Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[The Good Michael]

Ah yes, Phil - but Barnett had an alibi for Kelly; an alibi for the one murder you might consider him responsible for, so I'd say no grounds for suspecting him there.

I have one question: What time was Kelly murdered?

and the same goes for Morganstone, Mccarthy, Kidney, Hutchinson, Fleming, and a host of others. All were checked out and their stories made sense.

On what do you base that? How did the police find Morganstone, given the name was wrong and the family had moved?

Only one of them had to be lying of course, since (unless you think the Millers Ct murder was like murder on the Orient Express) only one need have been involved. Indeed, all may be innocent - but I am still open to MJK's murderer having been an intimate.

Couldn't have been otherwise.

But of course, it could.

Unlike you Michael, I like to base my thinking on evidence, or mark it up as speculation. you are, with respect, speculating.

For Sally

Cadosche is a suspect now? Realy? I must have missed that one.

I had the same reaction - hence, I was questioning Lechmere's assertion above:

I quite agree Fleming's a better candidate than cadosch in the 'league table'.

Phil

Phil,

I'm speculating of course. My speculation is based upon normal police procedure. If I say most of the policemen walked their beats, it's speculation because I didn't see it happen. If I say football teams begin intensive training several weeks before the new season, it's speculation based upon experience, but I don't watch teams train. If these people were not checked out, then the police failed to do their jobs. If they checked someone, but found them missing, they still checked on them to have found this out. It had to have been so or it was a massive conspiracy and the police knew who did it all along.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Phil
DVD suggested Cadosch - I was replying to him.
but cadosch as a suspect has been floated - not by me.

[Phil H]

Have it your way and I'll have it mine. We don't have to agree.

Your analogy though is IMHO flawed. A policeman on his beat is routine - it can be assumed to happen unless we know there was some disruption. (But see below.)

The accuracy, depth and thoroughness, timeliness etc of an investigation is quite another. We need to see the records to evaluate its effectiveness.

On the beat point, there are several instances re Buck's Row, Mitre Sq and the GSG where I believe it would be unsafe to assume that all was as it should have been.

Phil

[The Good Michael]

Have it your way and I'll have it mine. We don't have to agree.

Your analogy though is IMHO flawed. A policeman on his beat is routine - it can be assumed to happen unless we know there was some disruption.

Checking out leads is routine as well. I never said all people were found, but they most assuredly were looked for to someone's level of satisfaction. If they weren't sought for questioning, the job wasn't done.

Mike

[DVV]

and the same goes for Morganstone, Mccarthy, Kidney, Hutchinson, Fleming, and a host of others. All were checked out and their stories made sense. Couldn't have been otherwise. Lies may have been told, but the alibis rang true. We have no information because we only have inquest information which isn't really information as much as they were formalities.

Mike

Ah. Oh. Uh.

I'm glad to learn Fleming had been checked out and had an alibi.

Don't bother quoting your sources, Mike. What for ?

However, all I know is that he has been referred to at the inquest by two witnesses.

That he used to visit Mary, was jealous and probably violent, and did not show up.

Wait.

Perhaps he did, after all.

[DVV]

Phil
DVD suggested Cadosch - I was replying to him.
but cadosch as a suspect has been floated - not by me.

No regrets, Lechmore.
Your suspect is as bad as Cadosch.

[Lechmere]

Have they let you put the playground yet?

[DVV]

Don't forget to call your mum when you want to blow your nose.

[Sally]

Really?

This is what this thread has come to? Playground insults?

[DVV]

Lechmere is a perfect example of a desperate fanatic.

He has no fav suspect : he has solved the case.

Indeed, he has chosen to call himself "Lechmere" aka Charles Cross.

And Cross-Lechmere being the Ripper beyond doubt in his monomaniac opinion, he is stupidly posting on a Fleming thread just to ridicule, without arguments nor real will to discuss, any suspect whose name is not Charles Cross-Lechmere.

He is not ashamed to argue that Fleming/Evans wasn't MJK's ex - as if Chris Scott, Debs, Neal Shelden, Ben, Harry, Sally, I and many others were nothing but ignorant nuts.

He doesn't realize that his own suspect is a million times less credible than Fleming. (Indeed, he has already convinced in brother-in-law, as I've pointed out).

He doesn't want to discuss anything : he's here to say : "Fleming was 6'7, and MJK's ex was somebody else whose name was most probably not Fleming".

Well, I suppose everybody has the right to show no interest in suspect threads.

But if I was to jump at the throat of anybody who wants to discuss a candidacy, I'd just be a fool. In fact, I'd be Lechmere.

For example : I don't believe Kosminski was the Ripper. But he is part of the story and I follow every thread that relates to his candidacy.
I've even bought and carefully read Rob's book.

How stupid would I be if I were posting 10 times per day to mock Kosminski's candidacy. How childish. But that is just what Lechmere is doing here.

We all know that there are hundreds of suspects. And when you favour one of them, it follows that dozens of casebookers disagree.

But let's mock or ignore those who are just here to make money out of a sensational suspect (Van Gogh, MacNaghten, etc), and let's discuss peacefully any other theory.

Contrary to Lechmere, I've not registrered with my suspect as an alias, I'm genuinely fascinated by the case, and truly amused by his posting.

[DVV]

Really?

This is what this thread has come to? Playground insults?

Yes. When you dare to discuss a suspect whose name isn't Cross, Ed Machin becomes furious. And stupid.

[Sally]

David -

I see your point. But be careful of introducing other suspects into this thread. Otherwise it will doubtless go horribly wrong and we'll end up discussing somebody else altogether.

I agree that we should all be able to discuss suspect theory without all the finger pointing and name calling.

It makes the participants look like lunatics.

[Sally]

David - our posts crossed there.

But yes, trying to do away with other suspects not favoured by oneself is a futile, and one might even suggest, worryingly obsessive pursuit.

An exercise in futility. Far better to spend one's time strenghening the case for one's own favoured suspect.

As I am currently doing with Killeen.

[DVV]

As I am currently doing with Killeen.

Killeen the carman ?
Highly suspicious if you ask me.

[Cogidubnus]

Killeen

No David...get with it - he's an Irish Tenor, playing both Lechmere and Paul!

All the best

Dave