Why did Lechmere get involved with Paul ?

[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 would like you to respond to my post 97<<

Already did.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Kattrup]

>>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?

Relying on Fisherman's head as a source is never a good idea. In this case, he's probably recalls Evening News, 7 September 1888, stating about Buck's Row: "It has been stated that the street is a dark one, but this is altogether wrong, for it is well lighted at all hours of the night by the great lamps outside the brewery of Messrs. Mann and Crossman, in addition to the ordinary street lamps, and it seems inconceivable that such a well-lighted street would be selected for the crime."

[drstrange169]

>>It is a relevant question since you wrote that I ommitted to mention such evidence<<

Sure, quote the post where I used the phrase "genuine evidence" and you might have some credibility. Otherwise it's just one of your infamous dodges.

I can't be responsible for something you invented, that's down to you. I can only be responsible for the actual words and their meaning, that I wrote.

[drstrange169]

>> Evening News, 7 September 1888 <<

Thanks, that's the article I was referring to in Post #33, which of course was in turn, referring to the lighting in Brady Street. The Goad map shows there was an open yard in the brewery facing Brady Street so no surprise that was lit. Bath St, near Foster St, however, was full of building, no open yards. ergo no lighting, other than possible street lamps.

[Kattrup]

>> Evening News, 7 September 1888 <<

Thanks, that's the article I was referring to in Post #33, which of course was in turn, referring to the lighting in Brady Street. The Goad map shows there was an open yard in the brewery facing Brady Street so no surprise that was lit. Bath St, near Foster St, however, was full of building, no open yards. ergo no lighting, other than possible street lamps.

Yes, it's hard to keep up with all the misunderstandings and baseless claims. In this case, I think the idea is that the paper mistook Buck' Row for Bath Street. You think it refers to Brady Street, which is more likely, as the article mentions the lamps "outside" the brewery, which would indicate some sort of gateway.

The brewery was large, so being well-lit the light could imho spill into Bath Street, of course.

[caz]

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.

I'm confused, Fishikins.

Not having read your book, I was expecting you to say it is full to overflowing with 'evidence for the carmans guilt'. Yet here you are, apparently very cross with Dusty for not providing you with a 'single piece' of 'genuine' evidence for Lechmere's guilt, implying there is none in your book and you are getting desperate for examples - for the sequel perhaps?

Have I accidentally landed on a different planet?

Love,

Mrs Logic
X

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I'd prefer a book that has analysis and a conclusion to a simple regurgitation of existing known facts.

I highly recommend it, and at a fiver for the ebook in all its highly referenced and map filled glory it's well worth the investment.
It's genuinely one of the most impartial and objective study's of the events you'll find, and if you disagree with any of Steve's conclusions, then great, because he puts it all out on display, so any reader can draw their own conclusions. It's definitely not a regurgitation of known facts, that's really doing him a disservice. But it's really not a book of his conclusions, it's just a comprehensive collating of the numerous records and a very sound understanding of them, how they relate to each other and how they can be interpreted, in various ways. It's definitely not an anti Letchmere book, that's not what he sets out to prove. It's a credit to the subject, and certainly deserves respect. Read it, and decide for yourself.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

In the interest of fairness, I've also read Christers book, which I've previously recommended. It's a very different book, but is well written and makes some very interesting points. I'd say read them both, they're both of merit, and Christers book is the go to on Letchmere. Of course, equally, one can disagree with his conclusions. That's kind of the point of reading books on such matters. Hear the arguments, draw your own conclusions.

[Dickere]

I'm confused, Fishikins.

Not having read your book, I was expecting you to say it is full to overflowing with 'evidence for the carmans guilt'. Yet here you are, apparently very cross with Dusty for not providing you with aw 'single piece' of 'genuine' evidence for Lechmere's guilt, implying there is none in your book and you are getting desperate for examples - for the sequel perhaps?

Have I accidentally landed on a different planet?

Love,

Mrs Logic
X

Surely for is the wrong word here, Caz ? It should be against, presumably.