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 Debra A 6 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - by Debra A 13 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - by Debra A 20 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by packers stem 26 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Sam Flynn 44 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by packers stem 47 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (24 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (20 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (4 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (2 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)
Rippercast: Colin Wilson: Jack the Ripper Conference in Ipswich, 1996 - (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
  #1301  
Old 06-13-2018, 08:06 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Thats my point.

We dont know for sure, but we do have the testimony of Lechmere who says he saw her moments before hearing Paul and Paul who only says he sees him ahead.
No mention of how far away and no mention of any movement before he says Lechmere
Is coming towards him.

To be odd Lechmere must be there earlier than he claims. There is no reliable source which indicates that. Paul's 3.45 is not reliable.

Yes we can use the suggestion as the starting point for a theory, But witbout evidence it remains just that.


Steve
You are literally wasting your time here Steve but I admire your honest and unbiased pursuit of reason and truth. Its just a pity it’s not contagious
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1302  
Old 06-13-2018, 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
Proven theories are no longer theories, you know. If it is proof you are talking about. If it is only evidence, then there is evidence that points to Lechmere as potentially being the killer. So much so, that James Scobie said it makes for a prima facie case that suggests that he was the killer.
I do wish you would stop this quoting Scobie as if a Prima facie is anything other than a decision to proceed to trial.
Every prosecution by the authorities requires such, that those whom are found innocent and guilty.

Its nothing more than a Barrister saying that on the evidence available the case cannot be dismissed.

Scobie however is just one man, others in his profession may not agree with him.

And of course many cases which go to court are dismissed or simply lost.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1303  
Old 06-13-2018, 08:09 AM
Jon Guy Jon Guy is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 2,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi Jon
I'm a little confused by this-can you please explain?
Yes, of course, Abby (and Christer)

Simply... the other finders didn`t have anyone to corroborate their story of finding the victim.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1304  
Old 06-13-2018, 08:14 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,010
Default

We have a man that found a body and then suicidally waited for, and then called over a man to show him his handiwork (remembering that those footsteps could have turned out to be a Constable) this alone should pretty much dismiss CL asa suspect. And all this happened just before CL killed a women in just about the most incriminating place possible. Also that CL was so ‘busy about his work’ that he actually got caught in the act. And then, on the spur of the moment, he came up with ‘The Scam’ and managed to manipulate Paul out of earshot of the Constable whilst he gave his false message.

Its about time we kicked this in to touch
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1305  
Old 06-13-2018, 08:15 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
Kosminski too is like Fish's theory - simply won't wash.
And Druitt - dead in the water.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1306  
Old 06-13-2018, 08:16 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
I do wish you would stop this quoting Scobie as if a Prima facie is anything other than a decision to proceed to trial.
Every prosecution by the authorities requires such, that those whom are found innocent and guilty.

Its nothing more than a Barrister saying that on the evidence available the case cannot be dismissed.

Scobie however is just one man, others in his profession may not agree with him.

And of course many cases which go to court are dismissed or simply lost.


Steve
He was also a man that was never presented with the case against CL’s guilt to compare. But according to Fish you only need to hear one side to make a fair decision (where have we seen evidence of that before .)
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1307  
Old 06-13-2018, 08:25 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,089
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
And Druitt - dead in the water.

Love,

Caz
X
Now that was good
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1308  
Old 06-13-2018, 08:33 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
THERE`S the post I was looking for! Caz´s explanation to why I am supposedly misogynous:

She quotes me, highlighting two words:

"Maybe you should try another, less sinister hobby. Knitting? Baking? Running, but only very slowly?"

...and she asks "Got it now?"

So, the conclusion is that suggesting knitting and baking as alternative hobbies for a person who cannot stand the idea of having a person suspected for being Jack the Ripper is misogynous.

As somebody who has visited Kaffe Fassets exhibitions of knitwork and spoken to him, expressing my deep admiration for his work, and as somebody who bakes a lot, I find that hilarious.

To me, it seems that you think that these matters are ties only to women? They are not.

I am not and have never been misogynous. I am - as very many Swedish men - a professed feminist, who regards the emancipation as the perhaps most important development in Swedish society over the last century. I stayed at home with my three children when they were small, me and my wife shared the child caretake days down the middle. I have often expressed the view that we need a female Swedish prime minister and it was a sorrow to me when Anna Lindh was murdered in Stockholm.

I have hear many strange accusations about myself, but this arguably takes the bisquit, Caz. But let me rephrase myself: Maybe you should get a more placid and less bloody and gory hobby, like remote control model cars, playing cards or growing bonsai trees.

There , is that better? And never mind apologizing for having called me misogynous. It would be a woman admitting to having been wrong in an exchange with a man, and we can´t have that, can we?
Blimey, Fish, it might have been better for you if you had engaged your brain before putting your mouth into gear in the first place. But you don't know when to stop digging that hole for yourself, do you?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1309  
Old 06-13-2018, 08:42 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,162
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
He was also a man that was never presented with the case against CL’s guilt to compare. But according to Fish you only need to hear one side to make a fair decision (where have we seen evidence of that before .)

That is not a problem for me Herlock.
The issue for me is treating it as if its more than it is.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1310  
Old 06-13-2018, 09:15 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
Try and imagine what I have suggested: The two men turn the corner from Bucks Row, and they see Mizen standing thirty, forty yards away (not sure of the distance, but it is not a very important matter for this experiment).
They then walk towards Mizen, who sees them coming closer in company. Then Mizen sees one of the men saying something to the other, and then the two split up intermittently, Paul walking straight ahead, and Lechmere veering off towards Mizen. As Lechmere comes close, he makes a short halt, and says "Officer, there´s a woman lying flat on her back down in Bucks Row. Another PC sent us here, me and my pal".
Mizen says "Alright", and the two part. Lechmere increases his walking speed and catches up with Paul, and Mizen finishes his knocking up business before setting off for Bucks Row.

Now, imagine at the inquest that Baxter, afther having heard Mizen speak of Lechmere only, asks the PC either:

"There was another man in company with Cross?"

or, for that matter

"There was another man present as you spoke with Cross?"

or

"There was another man in the street as you spoke with Cross?"

or

"There were two carmen, were there not, as this happened?"

or something along those lines.

Would you expect Mizen to deny it by saying no?

Or would you expect him to say "Well, strictly speaking, the other man some little way away"?

Bottom line: We do NOT know what was said. We know that Baxter suggested another man´s presence, but we do not know in which wording. And we can see very clearly that Mizen would be in his right to answer "yes" even if Paul was not close enough to Mizen and Lechmere to be able to make out what was said.

This is no longer an issue. It never was, to be honest.
I suppose it all depends on whether Mizen was aware of what Paul had already said publicly, in that newspaper story.

If Mizen was aware that Paul had given himself the role of main spokesman, in order to trash the PC's lethargic reaction, and knew damned well that this man Paul had not even bothered to speak to him, but had let Cross do the talking and therefore had no idea what was said or if the PC's reaction had been in any way inappropriate, he'd have had every reason to say so, when asked if anyone was with Cross when the latter spoke to him:

"Two men approached together, but when Cross spoke to me, the other man was some little distance away and said nothing."

Not only would this have dealt neatly with the trouble Paul was trying to cause and put him back in his box, but it would have been Mizen's duty to say so, if he knew Paul had lied in that account because he had not told him the woman was dead, and in fact only Cross had said anything at all and had played down the urgency.

Love,

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


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 02:38 PM.


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