Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What happened to Lechmere......

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Trevor Marriott: There you go again with your usual back peddling when asked questions that directly affect your theory. You don`t answer the questions all you do is throw derogatory comments back at who is asking the questions.

    That´s so unfair! I only do that to you, Trevor.

    Now let me put you right as far as Lechmere is concerned.



    Some 2 years ago I was approached at one of my theater shows by Sue Lechmere the relative of Lechmere your suspect.She was championing the idea that her relative was the killer of Nicholls and was JTR. She had nothing more than a misguided belief to go on perhaps fuelled in the knowledge that she may have been related to one of the most notorious serial killers this country has known.

    She had a lot more to go on - I know Sue quite well, and I am very aware what she had found out two years ago. You are - once more - wrong.

    I gave her my opinion which has not changed to this day and no more contact was made.Probably 12 months later she again turned up at another one of my shows this time in company with Ed your partner in this project. Both were told exactly the same then as she was told previous. It is apparent that she has become obsessed with this belief as you and Ed have and wont let it go.

    What is apparent to you is not apparent to others, Trevor.
    Of course it is apparent to others. Those others are on here amongst other places and they keep not only telling you, but giving you the reasons why it is flawed but your obsession wont allow you to accept the flaws.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • People want their five minutes of fame.

      I'm not sure I'd want the world knowing that my great-great grandfather was a notorious serial killer, but you can see why people go in for this kind of thing.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        Of course it is apparent to others. Those others are on here amongst other places and they keep not only telling you, but giving you the reasons why it is flawed but your obsession wont allow you to accept the flaws.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Yes, you are probably right. People normally flock to your side, don´t they?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
          People want their five minutes of fame.

          I'm not sure I'd want the world knowing that my great-great grandfather was a notorious serial killer, but you can see why people go in for this kind of thing.
          Cox´s grandfather was not named the Ripper by her, Harry.

          Comment


          • Hello Trevor Marriott,
            I've mentioned your endeavours regarding the confidential files held by the Met on the thread titled 'Punishment' I thought I'd mention it to you out of courtesy.Best Regards.

            *Apologies for posting this on your thread Fisherman
            wigngown 🇬🇧

            Comment


            • Originally posted by wigngown View Post
              Hello Trevor Marriott,
              I've mentioned your endeavours regarding the confidential files held by the Met on the thread titled 'Punishment' I thought I'd mention it to you out of courtesy.Best Regards.

              *Apologies for posting this on your thread Fisherman
              Thank you for the kind words it nice to know that all the hard work that was carried out, and the money that was spent sadly to no avail is appreciated and not taken for granted.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by wigngown View Post

                *Apologies for posting this on your thread Fisherman
                It´s not my thread, wigngown - it´s anybody´s! I didn´t even start it.

                Comment


                • You very much deserve all the accolades that come your way Trevor, and no-one could have done more.
                  wigngown 🇬🇧

                  Comment


                  • Thank you Fisherman, best regards.
                    wigngown 🇬🇧

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                      Hi Bill

                      This is what Mary Ann Cox said at the Kelly inquest of Mr Blotchy as he and Mary Kelly walked through the archway into Millers Court

                      "The man`s boots must have been old for although the place was very silent at that time he made no noise when walking up the court with the deceased"

                      Birmingham Daily Post
                      Nov 13th 1888
                      And? Cross stated "He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from", after he had come to a standstill.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                        Hi Christer



                        Mary Ann Cox was only feet away from Mr Blotchy and didn`t hear a thing.
                        Her words were "made no noise".

                        So, we now know that no footsteps would necessarily be heard, aside from a policemans, as PC Neil and Mrs Mortimer illustrate.
                        But, Cross did hear Paul's footsteps.....

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          We don`t have any suspects for this murder, finding the body doesn't make him a suspect. You have tried to build a case for him to be looked upon as a suspect and I would suggest you have not fully understood what Jason Payne has said, or you interpreted it in a way which suits your theory.

                          Dr Biggs a forensic pathologist stated that time of death cannot be established and anything is possible given the facts that all he had to go on was what was recorded. So in reality death could have occurred between your time frame. But equally time of death could have been much earlier and outside that time window.

                          Now I had a long telephone conversation with today with Jason Payne your expert whereby we discussed these issues firstly Jason Payne is not a forensic pathologist he is a forensic physician. He openly admits he deals with the living and not the dead. that being said he is an expert in his field and has to be respected.

                          I am not going to repeat all we we discussed save for the fact that in essence he concurs with all that Dr Biggs says regarding estimating times of death, and agrees that what the forensic regulator says is correct that attempts to determine times of death should not be used. If that applies today there is no way estimated times of death going back 126 years can be established or relied upon.

                          Now you totally rely on Jason Paynes opinion because you tell us that he stated that death could have occurred within your time window and you have tried to baffle us with blood flows and the coagulation process in support of this. But you are reluctant to accept that there is only a 50/50 chacce that death did occur within that time window.

                          Jason also says that for his part in the program he was given a set of prepared questions to answer, and his answers edited into the program in the form of opinions.

                          Example

                          Q "With the absence of any blood splatter would you say the victim was strangled first before her throat was cut?"

                          A Yes

                          Now just answering yes doesn't work for television so to make it work he has to reply " In the absence of blood splatter it cannot be ruled out that she was strangled first"

                          This is what the viewer sees so in effect they are leading questions seeking a specific answer, if the answer is as I have written then it goes into the program. However if the answer is this

                          "Well that is a possibility however a lot may depend on the angle of the neck and the body at the time the throat was cut if the angle of neck was such that it held the wound together then there would be very little blood loss"

                          This answer is perhaps not what the film makers want to hear so it gets edited out. This is the way these film makers operate.

                          You and Ed both have different agendas for championing Lechmere as a suspect. It is clear you are never going to give this up but you have to face up to facts and reality.

                          The sooner this wild speculative theory of Lechmere killing Nichols is forgotten the better, along with the even wilder suggestion that he killed other women.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          This post by Trevor Marriott was to be found here on Casebook some little time ago.

                          Trevor has contacted Jason Payne-James, the forensic expert from the documentary on Lechmere, and he makes a number of odd claims about how Payne-James was misled, and that he was edited into something he would not stand for.

                          I forwarded this post of Trevors to Jason Payne-James, who kindly offered his view oon Trevor Marriotts take on what had passed between them. Here it is:

                          "Hi Christer,

                          Yes, bit surprised by the comments particularly as I emphasised that I was not in anyway placing myself in the position of determining who the Ripper was, merely responding as best I could to the reasonable questions put to me. That's why I am always reluctant to get involved in turf wars with those who have an agenda. That's also a point I made. Ho hum!

                          I made it clear that it was for others to make that determination (and as I stated to him I think it unrealistic that any definitive conclusion can ever be made). I don't think my opinions were distorted. How they are interpreted is up to the interpreter (or viewer or reader). I participated in the film because I felt relatively happy that my contribution explained what could, not would have happened. I do not think I was misrepresented. If the narrative interpreted it in one way, that's fine by me. As with any medical evidence (be it from a forensic physician or a forensic pathologist) we are only one part of a jigsaw. Unfortunately unlike pure drama - in real life our conclusions may be imprecise and open to interpretation.

                          No idea where the 50/50 quote comes from - doesn't sound like something I would say.

                          Best wishes as ever,

                          Jason"


                          Dr Jason Payne-James LLM MSc FRCS FRCSEd FFFLM FCSFS Mediator
                          President Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians


                          Let me say that I felt slightly embarrased to forward Trevors post to Jason Payne-James. To an extent, it goes to show how I spend too much time engaging in debate with people who do not live up to any decent sort of standards in the field of Ripperology. My sole comfort is that the true embarrasment lies elsewhere.

                          I hope that this puts an end to Trevors efforts when it comes to contacting knowledgeable, generous and discerning men like Jason Payne-James, only to then claim things on their behalfs that are simply not true. It represents a very unbecoming part of Ripperology, and it does not belong out here.

                          Many thanks to Jason Payne-James for taking the time to clear things up and explain what most of us will have understood from the outset - that he was not trying to prove anything, but instead pointed to how he interpreted the available information, and that he does not feel that his views have been in any way misrepresented or distorted.

                          If I had felt that Trevor had fully or partly done this on purpose, I would not be very forgiving. As it stands, I feel that it mostly owes to an incapacity to comprehend. Having done what I can to mend the damage it has caused, I intend to leave this unfortunate business behind.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X