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

[Fisherman]

harry:
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.

And perhaps you should be aquainted with how there is an Australian comedian and author named Andy Griffiths. It is to him this poster - and a few others - allude.
Itīs always good to be in the know, isnīt it, Harry?

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.

Then why worry so much about him, Harry? Just because he says that Lechmere is of tremendous interest (you forgot that), and "completely relevant" (you forgot that too). Or because he said that there was no way that Lechmere would have run (forgot that too, it seems)? Or because he said that the blood evidence is as close as we get to a smoking gun (really, it seems you have forgotten just about everything he said, Harry!)?
And Iīm out of this "debate" with you. Again.

[Batman]

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.

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes, the two Harrys join forces in an effort to nullify Andy Griffiths. Touching, isnīt it?

[Fisherman]

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

This thread is about Lechmere. And the fewest, you included, manage to stay on topic (which is the geographical implications and nothing else. Booom - your brave effort exploded in your face, Darryl)

Alright then since you are so good, answer this again but this time in a reasonable way.

In think you may have a slightly deviating interpretation of what reasonable means, Darryl. But ask away, by all means!

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.

Wait a moment - how can I answer you in a reasonable way if you have already decided that what he did was absolutely ridiculous? You see, in a fair debate, we must take on board that others may disagree with us!

I think that Pickfords will have been rather quaint and silent at the hour we are speaking of. I donīt see why there would be any people in place at all, but I accept that some may have been. I reason that there may have been more than one entrance, and that Lechmere - after twenty years of servide in the company - may have had access by means of keys to localities where he could be alone and wash up. and stash trophies, if he was intent on this.

But you have already decided that this is a ridiculous suggestion, so maybe I am not allowed to suggest this, I donīt know? Is it "reasonable", the way you demand?

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.

Once again, you steal a head start by claiming that if I disagtee with you and stand by my thoughts, then I am ridiculous.
I donīt think I have been so seriously and frequently ridiculed in one day only before.
I cannot but stand by my idiocy, Iīm afraid. I think that Lechmere thought things over and decided that he would say that he heard and saw nothing and that he believed that he would have if there was someone up at the murder site. And I think he did this to eliminate the risk that some witness would come forward and deny that any statement of his about a killer running could have been true. I also think that he left the coroner and jury to reason exactly as many have reasoned out here - that maybe he would NOT be able to notice the killer, maybe Mr P Hantom would be able to stealthily walk out of there unnoticed. After all, Lechmere did not hear Paul until he was 30-40 yards away, in spite of how Paul hurried down a silent street where Lechmere supposedly stood still and looked at the tarpaulinish shape on the ground...

Can you please tell give me a hint before your next post? I would like to be first in saying that any disagreements with me must point to a ridiculous take on things!



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.

What? Experts are not always right??
Why havenīt I been told this before?
And why hasnīt somebody told me that Stagg and Napper are perfect parallels to the Ripper, guiding him out of Bucks Row in retrospect? If this goes on, I will loose the argument

[Fisherman]

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?

I kept everything that could exonerate Lechmere from him, and I piled unfair accusations on the carman every time I spoke to Griffiths. Naturally! I even said that I know a woman by the name of Lechmere (and I do, honest to God; her name is Susan Lechmere and she is a relative of Charles Lechmere), and that she can look a tad dangerous at times. I did everything I could to tarnish the carman, really I did - itīs good to get the chance to finally get this off my chest.

As for the material he was handed by Blink Films, you can find that information not only on these boards, but actually also on this very thread. As far as I can tell, Blink Film tried to be as neutral as possible in picking the material he got. I got the same material myself, and I immediately realized that I needed to spice things up so that Griffiths wouldnīt get too favourable a picture of Lechmere.

You got me there, Darryl.

[Abby Normal]

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.

I dont need to prove his credentials are merited.IMHO he is well qualified and able to discuss these matters with expertise. YOU and others are apparently the ones that have a problem with him. If you think he isnt qualified then YOU prove he isnt. YOU and others have now resorted to attacking him personally and professionally just because he favors lech as a suspect. boo hoo.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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]

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.