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
  #1371  
Old 06-14-2018, 07:57 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Harry can say what he likes.

I don’t trespass on medical grounds. It appeared that she was dead. I’ll leave others to debate that.
Oh, Harry can say what he wants?

And how about me? "Lechmere was in all probability the killer, and is by far the best suspect there is".

I find that is something I am disallowed to say unattacked.

As an aside, appearing to be dead is ever so slightly different from being dead.

It´s like trying to be clever, more or less. No guarantee that we pull that one off either.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1372  
Old 06-14-2018, 07:58 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
You see, that is why I say you are biased - you work from an assumption that it is not in my DNA to accept anything that points in any way away from Lechmere.

But that is not so. I have said a good many times, and I don´t mind doing so again, that the second we find something that exonerates Lechmere, I will accept that and move on.

If you want to reject that, then go ahead and do so - it is your prerogative. But I would like to remind you that in this odd parallel universe we call Ripperology, I have been subjected to hundreds of attacks saying that I am overinterpreting the evidence and being too assertive that Lechmere is our man. I find it interesting that the moment somebody overstepped the line and claimed something - that can not in any way be proven - as a genuine fact, that somebody was you.

Once again misrepresenting what was said, the claim was that you had not proven that Paul being out of earshot was a possibility, not that i had proven anything
Not me.

Whatever book you produce, I will admit whatever strenghts I think it has regardless if they point to or away from Lechmere being the culprit. Everybody out here knows our history inside out, Steve, and so it would render my evaluation of the book useless if I criticized it on unwarranted grounds.

Therefore, I find it quite sad that you are already now, BEFORE any book has been produced, saying that no matter what, my view must be looked away from since I cannot possibly be a fair critic.
I have never said your view "must be looked away from" only that you would not welcome the work. Totally different things.
Again implying something that is not said.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1373  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:00 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Dear me, how many things you think I am "avoiding". I take full responsiblity for EVERYTHING I post.

Happy?
In which case, please justify the claims you have made.
Or acknowledge they are incorrect.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1374  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:01 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
You know very well that like most suspects CL will never be categorically exonerated unless so geographical anomaly comes up (which is unlikely in the extreme.) And so to use that as the guideline for whether CL should remain a suspect is so self serving as to not really require mentioning.
A suspect can only become a suspect on factual grounds, Herlock. And regardless of how rewarding and satisfying you find it to say "he is not a suspect", that does not change matters.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1375  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:02 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
So, Steve, are you now saying that you have never claimed it as a fact that Paul was never out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen?

Is that it?

It would be welcome.
I am Saying you have not proven that such was possible given the evidence available, its significantly different.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1376  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:03 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
In which case, please justify the claims you have made.
Or acknowledge they are incorrect.

Steve
I have already explained to you why I posted what I posted - YOU spoke about ME having to accept Kelly´s TOD. There are TWO TOD:s for her, so it was an exercise in folly. And so I proceeded in that vain, introduced by you.

If you can pull my leg, I can pull yours. Does that make you feel unjustifiedly dealt with, Steve?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1377  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:04 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Yes, Caz, you are perfectly correct - once he had called himself Cross, he could not use that ruse any more. And yes, Caz, you are correct - he went on killing anyway. And yes, Caz, you are correct - that meant taking a risk.
Only in your own mind did Lechmere kill anyone, never mind go on killing.

But again, that was not my point.

Your argument - yours - was that he deliberately went on killing in places where, just like Buck's Row, he would have an innocent explanation ready for being in that particular place at the time in question.

But of course, as you and I both know, he could not have risked being seen in that place, or any other place, either with or near another victim, either alive or dead. So the handy innocent explanation ploy would not have worked a second time. It went with Nichols in Buck's Row. So he may as well have taken his chances after that and killed in places he could not have been associated with after the event. If he was seen and identified at or near the scene it would have been game over in any case. But if he was not seen at the time, he stood a far greater chance of not coming to police attention again than if he could be associated later with each murder location by reference to his known movements or whereabouts.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 06-14-2018 at 08:07 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1378  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:05 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
I am Saying you have not proven that such was possible given the evidence available, its significantly different.


Steve
Come again? Answer the question please. Are you saying now that it cannot be proven that Paul was always within earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen?

And YOU say I am avoiding giving answers...?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1379  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:08 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 have already explained to you why I posted what I posted - YOU spoke about ME having to accept Kelly´s TOD. There are TWO TOD:s for her, so it was an exercise in folly. And so I proceeded in that vain, introduced by you.

If you can pull my leg, I can pull yours. Does that make you feel unjustifiedly dealt with, Steve?
Read post 1297, it says nothimg about having to accept Kelly's TOD, just the reverse.

So an admission it was "leg pulling" and thus untrue.

Thank you.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1380  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:18 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Come again? Answer the question please. Are you saying now that it cannot be proven that Paul was always within earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen?

And YOU say I am avoiding giving answers...?

No avodance at all.
I have never said i have proved Paul was in earshot.
I said and still claisay you have not proved it was possible for Paul to be out of earshot, given the total lack of evidence to contradict the evidence of all the carmen, even the 3rd participant gives no evidence to support this view. That is significantly different from what you claim I said.


Steve
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.