Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

I´m off for now - suppertime! And then its football time....

[Fisherman]

But that was never ever said was it?

The comment in post 1297 was if one reject the TOD for Kelly, on the grounds that it is based on unreliable indicators, one must also reject the TOD for Chapman given the same indicators are used.

Completely the opposite of you suggest was posted



Steve

Steve, in a context where reality is turned on end by a suggestion that Kelly´s both TOD:s must be accepted, I am quite likely to turn things on end myself.

I was answering a "Behind the mirror" point with another point from the same venue.

[Fisherman]

Having finally reached page 138, I have placed upon my head my Sunday best tin hat and ventured into this thread.

I think it would be extremely helpful to see the evidence presented to Messrs Scobie & Griffiths upon which they reached their conclusions. Would you be prepared to post that information please Fisherman?

I have read just about every post on this thread as the documentary piqued my interest in Crossmere. However, my view is that we are in a position where:

- we have no confession
- we have no witnesses
- we have no forensics

There is some weak circumstantial evidence but under English law, a jury cannot convict on circumstantial evidence alone. In fact, I believe that there would almost certainly not even be a charge based on the weak circumstantial evidence presented to date.

I would therefore like to see the evidence that was presented that led to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case to answer, and for Fisherman to be told "privately" that he "had his man".

(Bloody hell, I hope this tin hat works!)

No need for a tin hat.

I never met Scobie, and contrary to what Herlock Sholmes has claimed, I did not supply him with any material. The docu crew did, and they were very professional in what they did, so working from an assumption that he was misinformed does not work with me.

Griffiths I met and spoke a lot to. He had the same compilation as i did, with a large number of police reports and articles. He read it extensively, and arrived at his conclusions on his own account. Nobody has, as far as I know, asked him "but exactly why do you think that the team had a good case?"

I sometimes wich somebody had done that, since I believe it could have saved me a lot of time.

[Elamarna]

My pleasure, Steve. You have had it before, but it seems you did not pick up on it.

And of course, YOU pulled MY leg by saying that I must accept Kelly´s TOD.

That, though, I picked up on immediately.

But that was never ever said was it?

The comment in post 1297 was if one reject the TOD for Kelly, on the grounds that it is based on unreliable indicators, one must also reject the TOD for Chapman given the same indicators are used.

Completely the opposite of you suggest was posted



Steve

[Fisherman]

... eh?

When it was said (by Abby) that there were red flags, I seem to remember that you denied this.

If I am wrong, I apologize.

[Fisherman]

No avodance at all.
I have never said i have proved Paul was in earshot.
Steve

I refer you to your post 844, where you commented on my statement that Paul could have been out of earshot:

Until such time as you can prove the carmen both lied, your theory is dismissed by them.
Your statement is incorrect.


And to post 972, where this is said:
I will say again.*
There is nothing in the acvount of Mizen which challenges the account of the Carmen, that they were together and both spoke to Mizen.*
Therefore it is not possible that Paul was out of earshot.

I don´t think more needs to be said on the point.

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth says that disagreeing with the police over what was said in combination with a murder is not a red flag

... eh?

[ohrocky]

Having finally reached page 138, I have placed upon my head my Sunday best tin hat and ventured into this thread.

I think it would be extremely helpful to see the evidence presented to Messrs Scobie & Griffiths upon which they reached their conclusions. Would you be prepared to post that information please Fisherman?

I have read just about every post on this thread as the documentary piqued my interest in Crossmere. However, my view is that we are in a position where:

- we have no confession
- we have no witnesses
- we have no forensics

There is some weak circumstantial evidence but under English law, a jury cannot convict on circumstantial evidence alone. In fact, I believe that there would almost certainly not even be a charge based on the weak circumstantial evidence presented to date.

I would therefore like to see the evidence that was presented that led to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case to answer, and for Fisherman to be told "privately" that he "had his man".

(Bloody hell, I hope this tin hat works!)

[Fisherman]

Read post 1297, it says nothimg about having to accept Kelly's TOD, just the reverse.

So an admission it was "leg pulling" and thus untrue.

Thank you.

My pleasure, Steve. You have had it before, but it seems you did not pick up on it.

And of course, YOU pulled MY leg by saying that I must accept Kelly´s TOD.

That, though, I picked up on immediately.

[Fisherman]

Only in your own mind did Lechmere kill anyone, never mind go on killing.

But again, that was not my point.

Your argument - yours - was that he deliberately went on killing in places where, just like Buck's Row, he would have an innocent explanation ready for being in that particular place at the time in question.

But of course, as you and I both know, he could not have risked being seen in that place, or any other place, either with or near another victim, either alive or dead. So the handy innocent explanation ploy would not have worked a second time. It went with Nichols in Buck's Row. So he may as well have taken his chances after that and killed in places he could not have been associated with. If he was seen at or near the scene it would have been game over in any case. But if he was not seen at the time, he stood a far greater chance of not coming to police attention again than if he could be associated later with each murder location by reference to his known movements or whereabouts.

Love,

Caz
X

But Caz, you don´t know that Lechmere was a killer in my mind only. What a disastrous thing to say. I am supposed to be the biased one, but here you are, one by one, professing to much worse bias yourself! Steve goes on about how it is proven that Paul was within earshot, Herlock says that the geographical ties Lechmere had to St Georges are irrelevant, Gareth says that disagreeing with the police over what was said in combination with a murder is not a red flag and now you present a theory that Lechmere cannot have been the killer other than in my mind...?

It is a pretty ugly exhibition of bias in my eyes!

You then, somewhat mysteriously, move on to claim that I would have said that Lechmere could go on killing after Bucks Row, relying on having an innocent reason to give for his presence at the murder sites...?

Just where did you get THAT from? I never said anything remotely like it. I instead say that he burnt that option in Bucks Row. Have you not read that? Seen that? Heard me saying that?
So why accuse me of having said something I have never even hinted at?

You go on by suggesting that since he burnt his innocense ship down to the ground(or surface...?) in Bucks Row, he should have taken his business elsewhere afterwards, instead of killing in places he was associated with.

Caz, if only!

If only the world was a pretty place! If only people behaved the way we expect them to!

But you know, neither applies.

Have a look at how many killers who have been caught, where it has been subsequently shown that they have killed along paths they were associated with.

Guess how the phrase "comfort zone" was invented?

Lechmere was not under suspicion. Nobody was interested in his paths, or compared them to the murder sites. He was just as free to murder away as any other serial killer has been over the years, and he took the same kind of advantage of it as they have done: he killed within his comfort zone.

Have you noticed how killers tend to get nicknames that are geographically based? The East Area rapist, for example. Or even worse, the Visalia ransacker! The Green River killer. The Sacramento Vampire. The Boston Strangler.

That is because they - in spite of how smart it would be to change hunting grounds - stick with a confined territory.

In Lechmeres case, it also applies that he would not have had all the time in the world to go to Leith, Banbury, Cropredy and Anchorage to confuse the police. But sine they had no clue who the killer was, they had nobody to pin the geography on, and Berner Street and Mitre Square would have helped immensely to erase the tracks leading to Lechmere.

So basically, if you are asking "would he not be smarter if he spread his venues more?", you get a wholehearted YES from me.

But if you instead ask "Should we not expect that he would have spread his venues more?", I´m afraid it is a no.

[Elamarna]

Come again? Answer the question please. Are you saying now that it cannot be proven that Paul was always within earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen?

And YOU say I am avoiding giving answers...?

No avodance at all.
I have never said i have proved Paul was in earshot.
I said and still claisay you have not proved it was possible for Paul to be out of earshot, given the total lack of evidence to contradict the evidence of all the carmen, even the 3rd participant gives no evidence to support this view. That is significantly different from what you claim I said.


Steve

[Elamarna]

I have already explained to you why I posted what I posted - YOU spoke about ME having to accept Kelly´s TOD. There are TWO TOD:s for her, so it was an exercise in folly. And so I proceeded in that vain, introduced by you.

If you can pull my leg, I can pull yours. Does that make you feel unjustifiedly dealt with, Steve?

Read post 1297, it says nothimg about having to accept Kelly's TOD, just the reverse.

So an admission it was "leg pulling" and thus untrue.

Thank you.

[Fisherman]

I am Saying you have not proven that such was possible given the evidence available, its significantly different.


Steve

Come again? Answer the question please. Are you saying now that it cannot be proven that Paul was always within earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen?

And YOU say I am avoiding giving answers...?

[caz]

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.

Only in your own mind did Lechmere kill anyone, never mind go on killing.

But again, that was not my point.

Your argument - yours - was that he deliberately went on killing in places where, just like Buck's Row, he would have an innocent explanation ready for being in that particular place at the time in question.

But of course, as you and I both know, he could not have risked being seen in that place, or any other place, either with or near another victim, either alive or dead. So the handy innocent explanation ploy would not have worked a second time. It went with Nichols in Buck's Row. So he may as well have taken his chances after that and killed in places he could not have been associated with after the event. If he was seen and identified at or near the scene it would have been game over in any case. But if he was not seen at the time, he stood a far greater chance of not coming to police attention again than if he could be associated later with each murder location by reference to his known movements or whereabouts.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

In which case, please justify the claims you have made.
Or acknowledge they are incorrect.

Steve

I have already explained to you why I posted what I posted - YOU spoke about ME having to accept Kelly´s TOD. There are TWO TOD:s for her, so it was an exercise in folly. And so I proceeded in that vain, introduced by you.

If you can pull my leg, I can pull yours. Does that make you feel unjustifiedly dealt with, Steve?