Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

But again you cannot prove they didnt.

According to you there were clearly enough grounds for the police to suspect him and check out his initial account which clearly they did and having checked him out they eliminated him from suspicion and again you cannot prove anything to the contrary

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I CAN prove that the police did not name him by his correct and registered name in either of the reports written in September and October. That means I have something to show for my suggestion.

What do you have to show for YOUR suggestion, Trevor?

[Trevor Marriott]

I CAN prove that the police did not name him by his correct and registered name in either of the reports written in September and October. That means I have something to show for my suggestion.

What do you have to show for YOUR suggestion, Trevor?

Again you duck and dive as normal when you are faced with a question that you have no answer to.

Your reply has absolutley nothing to do with my original post

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Just a warning to those of you who are not aquainted with the facts about Elizabeth Jacksons uterus and how it was removed from her body by the killer. Poster "Fiver", who I have stopped answering on account of how he repeatedly misleads, misunderstands and misinterprets the facts of the case, thereafter going on to claim that the ones he "debates" with are the ones who are wrong, has now posted (post 1320) a claim that the uterus was NOT carved out from Jacksons body. He tries to bolster the claim by quoting Thomad Bond, but fails to give the source. Anyhow, what Bond says in the quotation is that "The upper part of the vagina was attached to the uterus<2.

Apparently Fiver has come up with the conclusion that the vagina is part of the body, and if the uterus was attached to it, it was also part of the body and consequentially, it was not carved out.

What Fiver fails to understand (this time) is that the upper part of the vagina was ALSO cut out of the body together with the uterus. What was still in place in the pelvis when found was the LOWER part of the vagina and rectum and the front part of the bladder.

The uterus, the cord, and the placenta were cut out of Jacksons body and wrapped up together with the two flaps of the abdominal wall that were also taken from Jacksons body. The upper part of the vagina apparently came along in the process. I suspect most of us out here are familiar with this, but those who are not may be flummoxed by Fivers misunderstanding and I do not want this to happen. The facts should be treated as facts and not as toys to play with for the less well informed posters.

[Fisherman]

Again you duck and dive as normal when you are faced with a question that you have no answer to.

Your reply has absolutley nothing to do with my original post

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It has got everything to do with any post that claims that Lechmere was in any way investigated or put under surveillance, since we have an indicator that the police took very little interest in the carman.

If the police put Lechmere under surveillance one would have thought that they read what it said on his mailbox. But that´s just me, of course.

So much for that ducking and diving. Where did you ever get the idea that ANYBODY out here would need to duck and dive relating to your insights, Trevor?

If it had not been so dumb a suggestion it would be kind of cute.

[Trevor Marriott]

It has got everything to do with any post that claims that Lechmere was in any way investigated or put under surveillance, since we have an indicator that the police took very little interest in the carman.

And why was that? It was because they were happy with his account, and his explantion for the different names, You theory surrounding lechmere has no evidential foundation

If the police put Lechmere under surveillance one would have thought that they read what it said on his mailbox. But that´s just me, of course.

And just you, shows that your are totally obsessed with this Lechmere theory and you completly reject out of sight all that is put forward to support him being a non starter

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

And just you, shows that your are totally obsessed with this Lechmere theory and you completly reject out of sight all that is put forward to support him being a non starter

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Much has been put forward with the hope to weaken the case against him. So far, no such thing has happened. Why, we have even had an ex murder squad cop who has claimed that the theory has been debunked!

Such desperation is actually quite entertaining. The level of ignorance is breathtaking. Inspector Closeau looks like an intellectual giant in comparison.

The funny thing about this guy is that regardless of how he is ridiculed (which is mainly his own doing) he regularly comes back for more.

Trevor, I’ m sure the dream you had was a nice one, but dreams have nothing to do here. This is about facts, not about yelling ”It wasn’ t him!” at the top of your voice.

[Trevor Marriott]

Much has been put forward with the hope to weaken the case against him. So far, no such thing has happened. Why, we have even had an ex murder squad cop who has claimed that the theory has been debunked!

Such desperation is actually quite entertaining. The level of ignorance is breathtaking. Inspector Closeau looks like an intellectual giant in comparison.

The funny thing about this guy is that regardless of how he is ridiculed (which is mainly his own doing) he regularly comes back for more.

Trevor, I’ m sure the dream you had was a nice one, but dreams have nothing to do here. This is about facts, not about yelling ”It wasn’ t him!” at the top of your voice.

Well any sensible researcher who has studied the case and what you theory is will know that it wasnt him, its about time you accepted that fact and stopped peddling this Lechmere suspect nonsense

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

What baffles me is how certain people think they have a better understanding of the case than the police back in 1888.
Yes, the psychology of serial killers may be better understood. But as for bobbies on the ground etc, come on . They had no DNA etc, no forensics etc . What they did have however was instinct, witness statements, local knowledge etc.
Of course this didn't account for everything. But you are telling me that 130 years later people have a better understanding than say PC Thain, Mizen etc And of course Swanson , Abberline higher up etc of who was a suspect etc and what leads to follow and what alibi's to check out, well !
So when someone discovered a freshly killed body and the police would have no suspicions against the guy, and we have, even if it was just a follow up, check up on this person, and they were there and we were not. And they did not exonerate him ?
Sorry but I do not concur
Regards Darryl

[harry]

Darryl,
There was no need of the police to exonerate Cross.The only evidence the police had was that Cross had found Nichols body.There was no witness statement,or evidence of any kind,that showed Cross had inflicted the injuries to Nichols.

[MrBarnett]

The guy seemingly kept his real name (which was Lechmere) from the police and the coroner.

[MrBarnett]

Well any sensible researcher who has studied the case and what you theory is will know that it wasnt him, its about time you accepted that fact and stopped peddling this Lechmere suspect nonsense

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You don’t ‘know’ it wasn’t him, Trevor - which presumably excludes you from the category of ‘sensible researcher’

[Trevor Marriott]

You don’t ‘know’ it wasn’t him, Trevor - which presumably excludes you from the category of ‘sensible researcher’

Well where is the evidence to prove it was him, the answer is there is none. the man finds a body on his way to work, the evidence to show the victim was freshly killed and therefore Lecmhere must have been the killer is flawed and has proven to be flawed, and its time you and the others who Fisherman has brainwashed into beliveing his unproven theory needs a reality check.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Dickere]

What baffles me is how certain people think they have a better understanding of the case than the police back in 1888.
Yes, the psychology of serial killers may be better understood. But as for bobbies on the ground etc, come on . They had no DNA etc, no forensics etc . What they did have however was instinct, witness statements, local knowledge etc.
Of course this didn't account for everything. But you are telling me that 130 years later people have a better understanding than say PC Thain, Mizen etc And of course Swanson , Abberline higher up etc of who was a suspect etc and what leads to follow and what alibi's to check out, well !
So when someone discovered a freshly killed body and the police would have no suspicions against the guy, and we have, even if it was just a follow up, check up on this person, and they were there and we were not. And they did not exonerate him ?
Sorry but I do not concur
Regards Darryl

This was the first C5 case, there was no serial killer at that stage. I bet if MN hadn't been first, or Lech had 'found' a later victim, he'd have got a lot more attention than he did.

[Darryl Kenyon]

This was the first C5 case, there was no serial killer at that stage. I bet if MN hadn't been first, or Lech had 'found' a later victim, he'd have got a lot more attention than he did.

That's a fair point D. But I am sure as the killings escalated the police would look back on witness statements etc . And Lech's statement etc would have been gone over and looked into. It was of the upmost importance
Regards Darryl

[Fisherman]

Well any sensible researcher who has studied the case and what you theory is will know that it wasnt him, its about time you accepted that fact and stopped peddling this Lechmere suspect nonsense

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I´m not sure that I want to do the Marriott tango again, Trevor. You know; the one where I say that you need to show soemthing for your claim that the theory has been debunked and you say that the boards are full of examples and you are not going to do the work to dig it up for me.

It has become boring, you see, and we all know that the reason that you never post any debunking evidence is that it was never there.

Lots and lots of VERY sensible researchers have expressed how Lechmere is a more than worthy suspect, and that is as it should be - if anybody IS a worthy suspect, that anybody is certainly him.

If you want me to, I can find a few examples from the net of people with a very longstanding interest in the case who say that they are now convinced that the solution at long last has been found with Lechmere. People with REAL insights into the case, Trevor, not people who stick their ostridge heads into the sand and go "Debunked! Debunked! Debunked!"

Just say the word.