Favorite suspect/s?

[Sam Flynn]

John Wayne Gacy, Gary Ridgway, Peter Sutcliffe are just a few high profile examples of killers who were interviewed by the police and who nevertheless were brave and/or stupid enough to carry on killing. Gacy had served a ten year sentence for rape, even, but took up killing when released in 1970. Since the rape was well known, there were lots of rumours about Gacy whenever a young man disappeared, and the police searched his house.
That´s about how stupid or brave he was.

Ridgway was arrested for consorting with prostitutes in 1982 and 2001, and he first became a suspect in the Green River killings back in 1983.
That´s about how stupid or brave he was.

Sutcliffe was interviewed nine (9!) times before he was finally captured.
That´s about how stupid or brave he was.

Were any of those on call to be a police "star witnesses" at the inquests of one of their victims?

Incidentally, when it comes to being interviewed by police after having been close to the scene of a murder, God help Robert Paul, Jonas Mizen, John Richardson, Albert Cadoche, Elizabeth Long, John Davies, Israel Schwartz, Louis Dymshitz... etc etc etc

[Fisherman]

Were any of those on call to be a police "star witnesses" at the inquests of one of their victims?

Incidentally, when it comes to being interviewed by police after having been close to the scene of a murder, God help Robert Paul, Jonas Mizen, John Richardson, Albert Cadoche, Elizabeth Long, John Davies, Israel Schwartz, Louis Dymshitz... etc etc etc

Nah, Gareth - not that crap again, please.

There is nothing at all suspicious about being present at a murder site per se. It is not until we weigh in the rest of the pointers to Lechmere that a case emerges.

If this was not the case, we would have the people you name at the top of the suspect list. But we don´t, do we?

There is a reason for that, you know.

And no, none of the three guys I named were witnesses (let alone "star witnesses", which you seem to think Lechmere was...?), but then again, that was never even the issue here. The issue was whether killers can be brazen enough to kill once they have evoked interest from the police. And all three men did just that, so we can answer the question with a "yes" - serial killers ARE that brazen at times. Many times, even.

Lechmere, on the other hand, evoked no such interest from the police as the three men I mentioned, and so he had a lot less reason to be intimidated.

Now, can we drop the nonsense about Richardson, Diemschutz et al? For good?

[Darryl Kenyon]

The thing is we don't know how many serial killers or people who might have become serial killers IE stopped after one or two murders in unsolved cases of both types where questioned by the Police and decided the heat was on and decided to stop for at least a while if not altogether. Where there not long gaps in some of Sutcliffes crimes, perhaps these coincided with some of the Polices questioning.

[Fisherman]

The thing is we don't know how many serial killers or people who might have become serial killers IE stopped after one or two murders in unsolved cases of both types where questioned by the Police and decided the heat was on and decided to stop for at least a while if not altogether. Where there not long gaps in some of Sutcliffes crimes, perhaps these coincided with some of the Polices questioning.

Just like you say, there is no knowing these things for certain. But we do know that narcissism and a general feeling of invincibility is prevalent within the ranks of serialists. So just as there will be killers who take precautions and who avoid danger, there will be those who actually invite it too.

Trying to apply this reasoning on a man whose psychological disposition we are not aquainted with is a futile exercise, I´m afraid. Not uninteresting, but futile nevertheless.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. There is nothing at all suspicious about being present at a murder site per se. It is not until we weigh in the rest of the pointers to Lechmere that a case emerges.

There arent any. His presence is all there is.

[Fisherman]

There arent any. His presence is all there is.

That too is an exercise in futility, Herlock. It does not belong on this thread, but it nevertheless deserves pointing out that

1. disagreeing with a PC about what was said - in a way that called upon the PC to let him pass unsearched
2. the clothing on Nichols hiding her wounds
3. the refusal to help prop Nichols up
4. the two men not hearing each other
5. the fact that Lechmeres work route took him right through the Ripper heartland
6. the fact that Lechmere gave the name Cross, otherwise not used with the authorities as far as we can tell
7. the fact that Stride was killed in the midst of his old addresses
8. the fact that Lechmere was alone with Nichols for an unknown stretch of time
9. the fact that Lechmere was in Bucks Row later than he ought to have been
10. the fact that Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in Lloyds

... are all indicators of a possible guilt. Taken together, they make for a very compelling case, something that has been recognized by an ex murder squad leader, a barrister - and hundreds of people out on the net. To dismiss the case out of what seems to me to be nothing but petty bitterness is - to say the least - totally disingenuous.

His presence provides him with opportunity, something the prosecution is called upon to prove in any case. That in itself is something that cannot be proven for the "main contenders", Kosminski, Levy, Tumblety, Chapman, Druitt - none of these men can be proven to have had opportunity. None!

And much as they all COULD have walked past or close to the murder spots in the cases of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly, we know that Lechmere WOULD have done so.

This is lightheartedly frowned at by some "connoiseurs" out here. And as such, it is as stupid as it is unforgivable.

Some little sense is much needed in this debate. And it does not start with "his presence is all there is", I´m afraid. And even if it DID, it would nevertheless put him a country mile ahead of the rest, since there is not even that presence in those cases!

Now, if you want to carry on the "debate", I suggest you do so on a proper thread: "Pub talk" or "Joke thread" if you try the angle that there is nothing speaking for Lechmere, or a more serious thread one if you manage a more sober angle.

[Sam Flynn]

Ah! only Fisherman can respond to a post of 9 words with one of 427

[Abby Normal]

Ah! only Fisherman can respond to a post of 9 words with one of 427

Only sam would count the words! ; )

[Fisherman]

Ah! only Fisherman can respond to a post of 9 words with one of 427

Interestingly, it was a post that said "nothing there" that was disproven by my answer showing that there is a lot of things there.

Can you see how that works, Gareth? And why the answer must be longer than the original post, if I want to prove my point? No?

[Fisherman]

Only sam would count the words! ; )

Or try (and fail) to make a point to my disadvantage from it.

[Fisherman]

Please note how - long before any serious debate can be developed - the knee-jerk reaction of sidestepping the real issue is immediately employed. My prediction is that it will continue, cheered on by the same collection of posters as always.

The more serious posters, like Cris Malone, Debra Arif, Gary Barnett etcetera, will however not join in the mockery - that too is a prediction of mine.

Let´s see if I am right!

[Sam Flynn]

Interestingly, it was a post that said "nothing there" that was disproven by my answer showing that there is a lot of things.

You could have said as much and left it at that.

Can you see how that works, Gareth? And why the answer must be longer than the original post, if I want to prove my point? No?

There is such a thing as "restraint", you know. 427 words in response to 9 is a tad OTT.

[Fisherman]

You could have said as much and left it at that.
There is such a thing as "restraint", you know. 427 words in response to 9 is a tad OTT.

Are you serious, Gareth?

Since when is it your task to determine how others should word themselves out here?

If I had "said as much" - that is, "no, you are wrong", I would not have proven my point. And since that is what very clearly tells me apart from those who say there is nothing speaking against Lechmere - I actually can prove my point - I find it extremely useful to do so.

But of course, given the position you are in, it must be painful to have it revealed who has a point and who has not.

The next time you complaint about how long posts I make, I will contemplate doubling my words. Just for you. And that is in spite of how I find you less and less worth spending time on.

[Fisherman]

And as predicted, the diversions keep on. Let´s avoid the REAL debate, for heavens sake!

[Herlock Sholmes]

That too is an exercise in futility, Herlock. It does not belong on this thread, but it nevertheless deserves pointing out that

1. disagreeing with a PC about what was said - in a way that called upon the PC to let him pass unsearched
2. the clothing on Nichols hiding her wounds
3. the refusal to help prop Nichols up
4. the two men not hearing each other
5. the fact that Lechmeres work route took him right through the Ripper heartland
6. the fact that Lechmere gave the name Cross, otherwise not used with the authorities as far as we can tell
7. the fact that Stride was killed in the midst of his old addresses
8. the fact that Lechmere was alone with Nichols for an unknown stretch of time
9. the fact that Lechmere was in Bucks Row later than he ought to have been
10. the fact that Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in Lloyds

... are all indicators of a possible guilt. Taken together, they make for a very compelling case, something that has been recognized by an ex murder squad leader, a barrister - and hundreds of people out on the net. To dismiss the case out of what seems to me to be nothing but petty bitterness is - to say the least - totally disingenuous.

His presence provides him with opportunity, something the prosecution is called upon to prove in any case. That in itself is something that cannot be proven for the "main contenders", Kosminski, Levy, Tumblety, Chapman, Druitt - none of these men can be proven to have had opportunity. None!

And much as they all COULD have walked past or close to the murder spots in the cases of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly, we know that Lechmere WOULD have done so.

This is lightheartedly frowned at by some "connoiseurs" out here. And as such, it is as stupid as it is unforgivable.

Some little sense is much needed in this debate. And it does not start with "his presence is all there is", I´m afraid. And even if it DID, it would nevertheless put him a country mile ahead of the rest, since there is not even that presence in those cases!

Now, if you want to carry on the "debate", I suggest you do so on a proper thread: "Pub talk" or "Joke thread" if you try the angle that there is nothing speaking for Lechmere, or a more serious thread one if you manage a more sober angle.

At least there’s a difference. Disagree with the TK and Jack being one and the same and you are either ‘biased’ or ‘ignorant.’ Disagree with Lechmere and its ‘petty bitterness.’

Points 1-10 only assume a relevance when viewed through Lechmere-tinted glasses.

The name thing should not even be mentioned. He gave his correct address. End of. That should be the last that we hear on that point but you still use it as a point of suspicion.

Point 7 means absolutely zero.
Point 3 a natural revulsion of many people in handling a body or to get too involved.
Point 8 could be said of Davis in connection to Chapman.

Considering Lechmere is one thing, exaggerated over-confidence and a willingness to view every aspect of the case as a pointer to his guilt is not taking a balanced view.