Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

The geography of the crimes has been well known and discussed for 127 years by the world and his brother. In case you have forgotten Its a geographical part of the east end of London called "Whitechapel" where a number of similar murders took place in 1888

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies but it doesn't always tell the truth !"

This may be too subtle a point to take in on your behalf, but Scobie was actually talking about the geography in combination with Lechmere´s logical work routes. And that is a combination that has been known for less than two decades.

The point is probably lost on you. And I won´t bother making it again, since throwing pearls for those who cannot understand them is not one of my favorite hobbies.

[GUT]

GUT: How about something like this

We´ll see, Gut, we´ll see!

Cross and Paul

Eh - no. Mizen said specifically that "a man" came up to him and spoke. Not two men. Did he misunderstand that too? If so, how?

"a policeman is needed down there because a woman is either injured ill drunk or dead"

That is in clear conflict with Mizen´s recollections, where he said that he was told that "YOU are wanted down there". He does not say that he was told that "a policeman is wanted down there".

Mizen misunderstands it as a policeman needs you down there.

So not only does Mizen misremember it at the inquest, thinking that he has been told "YOU are wanted down there" when in fact he was told "a policeman is wanted down there" - he also gets it wrong in Bucks Row, thinking he has been told "A policeman wants you down there" instead of "a policeman is needed down there"? Aha.

Can you see how your suggestion predisposes a large number of mishearings and misunderstandings together with an propensity to mistake two men speaking to him for just the one man doing it? Don´t you find that a bit rich?

Can you see that if he was lied to, no element needs to be added, no misunderstandings, no mishearings? And that it seems in such a case that Mizen could count to both one and two?

Thus he feels free to keep knocking up before going down as he thinks another officer is in site.

As you may realize, the exact same goes for the same idea led on falsely.

When he arrives another policeman is there, thus re I forcing his misunderstanding.

As you may realize, the exact same goes for the same idea led on falsely.

Simple straightforward the sort of mistake people make all the time, no one is out yo mislead, explains everything.

How does it explain that Mizen said that ONE man spoke to him? How does it explain that Mizen does not acknowledge that he was told that the woman could be dead?

It is a very convenient suggestion in many a way. But when the rest of the evidence points against it, the time has come to try some fresh new thinking. Along more realistic lines.

How does it explain that both Paul and Cross say they were together.

Oh they both lied.

[GUT]

Cracked it

Paul and Cross done it together.

[Fisherman]

How does it explain that both Paul and Cross say they were together.

Oh they both lied.

Ah, so you realized you are on deep water and decided to bow out.

I see.

[Trevor Marriott]

GUT: How about something like this

We´ll see, Gut, we´ll see!

Cross and Paul

Eh - no. Mizen said specifically that "a man" came up to him and spoke. Not two men. Did he misunderstand that too? If so, how?

"a policeman is needed down there because a woman is either injured ill drunk or dead"

That is in clear conflict with Mizen´s recollections, where he said that he was told that "YOU are wanted down there". He does not say that he was told that "a policeman is wanted down there".

Mizen misunderstands it as a policeman needs you down there.

So not only does Mizen misremember it at the inquest, thinking that he has been told "YOU are wanted down there" when in fact he was told "a policeman is wanted down there" - he also gets it wrong in Bucks Row, thinking he has been told "A policeman wants you down there" instead of "a policeman is needed down there"? Aha.

Can you see how your suggestion predisposes a large number of mishearings and misunderstandings together with an propensity to mistake two men speaking to him for just the one man doing it? Don´t you find that a bit rich?

Can you see that if he was lied to, no element needs to be added, no misunderstandings, no mishearings? And that it seems in such a case that Mizen could count to both one and two?

Thus he feels free to keep knocking up before going down as he thinks another officer is in site.

As you may realize, the exact same goes for the same idea led on falsely.

When he arrives another policeman is there, thus re I forcing his misunderstanding.

As you may realize, the exact same goes for the same idea led on falsely.


Simple straightforward the sort of mistake people make all the time, no one is out yo mislead, explains everything.

How does it explain that Mizen said that ONE man spoke to him? How does it explain that Mizen does not acknowledge that he was told that the woman could be dead?

It is a very convenient suggestion in many a way. But when the rest of the evidence points against it, the time has come to try some fresh new thinking. Along more realistic lines.

You keep highlighting all these so called verbal conflicts , in who said what and to whom as proof of suspicion. Some may be genuine others maybe be as a result of misquoting we simply dont know.

But what we do know is that there is no evidence either from newspaper sources or police sources that if there were any identifiable conflicts back then those conflicts were not negated, and did not cause the police to suspect Cross could have been the killer.

In what has been reported there is nothing to show that the coroner had any concerns about the evidence put before him, and none to show that those ambiguities were aired in court.

As to your other aspects of suspicion you seek to rely on one is finding the body. Well someone has to find a dead body. You argue that in this case it was a freshly killed body, and that may have been the case. But again times of death cannot be accurately established by an examination of a body at a crime scene as you have been told.

Look at who found other freshly killed bodies

Pc Watkins found Eddowes
John Davis found Chapman
Louis Diemschutz found Stride
Alfred Crow found Tabram
Pc Andrews found McKenzie
Pc Thompson found Coles

You look at that list and you say well there were three police officers surely they couldn't have been the killer.

Then you look at Diemschultz and say it couldnt have been him he was an old man going about his business

Alfred Crow, like Cross, a man this time on his way home from work.

John Davis a resident came into the yard to use the toilet

All came upon bodies, none were at locations where they were not supposed to be, which might point to any of them being perpetrators

If you add Cross to the list what can be said about him? Nothing, other than he was a man on his way to work. He was where he was supposed to be at the time he was supposed to be there. The same place and time where he would have been every other day on his way to work. So where can there be more suspicion against him than any of the others?

As to your experts I dont doubt there credentials but as had been discussed before there are question marks hanging over their heads as to what they were provided with to give those opinions.

Now you an Ed no doubt provided Blink with a plethora of information, but neither of you can categorically say what what actually given to those experts and in what form it was given, and as you know expert evidence is only evidence of an opinion and is open to be challenged.

Cross as any form of a suspect is concerned is a definite non starter

[harry]

Fisherman,
I will direct this post to you.Can you tell me what law is involved and do not answer general law. You infer that Cross is guilty in law.
Of course suspicion requires evidence.Pleased you accept that.The offence I have outlined is Perjury.You contend Cross lied under oath in a court of law.

There are four things required in an investigation
(1) A belief an offence has been commited.
(2) A belief in a persons involvement(The person becomes a person of interest)
(3) A belief in a persons guilt( A caution is given and the person becomes a suspect)
(4) The suspect is charged and brought before a court.

From then on the court takes over.

Now fisherman,you tell me which of the four count agaist Cross.
I say only the first. The murder of Nichols.

It is only confused and weird to you,because you haven't a clue to the law.
You try to bluff your way through.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: You keep highlighting all these so called verbal conflicts...

They are not "so called" conflicts. They are conflicts.

...in who said what and to whom as proof of suspicion. Some may be genuine others maybe be as a result of misquoting we simply dont know.

But what we do know is that there is no evidence either from newspaper sources or police sources that if there were any identifiable conflicts back then those conflicts were not negated, and did not cause the police to suspect Cross could have been the killer.

In what has been reported there is nothing to show that the coroner had any concerns about the evidence put before him, and none to show that those ambiguities were aired in court.

But a juror clearly saw the conflict. Then again, even if they saw no conflict and entertained no suspicion, that is in no way at all any guarantess that Lechmere did not do it. They are separate questions, and the sooner you realize that, the better.

As to your other aspects of suspicion you seek to rely on one is finding the body. Well someone has to find a dead body.

No, but most of the time, somebody does. And in some cases, the finding is in line with a possibility of the finder having been the killer, in others it is the other way around. In this case, we all know what applies.

You argue that in this case it was a freshly killed body, and that may have been the case.

No, that WAS the case.

But again times of death cannot be accurately established by an examination of a body at a crime scene as you have been told.

Which is why Lechmere is not a proven killer, but instead a suspect who dovetails with the blood evidence. There is nothing at all to clear him.

Look at who found other freshly killed bodies

Yes, let´s!

Pc Watkins found Eddowes
John Davis found Chapman
Louis Diemschutz found Stride
Alfred Crow found Tabram
Pc Andrews found McKenzie
Pc Thompson found Coles

You look at that list and you say well there were three police officers surely they couldn't have been the killer.

Don´t put words in my mouth, Trevor. I am perfectly aware that there are cop killers. But none of then were found by somebody else with a victim, so if they were the killers, they were pretty stupid to come forward and yell blue murder.

Then you look at Diemschultz and say it couldnt have been him he was an old man going about his business.

No, I would never say that he was an old man to begin with, since he was around 26 at the time. I would instead say that Mortimer heard him arrive, and so there was very little time for him to have been the killer.

Alfred Crow, like Cross, a man this time on his way home from work.

...who was not found with the victim, but who instead testified to have seen a shape on the landing. He was alone at the moment, and if he was the killer, I find it odd that he would speak up about it afterwards, putting himself at risk.

John Davis a resident came into the yard to use the toilet

...and others would have been able to verify that he had just gone down the stairs, so he would not have had the time to be the killer. Nor was he seen at the spot, so why come forward if he WAS the killer. By the way, he WAS an old man, contrary to Diemschitz.

All came upon bodies, none were at locations where they were not supposed to be, which might point to any of them being perpetrators

As I just showed you - and as I have showed before - the suggestions are not viable ones.

If you add Cross to the list what can be said about him?

That he - contrary to the ones you mentioned - had a reason to be at each and every murder spot at the relevant hours. Is that what you are looking for?

Nothing, other than he was a man on his way to work.

And that he was found alone with a freshly killed victim, that he seemingly lied to a PC to get past him, that the wounds were covered, contrary to the other cases, that Paul should have heard him, that his routes dovetailed with the killing zone, etcetera.

He was where he was supposed to be at the time he was supposed to be there.

Not even that is true, since he said he left home at 3.30. He should have been close to Bishopsgate at 3.45.

The same place and time where he would have been every other day on his way to work. So where can there be more suspicion against him than any of the others?

See the above.

As to your experts I dont doubt there credentials but as had been discussed before there are question marks hanging over their heads as to what they were provided with to give those opinions.

No there is not - Griffiths got the exact same file as I got, and Scobie got an extensive file where we can identify some of the material - relevant such - in the docu. It is just you who try to lead on that me, Edward and the film team acted fraudulently, a suggestion that puts you on level with an unwiped monkey back when it comes to clean play. You have been taken to task for it before by many posters, but you may have forgotten about that...?

Now you an Ed no doubt provided Blink with a plethora of information, but neither of you can categorically say what what actually given to those experts and in what form it was given, and as you know expert evidence is only evidence of an opinion and is open to be challenged.

Challenge away - so far it is helpful, considering how you reveal your insights. Diemschutz, the old man...

Cross as any form of a suspect is concerned is a definite non starter.

Which is probably why he is acknowledged as a suspect on the boards, and why lots of people commenting on the docu say that this is at long last the solution.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
I will direct this post to you.Can you tell me what law is involved and do not answer general law. You infer that Cross is guilty in law.

No, I don´t. I am saying that I believe that he was the killer, and that I am certain that he is the best suspect ever to have been identified.

Of course suspicion requires evidence.

No, it does not in any shape or form. It is when you want to take it from suspicion to accusation and conviction that evidence is needed. There are policemen who have suspected people on a hunch only, and there is nothing to stop anybody from doing that. Some of these men have been correct too, which is another thing, but nevertheless.
There can be all sorts of grounds for suspicion, and some of these grounds will be more useful for a conviction than others. Normally, the evidence involved is what forms grounds for the suspicion, but as I said, suspicion can come about on a hunch only. One can of course say that such a suspicion os not worth much, and legally, that is true. But practically, it is up to the fingertip feeling of the one who suspects. Sometimes, we can feel that something is wrong, but we can´t say what - we just feel it.

A suspicion is something that normally lies BEFORE any legal proceedings are taken. I think you have gotten it all very much wrong and that you need to go back and reassess what you are trying to say. Anyone can misunderstand, but everyone needs to try and better themselves when they do. Welcome back afterwards.

[Trevor Marriott]

harry: Fisherman,
I will direct this post to you.Can you tell me what law is involved and do not answer general law. You infer that Cross is guilty in law.

No, I don´t. I am saying that I believe that he was the killer, and that I am certain that he is the best suspect ever to have been identified.

Of course suspicion requires evidence.

No, it does not in any shape or form. It is when you want to take it from suspicion to accusation and conviction that evidence is needed. There are policemen who have suspected people on a hunch only, and there is nothing to stop anybody from doing that. Some of these men have been correct too, which is another thing, but nevertheless.
There can be all sorts of grounds for suspicion, and some of these grounds will be more useful for a conviction than others. Normally, the evidence involved is what forms grounds for the suspicion, but as I said, suspicion can come about on a hunch only. One can of course say that such a suspicion os not worth much, and legally, that is true. But practically, it is up to the fingertip feeling of the one who suspects. Sometimes, we can feel that something is wrong, but we can´t say what - we just feel it.

A suspicion is something that normally lies BEFORE any legal proceedings are taken. I think you have gotten it all very much wrong and that you need to go back and reassess what you are trying to say. Anyone can misunderstand, but everyone needs to try and better themselves when they do. Welcome back afterwards.

When you look at suspicion from a police perspective in 1888 and these murders. Look at all the incidents we have seen of males being arrested/detained, simply because they wore similar clothing to that described by witnesses, or were of similar description, or were found acting suspiciously.

Yet Cross was found with a body. that`s bit different to the above examples is it not. Yet despite all the verbal conflicts etc and the isue with regards his name he was never arrested. You are not suggesting that the police never ever gave it a thought are you? because if you are you need a reality check. They may not all have been the brightest sparks in the fire but I am sure they would have looked at him in detail.

Any suspicion that anyone had about Cross would have been realised into an arrest. From a police perspective once a person is in custody the police are playing on home territory, whereas speaking to a suspect at his home is in the favour of the suspect, and besides when arrested the person being arrested may believe that perhaps the police have more evidence against him than they actually have.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: When you look at suspicion from a police perspective in 1888 and these murders. Look at all the incidents we have seen of males being arrested/detained, simply because they wore similar clothing to that described by witnesses, or were of similar description, or were found acting suspiciously.

Eh... yes? And...?

Yet Cross was found with a body. that`s bit different to the above examples is it not.

I dare say. But there are those who say that somebody has to find a body. You, for example. Somehow, you seem to have recovered a bit on the score - good!

Yet despite all the verbal conflicts etc and the isue with regards his name he was never arrested.

The name was in all probability never checked. And as for the verbal conflicts, just as I say, not a soul remarked upon it before I did so. That leads me to think it was not very easy to spot, and/or easily overlooked.

You are not suggesting that the police never ever gave it a thought are you? because if you are you need a reality check.

I am suggesting that the police never actively investigated the carman, and I am saying that the name issue corroborates that suggestion to a very large degree.

They may not all have been the brightest sparks in the fire but I am sure they would have looked at him in detail.

So how did they miss his real name, Trevor? And as you may have noticed, a large number os serialists have been overlooked by the police, although the implications were in hindsight found to have been there. Were THEY looked at in detail too? Plus the Victorian police were not as up to scratch as todays force is - who nevertless sometimes fail to find dead bodies in attics they search a couple of times. Maybe they did not search the attic in detail in Tia Sharpe´s case, I don´t know.

Any suspicion that anyone had about Cross would have been realised into an arrest.

And what does that tell you? It tells me that the carman was never suspected.

From a police perspective once a person is in custody the police are playing on home territory, whereas speaking to a suspect at his home is in the favour of the suspect, and besides when arrested the person being arrested may believe that perhaps the police have more evidence against him than they actually have.

Lechmere was, however, never arrested or suspected. If you think that exonerates him, think again.

[Trevor Marriott]

Lechmere was, however, never arrested or suspected. If you think that exonerates him, think again.

It doesn't however make him the prime suspect you keep thinking he is

It negates your theory that there may have been some suspicion against him from some source that was never acted upon, but you cant identify the source can you? and in the absence of anything from 1888 or thereafter we rightly have to assume there was no suspicion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

[Joshua Rogan]

Then you look at Diemschultz and say it couldnt have been him he was an old man going about his business

Louis was surprisingly young, in his mid-twenties.


Holy crap, you two type fast.

[Trevor Marriott]

Louis was surprisingly young, in his mid-twenties.


Holy crap, you two type fast.

Yes that was my mistake

[Harry D]

Where's the evidence that Lechmere's work route "dovetailed" with all of the murder sites?

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: It doesn't however make him the prime suspect you keep thinking he is

Have you noticed how there IS no definitive prime suspect? How people have their OWN prime suspects?
Lechmere is the only candidate who has an abundance of caserelated evidence pointing his way. That´s why I favour him over, say, Feigenbaum.

It negates your theory that there may have been some suspicion against him from some source that was never acted upon, but you cant identify the source can you? and in the absence of anything from 1888 or thereafter we rightly have to assume there was no suspicion.

Are you completely bonkers? I don´t think and I have never thought that he was suspected back in 1888. So it will be hard to negate...