - TO ME - that two PCs misrepresented events on the stand in the Nichols inquest: Mizen and Thain.

This new "breathing evidence" things does this theory no favors. It's clear that you'll grab onto any bit of information that can in some vague way bolster - or at least not damage - the theory, while shouting down or ignoring anything that may harm it (far too many instance of that to list here...as I AM low on energy, as I say).

As far as I'm concerned it's about what I know. I know a bit about how Cross behaved in Buck's Row (based on the reportage of his testimony and what's corroborated by Paul). In order for me to view his actions with any suspicion at all I must create motivations based on an assumption of guilt.

I know a bit about what Cross said and did in Baker's Row (according to the reportage of his testimony and what's corroborated by Paul). In order for me to view his actions with any suspicion I must create motivations based on an assumption of guilt AND I must create scenarios by which conversations occur out of earshot and I must create motivations for Paul to misrepresent events after the fact.

I also know what Mizen said on the stand...and I know the vital (for you) bit about him being told he was "wanted in Buck's Row" is corroborated by no one. And, in order for me to believe that Mizen is correct and Cross is lying and Paul is (either lying or) allowing the Cross lies to stand through his failure to correct or owing to the fact that he was duped by Cross I must, again, view multiple actor's actions with suspicion and I must create motivations based on an assumption that Charles Cross was Jack the Ripper because - and this the only things we actually know - that his LEGAL name was Lechmere and because he found Nichols lying on the pavement in Buck's Row (we also know that he had a legitimate reason to be in Buck's Row as we know his address and the address of his employer).

So...I found a little energy there. I think I may be done for the day.

[Fisherman]

I am bemused! But then that often happens.

I have just conducted an experiment (although can't claim it is scientific). With one hand on my chest I have used my other hand to pull down my trousers. Then with one hand on my chest, I pulled my trousers up again.

My conclusion is that placing a hand on my chest to check I am still breathing, and messing around with my clothing, are certainly NOT mutually exclusive.

Don´t do that video. Vice will be all over you like a rash.

[Henry Flower]

You make it sound as if I was next in line, anyhow. "Not even"?

I have tried - throughout - to always admit the possibility of alternative explanations to all the details involved in my accusation act against Lechmere. I sometimes think these alternative explanations a bit strained (to say the least) and I often enough run into people from the opposite side claiming things that are not anywhere near a fact as some sort of truth (Lechmere called himself Cross on a daily basis - yeah, right).

I think that one can support a suspect and at the same time entertain a level and balanced thinking. I make that assumption against a backdrop of knowing that if I am correct about Lechmere, then it is everybody ELSE who are dreaming up things and telling porkies...

But you are correct of course - not even I would do such a thing.

I'm glad you spotted my tongue-in-cheek comment and took it in the correct spirit, Christer. Good man

[Fisherman]

Maybe he was squeamish?!

For some reason, I never thought of that, Henry. Thanks!

[Henry Flower]

For some reason, I never thought of that, Henry. Thanks!

I would say subsequent events in Millers Crt render the theory slightly less than tenable