Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Fisherman]

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

Yes, that is correct. To some extent, I speculate to make sense of the grey areas where we have no information.
If there was information about every movement and comment that was made, then neither me nor you would be here, discussing the case.

But you see, we are discussing different matters here. Caz suggested that Prosector would be on equal footing with Llewellyn when it comes to establishing what kind of knife had been used in the Whitechapel murders, specifically in the Nichols murder.

That is why I said that Prosector has no more to go on informationwise that you and me, when it comes to the damage done to Nichols. He will therefore not be able to conclude what kind of knife was used on Polly. The mere suggestion is a very bad one, but Caz has been very taken with Prosector from the outset, so I am not surprised.

I AM surprised, though, that she does not realize that Prosectir has a theory of his own to defend, in which he makes the case that there was considerable anatomical knowledge on behalf of the killer, who had experiences of surgical knifes being used. Which means that Prosectors "conclusion" that we are looking at such an instrument becomes slippery, to say the least. The doctors in 1888, who were totally aquainted with the damage done to the victims, were not able to specify any type of knife and agree on it, and that means that Prosector cannot be given much credence trying to overrule them, given the information we have.

This I say because it is very easy to see what game you are playing:

If Prosector is speculating and if that is wrong, then it is wrong of Fisherman to speculate.

Well, PCDunn, neither of us is wrong to speculate. And everybody is welcome to weigh the speculations and the material they are grounded on.

Speculating is what these boards have engaged in for many, many years. It is what any discussion about the Rippers identity is built on. But there is speculation and there is speculation, and some of it is easy to disassemble.

Should you ever want to know more about what we do out here and why, donīt be shy to ask.

[Fisherman]

>>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.

Halved points? Now where have I seen that on these boards....? Hmmm

The Daily News was published on the 3:rd, the article revollving around - among other things - how the police looked upon the bid of the two men who were rumoured to have been out and about in the Nichols case. The paper lays down that the interview spoken about was held on the evening of the 2:nd. HYu now want to syggest that the comments made about Neils stance could belong to what he thought some day or days earlier. But I think that is tosh, since it apparently belongs to the information that was given on the evening of the 2:nd.

[Fisherman]

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

Because he would represent an anonymous man who had been found alone, standing close to where Nichols corpse lay, still bleeding. And who hda subsequently disappeared.

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

He would still be an anonymous man who had been found alone, standing close to where Nichols corpse lay, still bleeding. And who hda subsequently disappeared.

And how would Mizen be able to ask him anything? He did not have name or address or working place, and Lechmere would know that. You donīt predispose that you will be sought out if needed in such a case.

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

Hard? No, it would not be hard. But it would involve a lot more risk.

[Fisherman]

>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!

He already did.

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes, and if it as based on correct information it would not.

Bravo, Gut - you are very well read up on legal matters!

[Fisherman]

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

If I thought that you were a useful judge of such matters, I would be very worried.

But somehow I feel light at heart.

[GUT]

Yes, and if it as based on correct information it would not.

That's why people keep asking you what the information was, but as you can't supply it we have no idea on how reliable his conclusions were.

There are mistakes in the documentary, as you have in the past admitted, such as Paul finding Cross crouched over the body, what was he told about that.

[drstrange169]

>>If I thought that you were a useful judge of such matters, I would be very worried. But somehow I feel light at heart.<<

That's the beauty of facts, no judgements needed. It is right or it is wrong and Andy Griffiths made a series of factual errors, full stop.

[Fisherman]

That's why people keep asking you what the information was, but as you can't supply it we have no idea on how reliable his conclusions were.

There are mistakes in the documentary, as you have in the past admitted, such as Paul finding Cross crouched over the body, what was he told about that.

"He"? That part was an animated bit, with a red and a blue figure. Griffiths knew quite well how things went down at the murder site, and he actually remained unpersuaded that there was anything in the initital contact between Lechmere and Paul that was odd.

There are dozens of different documentaries that have been made, very many of them involving different experts making comments about the case. I cannot recall one single case where it has been suggested that those who made the documentary would have lied to the experts or provided them with a wrongful material in order to make them embrace the suspect of the documentary.

But here it happens! To my mind, it says a lot about the character of those who take it upon themselves to imply that Griffiths and Scobie were misled. I think it is a despicable accusation - although I tend to respect those who outright say that Scobie and Griffiths were lied to more than I do with the ones who merely cowardly hint at it.

I have no idea whether the compilations of material are kept in a Blink Films prop museum, but I am disinclined to think so. Nor am I going to ask. To me, it is much more relevant to brandish the ones who produce the accusations as one of the saddest additions to Ripperology I have ever suffered the ill fate to come across.

I am totally honest in my approach to the study of the case, and I always present what I find in total, regardless if it supports my stance or calls it into question. There have been times when my opponent in an ongoing discussion has laughed at me for having presented material that goes against my own thinking. This they have done because they have believed I have mistakenly done so. It tells an unflattering story of their own honesty, but they fail to see that.

I may be right and I may be wrong, I may be clever and I may be stupid, I may be friendly and I may be arrogant - I am out here, and I have presented a suspect, and when you do, you do not just bring that suspect into focus. You end up in focus yourself. And so, over the years, I have been accused of being a bad family father, a lousy journalist, a Swede (apparently inforgiveable to some), a liar, pompous and a coward.

When you cannot fault a theory, fault the one presenting it. It is not a surrounding in which to develop faith and hope for the human race. I nevertheless demand honesty on behalf of those I debate with, and an absolute demand on me to be able to do so, is to deliver the exact same commodity myself.

I worked together with the Blink Film team for a considerable amount of time. I noticed how they could have interviewed a member of the Lechmere family who swore that there were dark rumours about then carman, but avoided doing so since there was information that this Lechmere family member had earlier said that he knew nothing about Charles Lechmere. I was repetedly asked about many matters where they were uncertain how to present things. I witnessed how the team was genuinely interested in the case, and how they made it their business to inform themselves about it, cameraman and sound technician alike. I saw lots and lots of material, later discarded, where James Scobie spoke about the case. It was quite apparent that he had taken in matters in an impressive manner, and it was likewise clear that he was very negative to the suggestions that the implications pointing to Lechmere would have been merely coincidental. I saw Griffiths weighing the case and going from very interested in what he thought was a very promising suspect to getting more and more convinced that we actually had the right man. I spoke to David McNab, the producer, who had spent decades looking at the case, and who had stubbornly called people who said that it could one day be solved phantasists - and who said that he was genuinely flabbergasted by suddenly being convinced that Lechmere must have been the killer.

Anybody can look up Blink Films in the directories and find the company on the net. And anybody is welcome to seek them out and call them liars, and demand an explanation to how Griffiths and Scoboe were mislead and lied to.

But I am not going to honour a bunch of sad, sad people by doing their unsavoury errands for them.

[GUT]

I'm not hintng at anything, which seems to be what you are hinting. am asking what were Griffith and Scobie told, but that seems to be something that you either don't know and aren't prepared to ask Blink so you can answer, or know and wont tell.

It is a pretty basic leg to your assertion that because they (Griffiths and Scobie) say certain things that's the end of it.

You can't rely on their expert opinion without disclosing what that was based on, as has been said a few times there are glaring errors in the doco.

[Fisherman]

I'm not hintng at anything, which seems to be what you are hinting. am asking what were Griffith and Scobie told, but that seems to be something that you either don't know and aren't prepared to ask Blink so you can answer, or know and wont tell.

It is a pretty basic leg to your assertion that because they (Griffiths and Scobie) say certain things that's the end of it.

You can't rely on their expert opinion without disclosing what that was based on, as has been said a few times there are glaring errors in the doco.

Nota bene, Gut - and it should be easy enough for a legal man like you - that I name nobody. Those who make the accusations will know who they are.

It cannot rest on me to approach Blink Films and practically accuse them of foul play. Once again, you are a legal man, so you should see the implications.

It is led on that Scobie and Griffiths could have been manipulated/lied to/misled.

The only ones who could have done so would be somebody involved in the production of the documentary.

I was involved in the making of it, so I am not to be trusted.

If I was to ask - and that is not going to happen, believe me - then what are the guarantees that I will not be told "But you are one of the team, why would you give us the truth?"

If indeed Blink Films led/manipulated/misled Scobie and Griffiths, what makes you think that they would say "Yes, that is true - we lied/misled/manipulated these men"?
If lying/misleading/manipulating was their intention, why not do the exact same thing when asked?

If they gave me a compilation of papers, would all out here say "Okay, we trust that these were the papers Scobie was given"? Or would some genius say "But how do we know that these were the exact papers that Scobie had?"

If they did not have the papers - and why would they? - and instead told me "We were honest and provided all the relevant material", do you think that the sad people who hint at foul play out here would accept it?

If you trust, you trust throughout. And then you donīt ask at all.

No, Gut, if you wish to pursue this line, then you are on your own. Use your legal insights and make an inquiry, and then you can come to a conclusion of your own, where a potential liar like me is not involved. You would not ask Lee Harvey Oswald to provide the proof in the Kennedy case, would you? I was involved, deeply involved, in this deceitful docu, remember?

The producer of the docu is named David McNab and the director is named Sam Taplin. The address is 44 De Beauvoir Crescent, London N1 5SB, and the telephone number is +44 20 3150 0777.

Itīs up to you now. Never - never! - ask me to do it for you.

[GUT]

Fish I dont know why you can't see the difference between they deliberately mis led and may have accidentally done so,.

[Fisherman]

Fish I dont know why you can't see the difference between they deliberately mis led and may have accidentally done so,.

That is NOT what is suggested out here. Out here, it is said that they were "drip fed" information, that they were purposefully provided with a material carefully selected to produce what the film team wanted to have.

The exact same thing applies if I was to ask Blink Films if they accidentally happened to mislead Scobie and Griffiths - if they said "no", the mob out here would just go "They are lying again!"

I wonīt subject myself or them to that. If you believe I would, you are mad.

I have said what I am going to say in this errand. I have provided you with adress and telephone number. If Blink Films accidentally misled Scobie and Griffiths, then we should work from the presumption that they are honest, and that they would respond honestly and truthfully to any inquiries aiming at clearing it up.

This discussion is therefore over, as far as Iīm concerned.

[Trevor Marriott]

"He"? That part was an animated bit, with a red and a blue figure. Griffiths knew quite well how things went down at the murder site, and he actually remained unpersuaded that there was anything in the initital contact between Lechmere and Paul that was odd.

There are dozens of different documentaries that have been made, very many of them involving different experts making comments about the case. I cannot recall one single case where it has been suggested that those who made the documentary would have lied to the experts or provided them with a wrongful material in order to make them embrace the suspect of the documentary.

But here it happens! To my mind, it says a lot about the character of those who take it upon themselves to imply that Griffiths and Scobie were misled. I think it is a despicable accusation - although I tend to respect those who outright say that Scobie and Griffiths were lied to more than I do with the ones who merely cowardly hint at it.

I have no idea whether the compilations of material are kept in a Blink Films prop museum, but I am disinclined to think so. Nor am I going to ask. To me, it is much more relevant to brandish the ones who produce the accusations as one of the saddest additions to Ripperology I have ever suffered the ill fate to come across.

I am totally honest in my approach to the study of the case, and I always present what I find in total, regardless if it supports my stance or calls it into question. There have been times when my opponent in an ongoing discussion has laughed at me for having presented material that goes against my own thinking. This they have done because they have believed I have mistakenly done so. It tells an unflattering story of their own honesty, but they fail to see that.

I may be right and I may be wrong, I may be clever and I may be stupid, I may be friendly and I may be arrogant - I am out here, and I have presented a suspect, and when you do, you do not just bring that suspect into focus. You end up in focus yourself. And so, over the years, I have been accused of being a bad family father, a lousy journalist, a Swede (apparently inforgiveable to some), a liar, pompous and a coward.

When you cannot fault a theory, fault the one presenting it. It is not a surrounding in which to develop faith and hope for the human race. I nevertheless demand honesty on behalf of those I debate with, and an absolute demand on me to be able to do so, is to deliver the exact same commodity myself.

I worked together with the Blink Film team for a considerable amount of time. I noticed how they could have interviewed a member of the Lechmere family who swore that there were dark rumours about then carman, but avoided doing so since there was information that this Lechmere family member had earlier said that he knew nothing about Charles Lechmere. I was repetedly asked about many matters where they were uncertain how to present things. I witnessed how the team was genuinely interested in the case, and how they made it their business to inform themselves about it, cameraman and sound technician alike. I saw lots and lots of material, later discarded, where James Scobie spoke about the case. It was quite apparent that he had taken in matters in an impressive manner, and it was likewise clear that he was very negative to the suggestions that the implications pointing to Lechmere would have been merely coincidental. I saw Griffiths weighing the case and going from very interested in what he thought was a very promising suspect to getting more and more convinced that we actually had the right man. I spoke to David McNab, the producer, who had spent decades looking at the case, and who had stubbornly called people who said that it could one day be solved phantasists - and who said that he was genuinely flabbergasted by suddenly being convinced that Lechmere must have been the killer.

Anybody can look up Blink Films in the directories and find the company on the net. And anybody is welcome to seek them out and call them liars, and demand an explanation to how Griffiths and Scoboe were mislead and lied to.

But I am not going to honour a bunch of sad, sad people by doing their unsavoury errands for them.

Blink films are no different to any other Ripper documentary maker their remit is to make a suspect based programme and to include as much information as is possible to try to convince the public that the suspect featured is JTR. The content used and obtained is sometimes doctored and edited to enhance the viability of the suspect.

As to Scobie I keep telling you that I spoke to him and discussed in detail with him the main aspects of what was presented to the public, and I can tell you, and I keep telling you that he gave 40 mins of interview of which 30 seconds only was used, and coincidentally that 30 seconds just happened to be a segment stating that there was enough evidence against him for a prima facie case.

What wasn't mentioned was the fact that despite that, the matter would never have got to trial because it would never have passed the committal stage.

Andy Griffiths simply says Lechmere is a person of interest, so he is not singing from the same song sheet as Scobie is he? So if all your experts had this nailed down how come there are inconsistencies?

Ask Blink films to release the edited parts of the experts interviews. If they have been transparent they have no reason not to having regards to the public interest. If they have not then that may become apparent. I know where my money is on this.

Because now they don't care they have fulfilled their contract with the TV company and the finished product has been accepted and been shown and they have been paid. They have left it with you to take all the flak. I don't see anyone from Blink films coming on here to justify that finished product or to answer the criticisms

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

Before you use terms like "a potential liar like me" please show me where I have ever even hinted (your word) at such a thing.

And before you say "they know who they are" your post was addressed at me.

If I were to call you a liar (and don't for one second think you are) there would be no hinting.

I am highly offended that you even hint that I have called you a liar.