Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    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 I´m 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 - I´m 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.
    Last edited by Batman; 11-19-2018, 01:40 PM.
    Bona fide canonical and then some.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      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.
      Last edited by Sam Flynn; 11-19-2018, 02:22 PM.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • 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.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by harry View Post
          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.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Mmmm. And maybe you should be a comedian instead of a poster out here.

            Wow. That´s a tough decision, come to think of it.

            Which task are you worse at...? I´m 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.
            Last edited by Darryl Kenyon; 11-19-2018, 11:28 PM.

            Comment


            • 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?

              Comment


              • No Abby, it is not a personnel attack on Grifith's credentials.It is a reply to claims made by a poster that uses Griffith's supposed knowledge and experience to advance a theory .Anyone who allows himself to be used,as Griffith's did,in a documentary on the Ripper,and is persistently used,whether with his permission or not,on a discussion board,is open to having those credentials examined.Especially if they are used,as they are on this thread,to try and prove Cross was a murderer.

                Desperate and stupid.An apt description of yourself for using those words as the only means of reply.Why not instead attempt to prove that the profile of Griffiths is merrited.

                Comment


                • 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.
                  Bona fide canonical and then some.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    See? That´s 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.
                    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.
                    Last edited by Harry D; 11-20-2018, 02:18 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                      Perhaps on that single, solitary occasion it just never occurred to him to identify himself by the name Lechmere, the name by which he could have been traced through the official records, to the police and the coroner. Or perhaps he deliberately chose to withhold the name.

                      What he managed to do was to keep the name Lechmere out of the papers.
                      Hi Gary,

                      Still catching up - slowly...

                      Just supposing he was only down on Pickfords records as Charles Allen Cross [because, for example, he went by that name when he started working for them and saw no good reason for changing it], would you not acknowledge that: the fact he was on his way to Pickfords when he witnessed what he witnessed in Buck's Row; the fact that Pickfords may only have been able to confirm this if he gave his name as Charles Allen Cross; the fact he would have needed to inform Pickfords before taking the time off to attend the inquest; and the fact that Pickfords might reasonably have wanted confirmation of his attendance - might have been behind his use of the name Cross, at least for the duration of his brief involvement in the case? We have to assume, if this is the same Pickfords carman involved in the accidental death of the child in 1876, that Pickfords would have been well aware of every detail of that sad case, including the name given by their employee - Charles Cross. No raised eyebrows would imply they knew him as Cross back then, and not Lechmere.

                      If the above could explain it, it wouldn't be quite fair to say he 'managed' to keep the name Lechmere out of the papers, would it? He'd have been using Cross purely for practical purposes. If he was Cross at work, why would he not have been Cross at the inquest, since one was bound up with the other? In fact, if he was only known as Lechmere at Pickfords, and Pickfords knew Lechmere was absent to attend a murder inquest, he'd have been asking for trouble from his employers and the authorities, by suddenly calling himself Cross for no apparent reason.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      Last edited by caz; 11-20-2018, 05:09 AM.
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        ... and had it not been for the Star - who may have gotten the address from a desk clerk, seeing as how no other paper at all gave the address or made an effort to do so - he would have managed to keep his home address from the papers too, in which case he would have been impossible to identify to the readers if he otherwise never used the name Cross.

                        That has to be food for thought to anyone with a serious interest in the case.
                        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
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                          If, in 1876, instead of killing a child, he'd saved one from drowning, I wonder what name would have appeared in the press?
                          If he'd been at work at the time, then whatever name Pickfords knew him by, as they would have known all about their employee's heroism.

                          For me, if the same man was involved with both incidents, it's game over as far as the 'false' name issue is concerned. Pickfords had to know their employee as Charles Cross - didn't they? Even if they were also aware that he was really a Lechmere.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          Last edited by caz; 11-20-2018, 05:34 AM.
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            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.
                            I am recognizing that the similarities inbetween the series will more or less inevitaby mean that we have one killer only.

                            Whether you are able to tell what was MO and signature in the murders is something that is perhaps best left for others to judge.

                            You speak of kidnapping women, but there is no reason at all to think that this was the case. They may freely have joined up with their killer, Michael - unless you want to claim that this is impossible?

                            If this was what happened, then why would it not be a parallel to the Ripper murders, where it also applies that the women may have chosen to accompany the killer out of their own free will?

                            You say the torso killer took the victims indoors. Like in Miller´s court, you mean?
                            No, that is not what you mean - you mean that it is likely that the torso man had a bolthole where he killed and dismembered. and yes, that is likely. But such a thing would not disenable him to kill in the streets too.

                            We do not need to look for things that seem to make it less likely that we are dealing with one killer only. Because no matter how unlikely they seem, the will not take away the similarities and how they urge us to accept that whatever dissimilarities there are, they WILL have an explanation.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                              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.



                              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.



                              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?



                              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.
                              All wrong again. I do not have the mutilations as MO in any case, I know perfectly well which is which, and I very much dislike how you claim otherwise.

                              You seem unable to understand the simplest of things. You write "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?"

                              I am very aquainted with the implications of the Bucks Row murder, make no mistake about that.

                              Nichols had signs of strangulation and she had marks on her face that may point to having received blows to it. Both things could ery well have casued her to pass out, and I think that she HAD passed out as he set about cutting her abdomen.
                              This I have stated innumerable times on the boards, so to have someone come along and point me out as stupidly reasoning that Nichols was conscious as he cut her stomach is as ridiculous as it is unneccesary.
                              She was down and out, he cut her stomach open, 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 and pulled the clothing down over the wounds before he got up and backed out into the road.

                              That is how I always have described it, and that is how all out here know that I look upon it.
                              Everyone with one vociferous and mistaken poster, that is.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                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.
                                The difference lies in how the Ripper did not sever the spine. Otherwise, he in three cases cut just as much meat, muscle and vessels as the torso killer did. And much of what he cut was parts that are not parts of the throat but instead of the neck.

                                Now, you can either yell "Throat, throat, throat!" every time I say neck, or you can simply accept that I speak about necks when I want to. It´s your own choice, your own time and your own reputation, so I couldn´t care less. Just keep in mind that what you yourself may regard as a valiant effort may be looked upon as a pathetic and misguided one by the rest out here.

                                I mean, it´s not exactly as if the necks of Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly were left unharmed, is it? So for your own good, you should perhaps try and snap out of it. Just saying.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X