Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Fisherman]

It's worse than that, Harry. Fish uses Cross's own stated time of leaving home to try and hang him. Cross apparently incriminates himself by telling the truth - more than once, if you count where he also admits he heard and saw nobody who could have left the crime scene before he got there.
Love,

Caz
X

So now you actually know that he told the truth?

Then what are we debating about?

I donīt see why you think it is strange that I point out that Lechmere should have been a long way from Bucks Row at 3.45 if he left home at 3.30. Are you in any way contesting that? If so, how?

[Fisherman]

Based on all the wound evidence, Prosector believes the knife used to kill the ripper victims was an amputation knife.

But what does he know?

Love,

Caz
X

Nothin much, actually. Close to zero. He therefore speculates.

Llewellyn, on the other hand, SAW the wounds, every millimeter of them. He saw the edges of them, the fraying, the cleanly cut bits, the jagged parts etcetera. All of it, Llewellyn saw. He had all the time he needed on his hands.

What we have left when it comes to descriptions of the wounds in Nicholsī body are very crude descriptions. It would not be possible for Prosector to conclude what kind of knife it was that was used on Nichols, you can take my word for that.

But Llewellyn saw it. He did not need to go on crude descriptions.

Lucky Prosector, by the way - he seems to have gotten himself an admirer...

[Fisherman]

Caz: That's the whole point, Fish. He wouldn't. That was what Lechmere in this scenario was trying to achieve - covering all the bases. By saying he saw and heard nothing (whether he did or not), that might keep himself safe, but if the killer wasn't satisfied, at least he wouldn't know the name of Cross's wife and children.

It makes absolutely no sense. None whatsoever. If he said "I saw and heard absolutely nothing", then whhy on Gods green earth would he lie about his name so that the killer would not come after him? Don`t you see that the killer would not do that? There would be no reason whatsoever!

But if Lechmere swopped names, he would be at risk to be found out by the police. And if he was, he would be in an extremely awkward position. If the police further to this looked deeply on his testimony and found the Mizen scam, the bleeding issues and so on, he could end up in the gallows - and THAT should make his Mrs pissed off!

Donīt you see, Caz, that people who are threatened and/or intimidated by criminals, and who fall prey to their own fears, will lie about what they KNOW and not about who they ARE.
Can you cite a single example of somebody who has done anything like this...? It would amaze me, truly it would!

Besides, the whole suggestion with another killer putting thumbscrews on Lechmere is very, very odd.

Fair enough, that's also a good reason for not publicising the Lechmere name when he could use an alternative.

Suggestion: yes. Good: no.

...and so on and so on. Been through all this before, Fish. If you can't or won't consider any of the alternative explanations there is little point in my repeating them ad nauseam.

Can you see that the exact same applies to you? Or? Am I the only one who must "consider" (=accept, I take it?) the alternatives? If so, I can tell you that I have done so already.

They were worse, so I prioritized the guilty version.

[Patrick S]

Caz: That's the whole point, Fish. He wouldn't. That was what Lechmere in this scenario was trying to achieve - covering all the bases. By saying he saw and heard nothing (whether he did or not), that might keep himself safe, but if the killer wasn't satisfied, at least he wouldn't know the name of Cross's wife and children.

It makes absolutely no sense. None whatsoever. If he said "I saw and heard absolutely nothing", then whhy on Gods green earth would he lie about his name so that the killer would not come after him? Don`t you see that the killer would not do that? There would be no reason whatsoever!

But if Lechmere swopped names, he would be at risk to be found out by the police. And if he was, he would be in an extremely awkward position. If the police further to this looked deeply on his testimony and found the Mizen scam, the bleeding issues and so on, he could end up in the gallows - and THAT should make his Mrs pissed off!

Donīt you see, Caz, that people who are threatened and/or intimidated by criminals, and who fall prey to their own fears, will lie about what they KNOW and not about who they ARE.
Can you cite a single example of somebody who has done anything like this...? It would amaze me, truly it would!

Besides, the whole suggestion with another killer putting thumbscrews on Lechmere is very, very odd.

Fair enough, that's also a good reason for not publicising the Lechmere name when he could use an alternative.

Suggestion: yes. Good: no.

...and so on and so on. Been through all this before, Fish. If you can't or won't consider any of the alternative explanations there is little point in my repeating them ad nauseam.

Can you see that the exact same applies to you? Or? Am I the only one who must "consider" (=accept, I take it?) the alternatives? If so, I can tell you that I have done so already.

They were worse, so I prioritized the guilty version.

This is either getting very sad or completely infuriating. Likely, a bit of both.

That said, I would love the opportunity to debate this issue with you. I understand you not wishing to do so since you're argument is laughable on its face and completely absurd once you dig in. However, I shall challenge you for the sake our collective sanity and so that, when it is done, you'll no longer be taken seriously by anyone - even the neophytes you have misled up to now.

You seem quite keen to heap insults on caz and, for that matter, everyone else. Yet, when it comes to engaging me, you've picked up your ball and gone home because I respond in kind. You obviously understand that I've done my research, humored your sad little attempt at a solution, and seen it as quite obviously a simple, pathetic con aimed at what little money and fame you might garner as a result of it's success, soon forgotten as it may be.

Baltimore in April sounds like a great time and place for a friendly debate! Invite your documentary film makers to attend! It will make a lovely companion piece to 'NEW EVIDENCE'. I'll pay for the venue. I'll buy your drinks. I'll buy you dinner. You can even keep 100% of the gate should you choose to charge those who wish to see you're humiliation. As I sense you are in this to make a buck, why begrudge you that? What kind of guy would I be if I were to impede your sad little money grab.

Put your money where your mouth is before you put the naive public's money in your pocket. I'll even shake your hand before and after I reduce you to tears.

[Pcdunn]

Takes one to know one...

Nothin much, actually. Close to zero. He therefore speculates.

"Speculates"-- ah, like you do, sir!

[Hercule Poirot]

Take a look at Hercules latest post to you. He understands what circular reasoning is.
In a sense, we are all engaging in a paraphrase of circular reasoning, since we are rehashing the same old arguments over and over and over again...

I agree with you that so much rehashing often involves reformulating an argument differently hoping it becomes easiser to understand but in doing so, one might have had a valid point to begin with but the reformulation then may cause some form of circular reasoning. Hey, even Einstein was considered by some scientists to have come up with his E=MC2 equation through circular reasoning!

One has to be cautious and try as much as possible to preserve the original phrasing of a point or argument which appeared to be conclusive.

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot

[drstrange169]

>>Aha. Well, the article commences "Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said..." Thatīs why I thought that it all happened on the evening of the 2:nd.<<

The only conclusion I can make from the above repl is that you only read half my post. That does explain a lot of your replies.

[GUT]

But this is just your preconceived notion, Caz. I think that it would be eminently sensible to attend the inquest if he believed that he would be sought for as the killer if he did not. Therefore, ultimately, he may have reasoned that he stood to gain an escape from the gallows.

One could do more poorly, you have to admit that.

The more I think about it the more sure I become, even ...

Why would he become a suspect by not attending the inquest?

If asked "Well I told Mizen all about it I figured if I was needed he'd contact me".

Not really that hard for the man who was cool enough imediately after the murder to pull off the Mizen scam.

[drstrange169]

>> ...so you are absolutely correct. It seems I got carried away.<<


Cleaning up the coffee I just spat out all over my desk;-)

[drstrange169]

>If asked "Well I told Mizen all about it I figured if I was needed he'd contact me". Not really that hard for the man who was cool enough imediately after the murder to pull off the Mizen scam.<<

For heaven's sake, stop thinking practically Gut!

[GUT]

You have a lot of nice things to say about the policeman who endorses your suspect, but not for the one who doesn't?

I bet you do.

And for the record, I asked many moons ago what, precisely, documentation Scobie and Griffiths saw.

I'm still waiting for an answer.

Monty

That's the burning issue with their opinions.

I guarantee you the first thing they would be asked about their "Expert Opinion" if they were in Court was what it was based on, if it was based on incorrect information it becomes worthless.

[drstrange169]

I don't know about Scobie, but in Andy Griffiths case, during the TV show he made a series of incorrect statements.

[GUT]

I don't know about Scobie, but in Andy Griffiths case, during the TV show he made a series of incorrect statements.

And that's what worre me, to use an old computer programmers term RIRO.

[Pcdunn]

Garbage in, Garbage Out

And that's what worre me, to use an old computer programmers term RIRO.

Americans call it GIGO, but it means the same thing.

[GUT]

Americans call it GIGO, but it means the same thing.

Yep same horse.