Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

Not asking you to buy it, its fact.


Steve

Why is it that I am always worried when you take the f-word into your mouth?

It is not any fact at all that the medicos were totally unreliable when it comes to determining TOD, just as it is not a fact at all that they had no idea how rigor mortis works.

Not that you said it - you just left the option conveniently open.

Grown tired of you for now. I´m off.

[caz]

What I am saying is another thing: that we should treat people as being truthful and honest until it can be proven that they are not.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Putting words/suggestions into the mouths of others You may have complained of that a time or two?

For the record JK Stephen is not a better suspect than CL purely because CL was actually in Buck’s Row (the only point in his favour.)

Okay, so then we know that Bury, Kosminski, Druitt, Levy, Chapman et al were also not better suspects than Lechmere, and for the exact same reason.

Or is that putting words in your mouth that you would rather not have there? If so, sorry, I can only go by the criteria you mentioned.

Bye for now. Until next time, you may to reconsider that part about how any Eastender in 1888 would seek out the police when finding a woman lying in the street...

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;450407]

Herlock, believe me - the things you have won out here, you don´t want to hear the names of.

And this is why the majority of Ripperologists don’t believe for a minute that CL was the Ripper and never will but, of course, they are all biased and ignorant.

Either that or, amazingly, they’ve weighed the evidence for and against (something that Scobie didn’t do) and have come to the conclusion that there’s nothing there. And perhaps they can no longer even be bothered to debate the issue because they have no desire to continually inhabit a world where absolutely anything can be turned and twisted in an attempts to make CL look guilty.

[Elamarna]

So, when you say that a comma is all important, and I point out that it does nothing at all to alter the meaning of the phrase - then that is me playing silly little games?


No , read what was posted it said I disagreed with your view before i made any other comment

Here´s an alternative answer: Oh yes, I see now that you are absolutely correct - the comma does not change the meaning of what I wrote, but I hope people will see what I meant anyway".

I don´t. What did you mean? It seems to me that you meant that an innocent explanation is more likely than a guilty one.

As the original comment was an answer to a question of if the lack of change was an oversight, my answer is perfect clear,
While it could be, it is more likely not to be, but the reason for it need not suspecious.

The alternative answer is pure fantasy, like much of the case against Lechmere.

The posts are becoming increasing surreal in nature, in keeping with my suggestions yesterday.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Why is it that I am always worried when you take the f-word into your mouth?

It is not any fact at all that the medicos were totally unreliable when it comes to determining TOD, just as it is not a fact at all that they had no idea how rigor mortis works.

Again misrepresenting the argument, its not the doctors are unreliable, its that the methods they use are, its significantly different

Not that you said it - you just left the option conveniently open.

Grown tired of you for now. I´m off.

Have fun. I will still be here.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay, so then we know that Bury, Kosminski, Druitt, Levy, Chapman et al were also not better suspects than Lechmere, and for the exact same reason.

Or is that putting words in your mouth that you would rather not have there? If so, sorry, I can only go by the criteria you mentioned.

Bye for now. Until next time, you may to reconsider that part about how any Eastender in 1888 would seek out the police when finding a woman lying in the street...

Kosminski/Cohen was mentioned as a potential suspect by senior policeman at the time. He was local and with mental health issues. That’s obviously a very brief synopsis but these facts alone make him a suspect worthy of further research and investigation.

Druitt was also mentioned by a very senior police officer (albeit 6 years after the murders) when he mentions that his family believed him guilty. He committed suicide just after the murders which ‘might’ explain why they stopped at Kelly. He was based within easy walking distance of the crimes.

If these two came to the attention of very senior police officers and yet CL, who was at the scene alone with the body, and yet the police didn’t suspect him in the slightest, we can say that they deserve a higher ranking as a suspect.

I know next to nothing about Levy so I won’t comment.

I personally don’t see Chapman as the ripper. He killed 3 women, by poison, for money. Vastly different to the Ripper. And if I remember correctly (possibly I don’t) but wasn’t he around 18 at the time of the murders which is exceptionally young for a serial killer and doesn’t tie in with any of the ‘possible’ sightings.

Bury was a violent man who consorted with prostitutes, murdered a woman using a knife, left a chalked message pointing to himself as the ripper and came to the interest of the police. He was also pretty local. Definitely miles ahead of CL.

And now, in your utter desperation, you are seeking to claim that all Eastenders were such heartless, uncaring b%^**@*s, that they wouldn’t have informed a police officer. A point that’s conclusively kicked into touch by the fact that it’s exactly what they did.

Bye bye Fish

[Abby Normal]

I know I said I wouldn't comment on this subject again, but I do find it odd that Francis Thompson makes some of the lists.

Why?

Apart from the fact that he was an oddball who wrote some gruesome poetry and was apparently in the East End at some point (we really don't know exactly when) what has he got going for him?

Yes I originally considered him, not so much now.

Ive got him on my third tier list of viable candidates (just barely) along with the likes of Donston, cutbush, puckridge, etc.

[Abby Normal]

I agree Gary.

As you will remember when I first read Patterson’s book I felt that he perhaps ticked more boxes than many suspects but after reading more, after being pointed in the right direction by you, interest soon faded. There’s no real reason to suspect him in my opinion.

wasn't he trained as a surgeon? and also I believe someone found evidence he was staying near millers court near the time of the murders?

[Abby Normal]

Love,

Caz
X

why is that an oops? hes got a discrepancy with a cop, who may have been right. and gave another name-not one he commonly used?

of course there could be innocent explanations, but dosnt rise to a laughing oops!

[Sam Flynn]

why is that an oops? hes got a discrepancy with a cop, who may have been right. and gave another name-not one he commonly used?
of course there could be innocent explanations, but dosnt rise to a laughing oops!

The "oops" was, I think, in response to Fisherman's statement that "we should treat people as being truthful and honest until it can be proven that they are not"... which doesn't quite tally with Fisherman's approach to Cross's testimony.

[Sam Flynn]

why is that an oops? hes got a discrepancy with a cop, who may have been right.

Mizen was at odds with Paul, too, don't forget.

and gave another name-not one he commonly used?

We don't actually know that, Abby: a few census entries and what-not don't a biography make, and he could well have used "Cross" on a day to day basis. Furthermore, if Gary Barnett's discovery of a Pickfords carman named Charles Cross in 1876 is "our" Charles Cross, then he was using that name (which was, after all, his stepfather's) many, many years before 1888.

[Abby Normal]

The "oops" was, I think, in response to Fisherman's statement that "we should treat people as being truthful and honest until it can be proven that they are not"... which doesn't quite tally with Fisherman's approach to Cross's testimony.

so when has fish been not been truthful or honest?

[Abby Normal]

Mizen was at odds with Paul, too, don't forget.We don't actually know that, Abby: a few census entries and what-not don't a biography make, and he could well have used "Cross" on a day to day basis. Furthermore, if Gary Barnett's discovery of a Pickfords carman named Charles Cross in 1876 is "our" Charles Cross, then he was using that name (which was, after all, his stepfather's) many, many years before 1888.

seems to me like he was using cross at work and lech more commonly.

[Sam Flynn]

so when has fish been not been truthful or honest?

You misunderstood, Abby. The point is that Fish doesn't appear to "treat people as being truthful and honest until it can be proven that they are not" when it comes to Cross.