The Nature of Evidence

[Fisherman]

Patrick did what? Check again.

You can do it for me, I´m sure. Somebody - and I had a feeling it was you, but apparently it was not - said that Griffiths had no problems with the scenario. Which is correct.
Sorry if I got it wrong and - not least - if the suggestion is incomparable with your take on things.

[Patrick S]

Caz´ point about how Lechmere´s innocence is proven by how he would never have made up the story about the tarpaulin is the comic relief of the thread so far. The mere suggestion is VERY odd, to say the least.

To begin with, the scenario with Lechmere as the killer involves him concocting a complicated and intelligent lie about an extra PC, and he does that on his feet, no problems at all.

So I don´t think we should underestimate him on this point.

Moreover, when he went to thenpolice he had had a lot of time to ponder what to tell them, if he was the killer. And he would be very aware of what Paul had said in his paper interview - that he had seen Lechmere standing where the body was. Standing, not helping.

Reasonably, he would realize that this was a question tht may well surface: Why were you just standing there, why did you not help the woman?

Let´s reason theoretically that he saw that it was a woman on the pavement from the outset, that there never was any idea on his behalf that it was a tarpaulin.
Would he in such a case walk out into the street, and then stop short in the middle of it, doing nothing? Not very likely, is it?

So he would have needed an explanation for why he stopped and stood still, and I beleive that this is where the tarpaulin story becomes useful.

To claim that he would not have been able to make it up, to try and lead on that it guarantees innocence, and not least to use this very weak idea as a reason to once again say that it is a shame that we are allowed to portray Lechmere as the killer, is nothing short of appalling.

I'm sensing a theme.

[Patrick S]

You can do it for me, I´m sure. Somebody - and I had a feeling it was you, but apparently it was not - said that Griffiths had no problems with the scenario. Which is correct.
Sorry if I got it wrong and - not least - if the suggestion is incomparable with your take on things.

It's quite incomparable with my take on things.

[Fisherman]

Let this stand as a disclaimer to several of your acolytes that continue posting about the nefariousness of having been found near a "freshly killed" (God...I love that term) corpse.

I have never said that it is nefarious, however. Instead, I have over and over again said that there is nothing incriminating in finding a murder victim. And I have posted a long post where I asked to have that respected.

And what happens?

[Fisherman]

It's quite incomparable with my take on things.

So you DON`T think Griffiths was correct in his verdict that Lechmere did not interact suspiciously with Paul?
You think Lechmere´s actions in the street were suspicious, therefore?

Okay.

[Fisherman]

I'm sensing a theme.

No, Patrick - no short, arrogant oneliners, please - try to discuss the errand at hand instead. Please?

For example, you could admit that your post about an intimidating locality was a bit odd, and that Lechmere´s own testimony seems to indicate that Paul was afraid primarily of him, not the locality.

[Patrick S]

I have never said that it is nefarious, however. Instead, I have over and over again said that there is nothing incriminating in finding a murder victim. And I have posted a long post where I asked to have that respected.

And what happens?

I've read more than one post - by you - promoting your man because he's the ONLY suspect found with a "freshly killed" (I can't get enough of the term, really) Ripper victim. If you want to walk that back now, fair enough. A good bit of your "theory" has changed over the years. But, please allow us time to adjust.

[Abby Normal]

I've read more than one post - by you - promoting your man because he's the ONLY suspect found with a "freshly killed" (I can't get enough of the term, really) Ripper victim. If you want to walk that back now, fair enough. A good bit of your "theory" has changed over the years. But, please allow us time to adjust.

whats wrong with freshly killed? is it because she may have still alive when they found her?

[Fisherman]

There was some competence for the role of primary comic relief post on JTR, where a rather prominent poster came up with the idea of Lechmere not being a viable candidate for the murderers role - on account of how he would never have risked to loose his job...

Really! And the proprietor of JTR found it an excellent post.

I keep saying that I am convinced that there are a good many serialists out there who managed to stop killing and who were never found.

Maybe they´re the ones who opted for a carreer at work instead.

[Fisherman]

whats wrong with freshly killed? is it because she may have still alive when they found her?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it - it is instead a case fact. But it is a case fact that people dislike, and that they do not want to hear.

I have no idea what they WANT to hear. Long dead? And bleeding?

[Patrick S]

No, Patrick - no short, arrogant oneliners, please - try to discuss the errand at hand instead. Please?

For example, you could admit that your post about an intimidating locality was a bit odd, and that Lechmere´s own testimony seems to indicate that Paul was afraid primarily of him, not the locality.

On the contrary. I find your take on it entirely laughable.

I'll ask again, though. What state do you think Cross was in that frightened Paul so? You claim he was intent on bluffing his way out. Did he begin the bluff by rushing Paul in an intimidating way? You told Caz how appalled you were that she'd underestimate this brilliant madman. Was he incapable of composing himself adequately so as not to frighten Paul before he enlisted his help in finding a cop?

Paul himself tells us he was on his guard because of WHERE HE WAS. But, you say that's balderdash! Absurd! And, again, you reach for some unreasonable, untenable, illogical "conclusion" that's not supported by anything but your desire to point the finger of guilt at one man.

[Patrick S]

whats wrong with freshly killed? is it because she may have still alive when they found her?

Nothing at all. As I say, I love it.

[Patrick S]

There was some competence for the role of primary comic relief post on JTR, where a rather prominent poster came up with the idea of Lechmere not being a viable candidate for the murderers role - on account of how he would never have risked to loose his job...

Really! And the proprietor of JTR found it an excellent post.

I keep saying that I am convinced that there are a good many serialists out there who managed to stop killing and who were never found.

Maybe they´re the ones who opted for a carreer at work instead.

Where as you will agree with anyone and anything that helps you keep your theory afloat, I can say with complete honesty that I don't find it realistic that Cross could not be killer because he feared losing his job.

[Fisherman]

I've read more than one post - by you - promoting your man because he's the ONLY suspect found with a "freshly killed" (I can't get enough of the term, really) Ripper victim. If you want to walk that back now, fair enough. A good bit of your "theory" has changed over the years. But, please allow us time to adjust.

No, you have not read a single post promoting him on that basis only. What you have read - but perhaps not understood - is how I am saying that there are a lot of anomalies attaching to Lechmere, the name, the Mizen scam, the pulled down dress, the not hearing the footsteps, the geographical pattern of his walk to work, the fact that his mother lived in 1 Mary Ann Street when Stride was killed a stone´s throw away etcetera - and that once we have this material speaking against him, it does not help that he was found alone in Bucks Row with a murder victim that was freshly enough killed to allow for him to be the killer. Once we have the rest, this weighs him down further.

That has not changed a single bit, it was always the same and I have not altered a bit of it. More evidence has come to light over time, and has been incorporated, but there was never a time when I said that finding a freshly killed victim was necessarily nefarious.

[Fisherman]

Where as you will agree with anyone and anything that helps you keep your theory afloat, I can say with complete honesty that I don't find it realistic that Cross could not be killer because he feared losing his job.

No, Patrick, I do not agree with anyone and anything that will keep my theory afloat. I disagree with Rainbow about how he regards the case wrapped up and done, for example, and have stated so on these boards.

So you are wrong on that score.

On the whole, I tend to think those who believe in the carmans guilt as better informed than those who do not, and maybe that is not as surprising or condemnable as you seemingly will have it?

It seems to me that you are quite willing to commend those who criticize the theory, so maybe we are both biased in that way?