Tweet
Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
-
Obviously it depends what the relevant bullet point said. If it said he was "standing over" the victim, or even "leaning over" the victim, then accurate information would alter things very much. -
Moonbeggar
The whole cats meat issue was skipped for time reasons, although for me the Pinchin Street connection was onecif the strongest and most striking factors linking him to the crimes when I was first looking into it.
GUT
You will find that the abdominal wounds were covered when Paul and Lechmere were touching the body - unlike in the other instances where there were abdominal wounds - Paul dragged her dress down further.Comment
-
If you recall...
In his evidence Dr. Llewelly stated, "There was very little blood round the neck, and there were no marks of any struggle or of blood, as though the body had been dragged."Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
PC Thain in his evidence stated that after the body was removed, on the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood. He should say it was about 6in. in diameter, and had run towards the gutter. It appeared to him to be a large quantity of blood...
He helped to put the body on the ambulance, and the back appeared to be covered with blood, which, he thought, had run from the neck as far as the waist. He got blood on to his hands. There was also blood on the ground where the deceased's legs had been.Last edited by Stewart P Evans; 11-20-2014, 02:26 AM.SPE
Treat me gently I'm a newbie.Comment
-
Does it make any difference if he was standing over the body or some yards away? It's been said that he would have heard Paul's approach (night, hard soles, cobbles) before either saw the other.
We know that he had been close to the body before Paul came along because he'd been able to report to Paul that it was a woman - in the near pitch dark.Comment
-
And the proof of that, is found ...?GUT
You will find that the abdominal wounds were covered when Paul and Lechmere were touching the body - unlike in the other instances where there were abdominal wounds - Paul dragged her dress down further.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
It sure seems to make a difference to Fisherman and Lechmere and Scobie and indded to the producers otherwise why not just concede that he wasn't standing over the bodyDoes it make any difference if he was standing over the body or some yards away? It's been said that he would have heard Paul's approach (night, hard soles, cobbles) before either saw the other.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true. Comment
-
In principle the suggestion that it is only legitimate to investigate suspects named by the police at the time is farcical, given that most policemen intimately involved in the case believed they had no serious clue who did it.
It is also ridiculous to claim that it is illegitimate to investigate a suspect without the permission of the living descendants. In a case this old there will potentially be scores of living descendants living all over the place.
Putting these false parameters in place shows a basic misunderstanding of criminology - but Ripperology isn't part of criminology really.Comment
-
[QUOTE=Fisherman;319111]After having read Trevor Marriotts post on James Scobie, there are a couple of points I´d like to make:
It is said that "He was not provided with the witness testimony but simply given by C5 what he describes as bullet points relating to the evidence, which he thinks originated from you, it was this that he was asked to read and give his opinion on."
If "you" in this context refers to me, I can only say that I never provided James Scobie with any material. Just as he says, we never met. And I never had any influence over the material he was given.
But you provided C5 with all the bulk of material did you not their own research was limited
I did, though, see a lot more than what is presented in the documentary. I took part of perhaps ten minutes of recorded material with Scobie, and in it, he expanded on a good number of elements that he meant pointed to potential guilt. All in all, it was very clear that he had taken in all the things that the Lechmere theory has brought forward and was well read up on the material relating to the crime.
He said he never met you at any time !
It can of course be asked if Scobie was shown the criticism of the Lechmerre theory, and I don´t know. What I DO know, however, is that there is no such criticism that alters the things Scobie commented on:
Lechmere WAS found alone with the victim.
The victim WAS freshly killed.
Neither Paul nor Lechmere spoke of having noticed each other.
The clothes WERE pulled down as Paul arrived.
Lechmere DID have a working trek that would have taken him past a number of the murder sites.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera - we all know these points.
What you refer to is material that is misleading and had a direct bearing on how he arrived at his prima faciae case opinion.
If Lechmere could be shown not to have been standing alone with the body, then Scobie needed to know this. But it can´t.
Standing alone and standing over are two different aspect are they not?
If it can be shown that the clothing was not pulled down over the wounds when Paul saw Nichols, Scobie needed to know this. But it can´t.
Insignificant as is the giving of a false name
Etcetera, etcetera.
What Scobie says is that the points we are making are enough for him to conclude that there was a case good enough to take to court. So fundamentally, nothing is changed by Trevors valiant efforts.
Take to court but perhaps not to trial !
It of course also applies that - as Abby says - that you need to get things like these recorded if you want to use them. And maybe the discerning Mr Marriott did just that, which would be fine by me. It would change nothing much anyway.
In an ideal world I would have love to recorded our conversation but I wasnt expecting him to ring me. His firs words to me were "Your e mail is spot on"
In the turmoil of everybody stepping over each other to sling mud, it seems that most people conveniently forget that we have a case here that a QC says would warrant a trial. If we want to detract from that (and MY, do some want just that!), we will have to do an awful lot of detracting before we reach the legal status of any other suspect.
No he doesn't now say that
Keep that in mind before you open the champagne. "Bullet points", by the way - did that not use to mean the key points, the important points...? And are bullet points necessarily very few? Just curious.
Key points.
As to the producer David Mcnab he stated he has never heard of him and never met him. I should have asked where his part was filmedComment
-
I've read it about 400 times in the witness statements on this thread.Originally posted by GUT View PostComment
-
I thought I read one or the other state that it didn't matter and wasn't accurate in the animation. I may have hallucinated that admittedly.Originally posted by GUT View PostComment
-
He said that here on this thread, just like he now says that the name means nothing, so I would ask what is it that makes Cross "Guilty as Charged" that when it's knocked down WILL cause the case to fall apart?Originally posted by Bitsie View PostG U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true. Comment
-
One poster (I don't remember who but maybe it was Gut) a while back tried to make the eccentric point that the abdominal wounds were on show and Paul somehow missed them and didn't get bloody when he pulled the dress down over them. The various accounts make it clear the dress was up to her hips but not showing her abdomen.Comment
-
-
What blood.Originally posted by Bitsie View PostG U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true. Comment
-
Comment