Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere - suspicious?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post

    The sarcasm about the scene depicting Lechmere crouching over the body is misplaced. The film team speculated that he was the killer, and they of course depicted him as such. However, they acknowledged that as Paul arrived, Lechmere was out in the street.
    I might have this printed out and framed.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
      Monty: Sigh.

      Christer, have you ever though that sarcastic comments such as the one above doesn't aid your cause?

      I have many times thought that it is a sad thing that the material I answer prompts me to be sarcastic. This time over, though, there was not much sarcasm involved. I predicted that I would get the type of answer you gave, and I was right.

      You started out by saing that your question was straightforward and that you would have wanted a straightforward answer. Well, you got precisely that: I listed why I think suspicions clings to Lechmere, and I added that I believed that my answer was of little use, since you would just disagree. Plus I have listed - as you WELL know, these matters before, with the exact same result.

      We both know that the reasons you give for suspicion can be, and have been, countered with good valid counters. We are now at an impasse until more factual information has been obtained.

      The "good valid counters" you speak of amount to one thing: "I disagree". That is it. Then you say that you donīt think Lechmere acted suspiciously, and I say that what he did is more or less the definition of suspicious behaviour.
      Then you go "Noooooo..."
      Then I say that Scobie agreed, and he is a VERY good judge.
      Then you stylishly lead on that Scobie was lied to and misiformed.

      "Good valid counters", my behind.
      I'm trying to be civil here Christer. Making an effort. You can either follow suit, or lose your remaining credibility. Your choice.

      Yes, good valid counters. You read correctly.

      Monty

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
        I take it you mean you were reeling from Shock? If so that is the most stupidest thing I have heard you say yet.
        Have you never seen anyone acting suspiciously? I have, many a time.

        If I put myself in Robert Paul's shoes I would be walking down a dark road on the way to work and I see a man standing in the middle of the road. Nothing at all suspicious in that. I am surprised I even had to say it.Now if Paul was in a doorway in the shadows now that would be suspicious. At that time of night in that area.


        That is your opinion which you have failed to support with any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. It is your opinion that the police did not recognise it. Yet you can't tell us why they failed to notify it. Perhaps you should ask Griffiths his opinion since you don't have one of your own?
        Of course, I was speaking of the overall implications knit to the case, and not just Pauls observation.
        And of course, you are at as much of a loss to prove that the police did NOT miss out as I am to prove that they DID miss out.

        Your problem is that you cannot even ask Griffiths.

        I have had quite enough of your antagonistic twaddle for now, Rob. Itīs not worth spending any more time on. Grow up, and I may change my mind.
        "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
          It is a wholly ascertained fact that Pizer was arrested and taken in for interrogation even though there was on no evidence against him whatsoever. The police in 1888 made a subjective decision to regard him with suspicion.
          Usually when I make a mistake it's because I post without refreshing my memory. also the information in this case is so vast spread over 100s of books and internet posts from Facebook, casebook and here the forums. That it is impossible to know everything or keep up to date on all the latest news. So I normally cut people a little slack. However since Jedward want to get personal (I'm fine with that) I just had to point out this incredibly stupid post from him. Incredibly stupid as only yesterday he posted a report from Swanson saying why he was arrested:

          ‘Another man named John Piser, better known as “Leather Apron” became suspected on account of his alleged levying blackmail on prostitutes and assaulting them if they did not comply with his requests, as detailed by women in the common lodging houses. On 10th Sept. he was found & his statement taken to the effect that on 31st Augst. He had slept at a common lodging ho. At Holloway Road which was fully corroborated and the date fixed by the proprietor who knows Piser. On 8th Sept. he stayed at 22 Mulberry St. in this he was corroborated by several persons, for the police ascertained that in consequence of suspicions published about him by the press he as in reality afraid to come out.’

          In that report if you read it properly is strong suspicion against Pizer and that is why he was arrested. And you even said:

          So it is conclusive and uncontestable that Pizer was arrested for being under suspicion of murder.
          He was cleared after questioning – he was under interrogation - and corroboration was sought for his account of his movements.


          I am finding with you Edward that I am finding, time and again, that scratch a little deeper and the knowledge is thread bare.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
            Of course, I was speaking of the overall implications knit to the case, and not just Pauls observation.
            And of course, you are at as much of a loss to prove that the police did NOT miss out as I am to prove that they DID miss out.

            Your problem is that you cannot even ask Griffiths.

            I have had quite enough of your antagonistic twaddle for now, Rob. Itīs not worth spending any more time on. Grow up, and I may change my mind.
            Good, fuck off.

            p.s. before you do that, what is knit?

            Comment


            • Monty: I'm trying to be civil here Christer. Making an effort. You can either follow suit, or lose your remaining credibility. Your choice.

              Itīs not for you to judge my credibility, simple as that. You have had the answer you asked for, so I fail to see what your problem is.

              Yes, good valid counters. You read correctly.

              Letīs just keep in mind that they amount to nothing else than a simple "I disagree, I donīt think he acted suspiciously. And as I said, it is more than easy to denounce suspicion. All it takes is a keyboard and knowledge of the phrase "I disagree".

              My own take is that anybody who says that there is no suspicion at all clinging to Lechmere is wrong. You may have read Dustys post where he goes on and on about how one thing after the other should have had the police looking into Lechmere. Then, when you ask him if these things are not the same as fair grounds for suspicion, he miraculously goes "No".
              He will not call these things suspicious, because he himself knits the term to guilt! So to his mind, Lechmere did nothing at all suspicious - not in the least! - but he MUST be checked out on account of what he did nevertheless.
              Blinkered, anyone? A fear of touching, anyone?

              You seem to be labouring under the exact same misapprehension.

              Being found all alone at a murder scene where the victims TOD is in accordance with the time you are there, is presenting a person in suspicious circumstances. Leaving the place before you can be searched and spoken to adds to the suspicions.

              None of these things means that the person exhibiting this behaviour must be guilty. But he MUST be cleared from the investigation before any other person can be succesfully prosecuted. And the thing he must be cleared from is the suspicions that will always cling to the circumstances under which he was found.
              Not any guilt.
              Not any sinister behavour.
              Just the extremely unlucky or extremely telling circumstances that will carry suspicion with themselves. It will be one of those things, no matter how we reason.


              You know, you could work on your own credibility by acknowledging that.

              But will you? No, because of all those good, valid "I disagreeīs"
              "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                Good, fuck off.
                The same to you, Rob. And congratulations on having another debate descending into acrimony, so that the real issues are forgotten.
                "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                Comment


                • Enough.
                  Thread closed.

                  We'll let tempers cool for a while.
                  To Join JTR Forums :
                  Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X