Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    >>I for one never believed that a thick book is always going to be better thatrn a less thick one.<<

    As I've told women all my life, size does not matter.

    I hope they listened?

    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.
    If there had been any evidence that genuinely suggested his innocence, I would have used it, Dusty. But there is not. What there is, is alternative innocent explanations that can always be conjured up; maybe he wanted to honour his old PC stepfather, maybe Mizen misheard Lechmere, maybe the clothing bles up over the wounds in a gust of wind, maybe the clocks were unsynchronized and so on. And yes, I have left these things out, because I would have to write a 3000 page book to cover half of the excuses provided out here for Lechmere.
    However, if there had been a genuine piece of evidence, like for example someone saying that Lechmere played cards with him or her on the night of September 8 1888, I would have printed it.

    Now, to establish what I say, I offer you the option to present any genuine piece of evidence there is that I left out that speaks of innocence on Lechmere´s behalf. It should not be one of a zxillion alternative innocent explnations, it should be agenuine piece of evidence tht stands on it´s own.

    Once we can see that there is no such thing - or once you can show us that there IS such a thing - we should be in a better position to see whether I left out important evidence in my book.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
      >>They were mounted on the facade after 1884, when a storm brought down the old facade.<<

      The article specifically says Bath Street? A facade is the front of a building, Bath Street was a brick wall at the back.

      I'd be very interested to know. As I and Steve have already pointed out, it makes no difference to the who could see who debate, I'd just be interested too know out of curiosity. Could you cite where it says the lights shone on Bath Street?
      Actually, it was me, not you, who said it makes no difference. I also said that this is the reason I will not use it as evidence that Paul must have seen Lechmere, and that is what stands. 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.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

        Thank you Steve for correcting the misleading "facts". Sadly, I think your efforts are in vain.
        As are yours. As always. Recommended reading: Any dictionary that explains the word "fact".

        Comment


        • #94
          >>I'd prefer a book that has analysis and a conclusion to a simple regurgitation of existing known facts.<<

          You just described Steve's book perfectly.

          Unparalleled detailed analysis that can't be found in ANY oer book on the subject to date. Steve has copped some criticism from certain people for drawings conclusions in the book, so it is the perfect book for you.
          dustymiller
          aka drstrange

          Comment


          • #95
            >>I´d say that it was only if Paul did not look ahead that he could have missed Lechmere visually.<<

            In Buck's Row? I'd agree.
            dustymiller
            aka drstrange

            Comment


            • #96
              >>Now, to establish what I say, I offer you the option to present any genuine piece of evidence there is that I left out that speaks of innocence on Lechmere´s behalf.<<

              I refer you to my post #79 and what I actually wrote, as opposed to your interpretation of it.
              dustymiller
              aka drstrange

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                >>Now, to establish what I say, I offer you the option to present any genuine piece of evidence there is that I left out that speaks of innocence on Lechmere´s behalf.<<

                I refer you to my post #79 and what I actually wrote, as opposed to your interpretation of it.
                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. That way, we won’ t have to wriggle around speaking of ”interpretations”, but you are instead offered a chance to produce such evidence if you think it exists. It is a simple enough matter.

                Comment


                • #98
                  >>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.
                  dustymiller
                  aka drstrange

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    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???
                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange

                    Comment


                    • >>It may be that it was just rotten luck on his behalf that ... he didn´t 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
                      dustymiller
                      aka drstrange

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                        >>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, let´s leave the lights for the simple reason that they cannot be proven to have made any difference regardless of their position.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                          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?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                            >>It may be that it was just rotten luck on his behalf that ... he didn´t 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.

                            Comment


                            • I would like you to respond to my post 97, so we may get that particular conundrum out of the world. If you don´t 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 Lechmere´s behalf.

                              Comment


                              • >>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".
                                Last edited by drstrange169; 07-08-2021, 09:28 AM.
                                dustymiller
                                aka drstrange

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X