What happened to Lechmere......

[harry]

Fisherman,
Comparisons ?. You it w as that mentioned convicted killers.Ho w DO they compare to Cross?.

With the body or at the body.W hich is it? you cannot seem to make up your mind.He had to be in contact if he killed Nichols.

Cross didn't have to assert anything.His evidence was never challenged.

Cross gave evidence in court.Hutchinson avoided doing so.

And to your earlier claim that I never answered a question from you.How would you know,being as you also claimed you didn't read all of my posts.

You are ptetty reckless with the truth when it suits you.

[Clark]

Hello Clark,

>>... The Evening Standard Mizen is quoted as saying, "The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman." So which is it, "fresh" or "somewhat congealed"?<<

It was probably both...

Thanks, I appreciate the information.

[Clark]

Now, there is much more that many of us could add here. I hope that I’ve given some who may be new to the conversation a bit more to consider. Unlike some others, I’m happy to debate the issue in a respectful and – hopefully – friendly way! I’ll also answer any questions at all. This is because I’m actually interested in information that may CHANGE my opinion. After all, wouldn’t that be interesting!

Thank you for your time.

PDS

Good points all. By the way, what's the origin of your signature quote?

Thanks,

Clark

[drstrange169]

Hello Patrick,

>>One comment that I feel should be made here. Fisherman stated that Andy Griffiths stated that "Lechmere" would have been required to give THAT name at the inquest, under oath. I think it's important to point out - AGAIN - that there is NO evidence that he gave the name 'Cross' exclusively.<<

You are right, we don't know. Personally I believe he did just give "Cross" but, as we can't be 100% certain, you might be right.

Andy Griffiths was probably wrong about Xmere being required to give the name Lechmere, as I've noted in post #523, but then Andy Griffiths got a few things wrong in the TV show. He either didn't fully understand what he was given or he was given wrong information.

Speaking of wrong imformation ...

Hello Fish,

>>You are not suited to judge my integrity...<<

Try reading my post #538 again and understand what it actually says this time.


Hello Harry,

>>You (Fish) are pretty reckless with the truth when it suits you.<<

;-)


Hello Clark,

>>Thanks, I appreciate the information.<<

My pleasure. As I think most of us agree, Xmere is a guy well worth looking into. Sadly it's some Xmerites propensity to twist every bit of information that gets our back up.

What Patrick wrote in his last paragraph of post #545 makes a lot of sense.

[GUT]

[/I][/B]My pleasure. As I think most of us agree, Xmere is a guy well worth looking into. Sadly it's some Xmerites propensity to twist every bit of information that gets our back up.

Ain't that the truth, so many people want to over egg the pudding.

[Pcdunn]

Ain't that the truth, so many people want to over egg the pudding.

What a quaint expression. I guess we'd say "gild the lily"-- overdo it a bit.

[GUT]

What a quaint expression. I guess we'd say "gild the lily"-- overdo it a bit.

Yep same horse different jockey (same thing).

[Fisherman]

Well if it "could be either way" he's far from the Prime Suspect isn't he.

Nope. That hinges on the likelihoods of the two ways it can be.

Van Gogh can be the killer. Or not.

Lechmere can be the killer. Or not.

It could be either way. But it is far likelier that Lechmere is the killer.

You DO understand the concept, I hope?

If it could NOT be either way, then it would be a proven thing that Lechmere was the killer.

I will exemplify further:

The blood points to Lechmere. Many say that there is place for another killer too. I agree that such a thing cannot be excluded. It can therefore be either way.

But it is not as LIKELY that it was another killer, since the timings seem to be less allowing for that.

If, however, it could NOT be either way, then there could not have been another killer. It would be a proven thing that Lechmere only fit the blood evidence.

Actually, what you are suggesting is that Lechmere must be the proven killer to be the best suspect. Which is more than a tad odd.

I think that you should now be able to realize how all of this works? I guess it could be either way there too, though ...

[GUT]

Nope. That hinges on the likelihoods of the two ways it can be.

Van Gogh can be the killer. Or not.

Lechmere can be the killer. Or not.

It could be either way. But it is far likelier that Lechmere is the killer.

You DO understand the concept, I hope?

If it could NOT be either way, then it would be a proven thing that Lechmere was the killer.

I will exemplify further:

The blood points to Lechmere. Many say that there is place for another killer too. I agree that such a thing cannot be excluded. It can therefore be either way.

But it is not as LIKELY that it was another killer, since the timings seem to be less allowing for that.

If, however, it could NOT be either way, then there could not have been another killer. It would be a proven thing that Lechmere only fit the blood evidence.

Actually, what you are suggesting is that Lechmere must be the proven killer to be the best suspect. Which is more than a tad odd.

I think that you should now be able to realize how all of this works? I guess it could be either way there too, though ...

And you could be willing and able to see the points in Cross' favor to, but I guess that's ine that can't be either way.

[Fisherman]

Not at all, which is why I still classify it as a possibility. But it seems to me that claiming that 35 factors support your theory, and that any interpretation of the evidence that would tend to discount the significance of those points shouldn't be considered "definitive," is stacking the deck a bit.

So which of the other factors is definitive, Clark?

When you automatically discount any interpretation of the facts that won't support your theory, how can you turn around and find it significant that nobody has established any facts (to your satisfaction) that contradict your theory?

Unless you noticed, that is exactly how you try a theory - if somebody can roduce a factor that definitively negates the theory, you drop it and move on.

If nobody can do that, you are free to sustain your theory.

Whether you do or not is dependent of the quality of the objections to the theory you receive. As of now, no single objection has carried the kind of weight that has had me doubting that the guilty suggestion is likelier than the innocent one, all things taken together.

That is why I am asking you to name one single factor that you think would be a good reason for me to drop my theory or reconsider the premise that it is more k´likely to be correct than wrong.

That possibility remains open - and I remain curious.

[Fisherman]

And you could be willing and able to see the points in Cross' favor to, but I guess that's ine that can't be either way.

I see you are now leaving your former idea that Lechmere cannot be the prime suspect with an acceptance on my behalf that it can be either way?

Why am I not surprised?

I weigh up all the information that arrives. That is why I am out here. It is not solely on account of the nice company. My weighing has resulted in how I think that the case weighs over in favour of a guilty verdict. But it is not 100 per cent sure. It lies somewhere on the scale of 0-100. And that means that I acknowledge that the opposing views carry weight too. It´s just that to my mind, that weight is lesser. And that is where people are getting all itchy - they think that they should make the decision for me, apparently.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
Comparisons ?. You it w as that mentioned convicted killers.Ho w DO they compare to Cross?.

If they can be placed at a Ripper murder site at the relevant time, they are better suspects.

If they cannot, they are worse suspects.

With the body or at the body.W hich is it? you cannot seem to make up your mind.He had to be in contact if he killed Nichols.

You really should not have to ask. We both know that he is not recorded as having been in physical contact - but he had the opportunity (as opposed to the convicted killers who were not there).

Cross didn't have to assert anything.His evidence was never challenged.

You can assert without being challenged. I swear! (see?)

Cross gave evidence in court.Hutchinson avoided doing so.

"Avoided"? So that is proven now?"

And to your earlier claim that I never answered a question from you.How would you know,being as you also claimed you didn't read all of my posts.

You are ptetty reckless with the truth when it suits you.

And that comes from a man who just claimed that Lechmere could not have been the killer on account of his own assertions about when he arrived at Browns...

[Fisherman]

To Clark:

Yesterday, you said that the blood could not be both fresh and coagulating.

I explained to you that it can, and I fleshed out how it works.

It appears that you had no idea about this before you posted.

It seems that you have now lost interest in the topic.

That is a bit sad - I would like to know what you think about the issue after having been informed about the details I mentioned. Can you see how and why Jason Payne-James said that the carman seems to fit the bill perfectly?

Sometimes, matters like these are simply lost, which I feel is a bit improductive.

[harry]

Fisherman,
The comparison was about telling lies,not being suspect.Read your posts.

Cross was never a suspect..

Bu I AM asking.You declared Cross never approached nearer than the centre of the road.Read your posts.Opportunity has not been shown. He has never been placed alone,further than 30/40 seconds in front of Paul,or nearer to the body than the middle of the roadRead your posts.You said this.

Persons can assert. Cross didn't.Read my English dictionary.

Hutchinson had the opportunity to attend the inquest.He avoided doing so.Ditto my English dictionary.

I çan assert when he arrived at Brown's because you stated it would have been a short while before Paul, who states the precise time he(Paul)entered Bucks Row.

One more coincidence you can add to your list? The coincidence of interruption.The killer was interrupted?

[Patrick S]

Hello Patrick,

>>One comment that I feel should be made here. Fisherman stated that Andy Griffiths stated that "Lechmere" would have been required to give THAT name at the inquest, under oath. I think it's important to point out - AGAIN - that there is NO evidence that he gave the name 'Cross' exclusively.<<

You are right, we don't know. Personally I believe he did just give "Cross" but, as we can't be 100% certain, you might be right.

Andy Griffiths was probably wrong about Xmere being required to give the name Lechmere, as I've noted in post #523, but then Andy Griffiths got a few things wrong in the TV show. He either didn't fully understand what he was given or he was given wrong information.

Speaking of wrong imformation ...

Hello Fish,

>>You are not suited to judge my integrity...<<

Try reading my post #538 again and understand what it actually says this time.


Hello Harry,

>>You (Fish) are pretty reckless with the truth when it suits you.<<

;-)


Hello Clark,

>>Thanks, I appreciate the information.<<

My pleasure. As I think most of us agree, Xmere is a guy well worth looking into. Sadly it's some Xmerites propensity to twist every bit of information that gets our back up.

What Patrick wrote in his last paragraph of post #545 makes a lot of sense.

drstrange: I completely agree with your assessment. Although, I really have no opinion at all with respect the name/names Cross may or may not have given at the inquest (or in any of his contact with police). I'm of the view that that the reporting is so completely inaccurate, incompetent, just plain wrong....that we simply cannot know one way or the other. Studying inaccuracies, falsehoods, misrepresentations, hidden agendas, in the reporting of the Whitechapel murders alone could be a cottage industry in its own right.