Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion : Did Jack The Ripper Ever Even Exist ?

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

  • Jeff Leahy: There is inconsistency in the evidence, it can't be assumed that Cross lied. There could be all sorts of reasons why he used the name Cross...Perhaps that was what he was known as at work and he assumed the police might want to talk to him there?

    What your saying is its possible he lied...but at the same token its possible he told the truth...

    Same might be said of Packer...another dubious character

    I was not referring to the name matter, actually. I was talking about how he apparently lied his way past the police, something that is much reinforced by the events that followed.

    But yes, the name is also a very dubious matter, since we know that he approached authorities in 110 other instances, always under the name Lechmere.

    So there is ample reason to elevate his suspect status way beyond that of those who have no factual evidence pointing to them at all.

    I am perfectly happy to reiterate what Andy Griffiths said after having been informed about the Lechmere affair: Before he can be cleared, there is no reason at all to look into any other suspect.
    "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
      ]I was not referring to the name matter, actually. I was talking about how he apparently lied his way past the police, something that is much reinforced by the events that followed.
      This is just your opinion. You don't know he lied. Logically it seems improbable.

      Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
      So there is ample reason to elevate his suspect status way beyond that of those who have no factual evidence pointing to them at all.
      I can't think of any reason other than wild speculation to elevate Cross anywhere..in fact I feel rather sorry for him, its not like he ever did anything wrong or there is any evidence that he did so....At least Sickert painted some rather bad paintings

      Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
      I am perfectly happy to reiterate what Andy Griffiths said after having been informed about the Lechmere affair: Before he can be cleared, there is no reason at all to look into any other suspect.
      [/B]
      I've no idea who Andy Griffiths is...I'm assuming by his conclusions that he isn't one of the greats..Begg, Skinner, Fido, Rumblow, or Evans....Does he actually know anything about the other suspects? I doubt it

      Yours Jeff

      Comment


      • Jeff Leahy: This is just your opinion. You don't know he lied. Logically it seems improbable.

        No, it is not "just my opinion". Somebody must have avoided the truth, Lechmere or Mizen. And the developments after the murder speaks for Lechmere having been that man.
        And logically, it seems more improbable to me that Mizen was the liar. He had a very good record as a policeman, he was deeply religious and he gave his real name before the inquest.
        Lechmere is by far the likelier liar.

        I can't think of any reason other than wild speculation to elevate Cross anywhere..in fact I feel rather sorry for him, its not like he ever did anything wrong or there is any evidence that he did so....At least Sickert painted some rather bad paintings

        And now you go from saying that I cannot know that he lied, to asserting that he never did anything wrong.
        Great, just great, Jeff!
        As Mizen looked at the victim, she was still bleeding, at least five minutes and probably more, after Lechmere left her. And the blood was "somewhat congealed" in the pool underneath her neck. Jason Payne-James, one of the most experienced forensic pathologists in Britain, says that it is less likely that Nichols would have bled more than five minutes than it is that she would have bled a shorter time. That equals him saying that another, earlier killer than Lechmere is a LESS LIKELY ONE. And we both know that nobody was seen in the vicinity.
        Equally, Payne-James says that the partial coagulation Mizen speaks of, dovetails nicely with Lechmere having cut Nichols.
        That is not "wild speculation", Jeff. That is forensic knowledge and experience giving it´s view.
        I don´t know when Kosminski was there, do you have the exact time?
        THAT, Jeff, that IS wild speculation.
        My man WAS there. Where your man was, God only knows. To put him in Bucks Row at 3.38-3.39 or thereabouts is forming facts out of thin air. Correction, NO air.

        I've no idea who Andy Griffiths is...I'm assuming by his conclusions that he isn't one of the greats..Begg, Skinner, Fido, Rumblow, or Evans....Does he actually know anything about the other suspects? I doubt it

        Andy Griffiths is not an author. He is a very seasoned murder investigator who had a 97 per cent clearing rate when retiring and taking up criminology. He had no preconceived conceptions about the case.
        In short, he is a man used to assessing murder cases and with an incredible gift for clearing them up.
        "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

        Comment


        • Christer,

          How do you interpret what Griffiths said?

          They should not have considered any other contemporary suspect until they had checked out Lechmere?

          Or:

          They should not have considered any other modern suspect (had they known of him) until they had checked out Lechmere?

          Or:

          They should not have considered any other conceivable suspect (that might have surfaced) until they had checked out Lechmere?

          Gary

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post

            Nothing in what Lynn said is 'mild compromise'. Re-read it.
            Hello How,

            Actually, I was referring to my own post. Mild Compromise.
            You may wish to re read it yourself?

            I'm not arguing..I'm saying that the case for any amount of victims per killer has already been made. In cogent form.

            Whoever is right..is right. If 1% or 99% turn out to be wrong.. It makes no difference. We..as a collective..would have the answer for which we search.

            Everybody wins.


            Phil
            from 1905...to 19.05..it was written in the stars

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
              No, it is not "just my opinion". Somebody must have avoided the truth,
              Rubbish, its equally possible someone made a simple mistake, they weren't robots and they weren't referencing watches...The3y were in a stressful situation....error...no one needed to have lied

              Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
              Lechmere or Mizen. And the developments after the murder speaks for Lechmere having been that man.
              And logically, it seems more improbable to me that Mizen was the liar. He had a very good record as a policeman, he was deeply religious and he gave his real name before the inquest.
              Lechmere is by far the likelier liar.
              Neither had to have lied. One could simply have been in error

              Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
              [B]And now you go from saying that I cannot know that he lied, to asserting that he never did anything wrong.
              Theres no evidence that Cross did anything wrong, infact the exact opposite, it appears he tried to help..

              Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
              As Mizen looked at the victim, she was still bleeding, at least five minutes and probably more, after Lechmere left her. And the blood was "somewhat congealed" in the pool underneath her neck. Jason Payne-James, one of the most experienced forensic pathologists in Britain, says that it is less likely that Nichols would have bled more than five minutes than it is that she would have bled a shorter time. That equals him saying that another, earlier killer than Lechmere is a LESS LIKELY ONE. And we both know that nobody was seen in the vicinity.
              We simply don't have enough information on Nichols to be certain. It would appear that Nichols had not been attack very long before she was discovered.

              I doubt if any expert worth his socks would commit himself with any certainty.


              Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
              Equally, Payne-James says that the partial coagulation Mizen speaks of, dovetails nicely with Lechmere having cut Nichols.
              That is not "wild speculation", Jeff. That is forensic knowledge and experience giving it´s view.
              Wild guess work given how little we actually know for certain.

              Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
              I don´t know when Kosminski was there, do you have the exact time? THAT, Jeff, that IS wild speculation.
              My man WAS there. Where your man was, God only knows. To put him in Bucks Row at 3.38-3.39 or thereabouts is forming facts out of thin air. Correction, NO air.
              Anderson: 'the only man who ever had a good look at the murder unhesitatingly identified him'

              Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
              I

              Andy Griffiths is not an author. He is a very seasoned murder investigator who had a 97 per cent clearing rate when retiring and taking up criminology. He had no preconceived conceptions about the case.
              In short, he is a man used to assessing murder cases and with an incredible gift for clearing them up.
              Oh..another amiteur detective...I prefer to listen to people who have actually studied the case in depth

              Yours Jeff

              Comment


              • Jeff Leahy: Rubbish, its equally possible someone made a simple mistake, they weren't robots and they weren't referencing watches...The3y were in a stressful situation....error...no one needed to have lied

                I know rubbish when I see it. And I see it often enough to recognize it.

                Neither had to have lied. One could simply have been in error

                Yes, Lechmere WAS in error claiming that there was another PC waiting for Mizen, so you will be right on that score.

                Theres no evidence that Cross did anything wrong, infact the exact opposite, it appears he tried to help..

                Yes, indeed: himself.

                We simply don't have enough information on Nichols to be certain. It would appear that Nichols had not been attack very long before she was discovered.

                I doubt if any expert worth his socks would commit himself with any certainty.

                "Certainty"? There matters are always approximations, but approximations based on experience. The blood evidence is in line with Lechmere being the killer, simple as.

                Wild guess work given how little we actually know for certain.

                No, an informed guess based on very much experience and our certainty that Nichls bled when Mizen saw her.

                Anderson: 'the only man who ever had a good look at the murder unhesitatingly identified him'

                And which man was that? And which murder spot was he knit to? And how evident was it that he was the killer? Was he even knit to a murder spot, otr to the next block?
                THIS is where we lack information, whereas we HAVE information in the Nichols case.


                Oh..another amiteur detective...I prefer to listen to people who have actually studied the case in depth

                Like...you? Ehrm. Plus I would not call one of the most skilled detectives to have headed a murder squad an amateur. But you may be better suited to, perhaps?
                "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  Jon,

                  Your point raises the interesting question that, had he not been caught, how likely was he to have committed sufficient murder(s) to tip him into the "SK" category? Very likely, I'd say. Same goes for other single/double murderers, of course, not just Gein.

                  I'd suggest that the FBI designation needs to be seen merely as a descriptive label, rather than as an empirical "diagnostic" category in itself.
                  I'd agree with that. There is very little in the way of empirical criteria in any of the FBI methodology anyway.
                  Jon

                  "It is far more comfortable to point a finger and declare someone a devil, than to call upon your imagination to try to understand their world."


                  http://www.jlrees.co.uk



                  Comment


                  • theory

                    Hello Jon.

                    "There is very little in the way of empirical criteria in any of the FBI methodology anyway."

                    Quite. But mustn't trash a lovely theory on that account. (heh-heh)

                    Cheers.
                    LC

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
                      Hello Stuart. Not only is it plausible, but almost surely the case.

                      "Jack" is an unfortunate concatenation of events.

                      Cheers.
                      LC
                      Oh come on! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take that as a joke.

                      Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                      No, Jack the Ripper is NOT almost surely the case of of some concatenation of events.

                      Stuart...don't be fooled or hornswoggled by these people.
                      Don't worry How, I am not.

                      Comment


                      • Dear Stuart:

                        IMHO, and with respect to Lynn, Simon, and all those comrades who deny the existence of a single serial killer, whom has been named Jack The Ripper, by the press or himself.....they can't explain away how similar these crimes are and all around the same time. Its their privilege and although I posted with what seemed animosity yesterday, I don't believe they are trying to bamboozle anyone....rather sharing their viewpoints.

                        I think that its very possible that one or even two of the murder victims fell to the blade of a man other than the serial killer known as Jack The Ripper.

                        My apologies to anyone whom I offended yesterday with my language and attitude. It was inexcusable.
                        To Join JTR Forums :
                        Contact [email protected]

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
                          I am perfectly happy to reiterate what Andy Griffiths said after having been informed about the Lechmere affair
                          How exactly was Mr Griffiths informed, Fish, and what materials did he have on which to base his opinion?
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen"
                          (F. Nietzsche)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            How exactly was Mr Griffiths informed, Fish, and what materials did he have on which to base his opinion?
                            You really should not even go there, Gareth. It should be below you, quite frankly. It should be below any person posting out here.

                            I can not tell "exactly" how Andy Griffiths was informed, since I did not do the "exact" informing myself.

                            He was chosen since - as the team put it to me - he was a former murder squad leader with no former interest in Jack the Ripper, a man who studied criminology, mainly miscarriages of justice and a sound and good man.

                            That was how he came across to me. Plus he was very well read up on the case, generally speaking. Which I have stated dozens of times before, but you may have missed that...?

                            When I eventually DID meet him, he had a comprehensive compilation of papers that was exactly the same as I was given by the film crew, and which I can be seen looking through in the docu. It consisted of a very large number of newspaper clippings and police reports, and gave a quite useful and comprehensive picture of the case as such.

                            As an aside, Gareth, if you suspect in any shape or form that Andy Griffiths was lied to, misled or misinformed by the film team, I may be the last person in the world you should ask about the realitites: I helped to make the docu, you know.

                            Maybe I am devious, lying, misinforming or distorting myself? One never knows, Gareth, one never knows.

                            Take care out there. And goodnight to you.
                            "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                            Comment


                            • deal

                              Hello Stuart. Thanks.

                              Very well, I have some real estate in Florida--lake front property. Interested?

                              Cheers.
                              LC

                              Comment


                              • serious

                                Hello Howard. Thanks. No problem.

                                I think you know me well enough to know that my rejection of the "JTR" phenomenon is based on CLOSE attention to detail arrived at through painstaking research. And (pace Stuart) I am DEADLY serious.

                                Cheers.
                                LC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X