Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

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

  • Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post

    That's also good to know. It means that if Lechmere were in the dock today and you were on the jury, you would have to find him not guilty on the grounds of reasonable doubt, because you admit to being unable - or unwilling - to rule out other suspects, including Druitt.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Is this your new hobby, Caz? Trying to trip me up about Lechmere? If so, isn’ t that more than a tad sad?

    For your information, suspects can be convicted on circumstantial evidence. That means that they go down without conclusive proof, many times leaving other possible suspects in the clear although it is doubtful if they should have been.

    What is it about Lechmere that makes people loose their wits? It must be something.
    "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post

      Is this your new hobby, Caz? Trying to trip me up about Lechmere? If so, isn’ t that more than a tad sad?

      For your information, suspects can be convicted on circumstantial evidence. That means that they go down without conclusive proof, many times leaving other possible suspects in the clear although it is doubtful if they should have been.

      What is it about Lechmere that makes people loose their wits? It must be something.
      I think one reason is that he's continually intruding into threads that are nothing to do with him...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

        And I’d say that serial killers do continue with their lives. If you don’t think it strange (and you clearly don’t) that Lechmere murdered Nichols then strolled on to do a days work 15 minutes or so later, why is it so unlikely that Druitt caught a train 12 hours or more after a murder? Surely we should apply the same yardsticks to all suspects?
        Absolutely. But are you doing that when comparing a yo-yoing Druitt, swooshing off to London between cricket games to look for suitable victims in Whitechapel of all places, to Lechmere who we know frequented Whitechapel on a daily basis, and who passed through it in total darkness in the early morning hours, a time perfectly suited for killing undetected? To me, the suggestions demand very varying levels of acceptance.
        "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

          I think one reason is that he's continually intruding into threads that are nothing to do with him...
          I don’ t think Caz can make that claim as an excuse since she is the one introducing him here. Together with Michael. On the other hand, I don’ t think there are any Ripper related topics where he does not belong - but I am perfectly happy to leave him out of most discussions anyway.
          "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
            ... On the other hand, I don’ t think there are any Ripper related topics where he does not belong ...
            That's obvious, but it would be nice if it could be kept down to a reasonable level. (I know it's not just Lechmerites.)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
              The really big question in all of this is not whether Druitt stayed in Wiltshire between cricket matches or took a day excursion to London in order to kill a prostitute, but whether Macnaghten was telling the truth.

              We know Macnaghten lied about Ostrog, so why would he not also lie about Druitt and Kosminski?

              Simon, sorry i edited your post, when meant to reply. corrected as soon as i pressed save. I had momentary forgotten as mod I could edit .

              Anyway, my reply was, right subject but wrong question.

              if He did intentionally lie, rather than just make mistakes, and i tend to go witb you on this. tge question should be

              why lie, in a document not apparently intended for public disclosure?

              Comment


              • "A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family — who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder . . .

                " . . . from private inf[ormation] I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer." [24th February 1894]

                "Mr M.J. Druitt a doctor of about 41 years of age & of fairly good family, who disappeared at the time of the Miller’s Court murder.

                "From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer." [Aberconway]

                M.J. Druitt wasn't a doctor, he was 31 not 41, and did not disappear at the time of the Millers Court murder.

                Macnaghten's fake private information was employed to explain why the police had no previous suspicions about Druitt.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                  That's obvious, but it would be nice if it could be kept down to a reasonable level. (I know it's not just Lechmerites.)
                  So all we have to do is to find an agreement about what is a ”reasonable level”? Sounds like a walk in the park!

                  Don’ t worry, Chris, once you think you are hearing his name in a context where you don’ t think he belongs, just sound the alarm bell and I will duly consider your complaints if I am the culprit. As far as I understand, that is the only way to go about it. In the end, it all boils down to personal judgment and mutual respect.
                  "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Steve Blomer View Post

                    Simon, sorry i edited your post, when meant to reply. corrected as soon as i pressed save. I had momentary forgotten as mod I could edit .

                    Anyway, my reply was, right subject but wrong question.

                    if He did intentionally lie, rather than just make mistakes, and i tend to go witb you on this. tge question should be

                    why lie, in a document not apparently intended for public disclosure?
                    sorry for the stupid question Steve, but are you Elmarna on casebook?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      sorry for the stupid question Steve, but are you Elmarna on casebook?
                      Hi Abby
                      yes it's me.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post

                        So all we have to do is to find an agreement about what is a ”reasonable level”? Sounds like a walk in the park!

                        Don’ t worry, Chris, once you think you are hearing his name in a context where you don’ t think he belongs, just sound the alarm bell and I will duly consider your complaints if I am the culprit. As far as I understand, that is the only way to go about it. In the end, it all boils down to personal judgment and mutual respect.
                        I'm just suggesting a little restraint in talking about Lechmere on threads about other subjects. Let's start by ending this exchange.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Steve Blomer View Post

                          Hi Abby
                          yes it's me.
                          Hi El!
                          Thanks and congrats for being a Mod here and helping run the site!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                            Hi El!
                            Thanks and congrats for being a Mod here and helping run the site!
                            I offered to help Chris.
                            Fortunately , there's little mod work really needed at present.
                            Most are well behaved.



                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                              M.J. Druitt wasn't a doctor, he was 31 not 41.
                              Maybe it was merely a matter of too much Catullus at Eton, Simon, and not enough maths.

                              An error of exactly ten does not suggest ignorance--indeed, quite the opposite--it implies specific knowledge, coupled with the fact that somewhere along the lines someone couldn't subtract 1857 from 1888 without making a mess of it.

                              37 would imply ignorance. 44 would, too. But 31 for 41 sounds more like an error of arithmetic, or a typographical error in a telegram.





                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

                                Maybe it was merely a matter of too much Catullus at Eton, Simon, and not enough maths.

                                An error of exactly ten does not suggest ignorance--indeed, quite the opposite--it implies specific knowledge, coupled with the fact that somewhere along the lines someone couldn't subtract 1857 from 1888 without making a mess of it.

                                37 would imply ignorance. 44 would, too. But 31 for 41 sounds more like an error of arithmetic, or a typographical error in a telegram.




                                The problem is that it is coupled with the doctor/barrister thing, where we can be certain that Macnaghten got it wrong. It tends to lend itself to speculation about an overall bad insight about the man he favoured for the Rippers role. And that´s before we begin talking about the sexual insanity ...
                                "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X