Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 8 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Mary Kelly Jack the Ripper celebrity ghost box session interview - by Simon Wood 11 minutes ago.
General Discussion: The Weapon - by Batman 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: The Weapon - by Busy Beaver 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: The Weapon - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
General Discussion: Mary Kelly Jack the Ripper celebrity ghost box session interview - by Batman 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Discussion: The Weapon - (4 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel? - (4 posts)
General Discussion: Mary Kelly Jack the Ripper celebrity ghost box session interview - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1771  
Old 07-13-2017, 02:37 AM
Jon Guy Jon Guy is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 2,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Cheers Jon.

Initially I just wasn't certain that the all day crowds were a fact. I am now so it's a likely explaination of how they found Paul. It shows that he wasn't exactly a 'shrinking violet,' though as no one would have known him. He put himself forward when he could have passed by.
Thanks Herlock
I have read quite a few newspaper accounts of excited crowds in Bucks Row but only had time to find this one, which still confirms the fact.

I think Paul may have received a pint or two for his story from the reporter. Maybe, relocating to a nearby pub to tell his story. Can`t prove it, but this certainly happened, which is why there are so may press reports later in the series of witnesses who apparently knew the victims well.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1772  
Old 07-13-2017, 02:54 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
post #1505

"Were the abdominal wounds enough to kill? Probably, but in a timescale that would be longer than the neck"

That is in line with what I posted in #1749.

What Paul actually said was that potentially they could kill.

"However he doubted that the Aorta and Vena Cava would have been cut because of the depth of wound needed.
The other major vessels would in his opinion not kill fast enough to fit the time frame.

Basically he considers death by the abdominal wounds more unlikely than the neck."


How does that indicate an inability to read?


steve
In case anyone is confused I misread Fisherman's post, it happens.
I am big enough to admit my mistakes, as always. Hopefully before others point them out to me.

For such I apologize.

So a better last line would have been:

"that certainly does indicate an ability to read and comprehend."

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1773  
Old 07-13-2017, 03:30 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick S View Post
I know your frustration, John. Simply become a happy warrior and realize that you're not working to change Christer's mind, but to give others information by presenting your argument and allowing them to decide for themselves. Trusting, for course, they'll make the obvious, more reasonable choice.
Thanks for your wise words, Patrick. And I'm sure I'll very much enjoy being a happy warrior! I'm also certain that I'll never change Christer's mind, because he's gone too far down the road with his passionate commitment to the Lechmere suspect cause. Unfortunately, as with anyone else who's totally committed to a single suspect, in those circumstances objectivity goes totally out of the window.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1774  
Old 07-13-2017, 03:45 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
You may need to read Pauls answer again as you got that wrong.

And you may need to read what made me very displeased with Steve before you comment on it. When he apologizes for having misrepresented what I said, I will apologize to him for becoming pissed by it. I really need to learn to let people piss all over me without getting frustrated about it.

What do YOUR posts say about YOU, John? Clever? Knowledgeable? Level-headed? Uninflammatory? Given to repeatedly imply that fellow posters are in the habit of drinking when you disagree with what they say? A keen disciple of the Marriott/Biggs team?

You tell me.
We I'm certainly not a huge fan of Trevor Marriott, or his suspect for that matter. But yes, I would acknowledge that on occasion I've been as guilty as anyone in using inflammatory language, although overwhelmingly in response to similar language used against me, and even of submitting posts which lack objectivity. Although, that said there's nothing wrong with being passionate about the subject. And yes, I'll acknowledge that your an experienced and knowledgeable poster, and some of your posts are undoubtedly of the highest quality.

That said, I change my mind all the time on the issues, even in respect of arguments I've previously passionately held, such as Stride and Kelly being definite Ripper victims. The problem, however, is that once you commit yourself totally to a particular suspect you effectively box yourself in, even to the point where you end up defending the almost indefensible.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1775  
Old 07-13-2017, 07:11 AM
Paddy Goose Paddy Goose is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
As for the angle "Now that the Lechmere theory has crumbled", it is too stupid to become irritated by.

It is the axis around which much of Ripperology has revolved for a good many years now. And it is as undamaged as ever.

Sorry, guys. I wonīt even say "nice try", since any such try is more of a dumb one.
The axis of Ripperology is Fisherman and his alt-Greek Chorus who come here every day to post about this?

How can the rest of us ever thank you guys enough.

Paddy
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1776  
Old 07-13-2017, 09:54 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Guy View Post
Thanks Herlock
I have read quite a few newspaper accounts of excited crowds in Bucks Row but only had time to find this one, which still confirms the fact.

I think Paul may have received a pint or two for his story from the reporter. Maybe, relocating to a nearby pub to tell his story. Can`t prove it, but this certainly happened, which is why there are so may press reports later in the series of witnesses who apparently knew the victims well.
Hi Jon

It's hard to guess why Paul's story in Lloyds differs so significantly from his subsequent version of events?

Regards
Herlock
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1777  
Old 07-14-2017, 02:07 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Circumstantial evidence can in deed cause a conviction, however that is for a jury to decide, not the person presenting the case for the prosecution.

It is not factual by definition as it cannot be directly tied to the accused, it is presumed.

The argument often presented is that you reach a point of so much circumstantial evidence that it weights against the accused, actually if the said evidence is continually weak that is not the case.

Again this reliance on Experts is so touching, and legal opinions when looking at the same evidence vary greatly depending on the angle the expert is coming from. its a very grey area in very many ways.

The reply is not convincing.


steve
To YOU it is not convincing.

To those who know legal matters and who are aware how qualified a queens councellor and barrister is when it comes to judging the viability of a court case, Iīm sure itīs a different stroy altogether. They will realize that Scobie knew what he was talking about.

But I can see why it is a very hard pill to swallow for you, I really can.

Why you say that circumstantial evidence can be more or less damning, I donīt know - I would have thought that everybody out here would be able to spell that out for themselves. This is why Scobie is udeful - he tells us that the amount of circumstantial evidence attaching to Lechmere is enough to form a prima faciae case. So that calls for either trying to denigrate Scobie (hard) or to try and lead on that he was misinformed, lied to or underinformed (much easier).

It was always going to be very predictable. But you know what, Steve? Itīs "not convincing".

Last edited by Fisherman : 07-14-2017 at 02:10 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1778  
Old 07-14-2017, 02:07 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Thanks for your wise words, Patrick. And I'm sure I'll very much enjoy being a happy warrior! I'm also certain that I'll never change Christer's mind, because he's gone too far down the road with his passionate commitment to the Lechmere suspect cause. Unfortunately, as with anyone else who's totally committed to a single suspect, in those circumstances objectivity goes totally out of the window.
One can also choose the position of standing on the ground, looking at a tree, seeing a stem, branches and leaves, but saying:

"This is not a tree".

One may feel like an idiot, but who cares?

Is it a tree?

That can be a good position.

Or is it the position of an idiot?

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1779  
Old 07-14-2017, 02:11 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
post #1505

"Were the abdominal wounds enough to kill? Probably, but in a timescale that would be longer than the neck"

That is in line with what I posted in #1749.

What Paul actually said was that potentially they could kill.

"However he doubted that the Aorta and Vena Cava would have been cut because of the depth of wound needed.
The other major vessels would in his opinion not kill fast enough to fit the time frame.

Basically he considers death by the abdominal wounds more unlikely than the neck."


How does that indicate an inability to read?


steve
Eh - my post spoke of an ABILITY to read, not an inability. I celebrated how you were able to put John G right on the matter.

I really donīt know how I could be any clearer.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1780  
Old 07-14-2017, 02:13 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
John's misunderstanding of Paul's position as already been pointed out to him, but it appears you may need to read all of his posts again as well.

You were not misrepresented, those quotes provided were the words typed. the truth is clear for all to see.

The comments directed at me in post #1694 were a truly pathetic and outrageous threat and against the rules of this forum: major rules point 6.


steve
Which point says that one should not misrepresent other posters, Steve? You had a very clear post pointing out exactly where it went awry for you. Saying in retrospect that it did not is denying the obvious.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.