Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    T
    His employers at Pickford’s, if no one else, would obviously have picked up on the name Cross when it appeared in the newspapers. The whole thing makes no sense whatsoever from the standpoint of deception.
    Has it been established that he was know at Pickfords as Cross?
    Cheers, George

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

      This was 1888, and not CSI 21st Century. Nobody took photographs of the crime scene from various angles, or took detailed careful notes, measurements and sketches. It was all rather nominal compared to what is done these days.

      That is correct, yes.

      The doctor pronounced her dead, did his basic job, and gave instructions she should be taken to the mortuary. He didn't even notice the abdominal mutilations.

      That too is correct.

      In no time at all, before 4. 30 am, and before Inspector Spratling even arrived at the crime scene, they had removed the body and were hosing down the site to remove the blood.

      Once again you are on the money.

      We must not pretend that these people were remotely meticulous compared to modern standards.

      Nor do we do so, "we" being me. But the fact of the matter is that Neil was nevertheless asked whether or not he disturbed the body as he examined Nichols by way of looking at her and feeling her arm. And that should tell both of us that the less meticulous 1888 handling of the body at least involved how it was not to be disturbed. In other words, it was not to be moved in any way. And the material handed down to us is in line with PC Neil not moving the body in any way. He takes care to point out that he "examined the body by the aid of my lamp", which points to not a physical but a visual examination. All in order not to disturb the body. He then goes on to point out that he "felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards". This he would have been able to do without lifting the arm, and he would be obliged to feel for warmth in order to be able to help establish how long the victim had been dead. This is why he points out that the arm was warm from the joints upwards; life was not long gone.
      As I have pointed out before, an arm with loose clothing on it offers a very good possibility to feel it for warmth without raising it. You just put your fingertips against the surface of it as it lies on the ground.

      So all in all, yes, the forensic process was less meticulous in 1888 than it is today, but no, that does not mean that it was non-existent.

      I asked you a question in my former post that you never answered. You said that it would be "odd in the extreme" if the arm was not lifted by Neil. Can you tell me now why this would be so?

      Another question. Let us assume that Neil DID raise the arm, and that this DID mean that added blood found itīs way out from the wound in the neck. I think we must accept that it took a couple of minutes, three or so, after Neil made his examination and before Mizen reached the spot. My guess is that Neil was in place around six minutes after Nichols was cut. According to the forensic physicians, the likeliest span of bleeding time would be 3-5 minutes. Is it your suggestion that Nichols had already stopped bleeding as Neil first saw her? And that he "re-ignited" the bleeding process by raising her arm?
      If this was so, are you saying that blood could have run for a couple of minutes after Neils raising the arm, up until Mizen arrived...?

      The blood exiting from the wound would, according to Thiblin, most likely be blood from the head. Once that blood had emptied out, it would not be renewed. Any blood that ran from the wound would be new blood, formerly resting in the body at a level that was below the cut. If we assume that the arm was raised and blood from it therefore ran into the head, and from there out through the neck wound, would there be sufficient blood supplied to keep the bleeding going for another three minutes or so? I would say that such a suggestion is not realistic.


      Goodnight, Christer.
      Good Morning, Dr.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

        Has it been established that he was know at Pickfords as Cross?
        Cheers, George
        No, it hasn’t. He used it definitely once, probably twice, at inquests into violent deaths where he might have wished to distance his real name from those tragic events, and when he was 12 or so he was recorded as Cross on a census. Of course, 12-year-old kids do not complete census forms, so we are left with just one or two occasions where there is evidence that he used the name Cross.

        When his sister died in 1869, while Thomas Cross was still alive, a neighbour who had been present at the death notified the authorities and provided them with name Lechmere.
        Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-18-2021, 08:33 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Scobie states he never met Christer, and Christer agrees so that point alone confims my telephone conversation with him.

          Really? From the outset, when the accusations of foul play in combination with Scobie surfaced, I immediately pointed out that I never spoke to Scobie myself. That information has been readily available to you for the longest time. So how would your claim that Scobie confirmed it in any way prove that you spoke to him?

          The answer is simple enough: It wouldnīt.

          Let me be clear here, Trevor. I am not saying that you never spoke to Scobie. You may well have. The problem is that you cannot confirm it. And that is something that is absolutely laughable, seeing as you are the one making accusations about how Scobie was misinformed or lied to. One would have thought that somebody who was willing to make these kinds of accusations, and who went through the trouble of contacting Scobie to interview him about it would have thre presence of mind to realize that any forthcoming information would HAVE to be recorded meticulously. The allegations you have served up are built on the fact that there is no record of what Scobie was given - and then you go and accuse Blink Films of being scoundrels WITHOUT recording it???
          This is why I say that we donīt even know that you did speak to Scobie; not because I necessarily think that you didnīt, but instead because you seemingly went abvout it in a totally useless way. And that needs to be pointed out: The accuser makes the exact same mistake he tries to use to his advantage. Priceless!


          It would not be in my interest to make things up because it seems that Scobie according to what he said was only provided with what he describes as bullet points about the case from Blink films, which it must be assumed originated in the first instance from either Christer or Edward from what was their original theory.

          Since you are doing all you can to paint the Lechmere theory out as wrong, even going so far as to claim that you have debuked the theory (!), how can you say that it would not be in your interest to make things up? Very apparently, if you were to lie abvout it and be believed, it would help your cause, right?
          As I said before, the "bullet points" seemingly covered around 50 pages of information on A4 sheets or thereabouts, so them bullets would have been very prevalent.


          As soon as the program aired it became apparent thatScobies opinion and what he stated was tainted because based on what was known at the time there is no way on gods earth that there was sufficient evidence to bring Lechmere to court, and there was certainly no prima facie case against him then as is still the case today, hence the reason for my contacting him.

          The problem here is that you are prioritizing your own legal insights over those of James Scobie. That wonīt do.

          For information purposes I have again tried to contact Scobie for clarification but to date he has not replied. now I wonder why? perhaps having seen the end result as it aired he felt misrepresented with his final 2-3 minutes having given 30-45 mins of an interview.

          Guessing away again, I see. Can you tell us how common you think it is that a renowned film company would lie or misinform the experts they hire? Can you see what oit would do to the reputation of said film company?

          I personally dont apportion any blame against Christer or Edward. I believe all they did was provide Blink films with the full facts surrounding Lechmeres viablity as a suspect, what Blink films did thereafter is highly questionable in my opinion having seen the final edited program and having first hand experience in how prograns are edited to suit a specific agenda.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          What you have to do is to prove your accusations, Trevor. Before you do so, what your contribution amounts to is slander, nothing else. And certainly, the points you presented earlier from your alleged conversation with Scobie did nothing to prove your claims.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            If Neil moved the body in any way it might give rise to further blood flow as Dr Biggs points out

            "it is not unusual for a body that has been dead for some time to ‘bleed’ from a knife wound when you start moving it"

            This impacts on your theory, that the blood was still flowing suggesting that she had recently been killed


            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            See my answer to Dr Whatsit.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by harry View Post
              It would be a question of what Neil believed disturbing the body amounted to.Lifting an arm is lifting a part of the body.As no other body part would be affected,I cannot see an objection to a description of the body as not being disturbed.
              Cross,in giving the name of his employer,associated the employer with that name.As he had been employed at the firm for 20 years,it means that for 20 years Cross had been known by the name of Cross at Pickfords.So another indication he(Cross) desired to be known by that name to others, outside of his family and official records.
              I see now,the stakes has been shifted,and the evidence claimed to be strong enough get Cross to trial. Before it was only enough to place before a magistrate,who would consider whether a trial was warranted Prima Facia,as it is known.Strange,giving that the police of 1888,didn't even class Cross as suspect.
              I canīt change what Scobie said. It is a prima facie case, good enough to take to a modern day trial, suggesting that Lechmere was guilty. Nothing has therefore changed, not even you, still making false claims as you are.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                The ‘Cross crowd’, however, just cannot bring themselves to be objective about anything Lechmere-related.
                ... which is why I call them the talibans of ripperology. For once, it is not the suspectologist that has the weird arguments, it is those who try to deny the value of the theory, setting all sense aside in the process.

                That says a lot.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  Good Morning, Dr.

                  Good morning Christer,

                  When a body is lying flat on the ground, it is totally unnatural for someone to attempt to check for example a pulse at the wrist, or the temperature of the hands, and the arms under the clothing without lifting the hand(s) from the ground at least a few inches. I do not consider that in 1888 a policeman would regard this routine check to be called moving the body.

                  As for the time scale of what followed, it was a dramatic few minutes for those involved, and exactly what was done, for how long, exactly when, by whom, and the exact order of a series of rapidly changing moments could be somewhat blurred, I suspect. I don't find the possibility of blood oozing from the wound for a few minutes after the slight raising of a hand even slightly surprising.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post


                    Good morning Christer,

                    When a body is lying flat on the ground, it is totally unnatural for someone to attempt to check for example a pulse at the wrist, or the temperature of the hands, and the arms under the clothing without lifting the hand(s) from the ground at least a few inches. I do not consider that in 1888 a policeman would regard this routine check to be called moving the body.

                    Totally unnatural? If the arm was lying palm up, it would be very natural to put your fingers against it and check for a pulse, would it not? How is that in any way strange? Likewise, why lift the arm to feel for warmth when you donīt need to? And again, Neil said under oath that he did not disturb the body. Regardless of what you think, that remains.

                    As for the time scale of what followed, it was a dramatic few minutes for those involved, and exactly what was done, for how long, exactly when, by whom, and the exact order of a series of rapidly changing moments could be somewhat blurred, I suspect. I don't find the possibility of blood oozing from the wound for a few minutes after the slight raising of a hand even slightly surprising.
                    The forensic scientists would, however. If the full amount of blood in the head and neck was supposed to bleed out completely over three to five minutes, why would raising the arm to feel for a pulse trigger a perhaps doubled bleeding time? The suggestion is not a very sound one, I fear.

                    You did not say whether or not you believe she was still bleeding from the killerīs cut as Neil saw her? Or did he lead it on himself in your view, by raising the hand. Like how we turn on a tap in the bathroom?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      ... which is why I call them the talibans of ripperology. For once, it is not the suspectologist that has the weird arguments, it is those who try to deny the value of the theory, setting all sense aside in the process.

                      That says a lot.
                      Christer,
                      Equating members of the site with the Taliban was actually reported as a personal attack. Given what we know of that despicable organization, I understand why such offense was taken, but I chose to let you slide.
                      Once.
                      If I see such name calling again you’ll receive an infraction.

                      Let’s all try to remain civilized.

                      Thanks

                      JM


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        The forensic scientists would, however. If the full amount of blood in the head and neck was supposed to bleed out completely over three to five minutes, why would raising the arm to feel for a pulse trigger a perhaps doubled bleeding time? The suggestion is not a very sound one, I fear.

                        You did not say whether or not you believe she was still bleeding from the killerīs cut as Neil saw her? Or did he lead it on himself in your view, by raising the hand. Like how we turn on a tap in the bathroom?
                        I suggested that firstly Paul and CAL raised her hands to check pulse/temperature and then later Neil did too. Maybe Paul and/or CAL even tried to rouse her, and moved her slightly. Paul, CAL and Neil were three human beings responding to a quite unexpected event. We don't have crystal clear statements about everything they all did, and so we cannot know. We are both making assumptions on less information than would be ideal.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Great Aunt View Post

                          Hhmm - I've said this before but I'll say it again ... I cant help thinking that using his ex-policeman step-father's surname might in some way give him some credibility with the police. Clutching at straws I would most definitely do the same in a tight situation.
                          I can add a small speculative thought to this. When Lechmere and Paul saw PC Mizen, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for Lechmere to say "Look, this copper will keep us here talking for ages and we'll both be in trouble at work. Let me handle this: my old stepdad was a copper, so I know how to talk to them. We'll be on our way in no time..." And so it came to pass that Paul stayed back and Lech went to talk to Mizen...

                          M.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                            except paul directly contradicts himself by saying he thought he could detect breathing and that she must have been dead and was so cold etc. but yes the rest is sound reasoning and good stuff.

                            so if i get this right-the ripper (not lech) is with nichols in bucks row, Lilly hears them and possible initial attack, ripper murders Nichols around 3:30 as the train passes by, cuts throat and gashes stomach but is scared off as lech approaches around 3:35 say? is this the idea?

                            Sorry Abby, I missed this earlier.

                            1. Yes, Paul's evidence is indeed contradictory, and we have to make assumptions in order to make some sense of it. If we just take a part of it, we can use that part as evidence of either one of the two different conclusions. That is unhelpful, so I am trying to somehow link the newspaper article and the inquest evidence to try to make some sense of it all. The newspaper report suggests that the body was particularly cold and the death therefore sometime earlier, not just a few minutes, and it becomes an attack on the police. I suspect that Paul may have been embarrassed by this when he read it, hence his apparent reluctance to attend the inquest. How much of the report is what he actually said, and how much was journalistic embellishment, we cannot know, but I think that if the reporter "sexed it up" there must have been some basis for the story. I think his basic tale of a coldish corpse was probably exaggerated, but that it was unlikely to be a total invention of the reporter. His story of thinking he might have sensed a slight movement actually happened, but was possibly overturned later by other points like the body temperature. So when he spoke to the journalist, it was his final thoughts that he expressed. But this is all assumption as I try to make sense of the contradictions. Others will think differently, especially if they have firmly taken sides previously! Personally, I have said several times that I consider CAL is a person of interest, but that the evidence against him is insufficient thus far.

                            2. As for what happened that morning in Buck's Row, I don't have one clear conclusion, just a few possibilities. If the murder was at about 3. 30 am, which ties up with part of Paul's evidence, and the fact that only one person claims to have heard anything, then JtR may have been disturbed by some sound of approaching footsteps, which could have been CAL, or someone else, who didn't notice the "tarpaulin". This was the first of the canonical five, so maybe JtR hadn't set out with the intention of disembowelling his victims at this point. Maybe that came later, possibly because his bloodlust wasn't satisfied by a couple of abdominal slashes and he wanted more next time. I elsewhere suggested, with no takers whatever, that disembowelling in the darkness of Buck's Row was very difficult or impossible - and Dutfield's Yard was also very dark and there were no mutilations - so maybe he just left of his own accord and escaped.
                            Last edited by Doctored Whatsit; 09-18-2021, 02:03 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              What you have to do is to prove your accusations, Trevor. Before you do so, what your contribution amounts to is slander, nothing else. And certainly, the points you presented earlier from your alleged conversation with Scobie did nothing to prove your claims.
                              A typical as expected reply from you. I dont need to prove my claims, the lack of evidence you have to put forward to prove the case aginst Lechmere is more than sufficinet to prove corroboration as to what I have posted.

                              You clearly have no idea how production companies operate in making such a documentary I have first hand experience. Go back to Blink films and ask them to prove me wrong if thats what you believe.Get them to show you the full interviews of all what those contributers said.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
                                ... a couple of abdominal slashes...
                                Folks, that's what Nichols' mutilations are now being turned into.

                                Just as, the other day, the killer hadn't covered them up.

                                We're seeing case details re-written day by day.

                                No mystery why...

                                M.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X