Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    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
    The only police "star witness" called at all (and at the trial that resulted) who was a serial killer was not involved in the Whitechapel Case. He was involved in the 1950s in the "Rillington Place" murders. Reginald Christie would be a major witness against Timothy Evans in the latter's trial for the murder of his wife and child. Only later, when Christie himself was on trial for his known crimes, did people start wondering if he lied in the Evans trial.

    Jeff

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
      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.
      Earlier in the 19th Century (a decade earlier) there was something resembling this situation - but not quite. In 1876 Charles Peace, in evading possible arrest by a constable, shot and killed the constable. He was never questioned about this killing. Peace attended the trial of the Habron Brothers, arrested for this murder, and saw them found guilty, and William Habron sentenced to death for the murder (although this sentence was subsequently reduced to life imprisoned). The night after seeing the sentencing, Peace shot and killed (rather openly) Arthur Dyson at Bannercross. Three years later, facing his own execution for the Dyson killing, Peace admitted he was responsible for killing the constable, not Habron.

      Jeff.

      Comment


      • Cross can only be placed at the scene of Nichols killing,after she was dead.There is no evidence of an incriminating nature,that places him there at any other time.So the evidence of opportunity ,the most important,is lacking.He could not have killed her unless he was in her company while she was alive.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by harry View Post
          Cross can only be placed at the scene of Nichols killing,after she was dead.There is no evidence of an incriminating nature,that places him there at any other time.So the evidence of opportunity ,the most important,is lacking.He could not have killed her unless he was in her company while she was alive.
          Most of the suspects cannot be placed at any of the murder scenes.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            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.
            I am not "willing to view every aspect of the case as a pointer to his guilt", Herlock. I am taking a look at what there is that may point in his direction, for the simple reason that we know that he was present at the murder scene of Nichols.
            That in itself puts him in a position where the police would need to look at him as a person of interest and a possible suspect. There can be no disagreement about that, I hope. Because that is what inevitably happens when somebody is murdered and the killer is not immediately identified - those who can be shown to have been there (= had opportunity) must be looked at.

            When we do that in Lechmeres case, we discover a number of things that do not look right. And that is why he is a suspect today, whereas other people found in the vicinity of other murder victims in the series are not regarded as suspects. In their cases, the same thing does not apply; they are not burdened by the things Lechmere is burdened by.

            You point to three of my listed points and criticize them. Let´s look at how that works out:

            "Point 7 means absolutely zero."

            So you are saying that once we know that a person who was found alone close by a murder victim has geographical ties to another murder spot, that is of no relevance at all to the case? That is of course just wrong - what the police will do is to look for this exact kind of thing when looking for the killer. Of course, it is not something that proves Lechmere a murderer - if that was the case, then anybody having lived near any of the sites or having any ties to them, would be proven murderers by the same token. But it is nevertheless something that ties Lechmere to the murder spot and that can potentially explain the choice of murder site.
            The course of matters when the police zoom in on somebody to look at him as a possible suspect is to try and backtrack along this persons paths, and when we backtrack along Lechmeres paths, we find that he had ample reason to be aquainted with the Berner Street area, by means of being a long-time resident there. Furthermore, he had reason to visit the area since his motger and daughter lived in 1 Mary Ann Street at the time of the murder, a stone´s throw away.
            So how this would be irrelevant illudes me and it would certainly illude any person with any sort of knowledge about how to catch a killer.

            "Point 3 a natural revulsion of many people in handling a body or to get too involved."

            Lechmere COULD have felt uninclined to touch the body - but he had actually already done so. Plus he had called Pauls attention to the matter. We cannot know how queasy Lechmere was about touching Nichols any further, but we CAN say that it does not help his case in any way. It is in line with a wish not to have the murder disclosed at the site, and that will not go away. Basically, it is just another instance of you supplying an alternative truth, as Trump would have put it. And as I say, alternative suggestions can ALWAYS be supplied. Maybe somebody else shot Robert Kennedy, not Sirhan Sirhan. There - an alternative suggestion. Does it point away from Sirhan? Yes. Does it free him? In your eyes, maybe - not in mine. He remains a totlly viable bid and the only really probable killer.

            "Point 8 could be said of Davis in connection to Chapman."

            See the above. Chapman was stone cold when Davis found her, Nichols was warm and bleeding as Lechmere "found" her. To suggest the two are on par is beyond useless - but it nevertheless goes on and on and on and on...
            Personally, I would have been embarrased and ashamed to make the comparison. If you are not, then that´s your problem.

            At any rate, it´s refreshing to discuss the case itself instead of how long posts I make, so thanks for that major improvement.
            Last edited by Fisherman; 05-30-2018, 10:50 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by harry View Post
              Cross can only be placed at the scene of Nichols killing,after she was dead.There is no evidence of an incriminating nature,that places him there at any other time.So the evidence of opportunity ,the most important,is lacking.He could not have killed her unless he was in her company while she was alive.
              He can be placed at the Nichols murder scene - so he did not have opportunity?

              That is a rather odd suggestion on your account.

              And you say that he could not have killed her unless he was in company with her while she was alive.

              But how do you propose to deny that he was? The coroner himself left the opportunity open that she was alive at this stage. What is it you know that he didn´t, Harry?

              Legally speaking, Charles Lechmere had a proven opportunity to have been the killer of Nichols. End of discussion.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                He can be placed at the Nichols murder scene - so he did not have opportunity?

                That is a rather odd suggestion on your account.

                And you say that he could not have killed her unless he was in company with her while she was alive.

                But how do you propose to deny that he was? The coroner himself left the opportunity open that she was alive at this stage. What is it you know that he didn´t, Harry?

                Legally speaking, Charles Lechmere had a proven opportunity to have been the killer of Nichols. End of discussion.

                Proven opportunity???

                Or possible opportunity?
                G U T

                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GUT View Post
                  Proven opportunity???

                  Or possible opportunity?
                  Proven opportunity, as far as the legal aspect goes. Of course, if Lechmere was 100 per cent correct in what he said, then he did not have any opportunity to kill Nichols, because he would not have been in touching distance of the body before Paul arrived.
                  But this is not how a judge and jury looks upon things. They take in what the defendant (or in this case: witness) says, and then they weigh things up. And in doing so, it does not suffice for a defendant or witness to say "I was never near her, I swear!", for the simple reason that people who kill others are prone to lying about it in order to try and get away with it. And so, the legal system somewhat cynically (but wisely!) accepts that being alone with a murder victim for an undefined stretch of time equals opportunity.

                  I think, though, that you will be aware of this, given your experience?
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 05-30-2018, 11:01 PM.

                  Comment


                  • And now I am off for the day (or most of it). I welcome any discussion of the case - and no discussion of the length of my posts.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mayerling View Post
                      The only police "star witness" called at all (and at the trial that resulted) who was a serial killer was not involved in the Whitechapel Case. He was involved in the 1950s in the "Rillington Place" murders. Reginald Christie would be a major witness against Timothy Evans in the latter's trial for the murder of his wife and child.
                      True enough, Jeff, although Christie didn't kill another victim whilst the Evans trial was still in progress. Indeed, he didn't kill again until two years afterwards.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
                        Most of the suspects cannot be placed at any of the murder scenes.
                        Indeed, but plenty of witnesses can, and it's in this capacity that Cross comes to our notice. He only becomes a suspect if we add another layer of speculation.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          Proven opportunity, as far as the legal aspect goes. Of course, if Lechmere was 100 per cent correct in what he said, then he did not have any opportunity to kill Nichols, because he would not have been in touching distance of the body before Paul arrived.
                          I think it would have been the prosecution's duty to prove Lechmere had been in touching distance of the body before Paul arrived.

                          And even then, there could hardly have been an opportunity - proven or possible - for Lechmere to have killed Nichols if she was already dead or dying when he arrived on the scene.

                          There is only one place on these boards away from Lechmere posts where I have seen a worse case of confirmation bias in action. This is the only way one can ever turn Lechmere, the individual who first drew attention to the body of Nichols, into the man responsible for killing her, and many others besides. And it's the only way one will ever turn a certain former scrap metal dealer and wannabe writer, who first drew attention to a certain scrapbook, into the man responsible for faking its contents, with his wife's assistance.

                          And there's nothing to be done about either case once the rot sets in. One either does this: or lets 'em get on with it. You know what they say about crap? It always falls eventually, from its own weight.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          Last edited by caz; 05-31-2018, 02:03 AM.
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • At the murder scene,at a time before Nichols was killed.I believe I made that plain Fisherman,but if you wish,there were indeed several persons that morning at the murder scene, or within easy reach of the place where she lay.All with acceptable reasons for being there.That Cross appears to have been the first to find Nichols dead is not a circumstance of criminal involvement in her death.No judge or Jury would accept that it was.Certainly responsible police of that time didn't think Cross was her killer.

                            Comment


                            • So you are saying that once we know that a person who was found alone close by a murder victim has geographical ties to another murder spot, that is of no relevance at all to the case? That is of course just wrong - what the police will do is to look for this exact kind of thing when looking for the killer. Of course, it is not something that proves Lechmere a murderer - if that was the case, then anybody having lived near any of the sites or having any ties to them, would be proven murderers by the same token. But it is nevertheless something that ties Lechmere to the murder spot and that can potentially explain the choice of murder site.
                              The course of matters when the police zoom in on somebody to look at him as a possible suspect is to try and backtrack along this persons paths, and when we backtrack along Lechmeres paths, we find that he had ample reason to be aquainted with the Berner Street area, by means of being a long-time resident there. Furthermore, he had reason to visit the area since his motger and daughter lived in 1 Mary Ann Street at the time of the murder, a stone´s throw away.
                              So how this would be irrelevant illudes me and it would certainly illude any person with any sort of knowledge about how to catch a killer.
                              Sorry Fish but this kind of thing goes on in Kennedy conspiracy theory. “And guess who lived 3 streets away? None other than Lee Harvey Oswald’s second cousins dentists best friend! Coincidence....i dont think so

                              Im sure that you could ‘connect’ Diemschutz, in some way, to addresses near to the murder sites. Anyone could have had any reason to be anywhere. If hed been seen walking down Dorset Street just after the Kelly murder then we would have something. Until then, just saying that he might have had a reason to be ‘astone’s throw away’ is only slightly more powerful than saying that he could have easily got there because he had legs!

                              I could also add - if ‘ties’ to certain sites are relevent how dumb would a killer have to be to risk this kind of signposting.
                              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-31-2018, 03:34 AM.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                              Comment


                              • . Legally speaking, Charles Lechmere had a proven opportunity to have been the killer of Nichols. End of discussion.
                                So did Diemschutz with Stride.

                                Davis could have killed Chapman earlier and returned to ‘discover’ the body.

                                Robert Paul could have killed Nichols and then doubled back to ‘discover’ her or to hope that someone else would.

                                McCarthy might have had the proven opportunity to kill Kelly.

                                Maybe. Possibly. Who knows?
                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X