So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

[MrBarnett]

Polly's death cert gives syncope resulting from blood loss from wounds in both the neck and the abdomen as the cause of death.

That's what Baxter put his name to.

Batman says:

"An open carotid artery will bleed out into a pool in seconds."

How many seconds, I wonder? If the neck wound had come first, would a subsequent abdominal wound have contributed to the victim's death?

[caz]

Fish's argument that Lechmere would not have been trying to fool the police in this way [because it wouldn't have worked had they checked - obviously] doesn't wash, because the police would not have known this, and he could hardly have explained who he was trying to fool and why...

Another point worth making here is that Lechmere would not necessarily have known if the police checked the records at Pickfords and learned that he had given them a false name in connection with his claimed discovery of the murder victim. For all he could have known at the time, the police might well have decided to keep this intelligence to themselves and to ask Pickfords not to mention it to the carman while enquiries were ongoing. No sense in alerting a potential suspect that they might be onto him, when they knew enough to keep a discreet eye on him instead. He must surely have realised that they might check, and what they would find out about him if they did. But he couldn't rely on them coming back to him and asking for an explanation for the false name, even if he had a convincing one up his sleeve. He could only cross his fingers and hope they wouldn't bother checking.

So the argument that he wasn't using a false name to hide anything from the police is specious, because - as we are constantly being asked to acknowledge - the very use of one would immediately arouse suspicions that the user has something to hide. How could Lechmere, under such circumstances, have had the first clue that the police a) wouldn't find out that he had used a false name; or b) hadn't already found out, within a day of his coming forward as Charles Cross; or c) were not keeping tabs on his movements to and from home and work, thanks to his own stupidity in giving them both addresses alongside a false name?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Or perhaps there were those who knew him by his name but knew little or nothing else about him?

exactly

[Abby Normal]

Ad hominem, Abby.

Put your own personal prejudices aside. Both Anderson & Swanson named Kosminski as the suspect identified by a witness who refused to testify. That's a damn sight more going for him than Lechmere.

hi harry
yes as did McNaughton-that's why I have Koz in my top tier of valid suspects-even ahead of lech as a matter of fact.

but he did not get off on a technicality. after the fact wishful thinking by a known braggart. seen talking to a victim who the witness even admitted he wouldn't recognize again.
I wouldn't call that a lot more than lech who was seen near the victim freshly killed.

but I see your point-he is mentioned by three cops and is the only one where there is any shred of evidence. which is why, against my instincts I still have to put him up there. Rob houses book was excellent and also helped made me consider him.

[Paddy Goose]

Zapruder's modified gun-camera.

Angling with Fish it was called. In Sweetish

[Batman]

Batman, before this goes any further, it's only fair to tell you Fisherman had his own TV show, too.

Paddy

Lemme guess 'Witness to the Execution Chamber' Season 2, episode 4 - Zapruder's modified gun-camera.

[Paddy Goose]

Batman, before this goes any further, it's only fair to tell you Fisherman had his own TV show, too.

Paddy

[Batman]

Bats,

You gave us the following instructive little lecture:


We see this in pseudo-scientific presentations a lot. Finding the earliest peer-reviewed papers on the matter and disregarding subsequent publications that amend or even change the findings of the earlier ones.

Have you been cutting and pasting from the most up to date Chapman data do you think?

Pot calling kettle black?

MrB

I have no problem being corrected with the right information and facts at all. It's when people are presented with such and then being in denial over it, that it's a problem... for them.

The issue here is Fisherman not wanting to accept revised findings by the Coroner on Nichols because it doesn't match his suspect driven orientation on the murders. That's why there is so much historical revisionism trying to paint Cross a 'suspect'.

Do you accept the revision? Or do you think JtR has swapped his MO and Signature after Nichols?

[caz]

Hi Caz
well if hes more commonly used lechmere in his daily life and with the people who knew him its possible he was trying to do that. or if not guilty to just keep the more common name out of it. God knows if i had a different name I could have used all the time Ive gotten in trouble I would have used it. lol.

But would you have used your real first and middle names and given not one, but two addresses where you could be found? Or would that be more like something a child of six might do?

How much more trouble would you have been in with whoever paid you a call [as in visited either address] and found you had lied to them about your surname, but stupidly not about the rest?

Fish's argument that Lechmere would not have been trying to fool the police in this way [because it wouldn't have worked had they checked - obviously] doesn't wash, because the police would not have known this, and he could hardly have explained who he was trying to fool and why:

"Oh sorry, officers, I never intended to deceive you, or to put you to any trouble working out who the hell I was, when Pickfords denied employing anyone called Cross. I used that name to deceive the missus/my relatives/my friends/my workmates, so they wouldn't associate me with the murder and suspect I had something to do with it."

"Right you are then, Mr Lechmere. It's our turn to apologise, because as a result of our enquiries at the addresses you provided, your missus and your workmates now know all about it, and they also know you gave us a false name. Would you like to fill out this compensation claim form?"

Love,

Caz
X

[Batman]

My opinion is about Baxter, it is not aligned to anything or anyone else.

So the findings of an inquest can be ‘overruled’ without a second inquest? Is an amended death certificate then issued? What is your main source for Chapman?

What does ‘Why do you call you peer-reviewed’ mean?

Good for you for not going with Fisherman on this one.

Homicide by persons unknown or something like that is the conclusion of these inquests. It's what the jury agreed on.

The details of Nichols death got revised for Chapman's inquest.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Caz
well if hes more commonly used lechmere in his daily life and with the people who knew him its possible he was trying to do that. or if not guilty to just keep the more common name out of it. God knows if i had a different name I could have used all the time Ive gotten in trouble I would have used it. lol.

Or perhaps there were those who knew him by his name but knew little or nothing else about him?

[MrBarnett]

Bats,

You gave us the following instructive little lecture:


We see this in pseudo-scientific presentations a lot. Finding the earliest peer-reviewed papers on the matter and disregarding subsequent publications that amend or even change the findings of the earlier ones.

Have you been cutting and pasting from the most up to date Chapman data do you think?

Pot calling kettle black?

MrB

[Harry D]

on a technicality? LOL! more like the bloviating of a prejudiced blow hard who even Churchill recognized as a braggart. and many years after the fact trying to make himself appear better at that.

Ad hominem, Abby.

Put your own personal prejudices aside. Both Anderson & Swanson named Kosminski as the suspect identified by a witness who refused to testify. That's a damn sight more going for him than Lechmere.

[MrBarnett]

You are suggesting Baxter got it wrong when he revised that Llewellyn had probably gotten it wrong. The Coroner suggested that the way Chapman had been murdered, neck first, was the better explanation for Nichols.

So that's your opinion, which is aligned with Fisherman's MO/Signature swapping serial killer.

It seems to me you are now backing out of this rapidly. I don't blame you for following Fisherman down that path. It is obviously going to be catastrophic for his claims because it's an MO/Signature swapping serial killer who... get this... hangs around for witnesses to show up so he can call them over to look at his work.



Why do you call you peer-reviewed? It isn't. So what if I got some things using this website? Doesn't change the fact that it collapses this idea that a coroner's decision is immutable given coroners themselves can order exhumations which can and do change such decisions. As is the case with Chapman's wives.

My opinion is about Baxter, it is not aligned to anything or anyone else.

So the findings of an inquest can be ‘overruled’ without a second inquest? Is an amended death certificate then issued? What is your main source for Chapman?

What does ‘Why do you call you peer-reviewed’ mean?

[Sam Flynn]

Throat cutting, please, Batman. Don't swallow Fisherman's bait