Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

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

  • #31
    I think the whole premise Herlock suggests is wrong. Robert Paul was late for work and hurried along down Bucks Row. He would have moved at a pace that was far faster than the beat move of a PC, who walked quite slowly.

    It would have been easy enough for Lechmere to conclude that whoever the approaching person was, it was not a PC.

    Comment


    • #32
      Amazing! Herlock makes a post of 1,133 words and Fisherman responds with only 64. Have I woken up in a parallel Universe?
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • #33
        That’s what certainty does for you Gareth
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

        “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

        Comment


        • #34
          although I agree most criminals in the situation would take off, I can see being caught in the act someone trying to bluff it out. Ive seen it-literally experienced it.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • #35
            If Lechmere heard footsteps approaching from around 40 yards away and he had immediately stood up and walked away there would still have been the few seconds for person B to arrive at the scene.

            It was dark and the body was on the other side of the street.

            Person B might not have noticed it if he was marching, head down, to work.

            Person B might have seen it but didn’t recognise it as a body.

            Person B might have seen it as a drunk sleeping rough.

            Person B might have thought ‘that might be someone injured, sick or even dead’ but still walked past to get to work.

            And so, if person B decided to investigate this would still have taken valuable seconds that add up. And so by the time person B has seen the body, gone over to investigate, derealised that something was seriously wrong and decided to take actio, I’d say conservatively, from the time Lechmere had decided to walk he’d have had at least a minute. Ample time to be out of sight. As i said in my earlier post do we think it likely that person B would have then given chase (even though he could in no way be certain that the footsteps that he’d heard moving away belonged to the killer?)

            In direct response to Fish’s pronouncement I’d suggest that, as the killer would have been on heightened alert to danger he might even have panicked that quicker footsteps might have been a policeman who had seen him and thought him suspicious. Yes with the benefit of hindsight that doesn’t add up when considering how dark it was but the killer didn’t have that luxury. Footsteps coming toward him were likely to induce an element of panic.

            It borders on staggering if it can be suggested that staying put carrying a bloody knife and then to call someone over to show them his handiwork knowing full well that there was a very high likelihood that the police would have become involved would have been a better bet that getting away.

            Rob brought up the point that he could have used the knife on a policeman as an act of self-preservation. It’s something that I’ve considered before and my own conclusion is that if Lechmere was guilty why didn’t he, as an act of self-preservation, kill Paul? Another option refused in favour of taking by far the riskiest one.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              Amazing! Herlock makes a post of 1,133 words and Fisherman responds with only 64. Have I woken up in a parallel Universe?
              Amazing! I wite a short post and Gareth makes fun of it. Have I woken up in that same sodded universe again?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                If Lechmere heard footsteps approaching from around 40 yards away and he had immediately stood up and walked away there would still have been the few seconds for person B to arrive at the scene.

                It was dark and the body was on the other side of the street.

                Person B might not have noticed it if he was marching, head down, to work.

                Person B might have seen it but didn’t recognise it as a body.

                Person B might have seen it as a drunk sleeping rough.

                Person B might have thought ‘that might be someone injured, sick or even dead’ but still walked past to get to work.

                And so, if person B decided to investigate this would still have taken valuable seconds that add up. And so by the time person B has seen the body, gone over to investigate, derealised that something was seriously wrong and decided to take actio, I’d say conservatively, from the time Lechmere had decided to walk he’d have had at least a minute. Ample time to be out of sight. As i said in my earlier post do we think it likely that person B would have then given chase (even though he could in no way be certain that the footsteps that he’d heard moving away belonged to the killer?)

                In direct response to Fish’s pronouncement I’d suggest that, as the killer would have been on heightened alert to danger he might even have panicked that quicker footsteps might have been a policeman who had seen him and thought him suspicious. Yes with the benefit of hindsight that doesn’t add up when considering how dark it was but the killer didn’t have that luxury. Footsteps coming toward him were likely to induce an element of panic.

                It borders on staggering if it can be suggested that staying put carrying a bloody knife and then to call someone over to show them his handiwork knowing full well that there was a very high likelihood that the police would have become involved would have been a better bet that getting away.

                Rob brought up the point that he could have used the knife on a policeman as an act of self-preservation. It’s something that I’ve considered before and my own conclusion is that if Lechmere was guilty why didn’t he, as an act of self-preservation, kill Paul? Another option refused in favour of taking by far the riskiest one.
                This is older ground than Methusalem. Nothing has changed.

                You say "he would have panicked and run", and I - once again - explain to you that psychopaths (and around 90 per cent of the serial killers are psychopaths) CAN NOT panick. It is physically impossible.

                I´m sure you would have run your pants off - most people would. But let´s not mistake our own reactions for those of a psychopath.

                Next!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  Amazing! I wite a short post and Gareth makes fun of it. Have I woken up in that same sodded universe again?
                  Sense of humour bypass or what? Glad to see your sarcasm is still working, though.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    Sense of humour bypass or what? Glad to see your sarcasm is still working, though.
                    Thanks. Yes, you guys do bring out the best in me.

                    By the way, how is it that you don´t congratulate yourself on YOUR sarcasm? After all, you were the one who began by writing about how otherwordly you thought it when I wrote a short post in response to a long one.

                    Or is it humour when you do it, and sarcasm when I do...?
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 08-11-2018, 08:30 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      Sense of humour bypass or what? Glad to see your sarcasm is still working, though.
                      Nothing changes Gareth. It’s called multi-thread arrogance
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        Nothing changes Gareth. It’s called multi-thread arrogance
                        Yes, it´s a shame how I always instigate all the bad blood, whereas you guys are keeping a lighthearted, humorous tone.

                        And you keep talking about me, instead of about the case, so that does not change either. Shall I send you that signed portrait?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          This is older ground than Methusalem. Nothing has changed.

                          You say "he would have panicked and run", and I - once again - explain to you that psychopaths (and around 90 per cent of the serial killers are psychopaths) CAN NOT panick. It is physically impossible.

                          I´m sure you would have run your pants off - most people would. But let´s not mistake our own reactions for those of a psychopath.

                          Next!
                          Let’s just note the ‘next’ shall we? For future reference.

                          This is old ground you are correct. But as you are going over the same old ground on other threads I didn’t think that it would bother you.

                          Can serial killers reason? Can they make decisions based on criteria that benefit themselves? Are 90% of serial killers idiots?
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            Let’s just note the ‘next’ shall we? For future reference.

                            This is old ground you are correct. But as you are going over the same old ground on other threads I didn’t think that it would bother you.

                            Can serial killers reason? Can they make decisions based on criteria that benefit themselves? Are 90% of serial killers idiots?
                            Yes, they can reason. That, instead of panicking, is what I am suggesting Lechmere did, if guilty.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              Yes, they can reason. That, instead of panicking, is what I am suggesting Lechmere did, if guilty.
                              Then if guilty Lechmere reasoned unbelievably poorly. Almost suicidally so. How can the simple decision to flee the scene, in the dark through the mostly deserted streets, get outweighed by the decision to remain and become involved with the police whilst all the time having a bloody knife in your jacket pocket and whilst having to admit to have been alone with the body? This isn’t ‘brazening it out’ it’s egregious stupidity. The killer remained at large which tends to hint at some level of self-preservation but he exhibited exactly the opposite of that in Buck’s Row.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                Then if guilty Lechmere reasoned unbelievably poorly. Almost suicidally so. How can the simple decision to flee the scene, in the dark through the mostly deserted streets, get outweighed by the decision to remain and become involved with the police whilst all the time having a bloody knife in your jacket pocket and whilst having to admit to have been alone with the body? This isn’t ‘brazening it out’ it’s egregious stupidity. The killer remained at large which tends to hint at some level of self-preservation but he exhibited exactly the opposite of that in Buck’s Row.
                                We have been over this before, and you know my answer - far from reasoning poorly, it seems to me that Lechmere reasoned rationally and cooly.

                                I din´t see the relevance of bringing it up again, therefore. You have made your point, and I have made mine. That should suffice.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X