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

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry to necro this thread, but those Danish girls who just got butchered in Morocco by muslims, keep having their deaths reported as "neck wounds caused by knives" when they actually had their heads chopped off.

Of course, the inaccurate misrepresentation of the facts here might be entirely a political matter.

Inaccuracy and/or vagueness in early reports is quite a different matter. Now that it's been revealed that they were beheaded, nobody in their right minds would water down the facts to mere "neck wounds" again. I note with interest that nobody thought of describing them as "throat wounds", however. That would be be not only inaccurate, but euphemistic in the extreme.

[Fisherman]

The accurate categorisation of the wounds is completely necessary.

Indeed! It should be as accurate and full as possible, NOT missing out on the very real possibility of how the victims could all have been subjected to the exact same type of cuts to the soft tissues.

[Sam Flynn]

Inaccuracy and/or vagueness in early reports is quite a different matter. Now that it's been revealed that they were beheaded...

Latest reports seem to be saying that, although both girls were horrifically killed, only one was beheaded. It doesn't diminish the tragedy in any way, of course, but it does illustrate how having more accurate detail allows one to distinguish between one type of wound and another. I don't propose to discuss this case further, out of respect to the girls, their families and friends; there are other Cross threads where you can discuss terminology in general, if you like, without capitalising on the awful events in Morocco.

As to this thread, let's get back to "If you live in Bethnal Green, you won't kill in Whitechapel?", please.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

A question - when you said "C´mon , Christer - facts?", what was it you thought you had seen:

1. Me saying that the blood proved that Lechmere was the killer and that the disagreement between Lechmere and Mizen meant that the carman must have lied.
or
2. Me saying that Nichols was still bleeding as Lechmere was with her and that Lechmere and Mizen disagreed.

Neither, it was in response to this: Saying that is denying the wealth of facts that is connected to the case.

IMHO the facts you list are not really facts. You are taking a fact, such as Lechmere used the name Cross (which is a fact) as some sort of subteruge, or indicator of his guilt, (this is not a fact).

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer


Neither, it was in response to this: Saying that is denying the wealth of facts that is connected to the case.

IMHO the facts you list are not really facts. You are taking a fact, such as Lechmere used the name Cross (which is a fact) as some sort of subteruge, or indicator of his guilt, (this is not a fact).

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. And then you VERY clearly returned with the question "C´mon, Christer - facts?" No other facts were mentioned than the two I listed.

Can we at least agree that it is totally wrong to say that him "helping" Nichols is the only fact of the case? That there are plenty more facts, like the ones I listed? If you are willing to take it a step further, we may perhaps even agree that the facts I pointed to are ABSOLUTE facts, whereas it is not a fact at all that there was any real will on Lechmere´s behalf to help out. But I realize that may be taking it a step too far...

If I may, I would also like to say that I have NEVER said that it is a fact that using the name Cross points to guilt. I have said that it is a POSSIBLE indicator of guilt.

Fair´s fair, Jon.

[Fisherman]

Latest reports seem to be saying that, although both girls were horrifically killed, only one was beheaded. It doesn't diminish the tragedy in any way, of course, but it does illustrate how having more accurate detail allows one to distinguish between one type of wound and another. I don't propose to discuss this case further, out of respect to the girls, their families and friends; there are other Cross threads where you can discuss terminology in general, if you like, without capitalising on the awful events in Morocco.

As to this thread, let's get back to "If you live in Bethnal Green, you won't kill in Whitechapel?", please.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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