Favorite suspect/s?

[harry]

At least Trevor Marriot will write to the boards to defend his claims.Not so the other two experts.So one cannot judge their expertise.I suppose Griffiths also believes in a Prima Facia case being established,though his guessing at certain events,doesn't bode well for a successful outcome.

[Fisherman]

What sort of plan B?

It's not the risk factor I'm talking about here.

It's the flat contradiction of the two arguments that makes no sense, Fish.

Argument A: He calls himself Cross so those who know the paths he treads and when he treads them will not realise that the man they only know as Lechmere is the Buck's Row witness, and start to become suspicious when each new murder happens along one of those paths.

Argument B: He continues to kill along those paths so he will always have an innocent reason for having been there.

They cancel each other out.

He won't need to prove that innocent reason if the police don't check it. But if they do check, nobody will be able to verify it for him anyway if they don't know him as Cross. If he ever has to admit he is Lechmere, so his employer or whoever can confirm he had an innocent reason for going that way when another murder happened, he is pretty much sunk.

So the reason for sticking to paths that people will associate with an innocent Lechmere, going about his normal business, goes out the window by calling himself Cross.

And the reason for calling himself Cross goes out the window by sticking to paths that people can only associate innocently with a man called Lechmere.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, Caz, you are perfectly correct - once he had called himself Cross, he could not use that ruse any more. And yes, Caz, you are correct - he went on killing anyway. And yes, Caz, you are correct - that meant taking a risk.

[Fisherman]

But you’ve admitted that that was the case

I would like for you to explain to me what it is you claim that I have admitted.

[Fisherman]

At least Trevor Marriot will write to the boards to defend his claims.Not so the other two experts.So one cannot judge their expertise.I suppose Griffiths also believes in a Prima Facia case being established,though his guessing at certain events,doesn't bode well for a successful outcome.

Suppose what you want, Harry - you are in bad company.

[harry]

What company is that Fisherman?

[Fisherman]

What company is that Fisherman?

It´s the company of any people who are willing to claim or imply that either Scobie or Griffiths - or both of them - were intentionally misinformed.

To me, that is the worst company possible.

Nota bene that I´m not saying that Griffiths and Scobie were not - or were - misinformed. I could never guarantee either thing since both men were in contact with other people than me.

What I am saying is another thing: that we should treat people as being truthful and honest until it can be proven that they are not.

Saying that Scobie and Griffiths were provided with misleading information or lied to, without being able to prove it, is scumbag territory as far as I´m concerned.

Slyly implying it without even having the guts to come clear about it is possibly even worse. It is the underbelly of ripperology, it is shameful and repulsive in my world, Harry.

I hope I have been very clear on this, since I will not discuss it any further with you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would like for you to explain to me what it is you claim that I have admitted.

You have agreed on here that Scobie was presented with the case for CL’s guilt and not the case for and against.

[Sam Flynn]

To question the content of the information provided to Scobie and Griffiths is not implying that they were "lied to", Fish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It´s the company of any people who are willing to claim or imply that either Scobie or Griffiths - or both of them - were intentionally misinformed.

To me, that is the worst company possible.

Nota bene that I´m not saying that Griffiths and Scobie were not - or were - misinformed. I could never guarantee either thing since both men were in contact with other people than me.

What I am saying is another thing: that we should treat people as being truthful and honest until it can be proven that they are not.

Saying that Scobie and Griffiths were provided with misleading information or lied to, without being able to prove it, is scumbag territory as far as I´m concerned.

Slyly implying it without even having the guts to come clear about it is possibly even worse. It is the underbelly of ripperology, it is shameful and repulsive in my world, Harry.

I hope I have been very clear on this, since I will not discuss it any further with you.

More victim mentality. You accused me shedding tears because you were accusing CL of being the ripper you are doing the same on the documentary makers behalf. What is being said is simply that Scobie and Griffiths both appear to have been given a one sided (prosecution) standpoint. A point which you have accepted on this thread.

[Fisherman]

You have agreed on here that Scobie was presented with the case for CL’s guilt and not the case for and against.

I really cannot "admit" anything, basically speaking. I was not there, i did not see what material he had, but I believe that it was the material that pointed to guilt on Lechmere´s behalf, since that was the matter he was to assess.

Even if I had been certain that this was the case, I would not "admit" it, I would say it or acknowledge it. The phrase "admit" leads people to beleive that there was a denial from the outset, and there never was.

It would be a simple and totally legitimate case of presenting a case against a suspect, the way such cases are always presented. So there would be no need for "admitting" things.

[Fisherman]

To question the content of the information provided to Scobie and Griffiths is not implying that they were "lied to", Fish.

No, that all hinges on the phrasing. As long as it is accepted that the two gave their views after NOT having been lied to or intentionally misled, I am fine with things. One can always offer the suggestion that if the defence were allowed to have their say, that could have influenced Griffiths and Scobie.

But I think that we both know that there have been unsavoury accusations of foul play in this matter. And I for one am not willing to let that pass until the accusations are backed up with something more than pure maliciousness and ill will.

Now I am really not interested in going over this old ground again, inflamed as it is.

[Fisherman]

More victim mentality. You accused me shedding tears because you were accusing CL of being the ripper you are doing the same on the documentary makers behalf. What is being said is simply that Scobie and Griffiths both appear to have been given a one sided (prosecution) standpoint. A point which you have accepted on this thread.

There is no victim mentality other than in your head and tiresome and repeated propaganda. I am saying that experts should not be implied to have been misled unless there is evidence to prove it. If you disagree, then say so.

As for the tears shed for Lechmere and the implications that I am being disrespectful for researching him, I stand by how it is an utterly ridiculous standpoint. These are Ripper research boards, and the first thing we should expect out here is that suspects will be presented. If you disagree with that, then say so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no victim mentality other than in your head and tiresome and repeated propaganda. I am saying that experts should not be implied to have been misled unless there is evidence to prove it. If you disagree, then say so.

As for the tears shed for Lechmere and the implications that I am being disrespectful for researching him, I stand by how it is an utterly ridiculous standpoint. These are Ripper research boards, and the first thing we should expect out here is that suspects will be presented. If you disagree with that, then say so.

This is victim mentality piled upon victim mentality. I have not used ‘propaganda’ and I have not stated or implied that either Scobie or Griffiths were misled.

My initial point was about Scobie who appeared to be basing his judgment on a dossier which was basically the case against CL. You pointed out that this was standard practice. My following, and ongoing ‘point’ would be that it’s difficult to understand how, on one hand you accept that Scobie only heard one side of the debate, whilst on the other you keep using his opinion (arrived at by reading a one-sided viewpoint) to show the ‘strength’ of the case against CL.

The point about you accusing CL being the ripper was made in response to points being made and wasn’t meant to be my suggestion that suspects shouldn’t be researched. I was merely suggesting that before we outright accuse someone of being Jack The Ripper (with a high level of confidence) we should at least ensure that that we have significant and sufficient evidence. We should not accuse lightly is another way of putting it. And yes I’m not keen on accusing people of being a serial killer on the flimsiest of pretexts.

[caz]

Fisherman
Getting a little mixed up in your thinking it seems.Prima Facia is the condition reached in a lower court in a hearing conducted by a Magistrate.It is to assess whether the evidence of guilt is sufficient to warrantt a trial.If the magistrate believes there is,the accused is sent for trial in a higher court where the evidence of guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

To reach such a decision the magistrate must consider both guilt and innocence,and generally such hearings must show an excess of guilt,which reminds me of an earlier addmission of yours.It was that the evidence of Cross,
element by element,can be shown to be equally of innocence or guilt.

There is nothing in what I have written that favours the criminal,the many cases remanded for trial proves that,but the system prevents many from being subjected to a trial built on the kind of evidence you present.

Hi Harry,

That just about wraps it up for me.

I almost typed 'warps it up' by mistake, but I expect Fish'll do that purposefully.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Actually its very clear, Baxter asked who was present when Mizen spoke to Lechmere.
Mizen answered, refering to the other carman who walked down Hanbury Street with Lechmere.

Steve

Then I would have to ask Fish why he thinks PC Mizen was either stupid, deliberately misleading, or both. Why did he think he was being asked about anyone else who was present when a conversation had taken place between him and the man who had just come from the scene of the latest murder?? Just something to say to pass the time of day?

If the other carman had walked off out of earshot, and was not present for all or part of that conversation, or had an ear trumpet that he wasn't using, that's what Mizen should - and arguably would - have stated, to make it clear that this other man wasn't actually in on what was being said.

Love,

Caz
X