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

[Darryl Kenyon]

And as Harry says an expert is only as good as the info he receives.
What info did you give him and what did you not?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Mmmm. And maybe you should be a comedian instead of a poster out here.

Wow. Thatīs a tough decision, come to think of it.

Which task are you worse at...? Iīm not sure I can tell.

At least i am not somebody who hijacks threads with his theory instead of trying to stay on topic.

Alright then since you are so good, answer this again but this time in a reasonable way. Why would Cross turn up at Pickfords ten minutes after murdering Kate were there would almost certainly be people there with perhaps some not sure who he is. With almost certainly blood on him, a bloody rag and a Kidney on his day off in the middle of the night, Totally incriminating himself [ just popped in to use the wash basin to clean my hands of blood] Absolutely ridiculous to suggest he would.
Also if he was the murderer why would he say [your words] if Lechmere was the killer, then there was no Mr P Hantom up at the body at all, but IF there had been, Lechmere said that he must have heard him. Again an absolutely ridiculous thing for a killer to say, totally incriminating himself.
I don't care how many experts you quote, they are not always right. Paul Brittan - Colin Stagg, Napper. Common sense tells you he would do neither if the killer.

[Abby Normal]

The profile of Griffith's as submitted by Fisherman,was taken word by word from the internet.Who compiled it is unknown,but what is certain is that it was not provided by the authorities.More likely the details were supplied by Griffith himself.So the ninety six per cent is from a total of what?Five,Ten,a hundred?
Who knows,but quoting a figure of ninety six is always going to be more appealig,if the real total was a low one.Perhaps one should take heed of a comment that was made of the documentary."Sorry but every time they say murder investigator Andy Griffith I just have to laugh".Maybe someone knew him better than Fisherman.

Now what does Griffith say in the documentary that is incriminating?Nothing.
He does say he was a very interesting person and that he(Cross)would have some real questions to answer but a ten year old schoolboy would be aware of that.The questions of course were answered at the inquest.No answers were found to be either lies or of an incriminating nature.

Ah so now a personal attack on griffiths credentials. Desperate and stupid.

Maybe they laughed because it made them think of the other andy grifiths the actor that played a cop on the sitcom.

[harry]

The profile of Griffith's as submitted by Fisherman,was taken word by word from the internet.Who compiled it is unknown,but what is certain is that it was not provided by the authorities.More likely the details were supplied by Griffith himself.So the ninety six per cent is from a total of what?Five,Ten,a hundred?
Who knows,but quoting a figure of ninety six is always going to be more appealig,if the real total was a low one.Perhaps one should take heed of a comment that was made of the documentary."Sorry but every time they say murder investigator Andy Griffith I just have to laugh".Maybe someone knew him better than Fisherman.

Now what does Griffith say in the documentary that is incriminating?Nothing.
He does say he was a very interesting person and that he(Cross)would have some real questions to answer but a ten year old schoolboy would be aware of that.The questions of course were answered at the inquest.No answers were found to be either lies or of an incriminating nature.

[Sam Flynn]

I do not think that cutting the neck (yes, Gareth - neck!)

No, Fish. The torso killer(s) cut all the way through the victims' necks, whereas the Ripper cut his victims' throats. There's a big difference.

[Batman]

So you are saying that I am of the meaning that the killer interchanged MO and signature? Why would you do that? I have certainly never done such a thing - it is something you have quite simply and unashamedly made up!

It is okay for people to mix up signature and MO, or even not to know what they mean, but you have made pretty big claims which require big evidence, and yet you have completely muddled this up and still continue to do so.

I do not think that cutting the neck (yes, Gareth - neck!) was part of the killers signature. I think it was a practicality. And whether it came forst or second has no bearing on that status as far as Iīm concerned.

Mutilating his victim's abdomens is not and never has been, JtRs MO.

MO and signature. Both are accounted for with the C5 except Stride who doesn't show signature. Your model with Nichols can't account for signature. This is because now you have 2 x MOs because you want the mutilation to be MO and the neck cut another MO done after.

My suggestion is that Lechmere had cut Nichols abdomen as he noticed Paul approaching, and at that stage he decided to bluff it out. In order to be sure that Nichols was dead and could not communicate, he slit her throat (yes, Gareth, throat - Iīm versatile!).

That makes no sense. To make sure she was dead and couldn't communicate. Do you really think she is going to keep quiet as her stomach is being slashed open?

In the Chaman case and from that case on, he started out by doing this, having learnt from Bucks Row that it is a useful measure.

In neither case was it a signature.

Mutilating their female attributes is his signature fisherman. You have it as MO in your model for Nichols.

Why?

Because since neither man saw blood you want this explained by Cross just having cut her throat, as both men then feel her to see if she alive, rather than the obvious explanation that it was dark and she already had her throat cut.

[Abby Normal]

You are trying to associate a killer who quietly subdues his victims out at night then mutilates the abdomen with someone who kidnapped women, took them somewhere indoors and then, over who knows how many hours, cuts them into disposable pieces.

Thats interchanging MO and Signature.

hi MR
if your speaking of the ripper and torsoman I disagree.

I doubt torsoman kidnapped his victims-im sure he used a similar ruse to the ripper. As the only one of torsomans victims identified was a prostitute, they probably all were unforunates and like the ripper, probably involved a ruse to get them where he wanted them-in the case of his torso victims-to his chop shop as opposed to his other (ripper victims) that he killed on the streets. probably posing as a client punter of some sort in both.

also, the torso victims were mutilated shortly after the death just like the ripper. both series involved medical or at least anatomical skill and skill with the knife.

the MO is probably the same in terms of procuring the victim-ruse and mutilation shortly after death. with no sign of torture while alive.


the sig, to me anyway, is also the same- post mortem mutilation with both series having cutting up of female bodies and removal of internal and external body parts.

[Michael W Richards]

So you are saying that I am of the meaning that the killer interchanged MO and signature? Why would you do that? I have certainly never done such a thing - it is something you have quite simply and unashamedly made up!

You are trying to associate a killer who quietly subdues his victims out at night then mutilates the abdomen with someone who kidnapped women, took them somewhere indoors and then, over who knows how many hours, cuts them into disposable pieces.

Thats interchanging MO and Signature.

[Fisherman]

This is a good point in time as I will possibly be able to find to take my leave for now. So thatīs what I do.

[Fisherman]

Lech was certainly in the wrong job. What with all this bluff and double bluff to the authorities he should have been a secret agent

Mmmm. And maybe you should be a comedian instead of a poster out here.

Wow. Thatīs a tough decision, come to think of it.

Which task are you worse at...? Iīm not sure I can tell.

[Fisherman]

more than likely the witness, like he said at the time of the sighting wouldn't know him if he saw him again.

he probably said that kos may have been the man but I cant swear to it, especially if it might get him accused and hanged falsely.

Or he said something else, or somebody else said something else and Anderson muddled it, or there was some core of truth in it all, but maybe not decisive, or...

Itīs La-La Land. Nothing will ever come of it and as a lead in the case it is 100 per cent worthless until more evidence can be added. And letīs face it, that is not going to happen some time soon.

[Fisherman]

An ex-murder squad leader who was not infallible and may have been led astray by producers looking to frame their subject matter.

See? Thatīs where you invariably end up on account of not being able to accept that you may be a worse judge of the case than me and Griffiths.

You have to resort to this kind of sad, sad things the way sad, sad people will do when cornered and unable to find a way out.

Then again, you are probably paid by Gareth to do it. (A joke, aimed at showing you what kind of path you have taken).

Well, it saves me the time of debating any further with you.

[Fisherman]

On the contrary. If someone dies from a cut throat, that is invariably how it's described; indeed, I've heard of cut throats frequently, but rarely of a "cut neck". Google searches can be quite handy as a guide:

"Cut neck" - 466,000 matches (many of which hits relate to items of clothing with a cut neck)

"Cut throat" - 4,530,000 matches

Invariably? Didnīt Batman just write "neck"? Donīt I do it? And 466 000 others?

I am sure that 4 500 000 of the Google hits for cut throat is derived from anglers sideīs about cutthroat trout fishing.

I am going to rename that fish cutneck trout, by the way.

[Abby Normal]

According to the aforementioned officers it was a technicality. The killer had been identified, the witness just didn't have the balls to testify against him.

more than likely the witness, like he said at the time of the sighting, wouldn't know him if he saw him again.

he probably said that kos may have been the man but I cant swear to it, especially if it might get him accused and hanged falsely.


and it changed over the years in Andersons big head that he had the ripper.

[Harry D]

An ex-murder squad leader is not better suited to comment on the matter than me, Harry D!

An ex-murder squad leader who was not infallible and may have been led astray by producers looking to frame their subject matter.