Charles Cross?

[Fisherman]

Caz: You are surely not expecting to 'amass' that kind of evidence against Lechmere, are you? Good luck with that one. I should think it would be a thousand times easier to tot up all the alternative explanations and presume him innocent.

Where did you get that from, Toots? Did I even hint at such a thing? I think not. There is already, however, a lot of circumstantial evidence against Lechmere, and more is added frequently.

Like it or not.

No, you don't say! I'm shocked. Since you acknowledge it would be totally out of order to nail Lechmere with bogus evidence, you must realise you are destined to feel he is guilty without being able to 'get to' him.

Actually no. Added evidence means that we are creeping closer all the time. I donīt expect to find technical, conclusive evidence, but as I have pointed out numerous times on this thread, many cases are settled by means of circumstantial evidence only. And there is a lot of it against the carman by now.
I also said that those who claim that there is nothing at all pointing in his directions are undermining their own credibility. You need to look out on that score, Toots.

[Fisherman]

No definitive proof, Fisherman? Are you kidding? There's not even a shred of evidence that Lechmere was not merely walking to work when he saw what he described as a tarpaulin and found it was a recently murdered woman.

If he had been just seconds later, Robert Paul would have been the finder and you'd have a lot more time on your hands to have fun. You have allowed yourself to be driven by these two carmen.

Love,

Caz
X

No, I am not kidding - there really IS no definitive proof. There is just circumstantial evidence that makes a murder squad leader go "he would have some serious questions to answer" and a QC who says that there is a prima faciae case against him that point to him being the killer - oh, and then thereīs of course you.

I almost forgot about you.

Somehow the other two outshone you.

How uncourteous of me.

[Harry D]

If there was 'a lot of circumstantial evidence' piling against Crossmere, you wouldn't need to resort to wild speculation about the burial distance between him and his wife.

[Fisherman]

If there was 'a lot of circumstantial evidence' piling against Crossmere, you wouldn't need to resort to wild speculation about the burial distance between him and his wife.

Tell me how I speculated! And what I speculated. And why. Iīm waiting with great interest.

Once you produced your answer, we can go on to discuss the matter more intelligibly.

[Harry D]

Gladly...

One would have thought that they should perhaps have wanted to spend the eternity together after having spent a long life together. But when Elizabeth died, twenty years after Charles, she was laid to rest with other relatives of hers and not by his side.

Whether that means anything or not in the Ripper context is anybodys guess. As with so many matters the answer is probably "It may - and it may not".

What is that, if not wild speculation?

There are a million and one plausible answers for why she wasn't buried with her husband, a few of them offered by Patrick S, before even making the leap that it was because she knew that her husband was the most notorious serial killer in history, especially when said suspect already has the flimsiest case against him. That's one problem with debating with suspect-based Ripperologists, they are too entrenched in their beliefs that they cannot present a convincing argument without having to rely on mental gymnastics.

[Abby Normal]

caz: Two wrongs don't make a right, Fisherman.

Which was your former post...?

That is exactly how one should proceed, by testing every aspect of their case against a suspect and trying to disprove it.

If you read what I wrote, I actually always look at the other side too. Interestingly, Abby Normal meant that I have the prosecutors role. If so, I am a strange prosecutor, since I as a rule look at the counterarguments every time.
And it is not as if the carman lacks a defence out here, is it? And none of THOSE lawyers seem to look at things from the other side.

Take a look at the blood evidence. I point out how it implicates Lechmere, but I add that there is uncertainty with the timings and as regards deviations in blood coagulation.
I donīt think you have to worry, Toots.

I still believe the Maybrick diary is an old hoax, for instance. But I have not stopped testing this belief and trying to find sound evidence that it was faked in the late 20th century.

Good on you!

Aren't the police supposed to try and eliminate potential suspects until they are presented with one who resists all their efforts to do so, and is then duly charged on sufficient evidence to expect a conviction?

Read the memoirs of those who hunted Gary Ridgway, John Wayne Gacy, David Carpenter ...
These men were certain that they had their guy, and they gave the hunts all they had, trying to amass as much evidence as they could to get their men.

There are also many examples of how policemen have tampered with evidence in order to be able to nail suspect thet feel are guilty, but where they cannot get to them.

In all of this, one hopes that they look at the other side too, and I am sure that the discerning ones do. In that respect, they differ little from me - I pursue my case, but I look at alternative explanations too.

In the Lechmere case, I have often said that all the parts where I accuse him may also have innocent explanations but they are too many to be just coincidental to my mind.

I donīt think I need much more moral advice from you, Toots. But thanks anyway, for your valiant effort.

hi fish
I posted my prosecutor statement after I saw that you had responded to another poster that if you found exculpatory evidence you would make it known. Prosecutors ARE supposed to do this, but of course sometimes they don't.
But their main role, once convinced of someones guilt is to find all evidence pointing to someones guilt and to aggressively prove their case. which you are doing. and like I said-nothing wrong with that.
I though it was an apt analogy, and didn't mean you were "strange" one or doing anything wrong.

Oh and everybody
Before the increase in technology and forensic evidence, most people were convicted on circumstantial evidence. and still are.

you can make an argument that its weak circumstantial evidence, but not that its just circumstantial.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Gladly...

What is that, if not wild speculation?

That it may or may not mean something, you mean? Like I wrote? Yes, Harry, that is some wild speculation...!

You know, the only one speculating wildly here is you.

The only one reading is NOT you.

There are a million and one plausible answers for why she wasn't buried with her husband, a few of them offered by Patrick S, before even making the leap that it was because she knew that her husband was the most notorious serial killer in history, especially when said suspect already has the flimsiest case against him. That's one problem with debating with suspect-based Ripperologists, they are too entrenched in their beliefs that they cannot present a convincing argument without having to rely on mental gymnastics.

If you had read up, you would know that I was asked by PC Dunn (poster) if there were any family stories connected to the carman theory.

I said that there was not as far as I could tell. Then I told him that I personally sometimes pondered the fact that although Lechmere and hos wife spent their entire grown up lives together, they were nevertheless not laid to rest in the same spot.

That was the only story I could tell as regards this factor. And I added that it may or may not mean something.

I think that just about covers things - "it may, and it may not".

That means that it may be a sign of Elizabeth not wanting to get buried alongside her husband. Equally, it may have a host of alternative explanations.

It may or it may not. Do you understand the phrasing?

That is one HUGE speculation from my side, admittedly.

The desperation you guys show in your posts, the groundless allegations, the crocodile tears you cry are nothing short of hilarious. There is seemingly no end to the crap.

[Fisherman]

hi fish
I posted my prosecutor statement after I saw that you had responded to another poster that if you found exculpatory evidence you would make it known. Prosecutors ARE supposed to do this, but of course sometimes they don't.
But their main role, once convinced of someones guilt is to find all evidence pointing to someones guilt and to aggressively prove their case. which you are doing. and like I said-nothing wrong with that.
I though it was an apt analogy, and didn't mean you were "strange" one or doing anything wrong.

Oh and everybody
Before the increase in technology and forensic evidence, most people were convicted on circumstantial evidence. and still are.

you can make an argument that its weak circumstantial evidence, but not that its just circumstantial.

Hi Abby - no qualms, you made a perfectly useful comparison!

[Abby Normal]

Hi,

The fact is that he was not "The Prime Suspect" for the Nichols murder.

He wasnt at the time, and he certainly isnt now. He is a speculative suspect the same as any other, including Van Gough and Lewis Carroll.

Best wishes.

uh, sorry. NO.

Lech is quite the opposite of those types of suspects.
Hes EXACTLY the type of potential suspect that needs to be looked into more.

Like a Richardson, or Bowyer, and Law.

[Patrick S]

It is not an easy thing to charge a man who has been dead for 95 years. Somehow, I think that is out of the question.

What one could do, is to research him in retrospect, but not charge him. One could also contact and gather the living relatives of this man and ask them how they look upon things. Edward did just that. They were all just fine with having their relative researched as the possible Jack the Ripper.

This is where I have trouble. We live in world where everyone seeks their fifteen minutes. You say this man's family are all 'just fine' with having their long dead relative 'researched as a posibble Jack the Ripper'. We've seen myriad people come forward over the years to claim a relative was Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac, ANYONE of notoriety who's identity was never known. The difference here is that you and Edward/Lechmere have capitalized on this phenomenon and have drawn this family into your narrative. You have said on these pages that family members have suddenly remembered 'dark stories' about their dearly departed uncle Jack (as he likely now become known at family gatherings).

So charge the man, we cannot do. However, we have the words of QC and barrister James Scobie who actuallly says that there is a prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer, so even if we were to look at things from a legal point of view, an expert tells us that what we have would be enough to warrant a trial.

And after that, it has emerged that the blood evidence is perfectly in line with the carman and that the coagulation points to how it would have been very difficult for an alternative killer to have been in place.
Plus, as I have already told you - but it seems I am speaking to a deaf audience...? - that I as a rule try to look at things from both angles.

That, Toots, should pretty much cover all your complaints, I think.

You may want to look at Robert, who very soundly says that he has no problem at all with me looking for evidence to strengthen my case. To think I would not is to be naive in the extreme. And that would not be like you, would it?

Anyone who suggests that "there is a prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer" is either pulling your chain or seeking publicity themselves. Perhaps you misunderstood these men? First of all your "blood evidence" is less than dependable in that it's, you know, 125+ years old, tied together by time estimates by witnessess to whom we have no access (as they are all long dead), we have no knowledge of variables that may existed within the victim that may have impacted coagulation, and we have only descriptions of the state of the blood coagulation without any firsthand knowledge if these statements were wholly accurate or not.

I'd like to hear more from these men who claim that "there is a prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer".

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Anyone who suggests that "there is a prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer" is either pulling your chain or seeking publicity themselves.

That is quite unlikely in Scobies case, since he gets much publicity when he covers high profile cases otherwise. And of course he would not state mad things so that his colleagues could have a laugh!

Perhaps you misunderstood these men?

"He has a prima faciae case to answer that implies that he was the killer". Not a very tough call, that one, is it, Patrick?

First of all your "blood evidence" is less than dependable in that it's, you know, 125+ years old

You mean it will have dried up by now? The evidence dates from when the blood was fresh, running and somewhat congealed.

...tied together by time estimates by witnessess to whom we have no access (as they are all long dead)

That does not make the evidence unreliable, it makes it tough to check. But evidence given by a PC with an excellent service record should be regarded as good evidence.

... we have no knowledge of variables that may existed within the victim that may have impacted coagulation

... which is why we need to go with the normal schedule. And we DO know that the blood had all turned to a "congealed mass" when it was washed away some little time after Llewellyn had left, so it apparently did coagulate just fine.

and we have only descriptions of the state of the blood coagulation without any firsthand knowledge if these statements were wholly accurate or not.

What we have is what we go by. There never was any other way of doing it.

I'd like to hear more from these men who claim that "there is a prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer".

I can accomodate you there since I heard and saw tapings with Scobie that did NOT make it into the docu. Among other things he said that he was sick and tired about "coincidences" presented in ridiculous manners, and how people bought such things far too easy. He thought that the Lechmere case was a case where the coincidences mount up and became one too many.

[Fisherman]

uh, sorry. NO.

Lech is quite the opposite of those types of suspects.
Hes EXACTLY the type of potential suspect that needs to be looked into more.

Like a Richardson, or Bowyer, and Law.

Seriously, Abby, are you going to demand fair and relevant criticism? Out here?? And in the Lechmere case???

Good luck with that one, my friend!

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Anyone who suggests that "there is a prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer" is either pulling your chain or seeking publicity themselves.

That is quite unlikely in Scobies case, since he gets much publicity when he covers high profile cases otherwise. And of course he would not state mad things so that his colleagues could have a laugh!

Perhaps you misunderstood these men?

"He has a prima faciae case to answer that implies that he was the killer". Not a very tough call, that one, is it, Patrick?

First of all your "blood evidence" is less than dependable in that it's, you know, 125+ years old

You mean it will have dried up by now? The evidence dates from when the blood was fresh, running and somewhat congealed.

...tied together by time estimates by witnessess to whom we have no access (as they are all long dead)

That does not make the evidence unreliable, it makes it tough to check. But evidence given by a PC with an excellent service record should be regarded as good evidence.

... we have no knowledge of variables that may existed within the victim that may have impacted coagulation

... which is why we need to go with the normal schedule. And we DO know that the blood had all turned to a "congealed mass" when it was washed away some little time after Llewellyn had left, so it apparently did coagulate just fine.

and we have only descriptions of the state of the blood coagulation without any firsthand knowledge if these statements were wholly accurate or not.

What we have is what we go by. There never was any other way of doing it.

I'd like to hear more from these men who claim that "there is a prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer".

I can accomodate you there since I heard and saw tapings with Scobie that did NOT make it into the docu. Among other things he said that he was sick and tired about "coincidences" presented in ridiculous manners, and how people bought such things far too easy. He thought that the Lechmere case was a case where the coincidences mount up and became one too many.

Yes. The blood has all dried up. It does not 'date' from when it was fresh. It does not exist. There IS no blood evidence. THAT is the point. Is this impossible for you to understand?


To another less than stellar point you make, of course the blood, at some point, coagulated. It's ultimate coagulation is not the point. You have made the time it takes to coagulate a cornerstone of your 'case'. You ARE aware that there are many internal factors (i.e. present within the body) as well as external factors affecting blood coagulation time. Yet we have prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer. After 127 years. With no access to the blood 'evidence'. No pictures of the blood 'evidence'. No idea about Nichols' blood clotting factors. No firm grasp of the actual time elapsed save what appeared in print 127 years ago.

I'm not opposed to the Crossmee idea. It's interesting. Yet, it's still implausible. You overstating every detail - real or imagined - isn't helping things along.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Yes. The blood has all dried up. It does not 'date' from when it was fresh. It does not exist. There IS no blood evidence. THAT is the point. Is this impossible for you to understand?

Watch your step, Patrick. Keep it civil. Just saying.

The blood evidence was RECORDED back in 1888. Both Neil and Mizen saw running blood and Mizen said it was somewhat coagulated. That speaks of an acute observation with forensic insights.

The fact that the blood no onger exists is neither here nor there - we have it on record.

To another less than stellar point you make, of course the blood, at some point, coagulated. It's ultimate coagulation is not the point. You have made the time it takes to coagulate a cornerstone of your 'case'. You ARE aware that there are many internal factors (i.e. present within the body) as well as external factors affecting blood coagulation time. Yet we have prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer. After 127 years. With no access to the blood 'evidence'. No pictures of the blood 'evidence'. No idea about Nichols' blood clotting factors. No firm grasp of the actual time elapsed save what appeared in print 127 years ago.

The prima faciae case was stated by Scobie BEFORE the blood evidence was looked into. And yes, it is and should be a cornerstone of the case. Both Neil and Mizen saw the blood running - that is called corroboration. And Mizen had an excellent record, and apparently checked the state of coagulation.

After that, we can only work form a normal coagulation schedue whilst allowing for it to have deviated to some extent. It either excludes an alternative killer or allows ver little time for him - end of story.

I'm not opposed to the Crossmee idea. It's interesting. Yet, it's still implausible. You overstating every detail - real or imagined - isn't helping things along.

How good then that I donīt overstate things. I use the existing evidence and normal time schedules. It is not me but you who want deviations.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Yes. The blood has all dried up. It does not 'date' from when it was fresh. It does not exist. There IS no blood evidence. THAT is the point. Is this impossible for you to understand?

Watch your step, Patrick. Keep it civil. Just saying.

The blood evidence was RECORDED back in 1888. Both Neil and Mizen saw running blood and Mizen said it was somewhat coagulated. That speaks of an acute observation with forensic insights.

The fact that the blood no onger exists is neither here nor there - we have it on record.

To another less than stellar point you make, of course the blood, at some point, coagulated. It's ultimate coagulation is not the point. You have made the time it takes to coagulate a cornerstone of your 'case'. You ARE aware that there are many internal factors (i.e. present within the body) as well as external factors affecting blood coagulation time. Yet we have prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer. After 127 years. With no access to the blood 'evidence'. No pictures of the blood 'evidence'. No idea about Nichols' blood clotting factors. No firm grasp of the actual time elapsed save what appeared in print 127 years ago.

The prima faciae case was stated by Scobie BEFORE the blood evidence was looked into. And yes, it is and should be a cornerstone of the case. Both Neil and Mizen saw the blood running - that is called corroboration. And Mizen had an excellent record, and apparently checked the state of coagulation.

After that, we can only work form a normal coagulation schedue whilst allowing for it to have deviated to some extent. It either excludes an alternative killer or allows ver little time for him - end of story.

I'm not opposed to the Crossmee idea. It's interesting. Yet, it's still implausible. You overstating every detail - real or imagined - isn't helping things along.

How good then that I donīt overstate things. I use the existing evidence and normal time schedules. It is not me but you who want deviations.

We agree. You concede that there is no evidence. We have a written account of the 'evidence' being washed away. The evidence was not perserved photographically. Thus, it either exists or it does not. One cannot expect a good result if one says to a judge at a murder trial, "We lost the evidence. There no photogaphs or video. But, we recorded it!"

So, you say this Scobie said there is a prima faciae case impliying that he was the killer before the 'blood evidence' was presented. Based on what? The fact that he found the body? Someone had to. Stand to reason it would be someone out and about, at that time of day, likely on their way to work. Would the evidence point the person that found body, regardless of who it was?