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

  • 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.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Batman View Post
      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.
      "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 Abby Normal View Post
        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.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
          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
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            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 à deux scenario.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              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 à 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.
              "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 caz View Post
                . 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.
                Hi Caz

                Do you know if Cross would have been given a bit of paper summoning him to the inquest ? Something he could show his place of employment, and also to show the coroner`s officer when he arrives at the inquest ?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  Hi Caz
                  are you being sarcastic with this post? Paul came upon lech who was already by the dead victim. Your not seriously suggesting paul murdered Nichols, left and then circled around to re enter bucks row are you?
                  No, Abby. But I'm sure it was a Lechmerian who suggested that Lechmere may have killed the following weekend in Hanbury Street in the hope of deflecting suspicion onto Robert Paul. What would that have achieved? If the police had suspected Paul, as the second man on the scene in Buck's Row, they'd have had to suspect Cross, as the first - and to suspect the pair of them of being in cahoots if it was deemed physically impossible for Cross to be innocent and Paul guilty. And that being so, the Hanbury Street location would have done Cross no more favours than Paul.

                  But I think we can use a bit of common sense here and accept that the two carmen had never met before their encounter with the dead or dying Nichols, and therefore Lechmere would have had no idea who he might shortly be dealing with when he chose to wait for the figure in the distance to materialise.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    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?
                    Hi Sam
                    The torso victims were decapitated and disarticulated to render them unidentifiable and/or to facilitate the disposal of the bodies.

                    yes and they may have been kept as trophies. IMHO they probably were-as this is what most post moertem types do with them. The ripper was also a trophy taker.

                    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?
                    [/QUOTE]


                    totally get what your saying here, but the point to me anyway, is that both the ripper and torso man violently gashed the neck with a knife.The ripper cut so deeply I beleive one of the doctors thought the killer was trying to decapitate chapman. I mean he almost decaptitated her and some of the others the neck wound was so deep. (I know almost isnt the same -but close)
                    "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 caz View Post
                      No, Abby. But I'm sure it was a Lechmerian who suggested that Lechmere may have killed the following weekend in Hanbury Street in the hope of deflecting suspicion onto Robert Paul. What would that have achieved? If the police had suspected Paul, as the second man on the scene in Buck's Row, they'd have had to suspect Cross, as the first - and to suspect the pair of them of being in cahoots if it was deemed physically impossible for Cross to be innocent and Paul guilty. And that being so, the Hanbury Street location would have done Cross no more favours than Paul.

                      But I think we can use a bit of common sense here and accept that the two carmen had never met before their encounter with the dead or dying Nichols, and therefore Lechmere would have had no idea who he might shortly be dealing with when he chose to wait for the figure in the distance to materialise.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      HI Caz
                      I agree with you on this one. I do NOT think lech killed in Hanbury to implicate Paul. IMHO that's going too far.
                      "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
                        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.
                        Even by 1888 you needed more than just circumstantial evidence for homicide convictions. You couldn't even hold people for very long without evidence, if at all. Witnesses who directly identified someone were the strongest evidence they had outside of being caught red-handed and it is often these types of convictions that are not always sound.
                        Bona fide canonical and then some.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                          Hi Caz

                          Do you know if Cross would have been given a bit of paper summoning him to the inquest ? Something he could show his place of employment, and also to show the coroner`s officer when he arrives at the inquest ?
                          No, Jon, but I expect someone here must have some idea.

                          For me, the point is that Lechmere would surely have had to explain to his boss why he needed the time off. Now I don't know if the boss would simply have taken his word for it, or would have required something official in writing, but I can't believe he could have attended that inquest with the knowledge and agreement of Pickfords, then returned to work, without being asked about it, and without anyone querying the fact that the carman claiming to have found the murder victim gave his name as Charles Cross - if he had absented himself from work as Charles Lechmere.

                          Did he say nothing to the boss or his workmates about his involvement and just pull a sicky? I suppose that might just have worked if nobody at the inquest knew him by name or sight.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                            Even by 1888 you needed more than just circumstantial evidence for homicide convictions. You couldn't even hold people for very long without evidence, if at all. Witnesses who directly identified someone were the strongest evidence they had outside of being caught red-handed and it is often these types of convictions that are not always sound.
                            And that's why I doubt the police would have confronted Lechmere immediately, had they checked up on him and discovered his name wasn't really Cross, and that he used Lechmere on every occasion except when finding murdered women in the street. That would be evidence of deliberate deception, but not enough to hold him on suspicion of anything worse. He was bound to have an 'innocent' explanation for the name change, whether he was genuinely innocent, or a criminal with something to hide, so there would have been little to gain from asking the question and alerting him to the fact that he was in their sights as more than just an honest witness. And Lechmere would have had no opportunity to explain himself - yet.

                            If and when he put another foot wrong, however, the police could have been ready and waiting, for all he knew. How much harder would it then have been to find a second or a third 'innocent' explanation, when combined with his one-off use of a different name? For starters, there was the apparent lie he told PC Mizen on the night of the murder, and the apparent lie he told under oath at the inquest, using the wrong name, when he contradicted Mizen's version of their conversation. He had no way of knowing if the police were making careful notes and adding them to concerns they already had about him. He really would have been operating in the dark to pick up Annie Chapman so soon afterwards. Lucky old Lech!

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              To be a better suspect, Jack Random needs to be found by a freshly killed victims side, use the name Stupid instead of Random (a wise choice), disagree with the police, just happen to have a daily trek that took him past the murder sites or close to them, have links to St Georges and the Mitre Square area and so on.
                              The points FOR Lechmere do not go away on account of how you personally believe that he would have run in Bucks Row. Andy Griffiths, indefinitely better suited to understand this than you will ever be, was adamant that he would never have run.

                              Ooops, Caz.
                              Not quite sure I follow your drift here, Fish, but if you are saying that Jack Random would make a better suspect than Lechmere if he used the name Stupid and did all those stupid things, how stupid would that make Lechmere in your view, for doing those same stupid things?

                              Andy Griffiths may have been 'adamant' that the ripper would never have run in the same circumstances that Lechmere found himself in, but that doesn't make Lechmere the ripper, nor does it mean the ripper ever allowed himself to be 'found' [as you like to put it] in those circumstances. You have as much as admitted it yourself - if he did, he might as well have said: "Just call me Stupid".

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • No Fisherman and Abby,Griffiths and his credentials do not worry me.The worry seems to be on your side, you being so relient on his continued inclusion to bolster a theory that lacks evidence and credibility.Yes I know an Andy Griffith is an Australian commedian.I did at one time wonder he was the Andy Griffith in the documentary,being as comedy and the theory are so closely related.

                                We have the statement of Griffith,who is adamant,according to Fisherman,that the killer of Nichols would never have run.What is not included in the statement is WHY,and I suppose,though it is not mentioned,would not hide either.Now do not ask me if hiding was a possibility,the rules seem to be that a claim does not have to have a supporting explanation.If Nichols could reach Bucks Row without being seen or heard,then I see no reason why the killer could not have departed without being seen or heard,hence I see no reason for staying.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X