So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Abby Normal]

Well Fish, you're the one suggesting it. Nobody else.



Don't be so hard on yourself.

And what have wolves done to deserve such an indigestible supper?

I maintain that the only way Lechmere was likely to have been involved in the murder is if Paul was his partner in crime. A lot of the logistical problems would vanish in a just for jolly, folie ā deux scenario.

Love,

Caz
X

actually caz others on this thread were saying it. fish is disputing it (and so did I) . Frankly the notion that Paul was her killer and circled back around is patently ridiculous and so is the idea they where in on it together.

[caz]

The first thing we must accept to have Paul as the killer is that he must have left home, gone into Bucks Row, heard Lechmere, returned in the direction Lechmere was coming from instead of heading the other way, hidden halfway down Bucks Row, waited for Lechmere to pass and then left his hiding place, where Lechmere accidentally had not spotted him while passing, and joined his fellow carman at the murder scene.

Anybody who suggests something like that needs to have his head checked.

Well Fish, you're the one suggesting it. Nobody else.

Or chopped off. Not literally, of course, only by way of being thrown to the wolves intellectually speaking.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

And what have wolves done to deserve such an indigestible supper?

I maintain that the only way Lechmere was likely to have been involved in the murder is if Paul was his partner in crime. A lot of the logistical problems would vanish in a just for jolly, folie ā deux scenario.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I am going to have to disagree with you Fish. It doesn't matter how many entrances Pickfords had at night. There would almost certainly be a night watchman, at least in a company like that. Cross turning up at that time of a morning would almost certainly be asked why, and that's if the night watchman or whoever stopped him knew him. Was it 200 or at least dozens were employed. For Cross to go there uninvited or unknown without some really good reason he would be taking one hell of a risk.

Hi Darryl,

Of course, if Cross did bump into anyone at Pickfords who knew him, shortly after committing yet another similar murder, they'd also know him as the minor celebrity whose story of finding the Buck's Row victim and dutifully alerting a policeman had been in the newspapers. There is no way on God's green earth that using the name Cross at the inquest would have left everyone at his place of work totally in the dark about who this Pickfords carman was.

Not that this would have given a psychopathic mutilator pause, if he had gone there from Mitre Square to clean off bloodstains and stash human body parts and bloody knife. All in a night's work, you might say. Or at least Fish would say.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Tabram stabbed multiple times-lower body and midsection

Tabram was stabbed multiple times in the upper body, no lower than the stomach. Only one wound was in the lower body.

[Abby Normal]

Being unconscious or knocked out are not anaesthetics. Neither are they muscle relaxants. She is not even sedated. The chances of her remaining silent with a knife going into her are close to nil. You might not get screams but you will get audible loud and sharp groans.

Anyway, whatever way you go with this, you end up with Cross cutting the throat of a woman to keep her quiet. A few moments later a witness comes by and she isn't bleeding that much because her abdomen has been mutilated according to you.

Problems abound here for Cross but just on blood alone, you have him mutilating before exsanguination which means Cross will be very bloody, which he wasn't.

Also, Paul had felt her hands and helped pull her dress back down from around her stomach area. Yet no blood got on him.

The only way any of this makes sense is if she was exsanguinated before mutilations occurred. Meaning the blood should be pooled around her head.

The examination found that blood had congealed in her hair and the back of her clothes.

Which is perfectly compatible with her having had her throat cut while lying prostrate before mutilations.

Same of the others but Stride didn't have mutilations.

Hi Batman
consider the escalation.
Millwood stabbed multiple times-lower body and midsection
Tabram stabbed multiple times-lower body and midsection
Nichols gashed in mid section and throat cut.


considering Nichols is the first victim to have her throat targeted, I dont think its out of the question that after rendering her unconscious the ripper again went for the mid section(as he was accustomed to before)first before attacking the throat?


I lean toward he cut the throat first but since he was accustomed to going at the abdoman first who knows? to me its not really a big deal anyway-the bigger change from Tabram to Nichols is the change from stabbing to gashing.

[ohrocky]

As much reliance is being placed on the conclusion of Mr Griffiths as to Lechmere's candidature as JTR, I can't help but think that the publication of the bundle presented to Messrs Griffiths and Scobie would help us to understand the basis upon which they arrived at their conclusions.

I am not suggesting for one moment that the bundle would not have contained all of the relevant information of course but I'm particularly interested in the evidence that led Mr Griffiths to conclude "that he <Lechmere> would never have run". (Post #500)

So please publish the bundles given to the experts upon which they reached their conclusions. I'm certain there is nothing deliberately hidden but things can get overlooked or misinterpreted so on the basis there is nothing to hide.......

Finally, as someone without a dog in this particular fight, could I suggest to the OP that responding to challenges to the Lechmere theory with rude, sarcastic and belittling comments really does not serve to enforce the theory but for the casual observer, such as myself, somewhat undermines it.

[Fisherman]

It would be the easiest defense in the world.

Just say ... "Objection your Honour, speculation", or "Objection your Honour, hearsay"... or "Objection your Honour, vague question".

Eventually, the Judge will have enough of sustaining everything and ask 'Prosecution, do you have direct evidence for your claim that Cross murdered Nichols', to which the answer will be, "no your Honour, no direct evidence." Case would be dismissed.

Likely, in reality, Cross will have some form of corroborative witness putting him somewhere else for some of the JtR crimes. It will be exculpatory, just like Pizer with his witness.

It would never get to trial in the first place. The prosecution wouldn't take it.

Last post of mine for now.

People have been tried and convicted for murder on much less evidence than that of the Lechmere case. Hearsay only has sometimes had people hanged, actually.

Not all murder convictions are based on absolute proof. Circumstantial evidence is all that is required in many cases to allow for a conviction.

So wrong again,Batman. When will you get something right? If ever?

Bye.

[Fisherman]

But they weren't cut right through, were they? No. That's because the Ripper only intended to cut their throats to effect as swift a death as possible before he commenced his eviscerations. The torso victims were decapitated and disarticulated to render them unidentifiable and/or to facilitate the disposal of the bodies. These are wholly different things.

To describe throat-cutting and beheading as a "cut neck" is inaccurate and misleading - in both cases. With particular reference to the torso murders, you wouldn't describe the removal of an entire limb as a "cut leg" or "cut arm", would you?

Well, if you actually know what the Ripper intended, then you are way ahead of me.

Then again, you know just about all about what both he and the torso man intended, do you not?

[Fisherman]

Batman: Being unconscious or knocked out are not anaesthetics. Neither are they muscle relaxants. She is not even sedated. The chances of her remaining silent with a knife going into her are close to nil. You might not get screams but you will get audible loud and sharp groans.

Itīs not about what you claim to know, itīs about what the killer knew. And as for the "audible and sharp groans", please read up on Harriet Lilly.
It may well be that the killer believed that he had strangled Nichols, and then he got shaky about it as he heard Paul. You are making a molehill out of thin air (I wonīt speak of mountains, given the quality of the argument).


Anyway, whatever way you go with this, you end up with Cross cutting the throat of a woman to keep her quiet. A few moments later a witness comes by and she isn't bleeding that much because her abdomen has been mutilated according to you.

I think that this is a likely thing, yes - and I have support from Llewellyn.

Problems abound here for Cross but just on blood alone, you have him mutilating before exsanguination which means Cross will be very bloody, which he wasn't.

No, it means nothing like that at all. Whether anything but the blade of the knife was ever inside Nichols, we donīt know. And Jason Payne-James said that the killer may not have had much or indeed any visible blood on his person at all. It goes against your superior knowledge, I know, but there you are.

Also, Paul had felt her hands and helped pull her dress back down from around her stomach area. Yet no blood got on him.

And he must have had so because...? You baffle me, really you do. Do you think that her hands were bloodied? Is there any reason or report telling us that this was so? And what is said about the clothing?
Where do you get all this nonsene from? I am genuinely curious!

The only way any of this makes sense is if she was exsanguinated before mutilations occurred. Meaning the blood should be pooled around her head.

The examination found that blood had congealed in her hair and the back of her clothes.

Which is perfectly compatible with her having had her throat cut while lying prostrate before mutilations.

And the spatter is where? And the large amount of blood, litres of it is where? It all jumped into her clothing, made of sponge - Shazam!? And why did Llewelyn say that he had "satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity"? I mean why would the gashes in the abdomen result in a "great quantity of blood" when she was already bled off - as per you? Did that great quantity of blood exit the neck whereupon it was soaked up by her clothes, climbed up to her great gash and then it ran into her abdominal cavity - WHERE LLEWELLYN ACTUALLY FOUND IT?

Same of the others but Stride didn't have mutilations.

Oh, it is "same of the others", is it? So I take it we have it reported that these victims had great quantities of blood found in their abdomens too? And that the blood otherwise was soaked p by their clothes, leaving only miniscule amounts of blood outside the body? Because, you see, otherwise it was NOT "same of the others" at all.

Iīve had it for now with dumbass suggestions like these and a few other peopleīs efforts, and so I sign off.

[Sam Flynn]

I mean, itīs not exactly as if the necks of Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly were left unharmed, is it?

But they weren't cut right through, were they? No. That's because the Ripper only intended to cut their throats to effect as swift a death as possible before he commenced his eviscerations. The torso victims were decapitated and disarticulated to render them unidentifiable and/or to facilitate the disposal of the bodies. These are wholly different things.

To describe throat-cutting and beheading as a "cut neck" is inaccurate and misleading - in both cases. With particular reference to the torso murders, you wouldn't describe the removal of an entire limb as a "cut leg" or "cut arm", would you?

[Batman]

Eh - that is exactly what Scobie says in the docu - that it would come down to what answers Lechmere would supply.

How does that alter the fact that before any defense is offered, there is "a prima faciae case against Lechmere, suggesting that he was the killer"?

Letīs give you the role of the defender, Bats! Which point would you press the hardest? That Lechmere was a family man or that you know that he would never have run? Or that he was in his full right to use the name Cross?

It would be the easiest defense in the world.

Just say ... "Objection your Honour, speculation", or "Objection your Honour, hearsay"... or "Objection your Honour, vague question".

Eventually, the Judge will have enough of sustaining everything and ask 'Prosecution, do you have direct evidence for your claim that Cross murdered Nichols', to which the answer will be, "no your Honour, no direct evidence." Case would be dismissed.

Likely, in reality, Cross will have some form of corroborative witness putting him somewhere else for some of the JtR crimes. It will be exculpatory, just like Pizer with his witness.

It would never get to trial in the first place. The prosecution wouldn't take it.

[Sam Flynn]

he heard Paul arriving and decided to bluff it out, and to ensure that Nichols did not come to and possibly say something, he cut her neck twice

Throat.

[Fisherman]

Right, so when Lechmere's boss at Pickfords leafs through the papers, agog to read all about his carman's performance as a witness, telling how he discovered the murder on his way to work, what's his reaction likely to be?

"Where's Lechmere? He told me he needed time off for the inquest! Why is someone else claiming to have found the body? Who the hell is Cross? I am, I'm bloody furious! Wait til I see Lechmere."

Oops.

Love,

Caz
X

So we know that he told his boss that he was going to a murder inquest? Aha.

And if he DID tell his boss that, how do we know that he did not tell that boss beforehand that he was going to call himself Cross, on account of how he did not want his real identity to get known since he was scared of the killer? Or something like that?

What you permanently fail to see is how there are many possibilities involved. Or perhaps you do see it, and just leave them out for convenience? And then you make these little sketches of yours.

It is getting tedious.

[Fisherman]

Not really, Fish. You are disingenuous if you fail to understand that suspect-based documentaries have an agenda and will often play fast and loose with the facts when tarring their subject with guilt.

Maybe Mr Griffiths' was told that Lechmere was found over the body (as depicted in the documentary), gave a false name to the police, and visited the crime-scenes at the time of the murders: a concoction of lies and half-truths.

As for you harping on Griffiths' credentials, we have our very own ex-murder squad detective on the boards and he isn't impressed with Lechmere one iota. He's also studied the case for a lot longer.

If you call it an "agenda" to present as good a case against a suspect as possible, then letīs agree that every prosecutor also works to an agenda. And the fewest would fault them for that.

You are welcome to present "the fast and loose" stuff, by the way. List it and we shall see how much of it there is and what role it plays. There ARE matters that I agree are not as unbiased as they should perhaps have been, but all in all, the case against the carman is a very sound one.
So list away, and weīll see!

The frightful and unsavoury accusations you imply do not belong to a sound discussion, and I repeat that they make you look very sad and desperate; itīs how the underbelly of ripperology looks.

But I am all for scrutinizing details from the docu, no probs.

If you want to put trust in Trevor Marriott, then do so. We all join up with people we think are really good judges of matters at times, and if you fin that is a description that fits on this occasion, then go right ahead. You will simultaneously be implicitly accepting a whole host of, shall we say, exotic ideas about the murders and you will take Carl Feigenbaum on board as a very good suspect, quite likely the best one.
You gets what you pay for.

Me, I will say that I think that Griffiths is a far, far better source than Trevor is (sorry, Trevor, Harry made me do it!), more realistic, better educated, superiorly knowledgeable on a general level and a lot less into fantastic ideas.

But thatīs just me. Not you. Youīre with Trevor on this.

[Fisherman]

The problem is not that an expert has been produced who happens to toe Fisherman's claims (at least some of his claims) but that there is no challenge to those claims in a formal setting.

For example, a prosection trying to put Cross in jail would have their expert on the stand put forward the case against Cross.

However, the defense trying to keep Cross out of jail would have their own expert on the stand to defend Cross.

Also, both experts would be directly, and cross, examined.

An unbiased opinion piece would compare and contrast both.

Eh - that is exactly what Scobie says in the docu - that it would come down to what answers Lechmere would supply.

How does that alter the fact that before any defense is offered, there is "a prima faciae case against Lechmere, suggesting that he was the killer"?

Letīs give you the role of the defender, Bats! Which point would you press the hardest? That Lechmere was a family man or that you know that he would never have run? Or that he was in his full right to use the name Cross?