Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

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

    So, a new thread, dedicated to the question whether Lechmere is the best suspect we know of so far, from a geographical point of view. It sorts under Lechmere, so that there needs to be no talk of hijacking and resentment. Letīs hope it keeps everybody happy!

    To start off, I will comment on the last post of Gareth Williams on the former thread:

    Fisherman:

    And for whom of these non-starters...

    Sam Flynn:

    How do we know they're non-starters? The Ripper could be right there among them, staring us in the face; I doubt it, statistically, but you never know.


    Here we have a classic example of not only moving the goalposts, but instead building a new goal. I of course never said that the men commented on could not be the Ripper. Nor was it ever the issue here. The issue was - and remains, believe me - whether any of the men was recorded as having been present on any of the murder sites or if they were recorded as having had reason to be so. And in that category, they are all 100 per cent non-starters.
    Once we keep to the subject, we will get this correct, once we disrespect that simple rule, we wonīt. Once we aim to disrespect the rule, we are not fit to plead.

    Fisherman:

    Does it apply that they were either found at one or all of the murder sites? Or that they had reason to visit all the sites?



    Sam Flynn:
    These people lived in the middle of Whitechapel, for God's sake!!! They don't need any of us to make up reasons for their being there, because they were there already - and not just them, either, but thousands upon thousands of other local males who weren't maniacs/lunatics.


    Here, Gareth returns to his "for Godīs sake" routine, employed before in this errand.

    Letīs be totally frank:
    Of course, these men would not need any reason at all to be on the murder sites. I agree with that 100 per cent - but it has not a iot to do with the question asked.
    Of course, these men could - each and every one of them - be the Ripper. I agree with that too - but the same applies, it has nothing at all to do with the question asked.

    The question asked was whether they were recorded to have been present at any or all of the sites or whether they were recorded to have a reason to be there at the relevant removes in time.

    What Gareth is desperately trying to do is to nullify the importance of this factor. I, on the other hand, am doing the same thing as the police always does in a murder investigation: I ask about who were present at the murder sites and/or had reason to be at the sites at the relevant hours. And I do that because it is the most important question of all to establish when trying to catch the killer - before we can put a person on the spot or prove that this person had a likely reason to be on the spot, we cannot convict anybody of a crime committed on that spot.

    So far from spreading the idea that it does not matter whether a person/suspect was at one or more of the murder sites or had a recorded reason to be there, we must instead accept that of all the factors in a murder hunt, this is the perhaps most crucial one of them all.

    If we pick one of Gareths suspects (letīs say it was a woman, and letīs call her Miss Leading), we must be acutely aware that before any charges can be brought against her in the Ripper errand, we MUST show that she had opportunity to kill at the sites and times recorded.

    Conclusion: When we look for the Ripper, any suspect or suggested suspect that cannot be shown to have been at the spots or have had reason to be so is automatically a less good suspect than any other person who CAN be shown to have been at the spots or have had reason to be so, all other parameters unconsidered.

    In Ripperology, there is an ongoing hunt for this information. Anybody who has a suspect will prioritize it. That is why we heard all those hoorays when Kosminski was (tenuously) tied to Providence Street, that is why Buryīs suggested visits to a Whitechapel pub is so much discussed and why those who opt for him are not happy about the pub owner not owning up to it, that is why Francis Thompsonīs staying close to Dorset Street for a period of time is the holy Graal for him as a suspect - and conversely, that is why Sickertīs journey to Dieppe is such a sour apple for the Cornwellians.

    This has never been a matter that has been up for discussion. Never. It goes without saying. It is a cornerstone of any justice system and the foremost tool for the police investigations.
    Robert Black could laugh at the police until they checked his petrol receipts, potentially putting him in place on the abduction sites. Mind you, the receipts did not prove as such that he abducted the girls - but they DID prove beyond doubt that he was there.
    And guess what? That was enough to send him down for life. It was considered proof beyond doubt.

    That is how strong this kind of evidence is.

    Now Gareth is fighting a battle in order to deny that it is in any way important evidence at all, claiming that it does not mean that Charles Lechmere is any better a suspect than anyone who lived in Whitechapel. On the contrary, he is a WORSE suspect. Not because he was not there, because we KNOW that he was. But because his home address was some minutes away! So that makes him an unlikely killer!
    Yeah - just like how anybody living in the villages where Robert Black abducted young girls were MORE likely than Black to be the perpetrator, because he did not actually live there.

    "For Godīs sake", Gareth? Really? God is supposed to stand on the side of the judicial system. He is not supposed to go along with the kind of antics you are engaging in right now. Surely, he has better things to do?
    Last edited by Fisherman; 11-09-2018, 12:00 AM.

  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Three posts to answer here, and they are all very consistent with what these posters have produced over the years out here.

    I will answer these sad three posts and then I will make it a point to do better things in days to come - the quality of these boards must be high enough to warrant me spending time out here, and if it is not, I will do something else for some time, until the time comes that an intelligent discussion can be had.

    Letīs begin with Caz, who has a newsflash, no less, to offer: She has counted out, after years of efforts, that Andy Griffiths "was talking about the risks involved in running, in Lechmere's supposed situation, if he was the killer."

    Bravo, Caz, bravo bravissimo! And to think, it only took you three years to understand it!

    Yes indeed, Griffiths was talking about EXACTLY that and nothing else.


    Now, letīs look at a few parameters that will influence the value of what Griffiths said. Letīs remember that we have had scores of people out here saying that Lechmere would, even must, have run if he was the killer, and so Griffithsī bid has always been a bugger for them. Ingenuity on their behalf has produced the suggestion that Griffiths and Scobie were both lied to and misled, and that this is what made Griffiths say things that they did not want to hear themselves. When up against a wall, we do what we can, and this level of discussion is what this kind of sad people are able to sustain, nothing much more.

    Now, those parameters!

    1. Was Griffiths familiar with the mental state of Charles Lechmere? No, he was not. It therefore applies that Griffiths was not saying "Lechmere was a psychopath, so he would not have run". He could not possibly know if Lechmere was a psychopath or not, just as nobody else can. In conclusion, we can safely rule out that this was why Griffiths said "he would never have run."

    2. So if Griffiths was not speaking of Lechmere, then who was the "he" that he claimed would not have run? Well, that of course was the killer. Admittedly, this killer was represented as Lechmere, and just as Caz says, Griffiths was saying NOT that Lechmere was the killer, but that IF he was the killer, then he would not have run.

    3. Relating to the above, it applies that Griffiths was ascribing a mentality to the killer that would have prevented him from running. It is not as if Griffiths was in any way unaware that killers may well run, and do so all the time. This was not what he said "he" would never have run" - it was not a case of Griffiths believing that all killers will always stay put at the murder site, come what may.

    4. So why did he ascribe a mental state on behalf of the killer? Well, reasonably because he had at this stage aquired information about both the character of the deeds, performed out on the open streets and very gruesome, seemingly disregarding the huge risks involved, and about the details pertaining to Lechmere and his role in the sage. Griffiths knew that Lechmere used the name Cross at the inquest (and that this was in conflict with his normal behavior), he knew that Mizen had said that Lechmere had spoekn of another PC having the situation in hand in Bucks Row, he knew how Lechmere seemingly arrived a good deal too late in Bucks Row, going on when he said he had left, he know about the clothing that covered the wounds and so on. So he had formed an idea of the killers psyche, if that killer was Lechmere, and FROM THAT IDEA, he would have concluded that if Lechmere was the killer, then he was not the kind of man who would be in any way likely to run.

    Where does all of this leave us, then? Well, it leaves us in the exact same spot as I have pointed out for years - IF Lechmere was the killer, he acted with extreme coolness and a total lack of respect for his fellow people, he was not given to panic, but was in stead able to think on his feet and present very convincing lies to get himself out of a tricky situation.
    Right, so let's get this clear once and for all.

    Andy Griffiths was talking about the risks involved in running, if Lechmere was the killer. Fish kindly confirmed this:

    Yes indeed, Griffiths was talking about EXACTLY that and nothing else.
    In short, Andy Griffiths believed that IF Lechmere was the killer, he would 'never' have attempted to run/walk/otherwise leave the scene before Paul arrived, because of the risks involved in doing so. Lechmere would have completely ruled out this option, and instead waited near the corpse and attempted to bluff it out with whoever he might meet as a result.

    Andy Griffiths was also not 'familiar with the mental state of Charles Lechmere'. So he was not saying "Lechmere was a psychopath, so he would not have run", because he could not possibly know if Lechmere was a psychopath or not, just as nobody else can. In conclusion, we can safely rule out that this was why Griffiths said "he would never have run."

    [The above was a redundant observation by Fish, since he had previously confirmed that Andy Griffiths was ONLY talking about the risks involved in running and nothing else. Psychopath or no, Lechmere would 'never' have run and would therefore have had to try and bluff his way out of trouble.]

    And yet 'the risks involved in running' don't appear to figure in Fish's own reasoning at all: 'IF Lechmere was the killer, he acted with extreme coolness and a total lack of respect for his fellow people, he was not given to panic, but was instead able to think on his feet and present very convincing lies to get himself out of a tricky situation'. Nothing here about running being the trickier proposition for any type of killer - presumably because even Fish would struggle with why Griffiths thought that would have been the case.

    In fact, Fish said in a previous post that killers who are not psychopaths would never choose to stay and attempt to lie their way out of such a tricky situation. Only a psychopath could handle it. Only a psychopath would stay in Lechmere's situation, IF he was the killer. Any other killer would have run [and bugger the risks involved, as referred to by Griffiths].

    It comes as little surprise that Fish never seems to address what 'risks' Griffiths was talking about, and why these risks would not apply equally to killers of all types. Fish appears to think the risks would not deter any non-psychopathic killer from running, while only a psychopathic one might choose not to run.

    This totally contradicts and undermines Griffiths's opinion, that a killer in Lechmere's situation would 'never' have run because of the risks involved in doing so. No exceptions for all the non-psychopathic killers out there, who, according to Fish, would never have stayed.

    It's a mess.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 01-16-2019, 08:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Guy
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
    Hi Jon,
    According to the Pall Mall Gazette account of his arrest;

    "Police-constable Fraser related that at two in the morning on February 10 he was in Butler-street, Spitalfields, and heard a moaning. He went to the bottom of the street, and in Tenter-street found the woman Graham lying on the pavement, bleeding. The prisoner was stooping over her, and another constable was approaching from the other end of the street, blocking the prisoner's egress. On seeing Fraser, prisoner stood up and stepped away a few feet."

    With a PC bearing down on him from each end of the street, he didn't really have the option of slipping away unseen.
    Many thanks for digging that out, JR !!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Psychologists and animal behaviorlists will remind us that there is a third reaction to a possible threat/crisis in addition to fight or flight, and that is freeze.
    As in remain motionless.
    There's a fourth reaction, which is motionfull - i.e. you $hit yourself

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Psychologists and animal behaviorlists will remind us that there is a third reaction to a possible threat/crisis in addition to fight or flight, and that is freeze.
    As in remain motionless.

    Leave a comment:


  • APerno
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    Going back a bit...



    You were quite correct, Fish. Griffiths was not speaking about the 'general picture'. He was talking about the risks involved in running, in Lechmere's supposed situation, if he was the killer. That was Griffiths's reasoning. He didn't rate the chances of a killer – any killer – in that situation being able to get away safely. In short, the killer would never have taken such a risk.

    There is nothing here about Lechmere choosing to stay because he was a psychopath, with no panic response, abnormal flight reflexes and a penchant for just this kind of challenge, which no other type of killer would have tried, or hoped to pull off. Where does that leave Griffiths's ten out of ten killers who would have stayed? Was he only talking about psychopathic killers? There is also no suggestion here that the killer might still have chosen to stay if he'd had a chance to go. So Griffiths was surely talking about the situation, using his expertise in that regard and relying on the accuracy of his information, while you talk of the killer's supposed behavioural traits. Yet you cling on to what Griffiths said, so you can argue that because Lechmere didn't run, he is perfectly in line with the ten out of ten killers who would never have run either.

    Newsflash - because Lechmere didn't run, his behaviour is just as perfectly in line with any number of innocent witnesses who would have stayed put and sought assistance from the next passer-by. What Griffiths said about the situation – as he understood it - does not make Lechmere any more likely to have been the killer than an innocent witness coming upon the killer's victim. Because Lechmere didn't run, he also conformed to the behaviour of ten out of ten lampposts. But we don't need an expert to tell us any of this. Your mantra: "Well he wouldn't have run, because we are told by an expert that no killer ever would" is where it becomes horribly circular and pointless, because it depends entirely on Lechmere staying put because he was a serial killer – and a psychopathic one in your view - which you have not even begun to establish.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    On free fire zones Vietam: If they run, they're VC, if they don't run, they're well disciplined VC. -- Michael Herr, Dispatches

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Can't remember any of those being claimed on the torso threads. It is possible to make statements without misrepresentation, exaggeration or spin, you know.
    Not for some posters it isn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
    Hi Christer

    I was thinking about the would Lechmere run scenario, and it reminded me a little of the William Grant arrest.
    I can`t find a detailed enough account of Grants arrest, but it may help you with your argument, as I don`t think Grant made much of an effort to escape.
    He seems to have been found by approaching policemen stooping over the body of Alice Graham. What was Grant`s reaction to the approaching policemen ?
    Hi Jon,
    According to the Pall Mall Gazette account of his arrest;

    "Police-constable Fraser related that at two in the morning on February 10 he was in Butler-street, Spitalfields, and heard a moaning. He went to the bottom of the street, and in Tenter-street found the woman Graham lying on the pavement, bleeding. The prisoner was stooping over her, and another constable was approaching from the other end of the street, blocking the prisoner's egress. On seeing Fraser, prisoner stood up and stepped away a few feet."

    With a PC bearing down on him from each end of the street, he didn't really have the option of slipping away unseen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Guy
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    But that's the point Lechmere was not stooping over the victim he was stood in the middle of the road.
    Yes, I know
    But it would be interesting to know what someone with a knife caught stooping over a woman in the street would do with policemen approaching.
    From memory, he didn`t run, but I could be wrong and this is why I`m asking.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
    Hi Christer

    I was thinking about the would Lechmere run scenario, and it reminded me a little of the William Grant arrest.
    I can`t find a detailed enough account of Grants arrest, but it may help you with your argument, as I don`t think Grant made much of an effort to escape.
    He seems to have been found by approaching policemen stooping over the body of Alice Graham. What was Grant`s reaction to the approaching policemen ?
    But that's the point Lechmere was not stooping over the victim he was stood in the middle of the road.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Next up is Trevor, who says that he knows" Scobie QC was not given the full facts" - which in a way is true. Not that Trevor knows anything at all about what Scobie was given, but it of course applies that nobody could take in and keep track of all the facts surrounding then case. It is impossible.
    Then again, Paul Begg (another of Trevors admirers) has long since pointed out that when a barrister is asked to see if a case can be made against a suspect that is good enough to make a trial, then he is not supposed to have all the facts presented to him. He is supposed to have the facts pointing to guilt presented, nothing else unless there is something that will decisively mean that the accusations will not hold up.
    It is a fact that Scobie was not given the full facts because I personally spoke to him after the program aired, and put to him the full facts as per the official inquest testimony, and much of what I put to him he had not been told about. He stated that had he been given all the facts his opinion may have been different to that given.

    If Paul Begg pointed out what you say he did then he was wrong.

    Barristers only see a file of evidence when it is presented to them by either the prosecution, who at time will use it to seek counsels advice before going to trial, or before the actual trial when planning their trial strategy, when they are either prosecuting or defending. In all cases they will be given all the evidence. There would be no point in holding evidence back evidence or statements, because it might prejudice the case from either side.

    Nowadays in high profile crown court trials the prosecution have a main file and a secondary file for what is called unused material, which are statements which have been taken by the police, but are not to be used as evidence in the trial but can be refereed to if necessary. The defense can have access to this file.

    The experts were clearly not given the full facts, so who was responsible, the production company, you, or Edward or was it a combination of all three.

    In the documentaries I have been involved. I have always been given a copy of the material to be used and how it is to be presented, and asked to clarify or make any amendments. Did that happen with you and Edward?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Guy
    replied
    Hi Christer

    I was thinking about the would Lechmere run scenario, and it reminded me a little of the William Grant arrest.
    I can`t find a detailed enough account of Grants arrest, but it may help you with your argument, as I don`t think Grant made much of an effort to escape.
    He seems to have been found by approaching policemen stooping over the body of Alice Graham. What was Grant`s reaction to the approaching policemen ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    I have waved farewell to the ones discussing the connection between the Torso and Ripper cases by claiming that the Torso series did not involve the taking out of Jacksons uterus, that she never had any gash cut from breastbone to pubes, that no eviscerations were included in the Torso series... and that the Torso man was certainly no mutilator.
    Can't remember any of those being claimed on the torso threads. It is possible to make statements without misrepresentation, exaggeration or spin, you know.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Three posts to answer here, and they are all very consistent with what these posters have produced over the years out here.

    I will answer these sad three posts and then I will make it a point to do better things in days to come - the quality of these boards must be high enough to warrant me spending time out here, and if it is not, I will do something else for some time, until the time comes that an intelligent discussion can be had.

    Letīs begin with Caz, who has a newsflash, no less, to offer: She has counted out, after years of efforts, that Andy Griffiths "was talking about the risks involved in running, in Lechmere's supposed situation, if he was the killer."

    Bravo, Caz, bravo bravissimo! And to think, it only took you three years to understand it!

    Yes indeed, Griffiths was talking about EXACTLY that and nothing else.

    Now, letīs look at a few parameters that will influence the value of what Griffiths said. Letīs remember that we have had scores of people out here saying that Lechmere would, even must, have run if he was the killer, and so Griffithsī bid has always been a bugger for them. Ingenuity on their behalf has produced the suggestion that Griffiths and Scobie were both lied to and misled, and that this is what made Griffiths say things that they did not want to hear themselves. When up against a wall, we do what we can, and this level of discussion is what this kind of sad people are able to sustain, nothing much more.

    Now, those parameters!

    1. Was Griffiths familiar with the mental state of Charles Lechmere? No, he was not. It therefore applies that Griffiths was not saying "Lechmere was a psychopath, so he would not have run". He could not possibly know if Lechmere was a psychopath or not, just as nobody else can. In conclusion, we can safely rule out that this was why Griffiths said "he would never have run."

    2. So if Griffiths was not speaking of Lechmere, then who was the "he" that he claimed would not have run? Well, that of course was the killer. Admittedly, this killer was represented as Lechmere, and just as Caz says, Griffiths was saying NOT that Lechmere was the killer, but that IF he was the killer, then he would not have run.

    3. Relating to the above, it applies that Griffiths was ascribing a mentality to the killer that would have prevented him from running. It is not as if Griffiths was in any way unaware that killers may well run, and do so all the time. This was not what he said "he" would never have run" - it was not a case of Griffiths believing that all killers will always stay put at the murder site, come what may.

    4. So why did he ascribe a mental state on behalf of the killer? Well, reasonably because he had at this stage aquired information about both the character of the deeds, performed out on the open streets and very gruesome, seemingly disregarding the huge risks involved, and about the details pertaining to Lechmere and his role in the sage. Griffiths knew that Lechmere used the name Cross at the inquest (and that this was in conflict with his normal behavior), he knew that Mizen had said that Lechmere had spoekn of another PC having the situation in hand in Bucks Row, he knew how Lechmere seemingly arrived a good deal too late in Bucks Row, going on when he said he had left, he know about the clothing that covered the wounds and so on. So he had formed an idea of the killers psyche, if that killer was Lechmere, and FROM THAT IDEA, he would have concluded that if Lechmere was the killer, then he was not the kind of man who would be in any way likely to run.

    Where does all of this leave us, then? Well, it leaves us in the exact same spot as I have pointed out for years - IF Lechmere was the killer, he acted with extreme coolness and a total lack of respect for his fellow people, he was not given to panic, but was in stead able to think on his feet and present very convincing lies to get himself out of a tricky situation.

    So the real newsflash is that there is absolutely nothing new to see here, only more of Cazī s trademark confused posts and useless fantasizing.

    Surprise, surprise.

    Next up is Trevor, who says that he knows" Scobie QC was not given the full facts" - which in a way is true. Not that Trevor knows anything at all about what Scobie was given, but it of course applies that nobody could take in and keep track of all the facts surrounding then case. It is impossible.
    Then again, Paul Begg (another of Trevors admirers) has long since pointed out that when a barrister is asked to see if a case can be made against a suspect that is good enough to make a trial, then he is not supposed to have all the facts presented to him. He is supposed to have the facts pointing to guilt presented, nothing else unless there is something that will decisively mean that the accusations will not hold up.
    And letīs be frank, there is absolutely nothing at all in the way of evidence that comes even close to exonerating the carman, just as there is absolutely nothing at all that could be used against any other suspect in a trial. Meaning that Scobie assessed exactly what he was supposed to assess and on exactly the material he should use. And he reached the conclusion that Lechmere was the probable culprit and that a trial that suggested that he was the killer would be warranted.
    He also said that ift would be up to Lechmere to give answers to the questions that pointed to his guilt in such a manner so as to free himself, and maybe he could have done so. He may have been in the Bahamas as the other women were killed, in which case he should be set free. But as long as we have no exonerating information, it must stand that Lechmeres behavior points to him as the killer, and that a trial in which no defence was given from his side, he could well have been convicted and sent to the gallows on the existing circumstantial evidence.
    This, however, is a side issue, because what Trevor is after is to imply that the film crew lied to Scobie and feed him faulty material, as implicateed by how he carries on his post:
    "...also, so whats the possibility of other "experts" used in the making of the program being misled also?"
    Apart from the construction being wrong with the two "alsos", it of course also (just the one time in my case) applies that the accusation Trevor produces here is mindbogglingly, stinkingly, nauseatingly and unforgivably foul - not to mention wrong; Scobie makes it clear what he grounds his take on, so there was never any question of that.
    It is when putrid slime like this is produced by feculent thinking that I find the time has come to point it out and then give it a rest. John Wheat is just as guilty, by making the same sort of deplorable effort.

    One thing about Trevor that is interesting is that it has not been more than a few days since he recommended all posters to freeze me out and leave my posts uncommented on, so that the boards could dispose of me and my theories altogether.
    Not only do I think that the administrators would not look very favourably on posters who suggest such things, but I cannot help finding it beyond hilarious that once he has made that recommendation, he himself cannot help but to comment on Lechmere threads.

    Brilliant, Trevor - good going. One can always rely on you to broaden the horizons for all of us, opening up new paths of thinking that the fewest would have thought of themselves.

    Now I have grown tired of all of this, as I more and more often do. I have waved farewell to the ones discussing the connection between the Torso and Ripper cases by claiming that the Torso series did not involve the taking out of Jacksons uterus, that she never had any gash cut from breastbone to pubes, that no eviscerations were included in the Torso series (where a uterus a heart and a pair of lungs were cut out with gusto) and that the Torso man - who cut the face from one victim and chopped limbs and heads off his victims - was certainly no mutilator.

    That is the quality of discussion that is to be had out here. My apologies to the ones who have spent time and effort to read up on the case and who make sensible and well weighed posts, some agreeing with me, some not - it is not you I cannot abide by - and you will be aware of this, I trust - itīs the likes of the posters mentioned and dealt with in this post.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-11-2019, 07:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    And we know Scobie QC was not given the full facts also, so whats the possibility of other "experts" used in the making of the program being misled also?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    The liklihood is they were all mislead.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X