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:
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Joshua Rogan 14 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Joshua Rogan 39 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by rjpalmer 50 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - by Joshua Rogan 58 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (25 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (15 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (7 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (2 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 > General Suspect Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1351  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:53 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi HS
this has always been my main issue with Lech as a suspect. Killing on his way to work. so many issues with this-like you said-showing up with possible blood, knife, organs??
Plus Post mortem types like to take there goodies somewhere private to be able to enjoy them more.
But we dont know what he was met by when he arrived at Broad Street, do we? Much hinges on that, and until we have established hs working conditions and the role he had there, I think it may be worrying about nothing to say that there was a problem involved in this regard.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1352  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:54 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Sorry, Steve, but when a poster does what you have done, they go through life with that blunder stamped in their foreheads. And if you want to know if it colours other posters perception of their veracity, then the answer is yes.

And that is not some sort of an "attempt", it is a fact.
Once again i post which bears little relation to the quote above. Entirely personal. Ignoring the bualk of the OP.

so perhaps just to repeat:

"Again back to front, the truth is that you have not proved that Paul was out of earshot or that there was any oppotunity (possibility)for such to occurr.
I had to prove nothing. The onus was on you to prove such a possability could have happened, you have singularly failed to do such"


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1353  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:54 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Very good, HS!

Added to this, a guilty Lechmere had already got past Paul and Mizen with neither suspecting a thing, cleaned himself up and stashed the knife out of harm's way. Paul's newspaper story made it even easier for Lechmere to stay out of the limelight. Mizen copped all the criticism for not responding more quickly to Paul informing him that a woman was down. Paul didn't describe Lechmere, not even saying he looked like a carman. He was just another man who went with him to find Mizen. No suspicion that Lechmere was anything other than a witness, just like Paul. Two strangers in the night who might not even have recognised each other again. No suggestion that Paul had left Lechmere still talking to Mizen. If Lechmere had manipulated the situation to his advantage so he could lie to Mizen and go off to work unidentified and unidentifiable, he could not have hoped to read a more comforting public account from Paul if he had coached him himself!

Then blow me down, the daft hap'orth turns up at the inquest to identify himself as Paul's other man and the one who had actually been the first with Nichols. That's fine because he has his joker to play, when asked what he was doing in Buck's Row. He was on his way to work, using his normal route, if a little behind time. His employers will verify his explanation for being at the scene.

Only no, they won't, if Pickfords don't have anyone called Cross on their books and nobody there knows a carman by that name! D'oh! So then, if enquiries are made at the home address Cross has given, to find out what the hell's going on, they will learn his 'official' name is actually Lechmere, and it'll be back to Pickfords to find they do employ a carman of that name - one who has now wasted police time by giving a different name which he knew would ring no bells there and would leave his one joker all used up but to no avail.

But it all turned out "all right", as Mizen said, because nobody checked a thing, and Lechmere felt safe enough to do it all over again the following weekend, again on his way to work, but this time sans joker; sans any pesky witnesses and the need for a new and improved ruse; sans a care in the world in fact.

We know all this is true - or Fish knows it is - because the bastard was never even suspected, let alone caught.

Love,

Caz
X
Are you copying and pasting, Caz?

The only thing that is new is the intro - and you got that wrong.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1354  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:57 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
But not running in Buck's Row meant running like hell from Hanbury St, Berner St, Mitre Square, Miller's Court and all other murder scenes you want Lechmere to have attended, if anyone were to come along while he was still there with the victim, just as Paul had.

Was it made clear to Griffiths that Nichols would have been the first, or one of the first, of a whole series of victims supposedly attacked, murdered and mutilated by this same man, and therefore if Lechmere was that man he had stayed around with that early victim and made sure that the next man to come along [who would have been PC Neil just a few minutes later] did not hurriedly walk on by, giving him and Madame Tarpaulin a wide berth because of the dodgy neighbourhood, but was obliged to come and inspect the damage with the man who had just inflicted it, knife still in pocket, before going with him to inform the nearest policeman?

Love,

Caz
X
Yes, Griffiths was very clear about the suggested murder victims and the order in which they died.

And yes again, Caz, you are sooooooo correct: if you use the ruse Lechmere used in Bucks Row, then you cannot use it again later.

What are you suggesting? That he should have run and saved it for another day?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1355  
Old 06-14-2018, 07:01 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Once again i post which bears little relation to the quote above. Entirely personal. Ignoring the bualk of the OP.

so perhaps just to repeat:

"Again back to front, the truth is that you have not proved that Paul was out of earshot or that there was any oppotunity (possibility)for such to occurr.
I had to prove nothing. The onus was on you to prove such a possability could have happened, you have singularly failed to do such"


Steve
I think I am on very safe ground when saying that there is not a single discerning poster who would not brandish the kind of suggestion you made.

Beyond that, nothing more really needs to be said. We do not take newspaper articles and use them for producing facts when we know full well that the wordings in them were entirely the productions of journalists who had heard a PC answer "yes" to a question we do not uneqivocally know how it was worded and why it was asked.

I can go on discussing this issue all day. I recommend you not to, however, for obvious reasons.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1356  
Old 06-14-2018, 07:04 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Well, if they were - and I honestly cant remember that they were - they are quickly approaching the oceans bottom now.

In the Marianer trench.

But, by all means, surprise me! Make me an unbiased book, full of revelations! Nobody would welcome that more than I would.
It appears you truly beleive you can say what ever you want about posters and there is no comeback.
The claim that i have said i accept Chapman's TOD is nonsense and unsupportable. The subsequent claim that i must support two times for Kelly is also unsupported.

You are the last who would welcome any work which attempts to be objective if it does not point squarely at Lechmere.



Steve
.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1357  
Old 06-14-2018, 07:11 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Very good, HS!

Added to this, a guilty Lechmere had already got past Paul and Mizen with neither suspecting a thing, cleaned himself up and stashed the knife out of harm's way. Paul's newspaper story made it even easier for Lechmere to stay out of the limelight. Mizen copped all the criticism for not responding more quickly to Paul informing him that a woman was down. Paul didn't describe Lechmere, not even saying he looked like a carman. He was just another man who went with him to find Mizen. No suspicion that Lechmere was anything other than a witness, just like Paul. Two strangers in the night who might not even have recognised each other again. No suggestion that Paul had left Lechmere still talking to Mizen. If Lechmere had manipulated the situation to his advantage so he could lie to Mizen and go off to work unidentified and unidentifiable, he could not have hoped to read a more comforting public account from Paul if he had coached him himself!

Then blow me down, the daft hap'orth turns up at the inquest to identify himself as Paul's other man and the one who had actually been the first with Nichols. That's fine because he has his joker to play, when asked what he was doing in Buck's Row. He was on his way to work, using his normal route, if a little behind time. His employers will verify his explanation for being at the scene.

Only no, they won't, if Pickfords don't have anyone called Cross on their books and nobody there knows a carman by that name! D'oh! So then, if enquiries are made at the home address Cross has given, to find out what the hell's going on, they will learn his 'official' name is actually Lechmere, and it'll be back to Pickfords to find they do employ a carman of that name - one who has now wasted police time by giving a different name which he knew would ring no bells there and would leave his one joker all used up but to no avail.

But it all turned out "all right", as Mizen said, because nobody checked a thing, and Lechmere felt safe enough to do it all over again the following weekend, again on his way to work, but this time sans joker; sans any pesky witnesses and the need for a new and improved ruse; sans a care in the world in fact.

We know all this is true - or Fish knows it is - because the bastard was never even suspected, let alone caught.

Love,

Caz
X
Excellent stuff Caz
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1358  
Old 06-14-2018, 07:13 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Yes, Harry, you are correct. Disqualification is what lies behind my choosing other debating partners than you.

You are equally welcome to find yourself new discussion partners. If you can find somebody who - like you - can guarantee that Nichols was already murdered when Lechmere found her, Im sure you will feel a lot better. Then you can huddle up together, assuring each other that you must be correct, and celebrate your victory.

I wont crash the party, promise. Ill make sure to be somewhere else.
There are words to describe the tone of this post but I wont use them
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1359  
Old 06-14-2018, 07:18 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I avoid nothing. Ever. I work from the presumption that as long as I have the best case possible, I will always be able to defend my view.

So far, that works very well.

You were the one who said I had to accept Kellys TOD, and since the TOD:s for Kelly are TWO, I thought you were making a particularly ridiculous suggestion. And so I decided to point that out to you.

Anything more you feel I am "avoiding"?
The post said

"Are you saying we cant accept the TOD for Kelly by the Doctors?

If so then we NEITHER ca we accept thre TOD Chapman!(typo there, should have read

" if so than never can we accept the TOD for Chapman.")


One cannot with any integrity say in one line Phillips TOD places a murder in the required time frame and only a few lines later say that we cannot use TOD by Phillips in tge Kelly case because it does not fit the required hours.

And of course I do not accept any of them."



At no point do I tell you you must accept the TOD for Kelly, rather I was clearly pointing out that if one accepts the Problems with the Kelly TOD, one must acknowledge that the Chapman TOD based on the same evidence, : body temp by touch and RM, is also likely to be inaccurate and thus invalidate your original claim.

The claim you have now made above is not supported by any objective reading of post 1297.
you are avoiding taking responsibility for what you post.


Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 06-14-2018 at 07:33 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1360  
Old 06-14-2018, 07:31 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I think I am on very safe ground when saying that there is not a single discerning poster who would not brandish the kind of suggestion you made.

The suggestion was that with out sources to challenge what was already said by the carmen, any other possibility was a non starter.
Of course you dont wish to address such because the alternative claim that I proved he was out of earshot suites you better.
Of course no such claim was made . The issue was that you had failed to prove that the evidence pointed at the carmen seperating. Its different!



Beyond that, nothing more really needs to be said. We do not take newspaper articles and use them for producing facts when we know full well that the wordings in them were entirely the productions of journalists who had heard a PC answer "yes" to a question we do not uneqivocally know how it was worded and why it was asked.

I can go on discussing this issue all day. I recommend you not to, however, for obvious reasons.
you are suggesting ignoring sources in favour of what we think it should say?

What obvious reasons are they?

You have made claims about me that are simply untrue.

I will continue to debate without recourse to personal attacks.




Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 06-14-2018 at 07:35 AM.
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 11:12 AM.


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