The Lechmere trail - so far

[Robert]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Fisherman,

Are you incapable of seeing the absurdity of what you've written here.

Letīs see, Patrick! Letīs see.

You have lost all objectivity and I do not understand why.

Some say I never had any. Donīt you know?

Perhaps you have become so fixated on being correct that you've lost the ability to rationally judge anything associated the Lechmere, and perhaps the entire subject of 'Jack the Ripper'.

Or perhaps I havent. Perhaps you are not even the best judge of it? Who knows?

You mention that Lechmere had no history of arrest or violence. No problem.

It is to some, believe it or not. Others think I must show that he attended anatomy classes or lectures to be more viable.

In fact, that may be evidence against him.

No, it may not - not without an almighty and unviable stretch.

Of course, he may have been violent, or "creepy". No problem. That fits too.

You know, I am still at a loss to see how I would suddenly be absurd? It seems we agree here. Maybe you have more to say? Letīs see!

We've discussed Lechmere's behavior in Buck's Row and his interaction with Mizen, his testimony at the inquest. His actions - as most everyone else sees them - are consistent with someone acting with no consciousness of guilt. No so, you say. It's how a psychopath would act.

I think you are perhaps placing a few words in my mouth here. I am saying that a psychopath could well do a thing like this. I am not saying that every psychopath does. Not am I saying that it is impossible to see his actions as innocent. On the contrary - I keep pressing the point that each and every one of his actions can be sen from two angles, the guilty and the innocent. But - and that bt is crucial - he has amassed too many anomalies to function as a probably innocent man.

But, we've nothing that tells us that Lechmere was a psychopath.

I agree. Nothing tells us that he was. I keep saying that too.

"Of course we do", you say.

I DO??? Wow!

"He killed Nichols! He was Jack the Ripper. Of COURSE he was a psychopath!"

With quotation marks, even! Are you quoting me, word by word? Surely you must be?

Letīs not be too daft here, Patrick, if we can avoid it. Letīs list your three sentences from your ... ehrm, "quotation":

1. He killed Nichols!

But I say that is not proven! I SUGGEST that he did, and I think he is the best suspect by far. Personally, I think there is a huge chance that he was the killer.

Have you spotted the difference now?

2. He was Jack the Ripper.

I cannot say that he was, on the existing evidfence. I can say that I think that he was the Ripper. My personal take is yet again - that he in all probability was.

Have you spotted the difference now?

3. Of COURSE he was a psychopath!

Nope. He may or may not have been a psychopath. If he was the killer of Nichols - which i think he was - THEN I say we can pretty much bank on him being a psychopath. If he was NOT the killer, then there is little reason to think he was a psychopath.

Have you spotted the difference now?

He had no blood on him.

No? How do you know? Did YOU check his cuffs? Did YOU look at his apron, if he wore it? Maybe there was animal blood on it? Maybe there was himan blood on it. Who can say? You, Patrick?

He touched Paul with the hand that - in your scenario - he just cut Nichols' throat with seconds before and used to hide the knife on his person.

What? Have I said that I know that he was either right-handed or left-handed - or ambi-dexter? Have I, Patrick?

Not a problem.

I could have sworn that you are having all sorts of problems.

You site blood 'evidence' that simply doesn't exist.

The evidence exists. Does Eddowesī apron constitute evidence or not, Patrick?

Descriptions of blood, in no way scientific.

Professioinal. Given by a PC in service - professional.

That's what we have.

And NOT A WORD to dissolve it.

We have timeframes based on recollections and estimations and interviews and brief testimony reprinted in news papers 127 years ago.

Yes, we do. In what way does that differ from any other case, but for the distance in time? And the evidence was recorded in combination with the events, not 127 years later. When does evidence grow too old, Patrick? Is there a best-before date?

Yet, you parrot "blood evidence" again and again. Just as you did with the laughable "Mizen Scam". It does your work no favors.

Ah, there we are - back to your old habits! Scorning, belittling and so on. It was just a matter of time, was it not? I "parrot" but you donīt. My theory is "laughable", and you are the best judge of that. Well, well...!

No one is against you. No one is against Lechmere because he's Lechmere. This is how it works. Theories are discussed, debated , debunked, resurrected, rinsed...repeat.

Yes, but you think my theory has a large number of points that are interesting and quite possibly pointing to guilt. You DO remember that, do you not?

You have taken an interesting topic and worthwhile research and reduced it to utter foolishness. Please realize that 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 have a much better piece of advice:

Go away, Patrick. Or get a grip. Stop putting words in my mouth. Keep honest. Bolster your accusations.

Get real or get out.

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!" That's not good enough, though. And you fail to see that by not acknowledging obvious obstacles to Cross as a "serialist", you delegitimize your own theory. I suggest that YOU 'get real'. Cut the aggression. Cut the martyr act. Cut the outrage. 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.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Fisherman,

Are you incapable of seeing the absurdity of what you've written here.

Letīs see, Patrick! Letīs see.

You have lost all objectivity and I do not understand why.

Some say I never had any. Donīt you know?

Perhaps you have become so fixated on being correct that you've lost the ability to rationally judge anything associated the Lechmere, and perhaps the entire subject of 'Jack the Ripper'.

Or perhaps I havent. Perhaps you are not even the best judge of it? Who knows?

You mention that Lechmere had no history of arrest or violence. No problem.

It is to some, believe it or not. Others think I must show that he attended anatomy classes or lectures to be more viable.

In fact, that may be evidence against him.

No, it may not - not without an almighty and unviable stretch.

Of course, he may have been violent, or "creepy". No problem. That fits too.

You know, I am still at a loss to see how I would suddenly be absurd? It seems we agree here. Maybe you have more to say? Letīs see!

We've discussed Lechmere's behavior in Buck's Row and his interaction with Mizen, his testimony at the inquest. His actions - as most everyone else sees them - are consistent with someone acting with no consciousness of guilt. No so, you say. It's how a psychopath would act.

I think you are perhaps placing a few words in my mouth here. I am saying that a psychopath could well do a thing like this. I am not saying that every psychopath does. Not am I saying that it is impossible to see his actions as innocent. On the contrary - I keep pressing the point that each and every one of his actions can be sen from two angles, the guilty and the innocent. But - and that bt is crucial - he has amassed too many anomalies to function as a probably innocent man.

But, we've nothing that tells us that Lechmere was a psychopath.

I agree. Nothing tells us that he was. I keep saying that too.

"Of course we do", you say.

I DO??? Wow!

"He killed Nichols! He was Jack the Ripper. Of COURSE he was a psychopath!"

With quotation marks, even! Are you quoting me, word by word? Surely you must be?

Letīs not be too daft here, Patrick, if we can avoid it. Letīs list your three sentences from your ... ehrm, "quotation":

1. He killed Nichols!

But I say that is not proven! I SUGGEST that he did, and I think he is the best suspect by far. Personally, I think there is a huge chance that he was the killer.

Have you spotted the difference now?

2. He was Jack the Ripper.

I cannot say that he was, on the existing evidfence. I can say that I think that he was the Ripper. My personal take is yet again - that he in all probability was.

Have you spotted the difference now?

3. Of COURSE he was a psychopath!

Nope. He may or may not have been a psychopath. If he was the killer of Nichols - which i think he was - THEN I say we can pretty much bank on him being a psychopath. If he was NOT the killer, then there is little reason to think he was a psychopath.

Have you spotted the difference now?

He had no blood on him.

No? How do you know? Did YOU check his cuffs? Did YOU look at his apron, if he wore it? Maybe there was animal blood on it? Maybe there was himan blood on it. Who can say? You, Patrick?

He touched Paul with the hand that - in your scenario - he just cut Nichols' throat with seconds before and used to hide the knife on his person.

What? Have I said that I know that he was either right-handed or left-handed - or ambi-dexter? Have I, Patrick?

Not a problem.

I could have sworn that you are having all sorts of problems.

You site blood 'evidence' that simply doesn't exist.

The evidence exists. Does Eddowesī apron constitute evidence or not, Patrick?

Descriptions of blood, in no way scientific.

Professioinal. Given by a PC in service - professional.

That's what we have.

And NOT A WORD to dissolve it.

We have timeframes based on recollections and estimations and interviews and brief testimony reprinted in news papers 127 years ago.

Yes, we do. In what way does that differ from any other case, but for the distance in time? And the evidence was recorded in combination with the events, not 127 years later. When does evidence grow too old, Patrick? Is there a best-before date?

Yet, you parrot "blood evidence" again and again. Just as you did with the laughable "Mizen Scam". It does your work no favors.

Ah, there we are - back to your old habits! Scorning, belittling and so on. It was just a matter of time, was it not? I "parrot" but you donīt. My theory is "laughable", and you are the best judge of that. Well, well...!

No one is against you. No one is against Lechmere because he's Lechmere. This is how it works. Theories are discussed, debated , debunked, resurrected, rinsed...repeat.

Yes, but you think my theory has a large number of points that are interesting and quite possibly pointing to guilt. You DO remember that, do you not?

You have taken an interesting topic and worthwhile research and reduced it to utter foolishness. Please realize that 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 have a much better piece of advice:

Go away, Patrick. Or get a grip. Stop putting words in my mouth. Keep honest. Bolster your accusations.

Get real or get out.

[Patrick S]

I canīt for the life of me see any fafctual obstacles. What has been mentioned is for example that we donīt have any records of violence or criminality adhering to Lechmere, and yes, it would have ben interesting of there was any such thing - but I donīt regard it as in any way damning. he could well have been regarded as a violent man by his family and neighbours, just as he could have been regarded as a creepy person. We just donīt know. Similarly, he could have been regarded as a good guy, helpful and charitable. That would not clear him anyway, since a number of serialists have been looked upon as being this kind of person.

If I were to name one thing only as being a bit odd, then it is how there are no further evisceration deeds in the East End following Kelly (or MacKenzie). But that is not something that has me very worried. I think that serialists may both quit and change their MO:s, and there are examples to support it. In the end, what speaks FOR Lechmere - to my mind - carries much more weight than the objections suggested as to why he would not have been the killer.

To me, the really hard question to answer is why anybody who has been shown the anomalies attaching to the carman and the blood evidence and what seems like blatant lies, should be adamant in thinking that somebody else would have killed Nichols in the minute or two leading up to Lechmereīs arrival. What on earth is it that makes him so unattractive a bid for many people? That I am too certain and too unwilling to yield a millimeter?
I hope not - it would be extremely unscientific to ground a decision on the dislike of a poster instead of on the existing material.

But it would seem that the mantra is ANYBODY, no matter who - but please, please, please dear Lord - NOT Lechmere!

Fisherman,

Are you incapable of seeing the absurdity of what you've written here. You have lost all objectivity and I do not understand why. Perhaps you have become so fixated on being correct that you've lost the ability to rationally judge anything associated the Lechmere, and perhaps the entire subject of 'Jack the Ripper'.

You mention that Lechmere had no history of arrest or violence. No problem. In fact, that may be evidence against him. Of course, he may have been violent, or "creepy". No problem. That fits too. We've discussed Lechmere's behavior in Buck's Row and his interaction with Mizen, his testimony at the inquest. His actions - as most everyone else sees them - are consistent with someone acting with no consciousness of guilt. No so, you say. It's how a psychopath would act. But, we've nothing that tells us that Lechmere was a psychopath. "Of course we do", you say. "He killed Nichols! He was Jack the Ripper. Of COURSE he was a psychopath!" He had no blood on him. He touched Paul with the hand that - in your scenario - he just cut Nichols' throat with seconds before and used to hide the knife on his person. Not a problem. You site blood 'evidence' that simply doesn't exist. Descriptions of blood, in no way scientific. That's what we have. We have timeframes based on recollections and estimations and interviews and brief testimony reprinted in news papers 127 years ago. Yet, you parrot "blood evidence" again and again. Just as you did with the laughable "Mizen Scam". It does your work no favors.

No one is against you. No one is against Lechmere because he's Lechmere. This is how it works. Theories are discussed, debated , debunked, resurrected, rinsed...repeat.

You have taken an interesting topic and worthwhile research and reduced it to utter foolishness. Please realize that 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.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

What are the problems - as you see them - with Lechmere as Jack the Ripper (or at least as the killer of Nichols)? I think that I have a good understanding of what you view as factors pointing to his guilt. I'm interested to know what obstacles you feel may still need to be overcome.

I canīt for the life of me see any fafctual obstacles. What has been mentioned is for example that we donīt have any records of violence or criminality adhering to Lechmere, and yes, it would have ben interesting of there was any such thing - but I donīt regard it as in any way damning. he could well have been regarded as a violent man by his family and neighbours, just as he could have been regarded as a creepy person. We just donīt know. Similarly, he could have been regarded as a good guy, helpful and charitable. That would not clear him anyway, since a number of serialists have been looked upon as being this kind of person.

If I were to name one thing only as being a bit odd, then it is how there are no further evisceration deeds in the East End following Kelly (or MacKenzie). But that is not something that has me very worried. I think that serialists may both quit and change their MO:s, and there are examples to support it. In the end, what speaks FOR Lechmere - to my mind - carries much more weight than the objections suggested as to why he would not have been the killer.

To me, the really hard question to answer is why anybody who has been shown the anomalies attaching to the carman and the blood evidence and what seems like blatant lies, should be adamant in thinking that somebody else would have killed Nichols in the minute or two leading up to Lechmereīs arrival. What on earth is it that makes him so unattractive a bid for many people? That I am too certain and too unwilling to yield a millimeter?
I hope not - it would be extremely unscientific to ground a decision on the dislike of a poster instead of on the existing material.

But it would seem that the mantra is ANYBODY, no matter who - but please, please, please dear Lord - NOT Lechmere!

[Patrick S]

Fisherman,

What are the problems - as you see them - with Lechmere as Jack the Ripper (or at least as the killer of Nichols)? I think that I have a good understanding of what you view as factors pointing to his guilt. I'm interested to know what obstacles you feel may still need to be overcome.

[Fisherman]

We both come to different conclusions when we examine the evidence concerning these crimes you are totally convinced Mr cross/Lechmere was jack the ripper I do not think he was in fact it's totally wrong to name someone as jack the ripper without any proof.

No, it is not, Pink. At least not if you ask the relatives first - the way Edward did. Besides, you have hundreds of people to go after if it is wrong to name a suspect in a theory.

What would you have me do? Call him Mr X? He would have been immediately identified anyway, owing to the information given about him.

Are you perhaps saying that I should not present my theory at all, since it involves naming the carman? Seriously, Pink? Has Ripperology become that shy? Or are you taking the piss on me?

By the way, out of all these hundreds of people who have named suspects, who else have you gone after? All? Two thirds? Half of them?

Or is this the one and only time you have done it?

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
Just a couple of questions.

Absolutely, Harry. Ask away!

(1).How much time would it take to inflict the injuries to Nichols?As I see it,there were two cuts across the throat,one deep cut horizontally to the lower abdomen,four cuts on one side of the lower abdomen,and some cuts across the lower abdomen..Say a dozen in all.
My estimate,and I'm about as brilliant as Mitzen at estimating,is that it would take, at a maximum, 50 seconds.I q uote that figure,be cause I tried it.Now do not be alarmed,I did not use a woman,or the family dog.I used an old piece of carpet,and carpet is quit tough to cut.However I had a good sharp knife.

Iīm sure your carpet was very close to Nichols in toughness. Did you do your experiment in deep darkness? You would try and replicate the surrounding circumstances as closely as possible, would you not?

Jason Payne-James said that the damage inflicted would take a couple of minutes only. I beleive he weighed in both cuts and bruising and so on.

The cutting as such would not take "a maximum time" of 50 seconds, by the way - it is not beyond belief that the killer spent 60, 90 or 100 seconds cutting, is it? Why would it be?
Otherwise, yes, the cutting could arguably have been performed in a minute or two.

On the whole, we will be looking at a shortish total time, I think that is reasonable to say. But if we involve the strangulation or partial strangulation, then we need to award a couple of minutes, two, three perhaps four or five - it is impossible to be exact. I think we can agree on that?

My next question is,how far away in front of Cross,could a person be,on that night.in those conditions,without Cross being aware of that person.I say aware and not see,but you can answer one or both.My thinking is that Cross was not looking particularly to see anyone,and people in the dark at night tend to look about 20 yards ahead rather than into the distance.(Statistics).On reaching the body it seems Cross was wholly taken up in observing close quarters.

Once again, this question can only be speculated about and not settled. If Lechmere was intent on listening for sounds, I think he would have heard Paul immediately the latter entered the street.
If Lechmere was in a bubble, cutting into the body and enjoying it and focusing totally on it, then Paul could have gotten much further down the street before Lechmere heard him.
It also applies that Lechmere may have been straddling over the body, facing east, as he cut. That would mean that he kept a sharper lookout towards the schoolhouse corner (which was very close) than towards the Brady Street intersection (which was 130 yards off). It would be a logical thing to do, and it could mean that he was less prepared for somebody coming down the street from the Brady Street intersection.
Overall, though, we can only speculate, we canīt know.

My last question,and I have asked it twice already ,is what was misleading in using the name Cross in regards to the murder,when he provided his home address and his place of work? It might be odd,but certainly not illegal
so what was to be gained?

What was misleading? He made the police think they were dealing with a man named Cross, while all the while they were instead dealing with a man named Lechmere. Thatīs what was misleading.

You know my explanation as to why he did it, Harry, and it has been distributed over the boards a hundred times. Surely you are not asking me to give it again?

A little poser.When was the lat time a murderer ,in England,was tried by jury,and when was the last time in court, a suspected person was .This is what I was asked,and I gave the wrong answers.Seems childish,But.

Sorry, but I donīt follow you here. Could you rephrase yourself?

[pinkmoon]

And once again it happens! When will people read and understand what I say?

I have not convinced myself that Lechmere was the Ripper. The evidence has. If there was no evidence, there would be no case. The reason a QC and a retired murder squad detective with a clearing rate of 97 per cent say that there is a prima faciae case and that Lechmere must be cleared before anybody else can be looked into, is that the evidence suggests this.

How in the whole world can you say that I cannot look at other theories??? I have looked at other theories for thirty years! I have read up on Bury, on Kelly, on Mann, on Levy and on van Gogh. I have spent weeks and months in the company of Kosminsy and Druitt. I have bought books and watched documentaries.

The problem you have and the question you need to ask is why I donīt like the other theories as much as I like the Lechmere theory, and the answer is simple: because they are not half as good.

But donīt tell me I donīt know these theories, and havenīt looked into them. That is just plain daft.

We both come to different conclusions when we examine the evidence concerning these crimes you are totally convinced Mr cross/Lechmere was jack the ripper I do not think he was in fact it's totally wrong to name someone as jack the ripper without any proof.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Craigy]

Let's say Lechmere is innocent, put yourself in his shoes, walking to work on your normal route at normal time( perhaps a little late) when you come across a body.
How would a 'normal person' react ? Knock on doors, perhaps call for help or look for police.
I'm not sure of standing 'in the middle' of the road for at least 5 minutes would be my choice. Try standing out on a dark street for 5 minutes, let alone 10 minutes doing absolutely nothing !

And then on hearing a fellow traveller, you quietly wait and touch him on the shoulder to get his attention. That's just plain creepy, again one would think a call perhaps some distance away may be more appropriate.

Again as an innocent man, would you not be looking to be upfront and forthright with the police. Why lie about your name ? So your family doesn't find out ? But why would they be, you're on your normal way to work at a normal time !

Then you proceed to deceive a policeman, so you can be on your way to work on time. Was he that dedicated to getting on work on time ? But then why wait around the body for so long if so.

Let's say the conversation with Mizen was a miscommunication, wouldn't you be willing to escort the policeman to the scene, being helpful too assist ?

Once more wouldn't you be most willing to get your story out in the open as soon as possible, clear things up. Some comments have noted would a killer continue working as normal, but then would an innocent person happily continue on to work after discovering a body, most likely with the fear of the authorities hanging on your shoulders ?

I would think you'd rather get your side of the story over and done with, cleared up. Personally I would almost feel somewhat of a heroe, or a Good Samaritan of some sort - proud to tell this story to family and press alike.

I ask would these be the actions of an ordinary man ? Quite frankly if Lechmere was innocent his behaviour in staying with the victim, approaching Paul and casually informing a policeman whilst hurrying on to work seem like psychopathic behaviour and somewhat suspicious to say the least.

Cheers

[harry]

Fisherman,
Just a couple of questions.(1).How much time would it take to inflict the injuries to Nichols?As I see it,there were two cuts across the throat,one deep cut horizontally to the lower abdomen,four cuts on one side of the lower abdomen,and some cuts across the lower abdomen..Say a dozen in all.
My estimate,and I'm about as brilliant as Mitzen at estimating,is that it would take, at a maximum, 50 seconds.I q uote that figure,be cause I tried it.Now do not be alarmed,I did not use a woman,or the family dog.I used an old piece of carpet,and carpet is quit tough to cut.However I had a good sharp knife.
My next question is,how far away in front of Cross,could a person be,on that night.in those conditions,without Cross being aware of that person.I say aware and not see,but you can answer one or both.My thinking is that Cross was not looking particularly to see anyone,and people in the dark at night tend to look about 20 yards ahead rather than into the distance.(Statistics).On reaching the body it seems Cross was wholly taken up in observing close quarters.
My last question,and I have asked it twice already ,is what was misleading in using the name Cross in regards to the murder,when he provided his home address and his place of work? It might be odd,but certainly not illegal
so what was to be gained?
A little poser.When was the lat time a murderer ,in England,was tried by jury,and when was the last time in court, a suspected person was .This is what I was asked,and I gave the wrong answers.Seems childish,But.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: I would suggest that the reasons they supported you was was that the full facts as they are known at this current time could not have been presented to them in full. With regards to Scobie I know that to be the case because I have spoken to him in person.

... and that is the quality of your "criticism". You simply claim that we misled and lied to Scobie and Griffiths. Presumably you know a lot about things like these?

James Scobie could not be presented with all the case, since it would take years to take in. He was presented with a fair overview of the case.

Whe you spoke to him, did he say that he was deprived of details that would have made him opt for another route than the one he tok? Did he say that he felt misled by the film team? Is there any evidence at all that this happened?

I will say this in as civil a manner a possible, Trevor: If you wish to claim that Scobie was misled, then you must prove it - or take it back. There are no other options.

The trouble you have is that you are statistically bewildered, here you are quoting statistics yet again, you quote statistics in relation to someone running or jogging specific distances. you quote statistics regarding blood flow and blood congealing. Statistics are not to be regarded as prime evidence, they are simply a guideline which may or may not be accurate.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. When did I say something else? Show me, or take it back. Same again.

And on the topic of blood congealing you want to dismiss what Dr Briggs a forensic pathologist who has told you all about blood congealing based on his crime scenes examinations. Evidence in fairness to the Doctor, which may or may not support you blood congealing theory. But of course because he has sat on the fence that does not sit well with you because parts of what he says suggests that your blood congealing times you rely on could be way out.

I never said that the congealing could not deviate from instance to instance. I said that there is a normal curve and I follow that.
I can also say that you are seemingly as fit to understand what Briggs said and the implications of it as a two-year old is to interpret the reports from Wall Street.
Plus Jason Payne-James, much superior to Briggs as I understand it, supports my take.
End of story.

You have also been told that those who viewed the body at the scene only had cursory glances and the main witness from the scene Dr Llewelyn says absolutely nothing to support your theory regarding the blood flowing and blood congealing times.

With respect (which is odd...), you do not know how "cursory" the "glances" were. We can be looking at a close inspection for fifteen seconds on Mizenīs behalf, aided by his lamp. Is that a "cursory glance"?

Is it not true that you just made this up? To suit your thoughts? Yes, it is.

You make great play on the facts that he gave a different name but of course despite what you say he was entitled to use that name and it is not known whether or not at that time he did use that name as and when it perhaps suited his purpose.

Exactly, Trevor - no such thing is known. But it IS known that he used the name Lechmere otherwise, when in contact with the authorities.

Are you even remotely able to see the difference here? I will spell it out to you:

You suggest that something with no underpinning evidence applied.

I suggest that something with underpining evidence applied.'

Is that clear enough for you? YOU keep saying that I should not guess and that I have no factual ground to stand on. But it is really the exact other way around here, is it not?

Does that bother you in any way? No?

It should, Trevor.

You have also been told that despite the different names there appears to be no suspicion placed on him by the police or the coroner. So on that basis it is perhaps right to assume that the issue of the different names was not something that was of concern to the authorities, which you now says is part of what makes him a suspect.

How and why would the authoritites be concerned by something they did not know, Trevor? It is not as if they had BOTH his names, is it? So why would it be a concern to them?

Didnīt think of that, did you? Yikes!

Where and when the clarification was made is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because he was spoken to the police before being summoned to appear at the inquest and he did attend. In order for that to have happened the police would have had to have his name and an address and furthermore he would have been interviewed prior to the inquest in order for the police to know if he had any valuable evidence to give to the court. So any name issues surely would have been sorted out at that time and that wuld have been the time any concerns would have been raised, perhaps they were but it seems soon allayed.

That is simply wrong. But letīs do it the way you and I should always do it:

Prove that they had his real name. Prove that nobdy has ever succeded in feeding the police a wrong name.

Or take it back.

As to Scobie suggesting there is enough evidence for a prima facie case I have discussed this previous, but you should look at that term closely and see if it makes your case as strong as you think it does.

Definition

"At first sight, based on what seems to be the truth when first seen or heard"

Gone are the days when suspects went to court just on prima facie evidence alone. The prosecution now have to believe that they have more than a realistic chance of conviction based on the evidence to hand

As to your experts may I suggest you go back to them and put in writing all the facts that are now known and see if they are still of the same opinion. I somehow dont think they will be.

He said that it was a prima faciae case that suggested that Lechmere was the killer. He said that the jury would not like a man like Lechmere, since he behavrd suspiciously.

You may think that a weak case. I certainly donīt.

But I do consider YOU a weak case. Perhaps the weakest case to ever plague Ripperology. I find you uninformed and ignorant. If somebody else had claimed what you claim, I would be upset by it.

But being accused by you for something really is not a big deal. It is more like pathetich and a bit touching.

I have nothing to take back.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Its call transparency look the definition up.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Geez, that post touched sure touched the proverbial nerve!?

Considering it was you who brought up the concept of academia?!?

Your reactionary caricature, however, of an academic -- a painfully stale cliche straight out of the Gov. George Wallace playbook, circa 1968 -- suggests a person who has never set foot in a college or university, or even met an academic (yet according to you, you are one and you're married to one!?)

Your reply proved the thesis of my post completely: the blustering defensiveness, the rather Victorian indignation (in a second post too), the bringing up of alternate Ripper theories (I brought up none), the disparaging of laser-beam whilst you then split hairs about the counting of minutes and what people claimed about their minutes, the accusation that I am a liar, or not a gentleman (true) but a bounder (sometimes) or something childish like that.

Temperamentally you seem to come across (and not just to me) as a person unsuited to a 'mystery' involving limited and contradictory data, all of which is entirely documentary in nature, especially your calling upon barristers and police to make evaluations based on their professional expertise. It is like when Uri Geller easily fooled scientists in the 70's, because they were applying the wrong kind of methodology (e.g. scientific) to assessing a con man (he was actively deceiving them). whereas an expert on the Victorian Era (which I am not) would be an excellent place to start -- as a legal and forensic solution is long gone.

Yet you talk as if Lechmere is about to be arrested and put on trial.

Also your, hey, sure, other theories can co-exist -- except that they cannot, because they are all rubbish. Can't you see how, eh, a touch fanatical this all is?

Had you found documentation (a bit academic, I know, but oh well, do you want some tea and scones?) of an alternate identity to Lechmere that showed him to be doing nefarious things relevant to a murder inquiry, and it was proven that the police of the day had not found this out, that would be totally different.

But you've got nothing and you've found nothing. Ir is so thin and weak I would not call it a viable theory at all.

That probably wraps it up. By all means defend yourself, of course, but we are done here.

I would, though, say this as a final comment. The theory, often treated as fact, that all the competing police solutions automatically cancel each other out because there are competing solutions is arguably a superficial interpretation, again one bordering on cliche.

Yeah, yeah, Jonathan - very interesting Iīm sure.

How long does the trek from the murder place to where Mizen stood take to walk? In all your eagerness to produce a whopper of a post, you seemingly forgot to answer that - again.

You say that it points to a fanatic when I say that there really is not much of a worthy contending theory.

You forgot to mention illusions of grandeur, but I can provide that one for you.

Jonathan, this may seem hard to grasp for you, but I will say it anyway: The possibility that one good theory can coexist with a heap of bad ones is a reality.

You predispose that this cannot be so: Many of the theories MUST be good or comparable to the Lechmere theory.

They are not. Sorry, but there you are.

Speculate, if you will, that somebody finds a theory that is the correct one. Will that theory fit the evidence better than all the wrong ones? Think about it!

I would say that yes, such a theory will be totally superior to the rest of the theories. That is not to say that the rest of the theories are badly thought up. They may have had something, more or less, going for them. But overall, they will be unconfirmable, whereas the fitting theory will not be.

Please understand that I am not saying that I must be correct! I THINK I am, but that is not the same thing.

Since I believe that I am correct, I am also thinking that the rest of the theories are not as good, since they contain nothing like the weight of evidence that the Lechmere theory does. It is all very simple.

I could of course have chosen t work along the lines I am supposed to work, and say that we all have theories and that they are all equally viable. It is a very pleasant and democratic way of doing things, and it makes for a nice discussion climate: "Yes, Lechmere is a good contender, but then again, van Gogh is of course just as viable, of course, of course!", "Levy? Hmmm, yes, he sure was the kind of man who could have done it, or so Iīm told, so he is every bit as viable as my man who was found with the victim. Naturallement, chčr ami!" "Sure, all those speculations about how MacNaghten played hide and seek with his contemporaries is just as proven as it is that lechmere gave the wrong name - they are on equal footing! Have another bisquit!"

Sorry, but no - I am of a different meaning. Lechmere is the prime suspect, and then the rest are much less viable.

It is unpleasant, it is uncharitable and it is not comme il faut.

It is nevertheless true. What can I say?