Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor!

Substantiate your claim that Scobie and Griffiths were underinformed. Specify EXACTLY which material it was they were not given access to. List it clearly, for all of us to see.

The reality is that not even you and Edward no what Blink provided them with. You keep saying they were provided with all the facts. But what were all the facts as you define them?

As Caz says no facts appertaining to a defence were provided for a start. The program was heavily loaded with facts that would make the public believe Lechmere was the killer and was JTR which is what Blinks remit was.

Why dont you settle this once and for all and contact your friends at Blink and ask them to provide you with what they provided Scobie and Griffiths and ask them for the set of questions they gave to Jason Payne or better still the bits they edited out of all the experts.

With regards to Blink If I recall the producer/director was an avid ripperologist, and he must have know the program would be controversial but we havent heard or seen anything from him.

At least Jeff Leahy came on here and was happy to take the flak or the accolades after his Saturday night at Dixie ripper program.

On another point what Griffiths says it not in line with what Scobie says, your interpretation of Scobies input is that there would be enough evidence to put before a jury. Griffiths only says that based on what was before him Lechmere is a person of interest. Thats a long way off your prime suspect statement, so a massive conflict eh ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The reality is that not even you and Edward no what Blink provided them with. You keep saying they were provided with all the facts. But what were all the facts as you define them?

As Caz says no facts appertaining to a defence were provided for a start. The program was heavily loaded with facts that would make the public believe Lechmere was the killer and was JTR which is what Blinks remit was.

Why dont you settle this once and for all and contact your friends at Blink and ask them to provide you with what they provided Scobie and Griffiths and ask them for the set of questions they gave to Jason Payne or better still the bits they edited out of all the experts.

With regards to Blink If I recall the producer/director was an avid ripperologist, and he must have know the program would be controversial but we havent heard or seen anything from him.

At least Jeff Leahy came on here and was happy to take the flak or the accolades after his Saturday night at Dixie ripper program.

On another point what Griffiths says it not in line with what Scobie says, your interpretation of Scobies input is that there would be enough evidence to put before a jury. Griffiths only says that based on what was before him Lechmere is a person of interest. Thats a long way off your prime suspect statement, so a massive conflict eh ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, it can never be MY responsibility to research the allegations made out here. I am perfectly satisified that Blink Films provided the participants of the docu with the relevant material they needed.

It therefore lies upon YOU to disprove that, and as I have pointed out, you should have done so BEFORE making any allegations at all. That is the honest way of doing it, and I prefer things to be done the honest way.

I now note that you are apparently unable to present one single point where Scobie and/or Griffiths had information held back from them, information that according to you would/could/should have made them come to other conclusions than the ones they reached.

That does not bode well for your veracity, Trevor. I makes me think that you are merely SUPPOSING that there were such holes in the information instead of knowing it. In other words, you are making a completely baseless guess.

Can you confirm that, or can you present any material at all to bolster your accusations?

As for how Andy Griffiths would only have considered Lechmere a person of interest and nothing more, that goes to show how you - a person who accuses ME of being skewed - treat the facts. Here are three quotations from Andy Griffiths:

1. In the modern age, you couldnīt prosecute anybody else without eliminating him first.

2. Cross is of tremendeous interest, he is completely relevant, and there are numerous factors here that make him a very, very interesting person indeed.

3. The possibility of another person killing the woman is remote.

That should be pretty hard to reconcile with your idea of Lechmere being a person of interest only to Griffiths...

Now, go on the hunt for evidence that Griffiths and Scobie were unjustly and skewingly underinformed, and do so discreetly. Then, if you find anything at all to confirm your guesswork, come back here and present it. Start out with confirmed examples of what they were deprived of. As a matter of fact, you can start out right here and now by telling us what kind of material it is you think was left out.

Examples, Trevor! Now, please!!

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, it can never be MY responsibility to research the allegations made out here. I am perfectly satisified that Blink Films provided the participants of the docu with the relevant material they needed.

It therefore lies upon YOU to disprove that, and as I have pointed out, you should have done so BEFORE making any allegations at all. That is the honest way of doing it, and I prefer things to be done the honest way.

I now note that you are apparently unable to present one single point where Scobie and/or Griffiths had information held back from them, information that according to you would/could/should have made them come to other conclusions than the ones they reached.

That does not bode well for your veracity, Trevor. I makes me think that you are merely SUPPOSING that there were such holes in the information instead of knowing it. In other words, you are making a completely baseless guess.

Can you confirm that, or can you present any material at all to bolster your accusations?

As for how Andy Griffiths would only have considered Lechmere a person of interest and nothing more, that goes to show how you - a person who accuses ME of being skewed - treat the facts. Here are three quotations from Andy Griffiths:

1. In the modern age, you couldnīt prosecute anybody else without eliminating him first.

2. Cross is of tremendeous interest, he is completely relevant, and there are numerous factors here that make him a very, very interesting person indeed.

3. The possibility of another person killing the woman is remote.

That should be pretty hard to reconcile with your idea of Lechmere being a person of interest only to Griffiths...

Now, go on the hunt for evidence that Griffiths and Scobie were unjustly and skewingly underinformed, and do so discreetly. Then, if you find anything at all to confirm your guesswork, come back here and present it. Start out with confirmed examples of what they were deprived of. As a matter of fact, you can start out right here and now by telling us what kind of material it is you think was left out.

Examples, Trevor! Now, please!!

And you are still misinterpreting what people say !

Is not just about what was left out is it? its what was given to them was biased in favour of Lechmere being the killer and not to be portrayed as just an innocent man on his way to work, and thats something you cannot disprove and to make him the prime suspect that is what you have to do. You cannot do that.

Would BLink have made that film if thats how Lechmere was portrayed ? No they wouldn't, but ignoring that side of the argument and tailoring questions to experts based on the belief he was the killer would make them a presentable documentary which they were paid to come up with by the TV company.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: And you are still misinterpreting what people say !

Do I now? And is that coming from the man who presented Jason Payne-James as a victim of being taken advantage of...?

Is not just about what was left out is it?

Hold your horses - you still have not provided one singe example of anything that WAS left out. So if you please?
Or could it be that you donīt know? Can you answer that question truthfully here and now? It would make everything a lot clearer.

Itīs what was given to them was biased in favour of Lechmere being the killer and not to be portrayed as just an innocent man on his way to work, and thats something you cannot disprove and to make him the prime suspect that is what you have to do. You cannot do that.

I donīt have to prove anything at all. Donīt even try to shift the responsibilities. I have made no allegations whatsoever, and I need to prove nothing at all, contrary to you. You are the one who has brought the topic up, and it therefore lies on YOU to substantiate the allegations. They are quite serious - you are accusing Blink Films of having dabbled with the information, and having purposefully kept information from Scobie and Griffiths plus having provided skewed information with the intent to keep them unkbnowing of the real story.

It is rather a burden you have taken upon yourself, and I will demand proof for it until you provide such proof or retract your allegations. Make no mistake about it.

Would BLink have made that film if thats how Lechmere was portrayed ? No they wouldn't, but ignoring that side of the argument and tailoring questions to experts based on the belief he was the killer would make them a presentable documentary which they were paid to come up with by the TV company.

If you think that a film company presenting a suspect in the Ripper case will primarily - or even partly - focus on the parts that speak for innocence, you are uninformed of how the real world looks. As you have been told by Paul Begg, for example, providing Scobie with the evidence against the carman, asking if it would have been enough to warrant a trial, is a perfectly acceptable method of working. If there is no obstacle that tells us that Lechmere cannot have been guilty, then there is no reason to provide all the alternative innocent explanations that could apply - or not. Moreover, these alternative explanations will have been perfectly obvious to Scobie anyway. He would be aware that people sometimes have reasons to use alternative names, that people sometimes give the wrong time, that people sometimes mishear etcetera. It is not rocket science.

You have been found out when it comes to Payne-James, who gladly offered the information that he did not think he had been in any way misrepresented, and who - of course - added that if the film company used the information they got from him in a docu where somebody was pointed to as the Ripper, there was nothing at all strange with that. Contrary to you, he was quite aware that docus that set out to make a case for something, normally makes a case for something as a result of this focus. Surprise, surprise!

Now the time has come for you to anwer the question I keep asking you:

Do you have any sort of proof at all for your allegations?

You can wipe your behind with the rest of my post, and I could not care less, but this question needs an answer, and it needs that answer right now. I will ask until I have it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: And you are still misinterpreting what people say !

Do I now? And is that coming from the man who presented Jason Payne-James as a victim of being taken advantage of...?

Is not just about what was left out is it?

Hold your horses - you still have not provided one singe example of anything that WAS left out. So if you please?
Or could it be that you donīt know? Can you answer that question truthfully here and now? It would make everything a lot clearer.

Itīs what was given to them was biased in favour of Lechmere being the killer and not to be portrayed as just an innocent man on his way to work, and thats something you cannot disprove and to make him the prime suspect that is what you have to do. You cannot do that.

I donīt have to prove anything at all. Donīt even try to shift the responsibilities. I have made no allegations whatsoever, and I need to prove nothing at all, contrary to you. You are the one who has brought the topic up, and it therefore lies on YOU to substantiate the allegations. They are quite serious - you are accusing Blink Films of having dabbled with the information, and having purposefully kept information from Scobie and Griffiths plus having provided skewed information with the intent to keep them unkbnowing of the real story.

It is rather a burden you have taken upon yourself, and I will demand proof for it until you provide such proof or retract your allegations. Make no mistake about it.

Would BLink have made that film if thats how Lechmere was portrayed ? No they wouldn't, but ignoring that side of the argument and tailoring questions to experts based on the belief he was the killer would make them a presentable documentary which they were paid to come up with by the TV company.

If you think that a film company presenting a suspect in the Ripper case will primarily - or even partly - focus on the parts that speak for innocence, you are uninformed of how the real world looks. As you have been told by Paul Begg, for example, providing Scobie with the evidence against the carman, asking if it would have been enough to warrant a trial, is a perfectly acceptable method of working. If there is no obstacle that tells us that Lechmere cannot have been guilty, then there is no reason to provide all the alternative innocent explanations that could apply - or not. Moreover, these alternative explanations will have been perfectly obvious to Scobie anyway. He would be aware that people sometimes have reasons to use alternative names, that people sometimes give the wrong time, that people sometimes mishear etcetera. It is not rocket science.

You have been found out when it comes to Payne-James, who gladly offered the information that he did not think he had been in any way misrepresented, and who - of course - added that if the film company used the information they got from him in a docu where somebody was pointed to as the Ripper, there was nothing at all strange with that. Contrary to you, he was quite aware that docus that set out to make a case for something, normally makes a case for something as a result of this focus. Surprise, surprise!

Now the time has come for you to anwer the question I keep asking you:

Do you have any sort of proof at all for your allegations?

You can wipe your behind with the rest of my post, and I could not care less, but this question needs an answer, and it needs that answer right now. I will ask until I have it.

I cannot give a definitive answer as to what was left out, no more than you can give a definite answer as to say what was given to the experts.

But I can deduce from speaking to Scobie was that he was not provided with all the facts both from a defence and prosecution case. His 30 second statement out of a 40 minute interview is testimony to that. I wonder what he said that was edited out? All they used from him in effect was a 30 second clip what else did he say that they thought fit not to use. I can bet it was exactly what he told me, but to include that would have been a nail in your coffin would it not, put that with Griffiths saying he is a person of interest. ( A person of interest is a long way from a prime suspect)

Scobie is an expert and knows how to assess and evaluate evidence. He admitted that after I had told him the full facts that the case would not get before a jury. So thats good enough for me, and I hope others that support your theory take note.

Now if you want to keep bellowing from the rooftops go ahead but your audience is dwindling fast and I have better things to do with my day.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: I cannot give a definitive answer as to what was left out, no more than you can give a definite answer as to say what was given to the experts.

And there we are - that was the one and only important matter, and you have now resolved it in a commendable way: You admit that you have no idea what was left out.
It therefore also applies that you do not know IF anything was left out.

In short: it was all guesswork on your behalf, from beginning to end.

Thank you for clarifying.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/QUOTE]

[caz]

What you stated was:

And I would like to add that the probability for multiple murderers not knowing each other is low given the limited geographical area of the murders and the short period of time.


And what I'm saying is: the claim made above ain't necessarily so. It isn't hard... I don't agree with this statement you made, for reasons given. It's a supposition, a guess at best, and there's cases of killers (elsewhere) with overlapping territories which prove the opposite may also be true.

Hi Ausgirl,

While it's a fact that the murders of Fred West and Peter Sutcliffe within the relatively tiny country of England overlapped one another, there was never any real doubt about which victims were killed by which serial killer.

As for this whole issue of a "small area" -- if I might interrupt the whole Lechmere extravaganza going on here, for a moment -- it's simply not sensible to ignore the fact that this particular "small area" did not exist within some idyllic rural village, but in a place which was seriously overcrowded with desperately poor persons, many of whom had substance abuse issues, where gangs of thugs and also many people with serious mental health problems roamed, and where acts of interpersonal violence were absolutely rampant.

And given that this is the well-documented reality of that particular "small area" at the time, I don't know how anyone can claim that it's not at least *possible* that some of the C-5 crimes were committed by another killer.

Because it's not like there were never any other killers, or mentally unstable persons, or angry drunk persons, etc, there in that particular very small area at all, y'know?

Has anyone, Piere included, claimed it's not *possible* that some of the C5 were committed by 'another' (as in one other) killer? I might be wrong, but the context was Michael's argument for 'multiple' killers for the C5, and by that he meant upwards of two killers. Many people query Stride's inclusion, for instance, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's this idea of three or more murderers going round the area, independently picking on a local poverty-stricken unfortunate to do in, for no immediately obvious motive, and within just a few short weeks of one another, which gets Pierre and I, among many others, reacting fairly robustly. No more than that really.

And have you actually read some of Colin Roberts's very useful posts on the murder stats for the period? Murders of adult women in the whole of England were extremely rare, as crimes go, hence the very pronounced and infamous spike of 1888, accounted for by the handful of Whitechapel unfortunates, whose killer(s) evaded justice. To suggest that area was a veritable breeding ground for men who'd murder a prostitute as soon as look at them would be to vastly overstate the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Ah. Morality. Let's not discuss the morals involved in accusing a man, long dead and unable to defend himself of having been a lifelong serial killer. What morals are involved in that? History of violence? No? So what. He's Jack the Ripper. Arrest record? No. So what. He's the Torso Killer. History of mental illness...or even ill humor? No. Ah. He was a cunning psychopath! Raised ten kids you say? Big deal. He was a KILLER! Married for 50 years? AH! He fooled everyone! Even his wife!

Yes. You and Eddie have the market on morality thoroughly cornered, "Fisherman".

A final thing worth pointing out, "Fisherman". Those who have enabled you, agree with you (few as they are), or simply don't disagree with you are afforded the highest praise. Blink films is a "renowned film company". Edward Stow is a "gifted researcher". Andy Griffiths is some modern day Sherlock Holmes. Even I wasn't so bad when I had not learned just how ridiculous your "theory" is. Conversely, anyone who disagrees is out to get you personally. You become the reason that the theory is discounted and mocked because it simply cannot be the theory itself. With that, those who disagree are themselves "shameful, pitiful (sic), disgusting and lacking any moral". You've insulted their intellect, character, and ability. This behavior is indicative of something, "Fisherman". I suggest you take a step back.

I think that just about covers anything else I could have said to Christer at this point.

Thanks Patrick.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ausgirl,

While it's a fact that the murders of Fred West and Peter Sutcliffe within the relatively tiny country of England overlapped one another, there was never any real doubt about which victims were killed by which serial killer.



Has anyone, Piere included, claimed it's not *possible* that some of the C5 were committed by 'another' (as in one other) killer? I might be wrong, but the context was Michael's argument for 'multiple' killers for the C5, and by that he meant upwards of two killers. Many people query Stride's inclusion, for instance, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's this idea of three or more murderers going round the area, independently picking on a local poverty-stricken unfortunate to do in, for no immediately obvious motive, and within just a few short weeks of one another, which gets Pierre and I, among many others, reacting fairly robustly. No more than that really.

And have you actually read some of Colin Roberts's very useful posts on the murder stats for the period? Murders of adult women in the whole of England were extremely rare, as crimes go, hence the very pronounced and infamous spike of 1888, accounted for by the handful of Whitechapel unfortunates, whose killer(s) evaded justice. To suggest that area was a veritable breeding ground for men who'd murder a prostitute as soon as look at them would be to vastly overstate the case.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Where is Colin Roberts these days? have not seen him post in ages.
His statistics always made a big impression on me and the spike in 88 says it all to me! one serial killer!

[caz]

Yes, Abby, I was wondering about Colin (a fellow Chelsea supporter), and always think of him whenever anyone repeats the canard about late Victorian Whitechapel overflowing with violent, vengeful or mentally ill lady killers who were never caught.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Yes, Abby, I was wondering about Colin (a fellow Chelsea supporter), and always think of him whenever anyone repeats the canard about late Victorian Whitechapel overflowing with violent, vengeful or mentally ill lady killers who were never caught.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks Caz! Yes-agree!

[caz]

If you think that a film company presenting a suspect in the Ripper case will primarily - or even partly - focus on the parts that speak for innocence, you are uninformed of how the real world looks...

Blimey, Christer, I've just read this post again and I must say it would appear to amount to this: that the documentary makers would naturally have focused on anything that could be used to incriminate your man, while playing down - if not totally omitting - all the innocent alternative explanations. Now I don't think most of us have a problem with this being 'how the real world looks'. We know that, and we can usually work out for ourselves how much every suspect-based ripper documentary ever made has over-egged the 'guilty' pudding. Objectivity has no place here, right?

The problem stems from your strenuous denials that this natural focus would have affected which bits of the various experts's input were included or excluded, assuming there were time and viewer attention span constraints making it impossible to include every word, every opinion, every caveat.

Since you pretty much admit the most incriminating bits would naturally take priority - if those suggestive of innocence featured at all - it surely must be obvious to you that Scobie and Griffiths, through no fault of their own, had their very best goods - for making the strongest possible case against Lechmere - put in the shop window by the documentary makers, while anything less helpful, or unhelpful, to the cause was left on the cutting room floor.

All we can say for sure is that the documentary did its level best with what it had, but ultimately failed to deliver a killer punch. The most emphasis was seemingly placed on the [questionable] question mark over several 'missing' minutes, during which Lechmere could have done the deed, unless his own timing was out and he had left home later than he thought.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Blimey, Christer, I've just read this post again and I must say it would appear to amount to this: that the documentary makers would naturally have focused on anything that could be used to incriminate your man, while playing down - if not totally omitting - all the innocent alternative explanations. Now I don't think most of us have a problem with this being 'how the real world looks'. We know that, and we can usually work out for ourselves how much every suspect-based ripper documentary ever made has over-egged the 'guilty' pudding. Objectivity has no place here, right?

The problem stems from your strenuous denials that this natural focus would have affected which bits of the various experts's input were included or excluded, assuming there were time and viewer attention span constraints making it impossible to include every word, every opinion, every caveat.

Since you pretty much admit the most incriminating bits would naturally take priority - if those suggestive of innocence featured at all - it surely must be obvious to you that Scobie and Griffiths, through no fault of their own, had their very best goods - for making the strongest possible case against Lechmere - put in the shop window by the documentary makers, while anything less helpful, or unhelpful, to the cause was left on the cutting room floor.

All we can say for sure is that the documentary did its level best with what it had, but ultimately failed to deliver a killer punch. The most emphasis was seemingly placed on the [questionable] question mark over several 'missing' minutes, during which Lechmere could have done the deed, unless his own timing was out and he had left home later than he thought.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Your last sentence made me think. He knew he was late for work-so how could he have left home later than he thought? If he knows hes late, he knows what time he left, right?

which then begs the question-how can there be any missing time here? Ie.-how can he have apparently arrived at Bucks row sooner than he should have (in terms of walking distance/time).

its a subtle point (or two) but you are master of subtleties (serious-its a compliment!). whats your thoughts?

[Patrick S]

Blimey, Christer, I've just read this post again and I must say it would appear to amount to this: that the documentary makers would naturally have focused on anything that could be used to incriminate your man, while playing down - if not totally omitting - all the innocent alternative explanations. Now I don't think most of us have a problem with this being 'how the real world looks'. We know that, and we can usually work out for ourselves how much every suspect-based ripper documentary ever made has over-egged the 'guilty' pudding. Objectivity has no place here, right?

The problem stems from your strenuous denials that this natural focus would have affected which bits of the various experts's input were included or excluded, assuming there were time and viewer attention span constraints making it impossible to include every word, every opinion, every caveat.

Since you pretty much admit the most incriminating bits would naturally take priority - if those suggestive of innocence featured at all - it surely must be obvious to you that Scobie and Griffiths, through no fault of their own, had their very best goods - for making the strongest possible case against Lechmere - put in the shop window by the documentary makers, while anything less helpful, or unhelpful, to the cause was left on the cutting room floor.

All we can say for sure is that the documentary did its level best with what it had, but ultimately failed to deliver a killer punch. The most emphasis was seemingly placed on the [questionable] question mark over several 'missing' minutes, during which Lechmere could have done the deed, unless his own timing was out and he had left home later than he thought.

Love,

Caz
X

Excellent points, caz. I don't think that anyone expects 'Blink' films to present a hypothesis, only to argue against it. The goal, after all, is to present something that people will find interesting enough to watch, allowing advertisers the opportunity to, in the parlance of a bygone time, "sell soap". That's not meant as disparagement. That is, simply, "how the real world looks", isn't it?

Now, that doesn't not mean that all material presented in productions such as this are untrue and without merit or value. I'm sure that many such films have presented quite convincing arguments against long held beliefs. For instance, I'm sure that "Blink" succeeded brilliantly in proving that Bobby Kennedy killed Marilyn Monroe and that Big...uh....Big...FEET (?)...have been living amongst us, undetected, for millennia. And to those uneducated in Jack the Ripper fact and fiction this little film may have seemed intriguing, if not convincing. However, that is not the make up of this group. Thus, "Fisherman's" frustration.

I know that "Fisherman" babbles the names, "Scobie.... Griffiths.... Scobie.... Griffiths" much as a failed dieter runs to the market muttering, "Chips Ahoy......M and M's......." I don't fault these men as I'm uncertain if they know that "Fisherman" is invoking their names and reputations to sell his "theory". But, my question is this: What are they saying? In that they have had a hand in "solving" the greatest mystery, the most sensational, famous, notorious crimes of the past 200 years, I'd expect they are speaking publicly about it. Are they? Or is it, still, just "Fisherman" and the incomparable Eddie Stow?

[caz]

Hi Caz
Your last sentence made me think. He knew he was late for work-so how could he have left home later than he thought? If he knows hes late, he knows what time he left, right?

which then begs the question-how can there be any missing time here? Ie.-how can he have apparently arrived at Bucks row sooner than he should have (in terms of walking distance/time).

its a subtle point (or two) but you are master of subtleties (serious-its a compliment!). whats your thoughts?

Thanks Abby!

I suppose it depends on how truthful - or accurate - Lechmere was about his own timing. And that I think is the crux of the problem here. If he was late leaving for work and knew it, he'd have been even later after finding and killing Nichols, then hanging around examining her with Paul and informing Mizen before hurrying off to avoid losing pay or brownie points at Pickfords. But then again he could have meant he had left on time but the discovery and its aftermath had caused him to run late.

Or he could have lied about being late, to excuse the fact that he told Mizen in passing, gave few details and didn't offer further assistance.

If he left early enough to do the deed and still make it to work without repercussions, he couldn't have been late. The police must have known how long it would reasonable have taken him to get from home to Buck's Row, so he'd have been a bit foolish to claim a time for leaving home that gave him more time than he could possibly have needed for a straight A to B, but also claim to have been running late! And I don't buy that he couldn't have lied about the time then made some plausible excuse in the unlikely event that his wife knew exactly when he had set off that morning (ie early enough to kill on the way and bluff his way out of it) and would unhesitatingly have said so to the police if asked.

Love,

Caz
X