Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

>>And now I am gone. For real, and for some time.<<

Of course, you are.

Every time the going gets rough, Christer gets going. Mr cut and run.

It has become a standard joke amongst posters here.

I completely understand, even by your standards your desperatism has hit new lows and clearly, you’ve recognised it.

Here's hoping you have an epiphany whilst you are away and come back a more honest man with regards to your posts here.

Don't worry, I'll still have those questions for you when you do.

Dusty,

You seem to have been away for a bit yourself. Have you caught up on the amount of conjecture that has been put out by the anti-Lechmerians in the past day or two? I know you will think it outrageous and will take them to task over it.

Gary

[Darryl Kenyon]

So they do.

But why specifically drivers who pick up Mail? Were Sutcliffe’s victims found on known routes between sorting offices and postal depots?

Possibly not, but mail centres used to be in town centres as did sorting offices so, for instance if a mail depot was in Leeds city centre a driver could possibly traverse through a red light district at night taking and dropping off post.

Regards Darryl

[MrBarnett]

Possibly not, but mail centres used to be in town centres as did sorting offices so, for instance if a mail depot was in Leeds city centre a driver could possibly traverse through a red light district at night taking and dropping off post.

Regards Darryl

As could anyone driving through Leeds for any reason?

Where’s the unique FBI expertise in suggesting the killer may have been a postal worker?

[drstrange169]

>>… says the man who has never been known to write anything that is wrong. <<

Glad your with me Gary!

[drstrange169]

>>You seem to have been away for a bit yourself. Have you caught up on the amount of conjecture that has been put out by the anti-Lechmerians in the past day or two? I know you will think it outrageous and will take them to task over it. <<

Did you catch Bob's post about all the times the papers mentioned Paul hurrying along? Or Christer continued failure to answer the questions he promised?
I know you will think it outrageous and will take them to task over it.

[MrBarnett]

>>… says the man who has never been known to write anything that is wrong. <<

Glad your with me Gary!

Always, Dusty, always. Now that Christer’s departed who else could be my hero?

[MrBarnett]

>>You seem to have been away for a bit yourself. Have you caught up on the amount of conjecture that has been put out by the anti-Lechmerians in the past day or two? I know you will think it outrageous and will take them to task over it. <<

Did you catch Bob's post about all the times the papers mentioned Paul hurrying along? Or Christer continued failure to answer the questions he promised?
I know you will think it outrageous and will take them to task over it.

I did see Bob’s post, I’ve seen a number of his posts. All I can say is that Lechmerology is an extremely broad church.

Can you believe that I was once accused of following the Lechmerian ‘party line’ for suggesting that Thomas Cross was born in Breinton? As Boris Johnson said to me only the other day, ‘Party? What party?’

[MrBarnett]

What do you mean? Doesn't this sound like a postman to you...?

"Sutcliffe's first documented assault was of a female prostitute... He left his friend Trevor Birdsall's minivan and walked up St. Paul's Road in Bradford until he was out of sight. [...] When Sutcliffe returned, he was out of breath, as if he had been running. [...] Sutcliffe said he had followed a prostitute into a garage and hit her over the head with a stone in a sock. [...] Police visited Sutcliffe's home the next day, as the woman he had attacked had noted Birdsall's vehicle registration plate. He admitted he had hit her, but claimed it was with his hand. The police told him he was "very lucky", as the woman did not want anything more to do with the incident."

Still, if that guy Birdsall had ever gone and dobbed him in, the police would *definitely, definitely* have checked him out properly, wouldn't they? I mean, it stands to...

Oh, wait...

"On 25 November 1980, Birdsall sent an anonymous letter to police, the text of which ran as follows:

'I have good reason to now [sic] the man you are looking for in the Ripper case. This man as [sic] dealings with prostitutes and always had a thing about them ... His name and address is Peter Sutcliffe, 5 [sic] Garden Lane, Heaton, Bradford Clarkes [sic] Trans. Shipley.'

This letter was marked "Priority No. 1". An index card was created on the basis of the letter and a policewoman found Sutcliffe already had three existing index cards in the records. But "for some inexplicable reason", said the Byford Report, the papers remained in a filing tray in the incident room until the murderer's arrest on 2 January [1981], the following year."

All right then, maybe Birdsall made a mistake in sending an anonymous letter. Maybe things would have been different if he'd done something significant, like, say, going to a police station in person. Then the police *definitely, definitely, definitely* would have...

Oh, wait...

"Birdsall visited Bradford police station the day after sending the letter to repeat his misgivings about Sutcliffe. He added that he was with Sutcliffe when he got out of a car to pursue a woman with whom he had had a bar room dispute in Halifax on 16 August 1975. This was the date and place of the Olive Smelt attack. A report compiled on the visit was lost, despite a "comprehensive search" which took place after Sutcliffe's arrest, according to the report."

You know, it's such a shame that Sutcliffe didn't ever just say, "Well, I was on my way to work, and I saw what I thought was a tarpaulin..." Then the police would have been all over him like lice in a doss-house cot: looking into his entire history, questioning his wife, talking to his neighbours, *everything*... You know, all the things they would *definitely* have done -- and which would have identified a killer...

It makes you bloody weep...

M.

But he didn’t have a Geordie accent!

(But then neither did ‘Wearside’ Jack’.)

I’m convinced the FBI experts’ opinions weren’t reported in full. Their ‘methodology’ obviously told them that Sutcliffe had a mate called Trev who had a van.

[drstrange169]

>>All I can say is that Lechmerology is an extremely broad church. <<

I suppose that means it would be heresy to speak out against it. I see your problem.

>>Can you believe that I was once accused of following the Lechmerian ‘party line’ for suggesting that Thomas Cross was born in Breinton?<<

Since I'm usually right, I know it wasn't me!

[rjpalmer]

Can you believe that I was once accused of following the Lechmerian ‘party line’ for suggesting that Thomas Cross was born in Breinton? As Boris Johnson said to me only the other day, ‘Party? What party?’

Not quite how I remember the conversation, Gary.

I recall asking--innocently enough and in an idle sort of way--how certain everyone was that Thomas Cross the PC was the Breinton man (seeing that the data we have on him is not exactly filling up file folders, and the fact that there are also old posts by Chris Scott, Robert Linford, and even Ed Stowe (!) that cast some confusion on which county he supposedly hailed from) and being told in no uncertain terms that such questions showed that Ripperology was a 'waste of time.'

I then apologized for daring to question the 'party line,' however innocently. There was, in fact, more than one Thomas Cross in Hereford with a shoemaker father, though I admitted--and still admit--that the Breinton man seems to be the correct one, as the others of that name can be tossed out by process of elimination. There's nothing I know to show that he wasn't the right man, but I'd be happier if someone could trace his brother. Maybe Ed Stowe already has.

The way I look at it, if some still have nagging doubts that Aaron Kosminski is the 'Kosminksi' of the Mac memo, this idle question was a very minor heresy in the 'extremely broad church' of Lechmerology.

But, it's water under the bridge now. Time to move on.

[rjpalmer]

Aerial view of Mann, Crossman & Paulin Brewery (Albion) from "Survey of London" on Twitter. No date.

[JeffHamm]

But he didn’t have a Geordie accent!

(But then neither did ‘Wearside’ Jack’.)

I’m convinced the FBI experts’ opinions weren’t reported in full. Their ‘methodology’ obviously told them that Sutcliffe had a mate called Trev who had a van.

Well, it was the head of the local police who emphasized the Geordie accent. The FBI dismissed the tapes as a hoax. Also, the FBI were suggesting a number of occupations where the offender could be expected to be driving around at night, postal delivery just being one example they listed (which is quite different from them saying he was a postal delivery worker to the exclusion of other occupations).

That being said, I'm not suggesting their profiles are particularly useful as it's hard to know exactly how to evaluate them. Obviously, some points would be expected to be correct, some not, but at what point does something that doesn't match turn into an error? If they suggest he's a loner, but it turns out he went out a lot, but had no "close friends", is he a loner? Is that correct or not? When is a profile considered "wrong"? How many errors, if we can define them, are "too many"? I've not looked for awhile, but I've never found a study where that sort of thing has been analysed. We hear, of course, about the "successes" in books and media, and we hear about the dismal failures (the Beltway Snipers, for example), but those are the extremes, and are also a very small percentage of the profiles written. What would be useful would be an analysis of a large number of them, to see if they are providing useful information. And if they do, is that information broad and general (like the spatial profiles are - broad regions to consider, with quantifiable and known rates of success and failure?), in which case drop the specific details that just create noise. Or are they little more than a summary of the general information about offenders (probably male, probably 20-40s, etc), in which case they boil down to a general description of offenders while purporting to get beyond that and differentiate this offender from the general description.

There are some things, of course, that one can infer from a crime scene. Certain aspects may require a fair amount of strength to accomplish, so the offender must have that strength. Or in the case of the Snipers, the offender must have marksmanship skills from somewhere. We debate these sorts of things too when it comes to notions about anatomical knowledge, only in this case the medical opinion (then and now) is divided as to how much was required! But if someone is consistently making long range shots on victims, that at least becomes clear - they have marksmanship skills. It doesn't mean, however, they had to be military (though of course that would be one way those skills could be obtained), only that military, hunting, target shooting, gun enthusiast, etc background might be something to look for in a person of interest.

Those sorts of things are pretty obvious though. Where behavioural profiling claims it can go, though, is to find more obscure aspects of behaviour from the crime scene and get to further details about the offender's skill sets, personality, life traits, etc. And I don't think that has ever been studied to determine it can actually do anything like that at all.

Even the spatial analysis area needs a proper large scale study of efficacy, but these are very difficult to do because getting accurate information on a large number of cases is both expensive and complicated. While I've done some small scale testing, as have others, which all show things work, there is nothing like a large data set to really put things to the test. Also, most routines do about the same, so the large broad patterns are being detected, and it will take a large data set to see if the routines can be improved beyond current performance levels.

- Jeff

[harry]

I did once believe that police enquiries began with the murder itself.Now on what evidence is Cross connected to Nichols murder?Was he seen committing the murder?was he observed in the victim's company before or at the time of the murder?Is there any physical evidence linking Cross to the murder?Did he confess? He was found at the murder site after the murder had been committed,and he gives a reason for being there.So,what evidence,of an incriminating nature,is there?What elements of guilt are there that would be suitable to satisfy a magistrate a trial was neccessary. Now none of the above really need a time scedule,or a geographical area of operation.Neither do they require scientific evaluation.Just simple plain evidence of involvement,and there isn't any.

[MrBarnett]

Not quite how I remember the conversation, Gary.

I recall asking--innocently enough and in an idle sort of way--how certain everyone was that Thomas Cross the PC was the Breinton man (seeing that the data we have on him is not exactly filling up file folders, and the fact that there are also old posts by Chris Scott, Robert Linford, and even Ed Stowe (!) that cast some confusion on which county he supposedly hailed from) and being told in no uncertain terms that such questions showed that Ripperology was a 'waste of time.'

I then apologized for daring to question the 'party line,' however innocently. There was, in fact, more than one Thomas Cross in Hereford with a shoemaker father, though I admitted--and still admit--that the Breinton man seems to be the correct one, as the others of that name can be tossed out by process of elimination. There's nothing I know to show that he wasn't the right man, but I'd be happier if someone could trace his brother. Maybe Ed Stowe already has.

The way I look at it, if some still have nagging doubts that Aaron Kosminski is the 'Kosminksi' of the Mac memo, this idle question was a very minor heresy in the 'extremely broad church' of Lechmerology.

But, it's water under the bridge now. Time to move on.

I don’t recall it being a ‘conversation’ RJ. Your ‘party line’ accusation (no doubt completely innocent and tongue-in-cheek) was on CB. I didn’t see it initially and therefore didn’t respond to it.

Your subsequent ‘idle’ questioning of my totally independent assertion that TC had been born in Breinton occurred on JTRF. You had issues with my idea and cited Ed Stow, and Robert Linford to support you. Even Dusty had his doubts. I’m still convinced I found the right man.

One of the most annoying tropes of the anti-Lech brigade is that those of us who don’t pour crap on the idea that Lechmere is worthy of consideration are all part of some moronic cult.

The personal attacks on Christer remind me of the pack mentality engendered by the Spandex Bully towards ‘Pierre’.

I agree it is time to move on.

[MrBarnett]

I did once believe that police enquiries began with the murder itself.Now on what evidence is Cross connected to Nichols murder?Was he seen committing the murder?was he observed in the victim's company before or at the time of the murder?Is there any physical evidence linking Cross to the murder?Did he confess? He was found at the murder site after the murder had been committed,and he gives a reason for being there.So,what evidence,of an incriminating nature,is there?What elements of guilt are there that would be suitable to satisfy a magistrate a trial was neccessary. Now none of the above really need a time scedule,or a geographical area of operation.Neither do they require scientific evaluation.Just simple plain evidence of involvement,and there isn't any.

Careful, Harry, saying he was ‘found’ at the murder site is just a footstep away from using his real name.