Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

[drstrange169]

>> ... in which case this is relevant.<<

How?

Why mention the fact that brewery was well lit elsewhere when it is not relevant to the lighting in Bath Street?
It confuses the reader into thinking the brewery lights lit Bath St. when it didn't. THAT is relevant.

That's what you did with Steve, telling about the facade lighting, when he asked you about the Bath St lighting.

[John Wheat]

The piece of evidence that matters,is that of Cross,under oath, claiming he found a body.
The lack of evidence against Cross being observed killing Nichols,or being in her company while she was alive,is the strongest evidence he is innocent of her killing.

Absolutely Harry

And no amount of Bullshit by Lechmere advocates will change any of that.

[harry]

The piece of evidence that matters,is that of Cross,under oath, claiming he found a body.
The lack of evidence against Cross being observed killing Nichols,or being in her company while she was alive,is the strongest evidence he is innocent of her killing.

[Fisherman]

>>I am going to say that this tells us that you cannot point to a single piece of genuine evidence that I left out in my book.<<

Old habits die hard. you are back to your old trick of re-wording what I wrote instead of addressing what was actually written.

Here's what I wrote,

"Steve's book presents all the evidence and whist he draws conclusions the reader has the ability to choice because all the evidence pro and con is there. Your book, in common with 90% of suspects books, naturally, because that's what you genuinely believe, presents evidence biased in favour of Lechmere being guilty and avoids evidence that suggests his innocence."

You've ignored the bulk of what I wrote and alter my last three words, "suggests his innocence" to "genuine innocence" not exactly a subtle avoidance on your part.

Happy to go through the book and point out instances like this where you "present evidence biased in favour of Lechmere being guilty and avoid evidence that suggests his innocence".

My question still stands, regardless of whether you like it or not: can you produce a single piece of genuine evidence for the carmans guilt? It is a relevant question since you wrote that I ommitted to mention such evidence. You see, once you make that claim, you lead on that this kind of evidence exists. So let’ s hear it once and for all: does it? Examples, please. Not ”alternative innocent explanatios though”, like ”Maybe he was In Scotland”.

You really, REALLY don’ t want to answer that one, do you?

And we all understand why that is.

[Fisherman]

>>You may have expeessed the same view independently, but you are certainly not the only one who has expressed it. So now that this has been established, letīs leave the lights for the simple reason that they cannot be proven to have made any difference regardless of their position.<<


Page 64 of your book,

"He passed outside a well-lit brewery in Bath Street."

If it isn't important as you've just claimed, why do you keep harping on it? And since you chose to wrote that in a your book, where is your evidence that it is true?

There was a brewery in Bath Street, and it was well lit. It may be that Lechmere was 40 yards or less ahead of Paul at that stage, in which case this is relevant. It is that easy.

[drstrange169]

>>I would like you to respond to my post 97<<

Already did.

[drstrange169]

>>You may have expeessed the same view independently, but you are certainly not the only one who has expressed it. So now that this has been established, letīs leave the lights for the simple reason that they cannot be proven to have made any difference regardless of their position.<<


Page 64 of your book,

"He passed outside a well-lit brewery in Bath Street."

If it isn't important as you've just claimed, why do you keep harping on it? And since you chose to wrote that in a your book, where is your evidence that it is true?

[drstrange169]

>>I am going to say that this tells us that you cannot point to a single piece of genuine evidence that I left out in my book.<<

Old habits die hard. you are back to your old trick of re-wording what I wrote instead of addressing what was actually written.

Here's what I wrote,

"Steve's book presents all the evidence and whist he draws conclusions the reader has the ability to choice because all the evidence pro and con is there. Your book, in common with 90% of suspects books, naturally, because that's what you genuinely believe, presents evidence biased in favour of Lechmere being guilty and avoids evidence that suggests his innocence."

You've ignored the bulk of what I wrote and alter my last three words, "suggests his innocence" to "genuine innocence" not exactly a subtle avoidance on your part.

Happy to go through the book and point out instances like this where you "present evidence biased in favour of Lechmere being guilty and avoid evidence that suggests his innocence".

[Fisherman]

I would like you to respond to my post 97, so we may get that particular conundrum out of the world. If you donīt respond, I am going to take it as a "no" from your side on the question whether there is any genuine evidence pointing to innocence on Lechmereīs behalf.

[Fisherman]

>>It may be that it was just rotten luck on his behalf that ... he didnīt notice him on the northern pavement, although he would have had the lamp outside Schneiders Cap factory between himself and Lechmere for a long time ... <<

Are you really saying the Schneiders Cap factory light was between Lechmere and Paul?

Closed cased then!

Lechmere would have been halfway down Bucks Row when Paul saw if that was the case :-0

It is a mistake on my behalf, as I have pointed out on many occasions, the light would be behind Lechmere from Pauls vantage point. And therefore, it would make him easily visible to Paul.

[Fisherman]

PS
Wasn't you who wrote,

"It may be that it was just rotten luck on his behalf that Paul did not see Lechmere up at the Bath Street brewery, that was well lit"

in post #29, or was that me posting as Fisherman perhaps???

I do not see why you posted this, but with any luck - or misfortune - you may enlighten me, perhaps? Then again, if it is just another one of your irrelevant posts, just leave it, will you?

[Fisherman]

>>Actually, it was me, not you, who said it makes no difference<<

Really? I didn't realise you were posting as drstrange169 in post #31 when I (or apparently you wrote it) wrote,

"I see no evidence to support that, as the lights were directed into the brewery not away from it, but it's irrelevant anyway ..."


>>Any research aboout the position of the wall and lights, you shall have to undertake yourself, since I consider it a waste of time no matter where they were.<<

Thanks I have. I've seen the 1884 lights on the facade and we can completely dismiss them having any relevance to Bath Street.

You may have expeessed the same view independently, but you are certainly not the only one who has expressed it. So now that this has been established, letīs leave the lights for the simple reason that they cannot be proven to have made any difference regardless of their position.

[drstrange169]

>>It may be that it was just rotten luck on his behalf that ... he didnīt notice him on the northern pavement, although he would have had the lamp outside Schneiders Cap factory between himself and Lechmere for a long time ... <<

Are you really saying the Schneiders Cap factory light was between Lechmere and Paul?

Closed cased then!

Lechmere would have been halfway down Bucks Row when Paul saw if that was the case :-0

[drstrange169]

PS
Wasn't you who wrote,

"It may be that it was just rotten luck on his behalf that Paul did not see Lechmere up at the Bath Street brewery, that was well lit"

in post #29, or was that me posting as Fisherman perhaps???

[drstrange169]

>>Actually, it was me, not you, who said it makes no difference<<

Really? I didn't realise you were posting as drstrange169 in post #31 when I (or apparently you wrote it) wrote,

"I see no evidence to support that, as the lights were directed into the brewery not away from it, but it's irrelevant anyway ..."


>>Any research aboout the position of the wall and lights, you shall have to undertake yourself, since I consider it a waste of time no matter where they were.<<

Thanks I have. I've seen the 1884 lights on the facade and we can completely dismiss them having any relevance to Bath Street.