Tweet
Trevor Marriott:
Of course he would have known who found he body dont be so naive
Then why is it that he claims that HE found it himself? The Daily News, September 2:nd 1888: "It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lantern to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street."
It is not a question of me being naïve, Trevor - it is one of you missing out on the facts.
You cant keep relying on press reports we know they are at times unsafe. The point is that the issues you raise were not looked upon by the coroner or anyone else for that matter as being contentious and therefore there was no need for clarification. The inquest testimony is quite clear and easily understandable to most.
On day 1 of the inquest, the coroner had no reason to question that Neil had found the body first, since nothing else had been reported. Ponder, if you will WHY this was so, and you may advance one step further towards understanding the whole process.
The inquest testimony is clear to most people, yes - which is why most people realize that Neil was unaware of the carmen on the first inquest day. You really need to ask yourself why Baxter allowed Neil to claim that he had found the body first, if Baxter knew that the carmen had preceded him.
You are looking for things that don't exist
Am I? Such as?
Yes I follow, its a smokescreen you are putting up. Pc Neil was called on the first day because in chronological order part of his evidence should have been heard first he gives evidence of being in the location before Cross and Paul, so nothing sinister there
But he wasnīt in the location before Cross and Paul. Cross came first, Paul came second and Neil third. Surely you know that much...? Neil only THOUGHT he was the first to find the body. He was wrong.
How you can call this a smokescreen is beyond me. There are a lot of other things that many people contest in my theory, but these are accepted facts!
So does all of that prove Cross was the killer, no it doesnt !
Excuse me, Trevor, but I am not saying that it proves he was the killer. I am saying that he was found by a freshly killed victim, that the only source we have for the claim that another man joined him seconds after is Lechmere himself, and that there are many other pointers that speak of a potential guilt on his behalf.
If it had been a proven thing, we would not be having this - rather odd - discussion.
Well if all made written statements to the police at the time, which were tendered at the inquest, it is clear that the police were not concerned, and neither was the coroner. Are we to believe they were all incompetent and couldn't spot what you have now spotted.
Yes, we are, to an extent. But you must weigh in that when I first spotted this, I had a lot more background knowledge at my disposal than the police had at the stage of inquest day 1.
-I knew that his routes would arguably take him past the murder spots, whereas Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly were all still alive at the second day of the inquest.
-I knew where his mother lived, something the police seemingly never bothered to find out.
-I knew what a serial killer is normally about, something the police knew little about.
I knew this and more that the police did not know. Plus they were probably much taken in by a man that had TWICE come forward to them, seemingly out of his own free will.
So the police were at a less advantageous position when it comes to being able to hear the alarm bells than I was. But that does not mean that they were not to blame - they WERE, to a large extent, if Lechmere is our man. In such a case, they should have nailed him back then! If Lechmere did it, the police bears responsibility for failing to see through him.
Your reasoning is a common one - how can I be so presumptious as to think that I would have seen something they would have missed. But please look at the 126 years that have passed - NOBODY has commented on the so called Mizen scam other than by saying that it seems there was a confusion. Nobody has seen that what Lechmere said would have been a perfectly shaped, tailormade lie - the exact thing he needed to surpass the police on the murder morning. Not a soul.
So yes, I am the one exception to that rule of missing out. And if I am right - and any consequence analysis will tell you that I most probably am - this material is what brings the man down to a very large extent.
Once we accept that Lechmere lied to Mizen in the exact way Mizen claims he did, we are left with two alternatives only, more or less:
1. He constructed this elaborate lie because he was the killer and needed to pass the police.
2. He constructed this elaborate lie because he wanted to get to job in time.
If the slightly ridiculous alternative number two applies, then all the other things pointing to him are coincidences. If alternative number one applies, then all the bits and pieces fit together to condemn him as the Whitechapel killer.
Nobody out here wants the riddle to be solved, least they do the solving themselves. I would suggest you conform to that rule very much. I am therefore in no way expecting you to agree with me.
I am, however, expecting any unbiased person to do so. The case does not allow for any other attitude. And I have the definitive advantage of not being qualified to say "I solved it!". Michael Connor and Derek Osbourne preceded me in suspecting Lechmere, and Edward Stow was the man who put me on the track. He, if anybody, should take full credit for the case we now have. I pride myself on having made contributions to the case, but primarily on having understood it.
You really should see the documentary, Trevor. With an open mind.
The best,
Fisherman
Of course he would have known who found he body dont be so naive
Then why is it that he claims that HE found it himself? The Daily News, September 2:nd 1888: "It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lantern to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street."
It is not a question of me being naïve, Trevor - it is one of you missing out on the facts.
You cant keep relying on press reports we know they are at times unsafe. The point is that the issues you raise were not looked upon by the coroner or anyone else for that matter as being contentious and therefore there was no need for clarification. The inquest testimony is quite clear and easily understandable to most.
On day 1 of the inquest, the coroner had no reason to question that Neil had found the body first, since nothing else had been reported. Ponder, if you will WHY this was so, and you may advance one step further towards understanding the whole process.
The inquest testimony is clear to most people, yes - which is why most people realize that Neil was unaware of the carmen on the first inquest day. You really need to ask yourself why Baxter allowed Neil to claim that he had found the body first, if Baxter knew that the carmen had preceded him.
You are looking for things that don't exist
Am I? Such as?
Yes I follow, its a smokescreen you are putting up. Pc Neil was called on the first day because in chronological order part of his evidence should have been heard first he gives evidence of being in the location before Cross and Paul, so nothing sinister there
But he wasnīt in the location before Cross and Paul. Cross came first, Paul came second and Neil third. Surely you know that much...? Neil only THOUGHT he was the first to find the body. He was wrong.
How you can call this a smokescreen is beyond me. There are a lot of other things that many people contest in my theory, but these are accepted facts!
So does all of that prove Cross was the killer, no it doesnt !
Excuse me, Trevor, but I am not saying that it proves he was the killer. I am saying that he was found by a freshly killed victim, that the only source we have for the claim that another man joined him seconds after is Lechmere himself, and that there are many other pointers that speak of a potential guilt on his behalf.
If it had been a proven thing, we would not be having this - rather odd - discussion.
Well if all made written statements to the police at the time, which were tendered at the inquest, it is clear that the police were not concerned, and neither was the coroner. Are we to believe they were all incompetent and couldn't spot what you have now spotted.
Yes, we are, to an extent. But you must weigh in that when I first spotted this, I had a lot more background knowledge at my disposal than the police had at the stage of inquest day 1.
-I knew that his routes would arguably take him past the murder spots, whereas Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly were all still alive at the second day of the inquest.
-I knew where his mother lived, something the police seemingly never bothered to find out.
-I knew what a serial killer is normally about, something the police knew little about.
I knew this and more that the police did not know. Plus they were probably much taken in by a man that had TWICE come forward to them, seemingly out of his own free will.
So the police were at a less advantageous position when it comes to being able to hear the alarm bells than I was. But that does not mean that they were not to blame - they WERE, to a large extent, if Lechmere is our man. In such a case, they should have nailed him back then! If Lechmere did it, the police bears responsibility for failing to see through him.
Your reasoning is a common one - how can I be so presumptious as to think that I would have seen something they would have missed. But please look at the 126 years that have passed - NOBODY has commented on the so called Mizen scam other than by saying that it seems there was a confusion. Nobody has seen that what Lechmere said would have been a perfectly shaped, tailormade lie - the exact thing he needed to surpass the police on the murder morning. Not a soul.
So yes, I am the one exception to that rule of missing out. And if I am right - and any consequence analysis will tell you that I most probably am - this material is what brings the man down to a very large extent.
Once we accept that Lechmere lied to Mizen in the exact way Mizen claims he did, we are left with two alternatives only, more or less:
1. He constructed this elaborate lie because he was the killer and needed to pass the police.
2. He constructed this elaborate lie because he wanted to get to job in time.
If the slightly ridiculous alternative number two applies, then all the other things pointing to him are coincidences. If alternative number one applies, then all the bits and pieces fit together to condemn him as the Whitechapel killer.
Nobody out here wants the riddle to be solved, least they do the solving themselves. I would suggest you conform to that rule very much. I am therefore in no way expecting you to agree with me.
I am, however, expecting any unbiased person to do so. The case does not allow for any other attitude. And I have the definitive advantage of not being qualified to say "I solved it!". Michael Connor and Derek Osbourne preceded me in suspecting Lechmere, and Edward Stow was the man who put me on the track. He, if anybody, should take full credit for the case we now have. I pride myself on having made contributions to the case, but primarily on having understood it.
You really should see the documentary, Trevor. With an open mind.
The best,
Fisherman
Comment