Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

[Trevor Marriott]

Here you are, Harry, I took your post and the liberty to make a few additions and alterations, all with the purpose of helping out! My contributions in red, Harry.

How does anything said or done afterwards,determine who killed Nichols, I wonder? Well, as Andy Griffiths put it in the docu, in cases like these, it always comes down to what people say. Paul comes upon Cross standing near a dead body at a stage in time when the body will still bleed for many minutes afterwards, and to boot, it is impossible to establish for how long Lechmere was alone with the body, and both go and speak to a policeman to report that body, although it seems it was only Lechmere who actually spoke to Mizen. What evidence,of an incriminating nature,is that against Cross is what I ask myself, and I have come to the conclusion that it is not evidence as such that Lechmere did kill Nichols, but it is quite apparent that he cannot be ruled out either and so I ask myself if there are other factors that point in his way? And when looking into that, it emerges that a handful of the other murders ascribed to the same killer as the one who did for Nichols actually happened along the logical routes from Doveton Street to Lechmeres work at Pickfords. And I think to myself: these murders could have happened anywhere in London, or at least in the East End, so it is very strange that they took place in the smallish area of Spitalfields. Even stranger is that they also seemd to have taken palce at roughy the same hourws as when the carman would have passed through Spitalfields. And even stranger is that the two murders that did NOT take place in Spitalfields but instead in St Georges and Aldgate actually did NOT take place on what would arguably have been working days for Lechmere. Instead they took place on the night between a Saturday and a Sunday and at much earlier hours - and the first of them was perpetrated around a hundred or so yards from where Lechmere´s mother lived together with one of his daughters, while the other one was perpetrated in Mitre Square - which was situated along his old working route from St James Street to Pickfords.
And what about Andy Griffiths and his observation? Well, what Lechmere said, according to PC Mizen, was that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row, asking for assistance.

Once I have gotten that far in my thinking, I say to myself: "That Fisherman is a clever fellow! He may well have it all cleared up!!"

Andy Griffiths only gives an opinion, and that opinion is no more relevant than those who would suggest that if Lechmere was the killer he had time to run off.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

What other cases like the Nichols case was Griffith reffering to ?Did he say?
'It all comes down to what people say' What does Griffith mean by that remark? Did he say?
Cross says he (Cross) was on his way to work when he found Nicholls body,and Paul says he came upon Cross who was standing in the road.What is incriminating about those two statements.Did Griffith say?
Was there a PC in Bucks Row requiring assisstance?Appears so,from evidence given.What does Griffith say about that?
That fisherman is a clever fellow.What does Griffith say about that?You write as though you believe Griffith a cleverer fellow than you,now I would believe that if Griffith say's so

"No matter what changes, most cases come down to witnesses and looking at what people say" was what Griffiths said in the docu, so he meant that this was generally so. And of course, since we cannot look at what Lechmere said in relation to more than one murder, that is where we need to look.

As I pointed out in my former post, there is nothing to seal guilt in stating that you have found a dead body. If the body was cold and long dead when you found it, there is no reason to make the finder a person of interest and much less a suspect. If the body is freshly dead, the finder immediately becoms a person of interest if there is nothing to clear him and if no other culprit can be identified. Whether the finder subsequently becomes a suspect hinges on what further facts can be found out about him.
In Lechmere´s case, Mizen claimed at the inquest that the carman had said that another PC was in place in Bucks Row. So that is an example of something Lechmere said that does not look right and that will edge him closer towards suspect status. Another thing he said was "My name is Cross" while he actually was registered by the name Lechmere and had a habit of always using that name in his contacts with authorities. This is another matter that does not look right and that will push him further down the path of suspicion. Lechmere also said that he worked as a carman for Pickfords in Broad Street. That mean that he would traverse Spitalfields, the killing zone, on a daily basis in the early morning hours. And lo and behold, Tabram, Chapman and Kelly died in Spitalfields in the early morning hours. At this stage, the carmans suspect status is firmly established.
There are other things too that he said - or did not say - that lend themselves to strengthening his suspect status, like how he did not mention to Mizen that HE was the original finder of the body and like how Mizen seems to have not been informed about the potential seriousness of the errand.

So that is how it works and what Andy Griffiths was pointing to.

Griffiths never called me a clever fellow, actually. But he did say in private to me that he believed I may very well have solved the case. That either makes me clever or him dumb, I guess, it all depends on how good a judge he is of crime and criminals, Dr Griffiths. Some are good at it, some are not. No names mentioned.

[Trevor Marriott]

"No matter what changes, most cases come down to witnesses and looking at what people say" was what Griffiths said in the docu, so he meant that this was generally so. And of course, since we cannot look at what Lechmere said in relation to more than one murder, that is where we need to look.

As I pointed out in my former post, there is nothing to seal guilt in stating that you have found a dead body. If the body was cold and long dead when you found it, there is no reason to make the finder a person of interest and much less a suspect. If the body is freshly dead, the finder immediately becoms a person of interest if there is nothing to clear him and if no other culprit can be identified. Whether the finder subsequently becomes a suspect hinges on what further facts can be found out about him.
In Lechmere´s case, Mizen claimed at the inquest that the carman had said that another PC was in place in Bucks Row. So that is an example of something Lechmere said that does not look right and that will edge him closer towards suspect status. Another thing he said was "My name is Cross" while he actually was registered by the name Lechmere and had a habit of always using that name in his contacts with authorities. This is another matter that does not look right and that will push him further down the path of suspicion. Lechmere also said that he worked as a carman for Pickfords in Broad Street. That mean that he would traverse Spitalfields, the killing zone, on a daily basis in the early morning hours. And lo and behold, Tabram, Chapman and Kelly died in Spitalfields in the early morning hours. At this stage, the carmans suspect status is firmly established.
There are other things too that he said - or did not say - that lend themselves to strengthening his suspect status, like how he did not mention to Mizen that HE was the original finder of the body and like how Mizen seems to have not been informed about the potential seriousness of the errand.

So that is how it works and what Andy Griffiths was pointing to.

Griffiths never called me a clever fellow, actually. But he did say in private to me that he believed I may very well have solved the case. That either makes me clever or him dumb, I guess, it all depends on how good a judge he is of crime and criminals, Dr Griffiths. Some are good at it, some are not. No names mentioned.

Andy Griffiths can only comment on matters presented to him by you and Edward, which clearly were facts based on your own beliefs and an over exageration of those facts. You were laying it on a plate for him to say what you wanted to hear. It was the same with Scobie I spoke to him personally after the televison programme aired and what was shown in the program a 30 secoind clip, did not reflect a true account of his full television interview based on again what you had provided to him with and not forgetting the convenient editing of his interveiw to include that comment he made in the 30 second clip.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Andy Griffiths can only comment on matters presented to him by you and Edward, which clearly were facts based on your own beliefs and an over exageration of those facts.
You were laying it on a plate for him to say what you wanted to hear. It was the same with Scobie I spoke to him personally after the televison programme aired and what was shown in the program a 30 secoind clip, did not reflect a true account of his full television interview based on again what you had provided to him with and not forgetting the convenient editing of his interveiw to include that comment he made in the 30 second clip.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It is a hard pill to swallow, is it not, Trevor? A good thing then that there is always the easy way out, when cornered.

[Trevor Marriott]

It is a hard pill to swallow, is it not, Trevor? A good thing then that there is always the easy way out, when cornered.

The truth will always shine through !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But it seems you cant handle the truth

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The truth will always shine through !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, indeed. And in this case, the truth is that you claim that Scobie and Griffiths were fed wrongful material by the film crew and the evidence you have to show for this is supposedly that you were told so by Scobie in a private conversation that you cannot even substantiate ever took place. Good going!

Anybody who sees the docu can hear Scobie say that there is a prima facie case against Lechmdere that suggests that he was the killer, that the coincidences mount up against the carman and that it becomes one coincidence too many and that a jury would not like Lechmere. Do you really believe that anybody of a sound mental disposition would believe that the material from the Scobie interview that did not make it to the docu was material where he claimed that there is absolutely no case against Lechmere, that there are no too many coincidences and that the jury would like him...?
Yes,Trevor, the truth will always shine through.

But it seems you cant handle the truth

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I can handle both the truth and its polar opposite. Just watch me. Now, do try and debate things in a sounder manner instead of throwing out unsubstantiated libel and accusations from thin air, please.

[Trevor Marriott]

I can handle both the truth and its polar opposite. Just watch me. Now, do try and debate things in a sounder manner instead of throwing out unsubstantiated libel and accusations from thin air, please.

There is nothing libellous it is a fact that you have nohing other than yours and Edwards suspcion to show that Lechmere killed Polly Nichols, or any of the other victims other than your belief,and furthermore you have nothing to show that Lechmere murdered all the torsos from the Thames which you seem to want to pin these down to Lechmere

In fact you whole theory is based on nothing more than Lechmere finding the body and wild speculation by you thereafter

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

There is nothing libellous it is a fact that you have nohing other than yours and Edwards suspcion to show that Lechmere killed Polly Nichols, or any of the other victims other than your belief,and furthermore you have nothing to show that Lechmere murdered all the torsos from the Thames which you seem to want to pin these down to Lechmere

In fact you whole theory is based on nothing more than Lechmere finding the body and wild speculation by you thereafter

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

To claim that a renowned film company like Blink Films fed a queens counsel false or very skewed material IS libelous, I´m afraid. And the company, as headed by David McNab, would be in their right to sue you, should they choose to. In which case it would be up to you to actually PROVE your accusations. You see, Trevor, that is what these things are always about - one has to PROVE ones unsavoury claims before any value can be ascribed to them. And you can´t, simple as that. You are quite happy concocting your accusations with no base at all, not a iot of it. It´s sad, to say it as gently as I can.

On a less lofty level, it is also a question of how we conduct ourselves in a discussion, regardless if it is man to man or on a net forum. I don´t think you would like to have it claimed that all your research into Feigenbaum is based on how you have lied to the experts you refer to, or to have fed them incorrect and skewed information, would you? Or to have it claimed that you have plagiarized your way through your authorship?

Once you are extended the courtesy from others not to lower themselves to that goon level, it is for you to take stock of that and behave in the same way when assessing the work of other people.

So stop the false accusations, please! You can begin with the obvious lie that my theory is based only on Lechmere finding the body.

[Trevor Marriott]

To claim that a renowned film company like Blink Films fed a queens counsel false or very skewed material IS libelous, I´m afraid. And the company, as headed by David McNab, would be in their right to sue you, should they choose to. In which case it would be up to you to actually PROVE your accusations. You see, Trevor, that is what these things are always about - one has to PROVE ones unsavoury claims before any value can be ascribed to them. And you can´t, simple as that. You are quite happy concocting your accusations with no base at all, not a iot of it. It´s sad, to say it as gently as I can.

On a less lofty level, it is also a question of how we conduct ourselves in a discussion, regardless if it is man to man or on a net forum. I don´t think you would like to have it claimed that all your research into Feigenbaum is based on how you have lied to the experts you refer to, or to have fed them incorrect and skewed information, would you? Or to have it claimed that you have plagiarized your way through your authorship?

Once you are extended the courtesy from others not to lower themselves to that goon level, it is for you to take stock of that and behave in the same way when assessing the work of other people.

So stop the false accusations, please! You can begin with the obvious lie that my theory is based only on Lechmere finding the body.

Well there is nothing else you have created a mystery when there is no mystery

Was it not you and Edward that provided the information to Blink films for onward transmission to Scobie and to Andy Griffiths. The accusations are not false. Was Scobie lying when he said that his inital interview was about 30 mins, and we only saw 30 seconds in which he makes a sweeping out of context statement which you and blink films used to prop up your Lechmrere theory.

You are so obsessed and immersed in what you believe, that it quite apparent that nothing anyone says is going to pull you out of this obsession, so there is no point in me or anyone else continuing to show you the flaws in your theory which is lacking in hard evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Well there is nothing else you have created a mystery when there is no mystery

Once again, I have not created any mystery, I’ ve presented a straightforward solution to one.

Was it not you and Edward that provided the information to Blink films for onward transmission to Scobie and to Andy Griffiths. The accusations are not false. Was Scobie lying when he said that his inital interview was about 30 mins, and we only saw 30 seconds in which he makes a sweeping out of context statement which you and blink films used to prop up your Lechmrere theory.

^{_{I was not involved in supplying the material. I think Edward did. And OF COURSE material would have been sorted away after the interview with Scobie, it is what always is done. But it is beyond deluded to say that the remainder was out of context, it was totally IN context, focusing on how he looked at the case. Which was the exact thing he was asked to do! Since when is an exactly formulated answer to a question ”out of context” ...? Are you sober??}}

You are so obsessed and immersed in what you believe, that it quite apparent that nothing anyone says is going to pull you out of this obsession, so there is no point in me or anyone else continuing to show you the flaws in your theory which is lacking in hard evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, please do go away before you embarrass yourself any further!

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, please do go away before you embarrass yourself any further!

If anyone is being embarrassed it is you in continuing with this charade

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

If anyone is being embarrassed it is you in continuing with this charade

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You know that feeling when somebody is singing really badly on tv?
Or telling boring jokes?
Or trying to do something that they are unable to?
In such cases it can be painful to look, and one can feel an embarrasment on their behalfs.
If I am in any way embarrassed when debating with you, that is the kind of embarrasment I feel. You are so obviously uninformed and out of your two-inch depth.
Otherwise, nope.
Lets absolve the ones reading from the misery.

[FrankO]

Oh, and Mizen was not told the woman was dead, let´s not forget that. He pointed out that he was told that there was a woman flat on her back in Bucks Row, nothing else.

I’m not forgetting that, Christer. But since we’re discussing Paul’s statement & his reaffirming of it in the Lloyd’s and Neil’s reaction to that, we must stick to what Paul said in that statement and that was, although indirectly, that there was a dead woman lying in Buck’s Row.

[Fisherman]

I’m not forgetting that, Christer. But since we’re discussing Paul’s statement & his reaffirming of it in the Lloyd’s and Neil’s reaction to that, we must stick to what Paul said in that statement and that was, although indirectly, that there was a dead woman lying in Buck’s Row.

As you will be aware, Frank, it cannot be both ways. And once we know that, there cannot be any musts. Why would we tie ourselves up if we don’ t have to? To me, it would make zero sense. As I explained earlier, my path through this jungle always asks the question ”does it present any obstacles for my theory to be correct, or does the theory work on this level?” That is not an approach with which you begin by dumping alternatives in favour of some sort of fundamentalism. Always regard the big picture.

Of course, you must choose your approach to your liking and reason the way you want to!

[FrankO]

As you will be aware, Frank, it cannot be both ways. And once we know that, there cannot be any musts. Why would we tie ourselves up if we don’ t have to? To me, it would make zero sense. As I explained earlier, my path through this jungle always asks the question ”does it present any obstacles for my theory to be correct, or does the theory work on this level?” That is not an approach with which you begin by dumping alternatives in favour of some sort of fundamentalism. Always regard the big picture.

Of course, you must choose your approach to your liking and reason the way you want to!

Christer, I'm confused now. I thought we were discussing Neil's reaction to what the Lloyd's of 2 September wrote about Paul. Since Neil during the "press conference" on Sunday evening hadn't read the inquest statements of Paul, Mixen or Cross yet, he possibly couldn't react to them and that's why I said we must stick to what Paul said in his statement in the Lloyd's of that date, because that's what he would have reacted to. Nothing to do with the big picture or me wanting to have things both ways.