Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere The Psychopath

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Cheers Jon.

    Initially I just wasn't certain that the all day crowds were a fact. I am now so it's a likely explaination of how they found Paul. It shows that he wasn't exactly a 'shrinking violet,' though as no one would have known him. He put himself forward when he could have passed by.
    Thanks Herlock
    I have read quite a few newspaper accounts of excited crowds in Bucks Row but only had time to find this one, which still confirms the fact.

    I think Paul may have received a pint or two for his story from the reporter. Maybe, relocating to a nearby pub to tell his story. Can`t prove it, but this certainly happened, which is why there are so may press reports later in the series of witnesses who apparently knew the victims well.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
      post #1505

      "Were the abdominal wounds enough to kill? Probably, but in a timescale that would be longer than the neck"

      That is in line with what I posted in #1749.

      What Paul actually said was that potentially they could kill.

      "However he doubted that the Aorta and Vena Cava would have been cut because of the depth of wound needed.
      The other major vessels would in his opinion not kill fast enough to fit the time frame.

      Basically he considers death by the abdominal wounds more unlikely than the neck."


      How does that indicate an inability to read?


      steve
      In case anyone is confused I misread Fisherman's post, it happens.
      I am big enough to admit my mistakes, as always. Hopefully before others point them out to me.

      For such I apologize.

      So a better last line would have been:

      "that certainly does indicate an ability to read and comprehend."

      Steve

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
        I know your frustration, John. Simply become a happy warrior and realize that you're not working to change Christer's mind, but to give others information by presenting your argument and allowing them to decide for themselves. Trusting, for course, they'll make the obvious, more reasonable choice.
        Thanks for your wise words, Patrick. And I'm sure I'll very much enjoy being a happy warrior! I'm also certain that I'll never change Christer's mind, because he's gone too far down the road with his passionate commitment to the Lechmere suspect cause. Unfortunately, as with anyone else who's totally committed to a single suspect, in those circumstances objectivity goes totally out of the window.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          You may need to read Pauls answer again as you got that wrong.

          And you may need to read what made me very displeased with Steve before you comment on it. When he apologizes for having misrepresented what I said, I will apologize to him for becoming pissed by it. I really need to learn to let people piss all over me without getting frustrated about it.

          What do YOUR posts say about YOU, John? Clever? Knowledgeable? Level-headed? Uninflammatory? Given to repeatedly imply that fellow posters are in the habit of drinking when you disagree with what they say? A keen disciple of the Marriott/Biggs team?

          You tell me.
          We I'm certainly not a huge fan of Trevor Marriott, or his suspect for that matter. But yes, I would acknowledge that on occasion I've been as guilty as anyone in using inflammatory language, although overwhelmingly in response to similar language used against me, and even of submitting posts which lack objectivity. Although, that said there's nothing wrong with being passionate about the subject. And yes, I'll acknowledge that your an experienced and knowledgeable poster, and some of your posts are undoubtedly of the highest quality.

          That said, I change my mind all the time on the issues, even in respect of arguments I've previously passionately held, such as Stride and Kelly being definite Ripper victims. The problem, however, is that once you commit yourself totally to a particular suspect you effectively box yourself in, even to the point where you end up defending the almost indefensible.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            As for the angle "Now that the Lechmere theory has crumbled", it is too stupid to become irritated by.

            It is the axis around which much of Ripperology has revolved for a good many years now. And it is as undamaged as ever.

            Sorry, guys. I won´t even say "nice try", since any such try is more of a dumb one.
            The axis of Ripperology is Fisherman and his alt-Greek Chorus who come here every day to post about this?

            How can the rest of us ever thank you guys enough.

            Paddy

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
              Thanks Herlock
              I have read quite a few newspaper accounts of excited crowds in Bucks Row but only had time to find this one, which still confirms the fact.

              I think Paul may have received a pint or two for his story from the reporter. Maybe, relocating to a nearby pub to tell his story. Can`t prove it, but this certainly happened, which is why there are so may press reports later in the series of witnesses who apparently knew the victims well.
              Hi Jon

              It's hard to guess why Paul's story in Lloyds differs so significantly from his subsequent version of events?

              Regards
              Herlock
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                Circumstantial evidence can in deed cause a conviction, however that is for a jury to decide, not the person presenting the case for the prosecution.

                It is not factual by definition as it cannot be directly tied to the accused, it is presumed.

                The argument often presented is that you reach a point of so much circumstantial evidence that it weights against the accused, actually if the said evidence is continually weak that is not the case.

                Again this reliance on Experts is so touching, and legal opinions when looking at the same evidence vary greatly depending on the angle the expert is coming from. its a very grey area in very many ways.

                The reply is not convincing.


                steve
                To YOU it is not convincing.

                To those who know legal matters and who are aware how qualified a queens councellor and barrister is when it comes to judging the viability of a court case, I´m sure it´s a different stroy altogether. They will realize that Scobie knew what he was talking about.

                But I can see why it is a very hard pill to swallow for you, I really can.

                Why you say that circumstantial evidence can be more or less damning, I don´t know - I would have thought that everybody out here would be able to spell that out for themselves. This is why Scobie is udeful - he tells us that the amount of circumstantial evidence attaching to Lechmere is enough to form a prima faciae case. So that calls for either trying to denigrate Scobie (hard) or to try and lead on that he was misinformed, lied to or underinformed (much easier).

                It was always going to be very predictable. But you know what, Steve? It´s "not convincing".
                Last edited by Fisherman; 07-14-2017, 02:10 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by John G View Post
                  Thanks for your wise words, Patrick. And I'm sure I'll very much enjoy being a happy warrior! I'm also certain that I'll never change Christer's mind, because he's gone too far down the road with his passionate commitment to the Lechmere suspect cause. Unfortunately, as with anyone else who's totally committed to a single suspect, in those circumstances objectivity goes totally out of the window.
                  One can also choose the position of standing on the ground, looking at a tree, seeing a stem, branches and leaves, but saying:

                  "This is not a tree".

                  One may feel like an idiot, but who cares?

                  Is it a tree?

                  That can be a good position.

                  Or is it the position of an idiot?

                  Pierre

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                    post #1505

                    "Were the abdominal wounds enough to kill? Probably, but in a timescale that would be longer than the neck"

                    That is in line with what I posted in #1749.

                    What Paul actually said was that potentially they could kill.

                    "However he doubted that the Aorta and Vena Cava would have been cut because of the depth of wound needed.
                    The other major vessels would in his opinion not kill fast enough to fit the time frame.

                    Basically he considers death by the abdominal wounds more unlikely than the neck."


                    How does that indicate an inability to read?


                    steve
                    Eh - my post spoke of an ABILITY to read, not an inability. I celebrated how you were able to put John G right on the matter.

                    I really don´t know how I could be any clearer.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                      John's misunderstanding of Paul's position as already been pointed out to him, but it appears you may need to read all of his posts again as well.

                      You were not misrepresented, those quotes provided were the words typed. the truth is clear for all to see.

                      The comments directed at me in post #1694 were a truly pathetic and outrageous threat and against the rules of this forum: major rules point 6.


                      steve
                      Which point says that one should not misrepresent other posters, Steve? You had a very clear post pointing out exactly where it went awry for you. Saying in retrospect that it did not is denying the obvious.

                      Comment


                      • [QUOTE=Fisherman;421880]

                        To YOU it is not convincing.

                        To those who know legal matters and who are aware how qualified a queens councellor and barrister is when it comes to judging the viability of a court case, I´m sure it´s a different stroy altogether. They will realize that Scobie knew what he was talking about.
                        Have you heard about the pilots doing sucessfull surgery on their patients?

                        Have you heard about the surgeons flying planes all over the world?

                        Have you heard about the queens councellors and barristers writing history?

                        Pierre

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                          Actually its the axis around which a small hard core of people have argued for a good many years and achieved very little.

                          steve
                          You are welcome to that interpretation. I see it very differently. And so do hundreds of people out on the net who are commenting on the theory.

                          If you close your eyes and ears, it should not bother you, though.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                            In case anyone is confused I misread Fisherman's post, it happens.
                            I am big enough to admit my mistakes, as always. Hopefully before others point them out to me.

                            For such I apologize.

                            So a better last line would have been:

                            "that certainly does indicate an ability to read and comprehend."

                            Steve
                            THERE we go!

                            As for you always being big enough to admit your mistakes, I simply disagree. I find you admit the ones you cannot possibly deny, but keep the lid tightly on a number of other matters. Plus I think that we may not be best suited ourselves to judge how big we are.

                            Or small.
                            Last edited by Fisherman; 07-14-2017, 02:39 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by John G View Post
                              Thanks for your wise words, Patrick. And I'm sure I'll very much enjoy being a happy warrior! I'm also certain that I'll never change Christer's mind, because he's gone too far down the road with his passionate commitment to the Lechmere suspect cause. Unfortunately, as with anyone else who's totally committed to a single suspect, in those circumstances objectivity goes totally out of the window.
                              If you can lead that on, you stand a fair chance of people thinking that I am a fanatic with no ability to judge matters correctly.

                              Then again, if they read what the two of us argue, you are toast, John.

                              If you find the risk worth taking, so be it.
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 07-14-2017, 02:35 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                THERE we go!

                                As for you always being big enough to admit your mistakes, I simply disagree. I fond you admit the ones you cannot possibly deny, but keep the lid tightly on a number of other matters. Plus I think that we may not be best suited ourselves to judge how big we are.

                                Or small.
                                The victims of Jack the Ripper were very small.

                                Pierre

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X