The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Perhaps. I suppose most would unless they were taken almost by surprise and couldn't flee. Maybe the question is how does he benefit by staying?

A/ He would not cause any stir.

B/ He would be provided with another man to walk with, and the police would be looking for a lone killer.

C/ If he was a psychopath, he would get an added thrill.

It has been discussed numerous times, as you will know.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
You say what was misleading is that the police thought they were dealing with a man named Cross,when they were instead dealing with a man named Lechmere.
Whom they KNEW they were dealing with, was a witness who confessed to finding a body,and who,had they checked,would be found to be telling the truth,both as to home address and workplace.No misleading there ,wouldn't you think.

But he would also be found to have given the wrong name, Harry. And that IS misleading.

Yes I conducted the experiment in darkness.T welve cutting movements with a knife,none needing excessive force or expert placement.So what does it prove?Only that it could take little time.Important? Yes if one need an explanationas to why it would take less tha seven minutes from the first stroke of the killer until the time Mizen arrived at the body.

What matters, Harry, is not how long it took for the killer to subdue and kill Nichols. The only thing that matters is at what stage her neck was cut. We know that it was still bleeding when Mizen saw her. We know that even if we imagine very quick walking treks on behalf of the carmen and Mizen, we are still faced with a total trekking time of four minutes plus. We know that Paul said that it took no more than four minutes from the time he found Lechmere until the time the carmen found Mizen. Tham implies two more minutes for the examination, taking it to six minutes plus. Then we need to add time for the conversation Mizen/Lechmere, closing in on seven minutes in total.

That is a perfectly sound estimation. Maybe it was only six, if everything went quickly and if Paul was mistaken about the four minutes.

Whichever way, we are left with little time to cram that alternative killer in, allowing for him to escape unheard as Lechmere arrived. That is not to say that it could not be done - maybe it could. We must allow for the possibility.

But why is there such a need? Why is it, Harry, that we MUST have another killer, when there is already a man who semingly fits the bill perfectly? A man of whom James Scobie said that he acted suspiciously? A man who seemingly lied to Mizen, and to boot it was a ie that was perfectly shaped to take him past the police? A man who withheld his real name?

He has been under suspicion since the turn of the century, by Connor, by Osborne and by Edward and myself, and now we can see that he seemingly fits the blood evidence perfectly, whereas another killer must be a bit of a stretch - at least.

How can there be any other conclusion than this: Charles Lechmere was probably the killer of Polly Nichols, although it cannot be conclusively proven that he did the deed.

You seem to be of the opposite meaning: Charles Lechmere will in all probability not have been the killer of Polly Nichols. The things that point to him should all be discarded, and we should accept that the probability of another killer is much larger.

Is that how you see it, Harry? If so, on what grounds?

Motivate to me: Precisely WHY would there have been another killer?

[Fisherman]

I dont need to defend myself. You have been give the opportunity to go back to these experts and put to them the full facts as they are now known. Facts that may or may not have been available to them at the time.

I did not specifically say he had been misled and I have not called anyone a fraud. Scobie can only give and opinion based on what was actually and physically provided to him what that was I do not know. Do you know what Blink films provided him with and provided your other experts with?

Have you seen the full un edited versions of their interviews I suspect you have not.

As to the conversation I had with Scobie as it was an off the cuff phone conversation when he rang me at a time when I was not able to write things down. I can only say that I did put certain specifics to him with regards to his participation and with regards to his one minute of air time, which from your perspective is crucial to your theory. material which he said he had not been provided with.

Now referring to your experience murder squad detective who you hold in high esteem. Isn't it correct that based on what he was provided with he only went as far as to say that based on that Lechmere was only "A PERSON OF INTEREST"

Thats a long way from saying he is a prime suspect and a long way, and in direct conflict with what Scobie says.

Flaws Flaws and even more Flaws !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So there we are - Trevor cannot present one single thing to bolster his claims that vital information was withheld from James Scobie. He has nothing at all on record, and he now says that he has not claimed that Scobie was misled.

Trevor for some reson claims that it would somehow be MY duty to check what exact material Scobie was provided with, and he urges ME to go back to Scobie. He also asks whether I have seen all the unedited material Blink Films shot with the QC!

Why not ask if I have seen all the material shot for the documentary as a whole? It will be many weeks watching, but who knows - maybe somewhere there is hidden something that will be very negative to Lechmere as a suspect?

We may now conclude that what I foreshadowed has been proven totally correct. Thus, the one accusing turns into the accused: Trevor Marriott has presented serious allegations and he has not been able to substantiate them in any way.

It is shameful, ignorant, malicious and unfit for any sound discussion.

I will not even go into the rot about Andy Griffiths and how he would supposedly be in conflict with Scobie. Anybody who has seen the documentary will know how that rhymes with the truth.

I will until futher notice not debate any further with Trevor, since I do not think he deserves any attention at all. Ignorance can be touching in a sense, and people who get things wrong can contribute the odd good laugh.

This, however, is something quite different.

[Barnaby]

He would have run.

Perhaps. I suppose most would unless they were taken almost by surprise and couldn't flee. Maybe the question is how does he benefit by staying?

[harry]

Fisherman,
You say what was misleading is that the police thought they were dealing with a man named Cross,when they were instead dealing with a man named Lechmere.
Whom they KNEW they were dealing with, was a witness who confessed to finding a body,and who,had they checked,would be found to be telling the truth,both as to home address and workplace.No misleading there ,wouldn't you think.
Yes I conducted the experiment in darkness.T welve cutting movements with a knife,none needing excessive force or expert placement.So what does it prove?Only that it could take little time.Important? Yes if one need an explanationas to why it would take less tha seven minutes from the first stroke of the killer until the time Mizen arrived at the body.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: What's strange is that I remain interested in Cross/Lechmere. I find him more interesting that many of the "suspects" (if there can be such things after 127 years). I've never said, "This is all rubbish!"

No, you worded yourself differently, instead saying that I was parrotting things and that what I said was laughable and absurd.

Why should it be "strange" that you "remain interested" in the theory, by the way? Either the theory is good enough to accumulate interest or it is not. You canīt have it both ways.

That's not good enough, though.

It was a few posts back. But thatīs life!

And you fail to see that by not acknowledging obvious obstacles to Cross as a "serialist", you delegitimize your own theory.

No, I do not. I point to how there ARE no obvious obstacles, and that does not delegitimize anything at all but the so called obstacles themselves.

I suggest that YOU 'get real'. Cut the aggression. Cut the martyr act. Cut the outrage.

Cut giving me reasons for it, Patrick, and we shall be all very fine.

If your only response to anyone who isn't 100% in your corner is, "Get out" then I suggest you go back to the drawing board and present something you can actually defend.

When I am subjected to suggestions like "you should take a deep breath, take a step back, and engage in the debate rather than maintain that your research is immune to criticism.", I am very likely not to take kindly to it.

It involves a lie, among other things, and I donīt like such things. I have never claimed that my theory is immune to criticism. Contrary to that, I have said on numerous occasions that if anything should surface that pointed to the theory being wrong, I would ditch it accordingly.

The theory is NOT immune to criticism. But it predisposes that the criticism is valid and useful. "He would have run" is one such example of criticism that some posters think "debunks" the theory, but of course, that is sheer folly and nothing else.

Bring on real criticism. Show me why Lechmere could not be the killer, point to how he could not have been at the other sites, convince me that we know enough about his psychological disposition to conclude that he was a good man, and you will have presented seriously damning counterpoints.

But please donīt tell me that he would have run.

He would have run.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, no, no, Trevor - you were supposed to present where and how James Scobie was misled, and not to blabber away, flaunting your ignorance.
Do you really think that nothing is cut away in a film? And do you think that Scobie said that Lechmere seemed like a good guy in that part?
Would a film company use the more or less damning bits, presenting a suspect?

Go home and give that some afterthought.

Then come back and do the decent thing. Tell us all exactly what Scobie was not told and how we misled him. When you call somebody a fraud with nothing to prove it, you are the fraud yourself. I put it to you that this applies here, and I urge you to defend yourself - if you can.

I dont need to defend myself. You have been give the opportunity to go back to these experts and put to them the full facts as they are now known. Facts that may or may not have been available to them at the time.

I did not specifically say he had been misled and I have not called anyone a fraud. Scobie can only give and opinion based on what was actually and physically provided to him what that was I do not know. Do you know what Blink films provided him with and provided your other experts with?

Have you seen the full un edited versions of their interviews I suspect you have not.

As to the conversation I had with Scobie as it was an off the cuff phone conversation when he rang me at a time when I was not able to write things down. I can only say that I did put certain specifics to him with regards to his participation and with regards to his one minute of air time, which from your perspective is crucial to your theory. material which he said he had not been provided with.

Now referring to your experience murder squad detective who you hold in high esteem. Isn't it correct that based on what he was provided with he only went as far as to say that based on that Lechmere was only "A PERSON OF INTEREST"

Thats a long way from saying he is a prime suspect and a long way, and in direct conflict with what Scobie says.

Flaws Flaws and even more Flaws !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Just found this on Wiki, where Charles Lechmere is listed as a suspect (Heureka!):

"According to Holmgren, Cross lied to a policeman at the scene, telling him that he had been with the body for a few minutes, whereas researchers claimed that he must have been with her for about nine minutes..."

This is of course wrong. I have never suggested that Lechmere told a policeman at the murder scene that he had only been with the body for "a few minutes".
What utter tosh!

And "researchers" - whoever that would be - are claiming not that the carman must have been with the body for nine minutes, but instead that his own testimony points to it.

Presenting the theory like this does nobody any favours.

Maybe this is where Trevor gets his information...?

[Fisherman]

The flaws have been put to you many times not just by me but by many others but you are so blinkered that you cannot see or accept them.

I think Blink films have a lot to answer for with regards to what they actually filmed with regards to these experts and what we actually saw in the finished product. Take Scobie, If I remember right he was on screen for about 1 minute yet when I spoke to him he stated he had been interviewed for about 45 mins so what else did he say that was not deemed right and proper for our screens. I might suggest it was comments along the lines that this was not such a clear cut case as the film makers were trying to suggest.

Because the end product which went out on the tv was topped and tailed to portray Lechmere as the killer with irrefutable evidence to support this, but nothing mentioned about the flaws that we now know exist. Funny that don't you think ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, no, no, Trevor - you were supposed to present where and how James Scobie was misled, and not to blabber away, flaunting your ignorance.
Do you really think that nothing is cut away in a film? And do you think that Scobie said that Lechmere seemed like a good guy in that part?
Would a film company use the more or less damning bits, presenting a suspect?

Go home and give that some afterthought.

Then come back and do the decent thing. Tell us all exactly what Scobie was not told and how we misled him. When you call somebody a fraud with nothing to prove it, you are the fraud yourself. I put it to you that this applies here, and I urge you to defend yourself - if you can.

[Fisherman]

25 pages later.

You have only yourself to blame.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

With regards to Scobie I asked him if he was aware of certain facts which did not form part of the program and should have done. He stated he had not. Now that's good enough for me to question the expert opinions you seek to heavily rely on.

Then state which things it were, and letīs get this overwith, Trevor - before you make too much of a fool of yourself.

The trouble is now you have gone out on a limb by stating categorically that in your belief based on what you believe he was the killer of Nichols. You now wont, and cant accept that belief was based on facts which have now proved to be flawed.

Show me that "proof", Trevor, will you? It should be very interesting!

If you are so certain about the evidence provided by your experts in the light of what is now known go back to them and put the full facts to them or are you worried that they may not now support you.

No, I am not. But I fear I do not have the years it would take to put the full facts to them.

Not that YOU would be aquainted with the full facts.

At least when you questioned my medical experts opinions I did go back to him and try to clarify some of the issue you had concerns with and I posted them for all to see. I did the same with regards to other expert medical expert opinions with regards to the other murders.

I have never questioned your medical expert, Trevor. I think he is quite right in all he says. I think he is professional and knowledgeable.

Therefore, the problem lies elsewhere. Guess where!

Its call transparency look the definition up.

Transparency, isnīt that when it ios very easy to see right through somebody?

I thought so.

The flaws have been put to you many times not just by me but by many others but you are so blinkered that you cannot see or accept them.

I think Blink films have a lot to answer for with regards to what they actually filmed with regards to these experts and what we actually saw in the finished product. Take Scobie, If I remember right he was on screen for about 1 minute yet when I spoke to him he stated he had been interviewed for about 45 mins so what else did he say that was not deemed right and proper for our screens. I might suggest it was comments along the lines that this was not such a clear cut case as the film makers were trying to suggest.

Because the end product which went out on the tv was topped and tailed to portray Lechmere as the killer with irrefutable evidence to support this, but nothing mentioned about the flaws that we now know exist. Funny that don't you think ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Robert;352015]So, Fish, you think that your arguments are so strong that it is now necessary for others to prove Crossmere's innocence?[/QU


I think your so called points are so weak that you need to prove you can read. It seems there may be a little something lacking in that respect.

[Harry D]

I will not go into any prolonged debates over isolated points, other than to explain matters if they need be explained

25 pages later.

[Robert]

So, Fish, you think that your arguments are so strong that it is now necessary for others to prove Crossmere's innocence?

[Fisherman]

Bring on real criticism. Show me why Lechmere could not be the killer, point to how he could not have been at the other sites, convince me that we know enough about his psychological disposition to conclude that he was a good man, and you will have presented seriously damning counterpoints.

Fish, it isn't for us to prove Crossmere innocent. It is for you to prove him guilty, or as close as you can get to it.

Oh, I know that. But donīt quote me out of context, if you please! Patrick claimed that I somehow would have stated that the Lechmere theory is immune to criticism, and that was when I said that it is not - but I have not seen any criticism that seriously affects it. And so, Robert, I suggested different types of criticism that would have an effect.

And then along came you, quoting out of context.