What happened to Lechmere......

[harry]

Fisherman,
I see you are avoiding the question I posed.Can you place Cross in the company of Nichols immediately before she was killed.It is the essential qualification if he was the killer.Being there after her death,is no kind of evidence whatsoever of being involved in her death..The opportunity to kill can only occur if Cross was with her prior to her death.It is simple logic which you cannot seem to understand.
Again you cite an example which is tottaly irevelent to Nichols killing,but let me take the example of Cross's mother which you write of.It is information not evidence.It would only be of interest if Cross could be placed there at the time a killing took place in that street,and as other posters have told you,this cannot be done.
Do I believe Cross? Yes I do.He should be believed as much today as he was in 1888,as no scrap of evidence has emerged which contradicts his account.No EVIDENCE has surfaced to prove he was lying.
One more in reply to your earlier question to me about a person running from the scene of a crime and what would be my reaction.The simple answer is that I would question why that person was running.The question of why Cross was stood near the body of Nicholls has been answered.He was on his w ay to work and found her body there.

[drstrange169]

I said that these skirts were around, BUT BELONGED TO THE UPPER CLASSES.

I was being thorough. You are being wrong.

Since the above has nothing to do with my posts, I'll take it that's the the closest I'll ever get to an apology.
Thanks.

[drstrange169]

>>And once again, no other person has been established to have been in place at the Nichols murder site between Neils visit there at 3.15 and Lechmeres arrival!!!<<

Off the top of my head, I can think of five, I can name. Give it time I could probably come up with more. All of them probably closer to the body than Xmere was seen to be.

[drstrange169]

>> ... what he did is consistent with the possibility that he was the killer ...<<

And what he did is consistent with the possibility that he was not the killer.


"He had seconds only to decide what to do as Paul drew nearer..."

And the killer was only seconds away from disappearing, literally. It took me me twenty seconds walking at a leisurely pace to reach the corner of the Board School, a killer could have done it in five seconds or so.

[drstrange169]

>>It was pointed out at the "press conference" (I donīt know what the victorian police called it, but that was what it was, apparently) on the 2:nd, that

>>"It is not true, says Constable Neil ... he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street."<<

Interesting that you deliberately left out the next line of that quote.

[Fisherman]

I said that these skirts were around, BUT BELONGED TO THE UPPER CLASSES.

I was being thorough. You are being wrong.

Since the above has nothing to do with my posts, I'll take it that's the the closest I'll ever get to an apology.
Thanks.

This was what you wrote:

Nobody but you has talked about the destitute prostitutes of 1888 wearing tight skirts and with good reason, the idea is ludicrous.

Since I took great care to point out that the "destitute prostitutes of 1888" did NOT wear tight skirts, I found that this line of yours was very misleading. And that IS as close to an apology you are going to get, until I make false claims about you. When/if I do, I will happily apologize, since there is nothing else you can do in such cases.

But you shall have to wait and see.

[Fisherman]

It would be quite interesting if a simulated trial with preliminary hearings could be done here on the forum with 'designated' defenders, prosecutors and someone presiding it all. The challenge would be finding 'neutral' members of the jury. The procedures would have to be those prevailing at the time of the murders.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

Yes, it would be an interesting experiment, but I fail to see that anybody could guarantee a neutral trial. Sounds decidely Nurembergish to me.

Anyway, the very reason James Scobie and Andy Griffiths were chosen wsa that they had no prior involvment or interest in the Ripper case, so the neutrality you are asking for was there at the time.

As for the procedures being the ones that prevailed in 1888, I think I need to point out that the question that was asked of Scobie was whether the case would stand up in a modern day trial. I donīt know to what extent Scobie was familiar with the procedures of 1888.

Anyway, an interesting suggestion. To an extent, the answer is already there out on the net, in comments made about the show. The tricky thing is that whereas you can see many peole saying "Nah, it was Bury" or "Hell no, Koz dunīit", proving preconceptions governing the judgment, one has to work from the presumption that those who embrace Lechmere as the probable killer do not have these preconceptions. They often say "I never heard of the guy before".

To weigh that up is not an easy task.

[Fisherman]

>>It was pointed out at the "press conference" (I donīt know what the victorian police called it, but that was what it was, apparently) on the 2:nd, that

>>"It is not true, says Constable Neil ... he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street."<<

Interesting that you deliberately left out the next line of that quote.

Why? What does it add, to your mind, that is vital to the issue?

[Fisherman]

Yes, but there is absolutely no reason to go on this factor alone. It appears to me that you are trying to add credence to your theory based on a faulty premise and cherry picking the relative factors. You yourself have admitted that statistically, it is highly improbable that a person finding a body was the killer. Does that probability change if the discoverer is unaccompanied at the time of the discovery? You've given us no reason to think so.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm merely stating how your argument on this issue appears to me so far. When I boil the pages and pages down in this thread, along with a number of the posts you've made in other threads in this folder, and your statements during your TV appearance, here's what your contention that Cross was the most likely suspect sounds like to me:

"IF we assume that Cross was the killer AND he was the only one near the body when it was found by someone else (such as Paul), THEN his mere proximity to the body makes him the most likely suspect. Given that conclusion, the police were fools for not suspecting him in the first place."

However, without the "IF we assume that Cross was the killer" part of the equation, the observation regarding his proximity to the body is meaningless BECAUSE there's nothing intrinsically interesting about Cross. He only becomes interesting if he is the killer, and there is no evidence that he was.

The first word is the one I have been looking for for a week by now: What I am saying about proximity is correct, and you now admit it.

Thank you!!

You then add that there is no reason to go on that factor alone, and you speak of cherry picking and faulty premises.

But I do not go on that factor alone, Clark, do I? I go on all factors. And the outcome is that my take on things is that Lechmere is the probable - not prove - killer of Nichols.

There are thngs speaking for, and there are things speaking against. The weighing I do is in favour of a guilty sentence.

As I have pointed out numerous times, the docu put the question to a barrister whether the case would stand up in a modern day trial. His answer was that we have a prima faciae case that suggests that Lechmere was the killer. He said that that his behaviour was suspicious and that a jury would not like that. He spoke about the geographical and chronological implications as something that was decidedly unhealthy to the carman (although he did not use those exact words).

So itīs not just me, Clark. The carman makes a very good bid for the killerīs role, quite simply, and many agree about that. There are comments all over the net about the show, and many say that Lechmere is the only sound suggestiuon they have ever heard.
Others disagree. That is how it goes. But it does not hide the fact that a very good case can be made for Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

>>And once again, no other person has been established to have been in place at the Nichols murder site between Neils visit there at 3.15 and Lechmeres arrival!!!<<

Off the top of my head, I can think of five, I can name. Give it time I could probably come up with more. All of them probably closer to the body than Xmere was seen to be.

These people were NOT at the murder site. You refer to the dwellers of the street, and they were inside their houses and the vouched for each other.

I will not even comment on the proximity issue; going by your history in the errand itīs speaking to deaf ears.

Thanks, anyway, for firmly establishing the level you are discussing at.

[Fisherman]

>> ... what he did is consistent with the possibility that he was the killer ...<<

And what he did is consistent with the possibility that he was not the killer.


"He had seconds only to decide what to do as Paul drew nearer..."

And the killer was only seconds away from disappearing, literally. It took me me twenty seconds walking at a leisurely pace to reach the corner of the Board School, a killer could have done it in five seconds or so.

Any killer would need around a minute - not five seconds - headway on Lechmere, at least. For five seconds to be an interesting figure, the killer would need to wait until Lechmere was five seconds away from the body.

Thatīs all there is to it.

But once again thanks! It is educative with these posts of yours.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
I see you are avoiding the question I posed.Can you place Cross in the company of Nichols immediately before she was killed.It is the essential qualification if he was the killer.

I have given you my answer - he was there, alone with the body, at a remove in time that is consistent with being the killer.

If I could place him with Nichols at the exact time she died we would not be having this - rather daft - conversation.

Being there after her death,is no kind of evidence whatsoever of being involved in her death.

C-I-R-C-U-M-S-T-A-T-I-A-L E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. Circumstantial evidence. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Circumstantial evidence.
Heard it before? Maybe itīs time tio listen?
James Scobie, who knows has forgotten more about evidence than you and I will ever learn, said that we have a prima faciae good enough to take to court, suggesting that Lechmere was the killer.

What do you think he based that on? A whiff of gooseberry in the air? Tarot cards? A sack of bones, emptied on the floor?
Or did this hugely experienced legal man go on - wait for it - the EVIDENCE? The C-I-R-C-U-M-S-T-A-T-I-A-L E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E??

Go figure, Harry; I wonīt even bother to read the rest of your repetitive nonsense.

PS. To the rest of the readers: Now Harry will draw one conclusion only, and come back to say "Aha! You now FINALLY admit that it is not proven that Lechmere was with her before her death!"

Of course, I have never said that this is a proven thing, but rest assured, Harry is not interested in that a iot.

[Hercule Poirot]

I fail to see that anybody could guarantee a neutral trial. Sounds decidely Nurembergish to me.

I agree or to say it in another way: a three balls-two strikes, bases loaded, score 1 to 1, last ending situation. LOL

It would make a fascinating 'pay to view' trial and could help puting an end to the "Yes, but... - Yes, but..." discussions here on Casebook. Then again, so many people are still discussing the O. J. Simpson trial!!

[Fisherman]

I agree or to say it in another way: a three balls-two strikes, bases loaded, score 1 to 1, last ending situation. LOL

It would make a fascinating 'pay to view' trial and could help puting an end to the "Yes, but... - Yes, but..." discussions here on Casebook. Then again, so many people are still discussing the O. J. Simpson trial!!

I would prefer if people on their own account grasped the relevance of having said "yes" before saying "but".

[Hercule Poirot]

I would prefer if people on their own account grasped the relevance of having said "yes" before saying "but".

For many, it simply means "I heard what you said (although I just can't figure it out), but...". LOL

I must say I admire your patience. I wouldn't waste that much time repeating those arguments like you do.

I can understand how Scobie came up with his conclusion. As you have often presented it, facts were submitted to him possibly as direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Obviously he went through it and came to a conclusion. The weight of each piece of evidence and the line of evidence as a whole has always been a judgment call either made by the prosecution or the defense and necessarily represents two opposing views and conclusion.

Who is right, who is wrong? Even after reading final court decisions, we always notice that one side only had a better case than the other one, no one being totally right, including the judge. LOL

In other words, the Lechmere discussion will probably never end.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot