Evidence of innocence

[Trevor Marriott]

I donīt see Biggs either agreeing or denying the proposal of Payne James and Thiblin here. Do you? It was NEVER relevant in this matter to establish how long a victim CAN bleed, the whole importance is how long a victim with the damage Nichols had is LIKELY to bleed. I was clear in the extreme about this in my book, for the simple reason that I was told by the pathologists that in many court cases where they said "the victim was likely to have bled for perhaps ten to fifteen minutes", the defence barrister would say "And if the victim could bleed for fiftenn minutes, then why could he not bleed for sixteen minutes? Or seventeen? Or twenty?", and they would have to answer that it could perhaps happen in extreme cases, although it was incredibly unexpected.
In this case, we cannot establish the borderline for how long Nichols COULD have bled, but we CAN ask the experts how long it is LIKELY that she will have bled, and that is precisely what I did.
But you seem quite the expert of failing to understand this. Of course.

I fully understand, but it is you that seem to not be able to. You ask the question the time she was likely to bleed out,and Dr Biggs states that after discussing the various factors surrounding such a murder, it is concluded that there is no definitive answer but your theory to suggest Lechmere is the killer is based on your belief that the victim bled out within a specified time frame which could only relate to Lechmeres timings, which is wrong.

Nichols could have been killed at any time between 3.15am-3.45am. or equally if Pc Neil was lying at any time bewteen 2.30am-3.45am. You have to accept that but you cant or wont because this bleed out issue has formed and integral part of your theory on Lechmere being the killer and to now reject it weakens your theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

So you donīt think Lechmere had the opportunity to kill Nichols?

Hi Fish.

In regard to your theory of Lechmere committing 'crimes of opportunity," it is correct to state that we have many instances of murderers doing these sorts of things.

Not too long ago, there was a security guard implicated in an old murder case committed in California. The police had looked at everyone--including Ted Bundy--but in the end, it appears the woman was actually murdered by a security guard who just happened to be in the area at the time. In shades of MJ Druitt, perhaps, he thwarted justice by committed suicide as the police closed in to question him. It didn't help though--the police had obtained DNA evidence, thanks to advances in technology. The security guard had committed this appalling crime. It might also be worth pointing out that the police had--wrongly--tried to link this murder to others committed in the same small area and within the same time frame.

Anyway, the murder had been a spontaneous attack by this reprobate, whose motive was beyond petty: he was angry that his hours had been recently cut back, and he wanted revenge for his loss of pay, so he took out his anger on an innocent woman who happened by.

But also in the literature is the fact that killers of this sort, beyond mere 'opportunity,' usually have to 'work themselves up' before committing their crimes. They cruise around for hours or get liquored up. Berkowitz, for instance, killed after work hours. He was hardly alone in this pattern. Even in the Whitechapel Murders, we see Colocitt and Cutbush, etc. creeping out at night.

By contrast, it is difficult for me to imagine this ostensibly normal carman getting out of bed, brewing a quick cup of tea, pecking his wife on the cheek, and while still wiping the sleep from his eyes, deciding to meet his Bright New Day by disemboweling women on his commute to work. He then yawns and continues on to Broad Street to start his shift.

Where, in the annals of crime, has there been such a case?

It's not just a "crime of opportunity," as you suggest. It is a pattern that he repeated again and again and in short order: Martha, Polly, Annie, Mary.

For me, at least, the psychology is all wrong.

Good luck and enjoy your break.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fish.

In regard to your theory of Lechmere committing 'crimes of opportunity," it is correct to state that we have many instances of murderers doing these sorts of things.

Not too long ago, there was a security guard implicated in an old murder case committed in California. The police had looked at everyone--including Ted Bundy--but in the end, it appears the woman was actually murdered by a security guard who just happened to be in the area at the time. In shades of MJ Druitt, perhaps, he thwarted justice by committed suicide as the police closed in to question him. It didn't help though--the police had obtained DNA evidence, thanks to advances in technology. The security guard had committed this appalling crime. It might also be worth pointing out that the police had--wrongly--tried to link this murder to others committed in the same small area and within the same time frame.

Anyway, the murder had been a spontaneous attack by this reprobate, whose motive was beyond petty: he was angry that his hours had been recently cut back, and he wanted revenge for his loss of pay, so he took out his anger on an innocent woman who happened by.

But also in the literature is the fact that killers of this sort, beyond mere 'opportunity,' usually have to 'work themselves up' before committing their crimes. They cruise around for hours or get liquored up. Berkowitz, for instance, killed after work hours. He was hardly alone in this pattern. Even in the Whitechapel Murders, we see Colocitt and Cutbush, etc. creeping out at night.

By contrast, it is difficult for me to imagine this ostensibly normal carman getting out of bed, brewing a quick cup of tea, pecking his wife on the cheek, and while still wiping the sleep from his eyes, deciding to meet his Bright New Day by disemboweling women on his commute to work. He then yawns and continues on to Broad Street to start his shift.

Where, in the annals of crime, has there been such a case?

It's not just a "crime of opportunity," as you suggest. It is a pattern that he repeated again and again and in short order: Martha, Polly, Annie, Mary.

For me, at least, the psychology is all wrong.

Good luck and enjoy your break.

Hi RJ
i pretty much agree with this, it was my main reason of criticism against lech in the beginning. Is still one of my main beefs against him as the killer, but there are examples of serial killers who killed on there way to work, or at least during work, I beleive two were truck drivers (also kind of like lech the carman) but cant remember their names. But your point is a very valid one IMHO.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I beleive two were truck drivers (also kind of like lech the carman) but cant remember their names. But your point is a very valid one IMHO.

Hi Abby, the FBI [ Ressler, Douglas ], thought that the Yorkshire Ripper's employment gave him cover in the murder areas. They thought he might be a cabbie, mail carrier, or truck driver making deliveries.
Which of course he was [ truck driver ].

Regards Darryl

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, the FBI [ Ressler, Douglas ], thought that the Yorkshire Ripper's employment gave him cover in the murder areas. They thought he might be a cabbie, mail carrier, or truck driver making deliveries.
Which of course he was [ truck driver ].

Regards Darryl

thanks DK-interesting. I had forgot about him. Other than the ripper, Im not really up to speed on British serial killers, mainly US ones.

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Abby, the FBI [ Ressler, Douglas ], thought that the Yorkshire Ripper's employment gave him cover in the murder areas. They thought he might be a cabbie, mail carrier, or truck driver making deliveries.
Which of course he was [ truck driver ].

Regards Darryl

Yeah but we have it good authority that 'your average casebooker knows more than these guys'!

Surprised some people on here don't apply to work for the FBI - I can just these their statements: 'no direct (applied) experience in this field but have contributed X posts to Ripper Casebook. My last post got 5 likes.'

[Aethelwulf]

This time without the typos:

Hi Abby, the FBI [ Ressler, Douglas ], thought that the Yorkshire Ripper's employment gave him cover in the murder areas. They thought he might be a cabbie, mail carrier, or truck driver making deliveries.
Which of course he was [ truck driver ].

Yeah but we have it good authority that 'your average casebooker knows more than these guys'!

Surprised some people on here don't apply to work for the FBI - I can just see their personal statements: 'no direct (applied) experience in this field but have contributed X posts to Ripper Casebook. My last post got 5 likes.'

[MrBarnett]

This time without the typos:

Hi Abby, the FBI [ Ressler, Douglas ], thought that the Yorkshire Ripper's employment gave him cover in the murder areas. They thought he might be a cabbie, mail carrier, or truck driver making deliveries.
Which of course he was [ truck driver ].

Yeah but we have it good authority that 'your average casebooker knows more than these guys'!

Surprised some people on here don't apply to work for the FBI - I can just see their personal statements: 'no direct (applied) experience in this field but have contributed X posts to Ripper Casebook. My last post got 5 likes.'

Yeah, they thought he might drive some kind of vehicle. Even a policeman possibly. Such precision!

[MrBarnett]

Yeah, they thought he might drive some kind of vehicle. Even a policeman possibly. Such precision!

I wonder what they meant by a mail carrier - a postman?

[Mark J D]

Yeah, they thought he might drive some kind of vehicle. Even a policeman possibly. Such precision!

I don't know the entire story (though I remember all the things that horrified me at the time); but, as far as I recall, Sutcliffe didn't kill as a 'truck driver making deliveries'...

Am I remembering this all wrong? Who the hell was he meant to be delivering to on, say, the night he was arrested in his own car with false number-plates, a range of weapons, and a potential victim?

M.

[MrBarnett]

I don't know the entire story (though I remember all the things that horrified me at the time); but, as far as I recall, Sutcliffe didn't kill as a 'truck driver making deliveries'...

Am I remembering this all wrong? Who the hell was he meant to be delivering to on, say, the night he was arrested in his own car with false number-plates, a range of weapons, and a potential victim?

M.

Do postmen deliver letters at night in Yorkshire?

[MrBarnett]

They guessed he was someone who had a vehicle. I bet that had never occurred to the dim-witted Yorkshire plod.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, they thought he might drive some kind of vehicle. Even a policeman possibly. Such precision!

Its a wonder that they didn’t catch him after the first couple of murders with that kind of piercing insight Gary.

[MrBarnett]

Its a wonder that they didn’t catch him after the first couple of murders with that kind of piercing insight Gary.

It’s not a case I’ve followed. Obviously I remember it in the papers at the time, but the details didn’t stick.

If what Mark says is true (and why wouldn’t it be?) that Sutcliffe didn’t just kill when he was working as a truck (lorry in proper English) driver, then the FBI profile was a load of old codswallop.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I wonder what they meant by a mail carrier - a postman?

I think they probably meant a driver delivering the mail from sorting depots to delivery offices during the night

Regards Darryl