So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

The one fact we have is that he tried to assist someone he found lying on the pavement.

Also,the Ripper may have been a paranoid schizophrenic, and not a psychopath.

Jon, I know quite well what we have. And that is more than how he "tried to assist" someone he found lying on the pavement. We have, for example, the fact that that someone was still bleeding and we have the fact that he was found alone with that somebody, opening up for him being the killer.

Of course, that is not something I can prove, but simply accepting what he said is a risky strategy when we couple it with how the clothes were pulled down, with how he disagreed with Mizen, with how he used the name Cross, with his working trek and -timing and so on. That is not the background I would want to have to accept that he was in all probability innocent!

You say that the Ripper may have been a paranoid schizophrenic and not a psychopath. That is 100 per cent correct - but it would predispose another killer than Lechmere.
If you have read me correctly, you will know that I am not saying that Lechmere must have been a psychopath - I am saying that he must have been a psychopath IF HE WAS THE KILLER. That owes to how we can see how he acted extremely calmly under pressure, concocting an elaborate lie on his feet that took him past Mizen.
If he was not the killer, we are instead dealing with a mishearing or a lie on Mizens behalf, and Lechmere was not a psychopath.
If Mizen was correct, then either Lechmere lied for another reason than trying to get away with murder, or he was the killer - and a psychopath.

Personally, I would say that the chances of the Ripper being a paranoid schizophrenic are extremely slim anyway.

[Jon Guy]

Personally, I would say that the chances of the Ripper being a paranoid schizophrenic are extremely slim anyway.

Taking into account that both Sutcliffe and Napper were paranoid schizophrenics, i`d say the chances were great.

[caz]

There WAS a choice, and both me and Andy Griffiths were mathematically able to see that. The choice was between running and not running.

Griffiths said that he would never run, meaning that he would make the choice to stay.

Isnīt it all very simple?

You are wasting time out here. And space.

That word 'never' leaves Lechmere with the one option only - to stay. There was 'never' going to be the option to run, for any serial killer finding himself in Lechmere's position - according to Griffiths. No exceptions.

Words have meanings, Fish. And 'never' means 'never'. A choice that would 'never' be exercised is no choice at all.

If you can find a choice for Lechmere in the word 'never', you are more of a magician than a mathematician.

It's as simple as that.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You will be able to find numerous examples of people who are in line with my point and who go against it. If we are to conclude on basis of statistics, then Lechmere was not the killer, simple as that. It takes for us to allow for deviations from statistics before a case can be made. But that was always so - serial killers are statistical anomalies from beginning to end.

And you wonder why some of us don't believe a case has yet been made against Lechmere?

You are not merely 'allowing' for deviations from statistics - you are trying to make a case with precious little else!

Lechmere could have been known as Cross in 1876...

Mizen could have misreported what he was told...

Robert Paul is not known to have been out of earshot...

Lechmere is not known to have been near each and every murder location at the right hour...

He is not known to have had any recognisable psychopathic traits...

His known behaviour is consistent with a man on his way to work, finding a woman lying in the street, seeking assistance from the next man to come along and alerting the first policeman they see...

So what have you got that doesn't rely on being able to overturn all those statements?

Lechmere could not have been known as Cross in 1876?

Mizen could not have misreported what he was told?

Robert Paul is known to have been out of earshot?

Lechmere is known to have been near each and every murder location at the right hour?

He is known to have had recognisable psychopathic traits?

His known behaviour is not consistent with a man on his way to work, finding a woman lying in the street, seeking assistance from the next man to come along and alerting the first policeman they see?

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

Jon, I know quite well what we have. And that is more than how he "tried to assist" someone he found lying on the pavement. We have, for example, the fact that that someone was still bleeding and we have the fact that he was found alone with that somebody, opening up for him being the killer.

You miss my point !!
He`s not a psychopath, he tried to assist the woman.

[caz]

Thatīs it, Caz. You just disqualified yourself from any right to any sort of respect. What a moronic thing to say.

I thought it was obvious I had my tongue firmly in my cheek, Fish, when I asked if the following referred to Anderson's suspect or your own:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Itīs La-La Land. Nothing will ever come of it and as a lead in the case it is 100 per cent worthless until more evidence can be added. And letīs face it, that is not going to happen some time soon.

Think about it. How is anything ever going to come of suspecting Lechmere? Isn't it also 100% worthless as a lead unless or until some evidence can be found? Speculation and a series of 'what ifs' and 'maybes' do not amount to evidence, Fish. If you had any real evidence, you wouldn't need the speculation.

So let's face it, I can't see you adding any evidence to your 'case' against Lechmere any time soon. It would be like a stupid woman thinking she could come back in January with an improved deal, after two years of failed negotiations, and it will be accepted and we'll all cheer.

Happy Christmas!

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Psychopath or not, one things for sure. He callously and selfishly, left a woman who was drunk or dead or dying, lying in the street with the thought of if we happen across a police man well tell them.

[Jon Guy]

Psychopath or not, one things for sure. He callously and selfishly, left a woman who was drunk or dead or dying, lying in the street with the thought of if we happen across a police man well tell them.

What should he have done, Abby ?

But remember, it`s not a case of if they see a policeman. They would undoubtedly see a policeman.
Also, he may lose his job if he`s not at work on time.

[Fisherman]

Taking into account that both Sutcliffe and Napper were paranoid schizophrenics, i`d say the chances were great.

I believe Sutcliffe feigned paranoid scizophrenia, right? And Napper? very different circumstances, Wimbledon common and a flat - he was never subjecting himself to anywhere near the risktaking of the Ripper. A paranoid schizophrenic Ripper would be immensely likely to get caught.

Anyways, the more important point I made was that it is totally wrong to caim 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.

[Fisherman]

That word 'never' leaves Lechmere with the one option only - to stay. There was 'never' going to be the option to run, for any serial killer finding himself in Lechmere's position - according to Griffiths. No exceptions.

Words have meanings, Fish. And 'never' means 'never'. A choice that would 'never' be exercised is no choice at all.

If you can find a choice for Lechmere in the word 'never', you are more of a magician than a mathematician.

It's as simple as that.

Love,

Caz
X

In the kind of context it was uttered, Iīd say that "never" equates "implausible in the extreme". But will you accept that?

Never.

[Fisherman]

And you wonder why some of us don't believe a case has yet been made against Lechmere?

You are not merely 'allowing' for deviations from statistics - you are trying to make a case with precious little else!

Lechmere could have been known as Cross in 1876...

Mizen could have misreported what he was told...

Robert Paul is not known to have been out of earshot...

Lechmere is not known to have been near each and every murder location at the right hour...

He is not known to have had any recognisable psychopathic traits...

His known behaviour is consistent with a man on his way to work, finding a woman lying in the street, seeking assistance from the next man to come along and alerting the first policeman they see...

So what have you got that doesn't rely on being able to overturn all those statements?

Lechmere could not have been known as Cross in 1876?

Mizen could not have misreported what he was told?

Robert Paul is known to have been out of earshot?

Lechmere is known to have been near each and every murder location at the right hour?

He is known to have had recognisable psychopathic traits?

His known behaviour is not consistent with a man on his way to work, finding a woman lying in the street, seeking assistance from the next man to come along and alerting the first policeman they see?

Love,

Caz
X

Stale, as expected. And it changes nothing. If I had said that we have absolute proof that Lechmere was the killer, you would have a case.

But I donīt.

And you havenīt.

So itīs more time and space waste.

[Fisherman]

You miss my point !!
He`s not a psychopath, he tried to assist the woman.

You miss my point! He was a psychopath and feigned to want to help, all the while amusing himself with Paul.

It is only if we are absolutely certain that he "tried to help the woman" out of good will that we can rule out that he was a psychopath.

To be fair, Jon - can you do that?

[Jon Guy]

I believe Sutcliffe feigned paranoid scizophrenia, right?

No, he was treated for a number of decades at Broadmoor.

And Napper? very different circumstances, Wimbledon common and a flat -
he was never subjecting himself to anywhere near the risktaking of the Ripper.

Broad daylight on Wimbledon Common - not risk taking !!!!!
Yes, a flat, ring any bells ;-) Read what he did to the poor woman.

A paranoid schizophrenic Ripper would be immensely likely to get caught.

Sutcliffe and Napper did well to remain at liberty then

Saying that is denying the wealth of facts that is connected to the case.

C`mon Christer, facts !?!?

Anyway, I just popped in to chuck some chum in the water.
You have a great Christmas, and I hope you get who you want as your new manager next season ?

[Fisherman]

caz: I thought it was obvious I had my tongue firmly in my cheek, Fish, when I asked if the following referred to Anderson's suspect or your own.

Where you have your tongue is your business, thankfully not mine.


Think about it. How is anything ever going to come of suspecting Lechmere? Isn't it also 100% worthless as a lead unless or until some evidence can be found? Speculation and a series of 'what ifs' and 'maybes' do not amount to evidence, Fish. If you had any real evidence, you wouldn't need the speculation.

Well, it HAS already come to a doc where a queens counsellor and an ex murder squad leader agree that there is a very good case to be made that would warrant a trial.
Has it dawned on you, Caz, that there IS evidence - but not proof? Has it dawned on you that NO suspect can be proven guilty?
If so, what would you have? A prohibition against suspects? No board space for theories?
It is and has always been the very core of the Ripper enigma to try and name the killer. I am doing just that, and I have much circumstantial evidence to help me out.
Does that irk you or what? Because if it DOES, then I recommend that you take up another hobby. The reason being that you are barking up the wrong tree - these boards actually have a headline saying "Suspects". And I intend to keep using it.
If you just want somebody to quarrel with, try somebody else, and let me do what the boards are for.

So let's face it, I can't see you adding any evidence to your 'case' against Lechmere any time soon. It would be like a stupid woman thinking she could come back in January with an improved deal, after two years of failed negotiations, and it will be accepted and we'll all cheer.

Evidence HAS already been added, and it keeps being added in a degree that surpasses any other suspect. There are things coming to light all the time, and the case is strengthened all the time.
Why would I let a poster who cannot keep up with the developments have any impact on that?

Correct - I wouldnīt.

Insight. Information. A less quarellsome attitude. Logic. Sense. These are all matters that are decidedly hart to wrap up. It nevertheless wraps up what I think you should be asking Father Christmas for.

"Father", by the way - why not have a Mother Christmas? Misoginy!

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: No, he was treated for a number of decades at Broadmoor.

Would it be fair to say that this issue has never been definitively decided, Jon? That the judge didnīt accept it? And that it has been debated ever since? I think so.


Broad daylight on Wimbledon Common - not risk taking !!!!!
Yes, a flat, ring any bells ;-) Read what he did to the poor woman.

But I didnīt say that it didnīt involve risk, did I? What I said was that it involved LESS risktaking than the Ripper deeds. Which is probably coincidental since a paranoid schizophrenic will normally not be opposed to risktaking. He will also normally get caught early when embarking on a killing spree.

Sutcliffe and Napper did well to remain at liberty then

Sutcliffe is out, as far as Iīm concerned - I donīt buy his parnoid schizophrenia at all. And yes, Napper "did well" - which is an exception to the rule. A paranoid schizophrenic Ripper remains a fringe possibility only, and an unlikely one at that.

C`mon Christer, facts !?!?

Yes, facts. It IS a fact that the victim still bled, and it IS a fact that Lechmere and Mizen disagreed. Which was what I said. Are you actually denying this? To be fair, these are ASCERTAINED facts, whereas it is NOT an ascertained fact that he really wanted to help Nichols!

Anyway, I just popped in to chuck some chum in the water.
You have a great Christmas, and I hope you get who you want as your new manager next season ?

I wish you the same, Jon - and thatīs a fact too. I want Pocchetini the next season too, but I can understand if he wants to move from stinking rich to stinking rich.