Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Debra A 1 hour and 3 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by jerryd 4 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by DJA 7 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - by DJA 7 hours ago.
Rippercast: Colin Wilson: Jack the Ripper Conference in Ipswich, 1996 - by Herlock Sholmes 8 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Abby Normal 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (29 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (13 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (5 posts)
Rippercast: Colin Wilson: Jack the Ripper Conference in Ipswich, 1996 - (3 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > General Suspect Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1201  
Old 06-11-2018, 06:34 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,753
Default

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1202  
Old 06-11-2018, 10:29 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1203  
Old 06-11-2018, 10:29 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1204  
Old 06-12-2018, 12:05 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1205  
Old 06-12-2018, 12:58 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,753
Default

What company is that Fisherman?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1206  
Old 06-12-2018, 01:16 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1207  
Old 06-12-2018, 01:23 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
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.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1208  
Old 06-12-2018, 01:26 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,937
Default

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

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1209  
Old 06-12-2018, 01:28 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
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.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1210  
Old 06-12-2018, 01:53 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.