Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[David Orsam]

I don't even want to quote it but Pierre's post to Fisherman contains a disgraceful sentence that should never have been posted and should be immediately retracted.

[Columbo]

You forgot to weigh in how Durward Street sloped differently depending on how far out in it you were.
And me oh my, are some people far out!

Yes thanks for the reminder! did you check the level of the pavement? sometimes cracks and such can really throw off your stride by a few seconds.

Good Grief, are we ever gonna get to the other victims?

Columbo

[Columbo]

I don't even want to quote it but Pierre's post to Fisherman contains a disgraceful sentence that should never have been posted and should be immediately retracted.

I hope he does. I know there are a few childish remarks that I would like to take back. My sincerest apologies to everyone for them.

Columbo

[John G]

Weigh in a slope?

What is the substantial significance of the effect of a slope on your "history" - when you have not managed to show us one single small scrap of data in any source for Lechmere having been at any of the other murder sites?

I appreciate that you are hard working, but it is garbage in - garbage out in the efforts of Sisyphus.

I am beginning to think that your debating here is some sort of a cry for help.

If you are so convinced - are you? - why do you need the opinions of others?


You will remain stuck in Buckīs Row for the rest of your life.

Kind regards, Pierre

I think I detect an incredible irony about paragraphs four and five of this post-"I am beginning...; "if you are so..." i.e. considering who the poster is! Freudians would probably refer to the unconscious mind at this juncture.

[Errata]

I don't even want to quote it but Pierre's post to Fisherman contains a disgraceful sentence that should never have been posted and should be immediately retracted.

If for no other reason than the level of projection in that one sentence is so mindbogglingly high that most people would recognize such a statement as exhibit A on an intake form.

[John G]

If for no other reason than the level of projection in that one sentence is so mindbogglingly high that most people would recognize such a statement as exhibit A on an intake form.

Perhaps I should start to take Freudian psychology more seriously!

[Patrick S]

Yes thanks for the reminder! did you check the level of the pavement? sometimes cracks and such can really throw off your stride by a few seconds.

Good Grief, are we ever gonna get to the other victims?

Columbo

You've posted your frustration that the other victims haven't been discussed. There are many, many threads detailing every aspect of every victim, every witness, every "suspect". You mustn't feel compelled to spectate if your uninterested. Start a thread. Ask a question or make a statement relating to ANY victim. If it's interesting, a lively discussion will follow. Comments go where the collective posters interests lie. Right now, this is interesting to we who are posting on this thread.

Of course, if you would like to READ about any of the victims, I'd suggest clicking on the link to the left, which reads "VICTIMS".

[Columbo]

Soo anyway,
In the discussion of paths, has anyone ever researched specific routes based on Fisherman's research for stride and eddowes?

Columbo

[Patrick S]

Soo anyway,
In the discussion of paths, has anyone ever researched specific routes based on Fisherman's research for stride and eddowes?

Columbo

Those killings were not along his route to work. There is another theory that covers that, though.

[GUT]

Wow. Just Wow.

Typical I'm afraid.

[Pierre]

Those killings were not along his route to work. There is another theory that covers that, though.

It is called "ad hoc".

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Well Fisherman there were two categories of question. Some you responded to but didn't answer yes or no as requested, some you have totally ignored and not responded to at all.

For those in the first category you could have answered them yes or no and then provided whatever qualification you wanted. I sought a yes or no answer for clarity because otherwise it provides the opportunity to ramble on without really answering them (as, I would argue, you did).

The questions I asked were simple questions perfectly capable of yes or no answers and were not of the type "Was Lechmere JTR?"

If you had Lechmere in the witness box on trial today you would presumably want to ask him: "Did you say at the inquest that you left your house at 3.30?"

That kind of question demands a yes or no answer. You don't want him rambling on and he wouldn't be allowed to. The judge would force him to answer directly.

As for those in the second category, why haven't you answered these?

I wasn't being unfair to you and I can still only conclude that you stopped responding because you thought the questions were too difficult to answer. If that's not true please go ahead and answer them.

I have answered a number of your questions - but you have not accepted my answers. When that happens, I am not going to oblige any whim of yours, David.

You got completely honest answers from me, and you rewarded it by claiming that I had not given any answers. When I said that there was a difference between things that are X and things that seem to be X, you - exotically - said that it was the same thing to you, or something to that effect.

Such a thing makes you seem uninformed and unfit to conduct a serious discussion. Then again, we all know that you are not.

So maybe there is a difference, huh?

Play nice. Let people express their views the way the feel is correct for them. Donīt imply that they cannot answer your questions when you have no idea about it.

I could live with such a discussion. As it stands, you are making a fool of yourself, which is fine by me. It should be less fine by yourself, though.

[David Orsam]

I have answered a number of your questions - but you have not accepted my answers.

That's not even true Fisherman. Even though I wanted to know whether you agreed or disagreed with the TV documentary voiceover, I ultimately 'accepted' your answer that you wanted to amend the wording of the TV documentary from "there is a major gap" to "it seems there is a major gap". On that basis, I asked you further questions (see #644) but you did not reply to those questions at all, in any way.

If you are saying that you did reply to those questions please let me know in which post you did so.

[Errata]

Perhaps I should start to take Freudian psychology more seriously!

The guy was on point a few times. Less so the rest of his career.

[Harry D]

If you want an example of a proper 'witness/murderer' look no further than Henry H. Newell Jr. In 1975, he raped and murdered 14 year-old Christine Mullins in a wooded area behind a shopping mall in Columbo, Ohio. After committing the grisly deed, he returned home and took his family out for a walk to deliberately 'find' the body and give himself an excuse for tampering with evidence, as well as provide false testimony that he witnessed another man fleeing the crime scene. Newell later testified against a mentally handicapped man who had been picked up by the police but Newell's testimony didn't stand up to scrutiny and the charges were acquitted.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/11/06/Cold-case-murder-closed.html

Henry Newell got away with the murder, he died of cancer in 2013, but he was considered a suspect at the time and recent revelations from Newell's relatives have shown that he confessed to the crime.

Now where does Lechmere figure into all of this? Well, for one, Lechmere wasn't anywhere he shouldn't have been at that time. We can argue the toss about precise timings but he found the body on his usual route to work. He wasn't out for an early morning stroll that just happened to "coincide" with a bloody murder scene. Furthermore, what exactly did Lechmere do to deflect attention away from himself? If he wanted to, he could've said that he witnessed someone else walking ahead of him up Buck's Row, or that he heard footsteps in the distance, anything. Lechmere neglects to do anything of the sort. He gives his stepfather's surname but yields other personal details and voluntarily attends the inquest. How exactly is any of this behaviour suspicious and how is any of it designed to cover up his alleged guilt?