So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

[Fisherman]

But, Fish, if you interpret ‘gingerly’ to mean ‘carrotily’, a world of possibilities opens up.😉

Now, WHY did I not think of that myself...? It´s a blotch on my insights.

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear !!!!!!!!!

[QUOTE=Fisherman;466789]

Yes and no, Trevor. The simple fact is that we do not know how much time he had. We don´t know how far off Paul was wen Lechmere noted him. It is t as if we can measure an amount of time and say "He had ample time" the way you do.
That said, my own take on things is that he certainly could have chosen to run - it seems clear, at the very least, that he could have taken off before Paul could see him in the darkness. That much I accept, and not only that: I suggest that this was so.

He clearly had plenty of time to run. If you look at who saw who first, Paul is walking down the road on his way to work. Lechmere is standing in the middle of the road, not even near the body, inquest testimony

"as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway"

If he had time to stand in the road waiting for Paul to get closer, then he had time to run and if he had been the killer no one would have been any the wiser.

I have not "interpreted" what he said, I have stated it the way he said it. When we spoke about how Lechmere could have stayed put, I said that it was a common thing among those studying the case to think that he would have run, and Griffiths replied by saying that no, he would never have run given the risks it would have involved.
That is not something I am interpreting. Furthermore, you are perfectly correct in saying that I am relying too much on Griffiths - but only if he was wrong. If he was right, then YOU are not relying so much in him as you ought to.

But Griffiths comments could be as a result of him not being give the full facts on the case, which is what happened with Scobie, and that his comment was based on misrepresentation of the true facts.

He is a very competent and seasoned man, and although I am prepared to listen to what anybody has to say, I am less prepared to have people who do not have his experience and knowledge advicing me not to listen to him, Trevor. Surely you can realize that?

Experience counts for nothing when you are simply giving an opinion which cannot be corroborated. Because there are always others who are equally experienced who might give a different opinion.

But I am of the opinion that the killer was in all probability a psychopath - the way more than 90 per cent of serial killers are.

Again it is your opinion and it counts for nothing as you are not an expert in this field.

Not every serial killer is a psychopath Ted Bundy was an educated well organized, and meticulous serial killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

Thanks for that, Jon. It is all a very complex business, and when investigating a case where it is suggested that a suspect may have lied his way out of a murder accusation, we cannot possibly work from a position where we simply accept as gospel that everything is what it seems to be!

It poses a problem when it comes to matters like Lechmeres interactions with Nichols after Pauls arrival. I have no problems at all accepting that he did a number of things that all seem in line with helping out, but once we accept that these actions were genuine, we automatically clear the carman from any suspicion.

The whole history of ripperology is fraught with such risks. Read Sugden and you will find that he says that the two carmen "gingerly" approached the shape lying on the sidewalk - and BOOOM, you have absolved Lechmere from his suspect status, because if he really DID approach Nichols gingerly, then he could of course not be the villain of the piece!
So much has been said and written over the years that strengthens Lechmere´s veracity in an unsound way, and before we can see this clearly, we cannot judge his case from an unbiased position. I know quite well that many people say that whatever bias there is, is all mine, but once you try to look at things from this angle, you may see that this is not entirely true - there is a bias working FOR Lechmere in these types of details, saying that he walked gingerly towards the body, saying that he went out of his way to help, saying that he did what a good samaritan would have done, basically.

Anyways, I believe we have come as far as we can on this for now, and so I thank you for taking the time to listening to my view of it all!

But, Fish, if you interpret ‘gingerly’ to mean ‘carrotily’, a world of possibilities opens up.😉

[FrankO]

In order to be sure that Nichols was dead and could not communicate, he slit her throat...

But why waste precious time by cutting her throat not once but twice, Christer? That doesn't make sense at all. It would only make sense if he knew he had enough time. But if he knew he had enough time, why not get away?

[Fisherman]

Yes, yes. I understand Christer

Thanks for that, Jon. It is all a very complex business, and when investigating a case where it is suggested that a suspect may have lied his way out of a murder accusation, we cannot possibly work from a position where we simply accept as gospel that everything is what it seems to be!

It poses a problem when it comes to matters like Lechmeres interactions with Nichols after Pauls arrival. I have no problems at all accepting that he did a number of things that all seem in line with helping out, but once we accept that these actions were genuine, we automatically clear the carman from any suspicion.

The whole history of ripperology is fraught with such risks. Read Sugden and you will find that he says that the two carmen "gingerly" approached the shape lying on the sidewalk - and BOOOM, you have absolved Lechmere from his suspect status, because if he really DID approach Nichols gingerly, then he could of course not be the villain of the piece!
So much has been said and written over the years that strengthens Lechmere´s veracity in an unsound way, and before we can see this clearly, we cannot judge his case from an unbiased position. I know quite well that many people say that whatever bias there is, is all mine, but once you try to look at things from this angle, you may see that this is not entirely true - there is a bias working FOR Lechmere in these types of details, saying that he walked gingerly towards the body, saying that he went out of his way to help, saying that he did what a good samaritan would have done, basically.

Anyways, I believe we have come as far as we can on this for now, and so I thank you for taking the time to listening to my view of it all!

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: But he didn't need to even put himself in a situation where he had to feign. He on hearing the approaching footsteps, or even seeing Paul coming he could have made good his escape, he had ample time, you have to accept that !

Yes and no, Trevor. The simple fact is that we do not know how much time he had. We don´t know how far off Paul was wen Lechmere noted him. It is t as if we can measure an amount of time and say "He had ample time" the way you do.
That said, my own take on things is that he certainly could have chosen to run - it seems clear, at the very least, that he could have taken off before Paul could see him in the darkness. That much I accept, and not only that: I suggest that this was so.

You are relying to much on what Griffiths said, and if he did say it in the way you suggest, you should have taken steps to get him to expand further on that comment, because I cannot see anyone as experienced as him simply making that comment in the way you have interpreted it.

I have not "interpreted" what he said, I have stated it the way he said it. When we spoke about how Lechmere could have stayed put, I said that it was a common thing among those studying the case to think that he would have run, and Griffiths replied by saying that no, he would never have run given the risks it would have involved.
That is not something I am interpreting. Furthermore, you are perfectly correct in saying that I am relying too much on Griffiths - but only if he was wrong. If he was right, then YOU are not relying so much in him as you ought to.
He is a very competent and seasoned man, and although I am prepared to listen to what anybody has to say, I am less prepared to have people who do not have his experience and knowledge advicing me not to listen to him, Trevor. Surely you can realize that?

Do a survey ask 100 people what they would do in that same situation run or stay ! when you get the answer then you will see that Griffiths comments are unsafe.

Trevor, Trevor... Have you not read the boards on this issue? Have you not noticed that I ALWAYS say that running is what you and I and any normally thinking person would prioritize? I am perfectly aware that it is the normal choice for somebody at peril to be revealed as a killer.
But I am of the opinion that the killer was in all probability a psychopath - the way more than 90 per cent of serial killers are.
So to get a sound outcome, we would have to ask a hundred psychopaths what THEY would have done, if THEY would have panicked, if THEY would have scuttled off.
And to be frank, not even that would be a surefire way to go abut it, because psychopathy comes in a large number of degrees - some have a few traits of psychopathy, others have them all, and that is a matter that would have a very large influence on the case. Furthermore, once we find ourselves a hundred psychopaths with the same disposition that the killer had, then we also need to ensure that they all had the same amount of killing experience as our man had.
Once we find ourselves a hundred such men, the time has come to put the question to them - and hope that they give a truthful answer. You see, a thoroughbred psychopath is a fierce liar.

Maybe you can now begin to see the uselessness of your proposition, Trevor? Asking a hundred people, chosen at random, if they would have run or not would be like asking Carl Panzram to take you out for a nice picnic in some remote forest.
What we get always boils down to who we ask! The sooner you realize that, the better.

[Trevor Marriott]

You seem to think that theorising that he was the killer is disallowed to do? And accordingly, since I am not allowed to do that, I am not allowed to point out that what seemed to be helpfulness could be something feigned?

My whole theory hinges on how Lechmere would have been feigning a whole lot IF HE WAS THE KILLER (there, I said it again).

But he didn't need to even put himself in a situation where he had to feign. He on hearing the approaching footsteps, or even seeing Paul coming he could have made good his escape, he had ample time, you have to accept that !

You are relying to much on what Griffiths said, and if he did say it in the way you suggest, you should have taken steps to get him to expand further on that comment, because I cannot see anyone as experienced as him simply making that comment in the way you have interpreted it.

Do a survey ask 100 people what they would do in that same situation run or stay ! when you get the answer then you will see that Griffiths comments are unsafe.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

The correct wording should be:

You are convinced that Lechmere was the Ripper.

If Lechmere was the Ripper, then you are convinced that he must have been a psychopath, going on how he acted after the murder.

So ... to you, Lechmere was in all probability a psychopath.

Subtle differences? My whole credibility hinges on them, Jon. They are absolutely vital to me, and they mark the difference between a discerning reasoning and one that cannot be regarded as credible at all.

I want your understanding on that point for Christmas!

Yes, yes. I understand Christer

[Fisherman]

Okay ...



I`ll admit I`m wrong to say that ...with the caveat that I`m not quite sure what other facts have been established.



Yes, it is



No no. Here we go again.
If he was the killer
We could say it about anyone involved in the case.



Yes, he attempted to assist the woman.



No,no no. You`re doing it again.



Put it this way ... if I was Abberline and you were one of my Detectives, and you brought this theory to me, I would be extremely interested in your thoughts and would task you to got out there and get the proof your theory needs.



Maybe I worded it wrong, but what I meant, whilst you were strolling down the psychopath path (a theory of yours without any substantiation), was that Cross`s involvement in the whole thing only comes about because he attempted to assist a person lying in the street.




You are convinced that Lechmere was the Ripper
You believe the Ripper was a psychopath

So ...... Lechmere was a psychopath



C`mon Christer, it`s only my opinion, and although I regard myself as one of the leading Ripperologist`s on my street, I don`t think anyone pays any attention to what I post.. so don`t worry abaht it :-)

No satsumas left in shop so I bought a tangerine.I hope it`s the sort that doesn`t have pips.


god Jul gott Nytt År !!!!

In all shortness:

We only know that ON THE SURFACE of things, it seems as if wanted to help out.

You seem to think that theorising that he was the killer is disallowed to do? And accordingly, since I am not allowed to do that, I am not allowed to point out that what seemed to be helpfulness could be something feigned?

My whole theory hinges on how Lechmere would have been feigning a whole lot IF HE WAS THE KILLER (there, I said it again).

So believe it or not, it is NOT established that Lechmere was genuinely helpful visavi Nichols. It is not a fact. It is something that is either true or not, and it all hinges on - correct, if he was the killer.

Last, but not least, you write:

You are convinced that Lechmere was the Ripper
You believe the Ripper was a psychopath

So ...... Lechmere was a psychopath

The correct wording should be:

You are convinced that Lechmere was the Ripper.

If Lechmere was the Ripper, then you are convinced that he must have been a psychopath, going on how he acted after the murder.

So ... to you, Lechmere was in all probability a psychopath.

Subtle differences? My whole credibility hinges on them, Jon. They are absolutely vital to me, and they mark the difference between a discerning reasoning and one that cannot be regarded as credible at all.

I want your understanding on that point for Christmas!

[Jon Guy]

These are the important things to take on board, Jon:

Okay ...

1. I have asked you whether you are ready to admit that itn was wrong to say that Lechmere "helping" Nichols is the one and only fact that has been established. You have so far avoided the question, and I am hoping for an answer now.

I`ll admit I`m wrong to say that ...with the caveat that I`m not quite sure what other facts have been established.

2. It is NOT a fact that he helped Nichols (and much less that he was "going out of his way" to do so).

Yes, it is

Helping is an act of kindness, and if he was the killer - a very open possibility - then there was no kindness at all involved on his behalf.

No no. Here we go again.
If he was the killer
We could say it about anyone involved in the case.

All we can state as a fact is that he contacted Paul, encouraged him to come along and look at the woman and that he kneeled by the woman´s body and felt it.

Yes, he attempted to assist the woman.

His reason for doing so may have been a helpful one or a deceitful one, and we cannot establish for certain that either applies.

No,no no. You`re doing it again.

I would go so far as to say that IF Lechmere was making an honest effort to help out of the goodness of his heart, then he could not possibly be the killer of Nichols. Meaning that if we claim it as a fact that he actually went out of his way to help Nichols, then that would mean that no accusation could be directed at the carman. I hope you will understand how this undermines any effort to call Lechmere helpful and charitable - it would be dangerously close to sheer naivety, regardless if it was correct or not.

Put it this way ... if I was Abberline and you were one of my Detectives, and you brought this theory to me, I would be extremely interested in your thoughts and would task you to got out there and get the proof your theory needs.

3. What we discussed before you said "C´mon Christer - facts?" involved me pointing out two examples of facts in response to your faulty statement that the only fact we have is that Lechmere tried to help Nichols, and so I could not feasibly be expected to realize that you were seaking of an entirely different matter.

Maybe I worded it wrong, but what I meant, whilst you were strolling down the psychopath path (a theory of yours without any substantiation), was that Cross`s involvement in the whole thing only comes about because he attempted to assist a person lying in the street.

4. I would like for you to substantiate that I would have "tried to label" Lechmere a psychopath. Which is what you claimed as a fact. In your latest post, you have altered that accusation to instead saying "I was apparently replying to a few paragraphs stating that the Ripper had to be a psychopath and therefore Lechmere was a psychopath."
To begin with, it was anything but apparent. To carry on, the subject of Lechmere´s possible psycopathy is linked to his behaviour after the murder, a behaviour that involved inclusions that MUST have been signs of psychopathy IF he was the killer. So there you are - it is a complex subject, and I treat it accordingly. To have it said that I am "trying to label" Lechmere a psychopath is therefore a major disappointment, not least when it comes from somebody who as a rule avoids such things.

You are convinced that Lechmere was the Ripper
You believe the Ripper was a psychopath

So ...... Lechmere was a psychopath

There! That was better - a weight of my shoulders!! It is absolutely vital to me that what I am suggesting is not misinterpreted. I´m done with it now, however, unless you have something to add that requires an answer.
I suggest we turn back to our mutual wishes of a Merry Christmas, satsumas, walnuts and all that...

C`mon Christer, it`s only my opinion, and although I regard myself as one of the leading Ripperologist`s on my street, I don`t think anyone pays any attention to what I post.. so don`t worry abaht it :-)

No satsumas left in shop so I bought a tangerine.I hope it`s the sort that doesn`t have pips.


god Jul gott Nytt År !!!!

[Fisherman]

Fair`s fair ... looking back at my original c`mon christer I was apparently replying to a few paragraphs stating that the Ripper had to be a psychopath and therefore Lechmere was a psychopath.
I simply replied that he was actually going out of his way to help a stranger.
We have proof of this !!

These are the important things to take on board, Jon:

1. I have asked you whether you are ready to admit that itn was wrong to say that Lechmere "helping" Nichols is the one and only fact that has been estanblished. You have so far avoided the question, and I am hoping for an answer now.

2. It is NOT a fact that he helped Nichols (and much less that he was "going out of his way" to do so). Helping is an act of kindness, and if he was the killer - a very open possibility - then there was no kindness at all involved on his behalf. All we can state as a fact is that he contacted Paul, encouraged him to come along and look at the woman and that he kneeled by the woman´s body and felt it. His reason for doing so may have been a helpful one or a deceitful one, and we cannot establish for certain that either applies.
I would go so far as to say that IF Lechmere was making an honest effort to help out of the goodness of his heart, then he could not possibly be the killer of Nichols. Meaning that if we claim it as a fact that he actually went out of his way to help Nichols, then that would mean that no accusation could be directed at the carman. I hope you will understand how this undermines any effort to call Lechmere helpful and charitable - it would be dangerously close to sheer naivety, regardless if it was correct or not.

3. What we discussed before you said "C´mon Christer - facts?" involved me pointing out two examples of facts in response to your faulty statement that the only fact we have is that Lechmere tried to help Nichols, and so I could not feasibly be expected to realize that you were seaking of an entirely different matter.

4. I would like for you to substantiate that I would have "tried to label" Lechmere a psychopath. Which is what you claimed as a fact. In your latest post, you have altered that accusation to instead saying "I was apparently replying to a few paragraphs stating that the Ripper had to be a psychopath and therefore Lechmere was a psychopath."
To begin with, it was anything but apparent. To carry on, the subject of Lechmere´s possible psycopathy is linked to his behaviour after the murder, a behaviour that involved inclusions that MUST have been signs of psychopathy IF he was the killer. So there you are - it is a complex subject, and I treat it accordingly. To have it said that I am "trying to label" Lechmere a psychopath is therefore a major disappointment, not least when it comes from somebody who as a rule avoids such things.

There! That was better - a weight of my shoulders!! It is absolutely vital to me that what I am suggesting is not misinterpreted. I´m done with it now, however, unless you have something to add that requires an answer.
I suggest we turn back to our mutual wishes of a Merry Christmas, satsumas, walnuts and all that...

[Jon Guy]

So when I posted:

Anyways, the more important point I made was that it is totally wrong to claim that the only fact we have is that Lechmere tried to help a person in the street. Saying that is denying the wealth of facts that is connected to the case.


And YOU quoted the last sentence of that prase, adding:

C´mon, Christer - facts?

... you were in fact speaking of something entirely different from the sentence you responded to?

And in doing so, you were in fact instead commenting on how I "was trying to label Cross as a psychopath"?

Could you explain to me:

1. ...how I was supposed to understand that, and
2. ...Where I have tried to label Lechmere as a psychopath?

Isn´t it instead true that what I have said - and stand by - is that the only way Lechmere could have been the killer is if he was a psychopath?

Once more, fair´s fair.

Fair`s fair ... looking back at my original c`mon christer I was apparently replying to a few paragraphs stating that the Ripper had to be a psychopath and therefore Lechmere was a psychopath.
I simply replied that he was actually going out of his way to help a stranger.
We have proof of this !!

[Fisherman]

You were trying to label Cross as psychopath, and the only fact I referred to, in direct opposition to the psychopath thing, was that he was actually trying to help someone.

So when I posted:

Anyways, the more important point I made was that it is totally wrong to claim that the only fact we have is that Lechmere tried to help a person in the street. Saying that is denying the wealth of facts that is connected to the case.


And YOU quoted the last sentence of that prase, adding:

C´mon, Christer - facts?

... you were in fact speaking of something entirely different from the sentence you responded to?

And in doing so, you were in fact instead commenting on how I "was trying to label Cross as a psychopath"?

Could you explain to me:

1. ...how I was supposed to understand that, and
2. ...Where I have tried to label Lechmere as a psychopath?

Isn´t it instead true that what I have said - and stand by - is that the only way Lechmere could have been the killer is if he was a psychopath?

Once more, fair´s fair.

[Sam Flynn]

I think the thread premise has already been discussed and effectively disproven.

Whether that's true or not, it's no reason to go off on tangents.

[Jon Guy]

That won´t work, though. I VERY clearly stated the two facts listed above as examples of FURTHER facts in the case, whereas YOU said that the ONLY fact is that Lechmere helped a woman lying in the street.

Can we agree that this is wrong? That there are plenty more facts, like the ones I listed?

You were trying to label Cross as psychopath, and the only fact I referred to, in direct opposition to the psychopath thing, was that he was actually trying to help someone.