Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    You donīt WANT him to make the comparison, you mean. It is very obvious that he CAN. He just did.
    Of course he cant the scenarios are as different as chalk and cheese.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

      It is obvious Griffiths was fed a load of crap.
      Correction: YOU think it is, or you enjoy claiming it. But you do it with bno evidence, and no knowledge about the material Griffiths had. I, on the other hand, know EXACTLY what material he had, and I can tell you that it was not in any way skewed. It was a very full compilation of newspaper articles and police reports.

      Therefore, as so often is the case, you are not only wrong but also proud of it.

      There is a name for such things. I suggest you look it up.

      Ta-da.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        Well, since you ARE the crap expert, who knows, maybe you are right. At least you have seen the exact material Griffiths was given. Otherwise, you could not make accusations other than on grounds of guesswork.
        We like Scobie only saw a fraction of his intervew, If Blink did it with Scobie I would bet they did it with the others.

        and we know that newspaper articles from that period who reported on the murders are unsafe, as has been proven by the many conflcits of evidence we have seen in them.

        and if you have a copy of all that he was presented with by Blink films, then please make it available to us on here that would then clear up any ambiguites

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-10-2022, 04:40 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          We ... only saw a fraction of his intervew...
          So he was given a dishonest selection of material, and part of your complaint is that he didn't get longer to tell us what he concluded from it...?!?

          I. Just. Can't.

          M.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            You have had that pointed out to you many times.Its about time you started to acknowledge the fact that your theory does not stand up to the close scrutiny which it has been subjected to.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Trevor, I am calling you a liar. I suggest you report me to the administrators - but I would suggest that you are going to have to be able to disprove me before you do.

            But that is not going to happen, is it? Whether or not you are intellectually unfit to understand what proof is and what it represents, or whether you are simply lying for any other reason, I donīt know. But the gist of the matter is that you are not telling the truth. The truth is that the theory has NEVER been disproven in any way. And I can -easily - prove that here and now:

            If the theory had been disproven by anybody, it is not as if everybody but you would prefer not to talk about it. I would have been blown off Casebook, scorned and laughed at and hung out to dry, and there would have been a queue formed by people taking turn to spit at me.

            It is the wet dream of numerous posters out here to disprove the Lechmere theory. If it had ever happened, we should all - me included - know that.

            But we donīt.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              There are psychopaths who cannot panick and who will not run.
              Read the study.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                So he was given a dishonest selection of material, and part of your complaint is that he didn't get longer to tell us what he concluded from it...?!?

                I. Just. Can't.

                M.
                Trevor is not up to task when it comes to matters like these. The sad thing is that he is seemingly merrily unaware of this himself. James Scobie is a man versed in all sorts of deceptions. To think that he did not request to see the material before it was aired is to have distanced oneself badly from the thinking part of society.

                I suggest we leave him to his ramblings, not least because the topic is as"fruitful" as the reoccurring "He would have scarpered" suggestions. It has been very evident for ten years that it leads absolutely nowhere - but it keeps coming up and up and up and up and...

                It is an idiocy that sensible people reading this will rightfully find hard to forgive.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                  Read the study.
                  I already read it, or a similar study. It divided psychopaths up in two fractions, and one of them was able to panick and feel fear while the other was not, at least to a significant degree.

                  If "your" study tells another story, which do we believe? And do we ditch all the other studies, that speak of psychopaths as fearless and non-panincking as more or less a rule?

                  Letīs gather under the cherry-tree and see!

                  Comment


                  • And now Iīm off for some time.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                      So he was given a dishonest selection of material, and part of your complaint is that he didn't get longer to tell us what he concluded from it...?!?

                      I. Just. Can't.

                      M.
                      I did not suggest that at all. I know for a fact that with Scobie he gave over 30 mins of interview yet only a few minutes ended up on the screen and coincidentally it was the few minutes Fish uses to prop up his theory and it seems that the end result was that the whole interview was edited by Blink films in a manner that clearly in my opinon misled the viewing public.

                      Knowing how these documentaries are made and subsequentkly edited it would not surprise me if the same applied to the other experts because they all on film and without question went along for the ride with the doc makers remit.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        I did not suggest that at all.
                        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        I know for a fact that with Scobie he gave over 30 mins of interview yet only a few minutes ended up on the screen...
                        Stunning. Just ... stunning.

                        M.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          Trevor is not up to task when it comes to matters like these. The sad thing is that he is seemingly merrily unaware of this himself. James Scobie is a man versed in all sorts of deceptions. To think that he did not request to see the material before it was aired is to have distanced oneself badly from the thinking part of society.

                          He told me he didnt see it before it was aired, and when I made him aware of what was shown he was shocked and stated that he was not made aware of many of the relevant parts of the witness testimony in the case that may have altered his opinion as to what went out on air.

                          I suggest we leave him to his ramblings, not least because the topic is as"fruitful" as the reoccurring "He would have scarpered" suggestions. It has been very evident for ten years that it leads absolutely nowhere - but it keeps coming up and up and up and up and...

                          It is an idiocy that sensible people reading this will rightfully find hard to forgive.
                          The truth hurts doesnt it? and is hard for you to accept now, You have gone down a path with this wild theory of yours and you are unable to turn back so you are obliged to defend it.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            Correction: YOU think it is, or you enjoy claiming it. But you do it with bno evidence, and no knowledge about the material Griffiths had. I, on the other hand, know EXACTLY what material he had, and I can tell you that it was not in any way skewed. It was a very full compilation of newspaper articles and police reports.

                            Therefore, as so often is the case, you are not only wrong but also proud of it.

                            There is a name for such things. I suggest you look it up.

                            Ta-da.
                            This is obviously bullshit.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                              My apologies for being blunt, but to me, this comes across like a cartoon. There is almost admiration in your tone.

                              The Ripper was a Super Man. He was confident and dominant and fearless.

                              Sure; that's why he's choosing to kill drunken, frail, middle-aged women in the dead of night when he knows there won't be very many people about to see him or stop him.

                              Personally, I think this 'profile' is dead wrong. His actions don't reek of confidence; they reek of cowardice.

                              He wants you to think he is a brave warrior--that's why his crimes are so violent and extreme. In reality, he is picking on the weakest, because it really takes very little for him to piss his boots. He is afraid and he is cowardly.

                              And, by the way, the old idea that psychopaths don't feel fear has been largely debunked in recent years by advances in brain imaging, etc. There are many studies about it, including the long one below.

                              Frontiers | Psychopaths Show Enhanced Amygdala Activation during Fear Conditioning | Psychology (frontiersin.org)
                              I’m a Psychology graduate so this is one area where I can pull rank a little. Psychopathy has been linked to heroism and bravery. I even read one article suggesting many war heroes could be Psychopathic.
                              Here is an article that suggests psychopaths can possess “fearless dominance” which is exactly what I suggest with Lechmere in Bucks Row. He thinks he can dominate, manipulate and control the approaching witness. Running off isn’t on his radar. He’s a psychopath.

                              https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...92656613000822

                              “We examine the relation between psychopathy, especially its fearless dominance dimension, and heroism…”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman
                                "... I, on the other hand, know EXACTLY what material he [Griffiths] had, and I can tell you that it was not in any way skewed. It was a very full compilation of newspaper articles and police reports..."

                                Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

                                This is obviously bullshit.
                                -- And this (below) is very obviously a screengrab of the two men sitting together and able to see each other's folders and compare their contents...

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	Capture.JPG
Views:	138
Size:	62.0 KB
ID:	777766

                                M.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X