Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

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.

Then you may listen to Gary some more, since he does see real reasons to look further into Lechmere.

Then again, he is just as idiotic as Griffiths was when it comes to seeing merit in the idea that Lechmere would have stayed put.

A hard man to judge, Gary.

[Elamarna]

I am very well aware of language issues. And I can tell you that it does not mean a iot if you remove the comme, the phrase has the exact same meaning nevertheless.

"More likely there was a reason, which need not be suspicious" means exactly the same as "More likely there was a reason which need not be suspicious".

The "which" turns the second part into a subordinate clause as effectively as any comma.

We disagree.

The fact you continue to plays this silly little games bothers me not, the vast majority understand was is meant i am sure.



Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

In your world, any person in the copper-hating East End would "undoubtedly suggest" that they go searching for a constable, in spite of how they did not even know that there was a crime involved.

Says all.

The point is Fish, despite your blinkers, is that CL would have had to have been aware of the serious possibility, likelihood in fact, that Paul would have wanted to find a copper.

Or would he have assumed that Paul wouldn’t have been bothered and just hoped for a piece of luck?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

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.

[Fisherman]

It’s reasonable to say that Paul would have heard CL walking away but that in itself wouldn’t have made him suspicious of course. By the time that he reached the site CL could have been 30-40 yards away in the dark. In the dark Paul would have seen the shape on the ground on the other side of the road. He might not have gone over but if he hid, then had a closer look, then perhaps given her a shake to see if she responded, then perhaps checked for a pulse (this might have taken up another 30 seconds to a minute, by which time CL would have been say 100 yards away in the dark. Then if he does start shouting “police, murder” is it likely that a policeman would detain someone that he saw walking along a street 150 yards away from that distant voice?

This option for a guilty CL surely would be preferable to calling someone over who would undoubtedly suggest that they find a constable with CL in possession of the murder weapon and ‘possibly’ with Nichols blood on him (in the dark he couldn’t be certain of being completely blood-free.) Added to that CL immediately announces himself as being alone with the body and with no one else around to suspect.

In your world, any person in the copper-hating East End would "undoubtedly suggest" that they go searching for a constable, in spite of how they did not even know that there was a crime involved.

Says all.

And these kinds of grounds and insights are what you build your picture of Andy Griffiths being "idiotic" on.

Brrrrr!!!!!

[Fisherman]

Sorry their information was faulty in 88, incomplete meaning that any deductions are also incomplete.
Its not logicall onset, its factually that matters


Steve

I don´t buy any of it for a minute. Sorry.

Well, I buy that feeling for warmth is inexact - but not THAT inexact.

[Elamarna]

Yes, even with the far-reaching injuries, the body should still by warm after an hour. Compare, if you will, with Eddowes who was "quite warm" 45 minutes after being found.


of course ignoring the fact that touch is highly subjective, not just to the individual but on a case by case basis

In 1888, medicos had had ample opportunity to observe rigom mortis and how it worked. No doubt we know more, but they knew about the logical onset times back then too.

Sorry their information was faulty in 88, incomplete meaning that any deductions are also incomplete.
Its not logicall onset, its factually that matters


Steve

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;450381]

. “Pick the one detail that you think speaks loudest for his innocence, and we will scrutinize it together. ‘ [/QUOTE]

This from you in pose #1405

I made my point on #1417

You made your length ‘case against’ in post #1425

To which I responded in post #1435.

Since then you’ve made 5 posts unconnected.

Is that your idea of ‘scrutiny?’

Yes, my answer to you is my idea of scrutinizing your suggestion. Scrutinize away yourself, if you are so inclined.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But what happens if he runs? Paul is immediately alerted and the idea that the women might be drunk or has died of natural causes goes out of the window. It's obvious to Paul that it must be a case of assault at least and possibly bloody murder. He starts shouting at the top of his voice, 'Police! Murder!' or whatever, and should Lechmere's escape route take him within sight or earshot of a copper, he's bang to rights. On the other hand, if Lechmere (as killer) keeps calm and takes control of the situation, initially by approaching Paul to assesses what he may have seen, he might be able to carry on his merry way without let or hindrance - as indeed he did.

Surely there's some merit in that possibility?

Why on earth he would later call at the police station to explain his actions is another matter altogether.

It’s reasonable to say that Paul would have heard CL walking away but that in itself wouldn’t have made him suspicious of course. By the time that he reached the site CL could have been 30-40 yards away in the dark. In the dark Paul would have seen the shape on the ground on the other side of the road. He might not have gone over but if he hid, then had a closer look, then perhaps given her a shake to see if she responded, then perhaps checked for a pulse (this might have taken up another 30 seconds to a minute, by which time CL would have been say 100 yards away in the dark. Then if he does start shouting “police, murder” is it likely that a policeman would detain someone that he saw walking along a street 150 yards away from that distant voice?

This option for a guilty CL surely would be preferable to calling someone over who would undoubtedly suggest that they find a constable with CL in possession of the murder weapon and ‘possibly’ with Nichols blood on him (in the dark he couldn’t be certain of being completely blood-free.) Added to that CL immediately announces himself as being alone with the body and with no one else around to suspect.

[Fisherman]

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?

J K Stephen was another oddball who also wrote gruesome poetry. Accordingly, he is also amongst the suspects.

Both are better suspects than Lechmere, according to some.

[Fisherman]

But what happens if he runs? Paul is immediately alerted and the idea that the women might be drunk or has died of natural causes goes out of the window. It's obvious to Paul that it must be a case of assault at least and possibly bloody murder. He starts shouting at the top of his voice, 'Police! Murder!' or whatever, and should Lechmere's escape route take him within sight or earshot of a copper, he's bang to rights. On the other hand, if Lechmere (as killer) keeps calm and takes control of the situation, initially by approaching Paul to assesses what he may have seen, he might be able to carry on his merry way without let or hindrance - as indeed he did.

Surely there's some merit in that possibility?

Why on earth he would later call at the police station to explain his actions is another matter altogether.

One of the major things sought after by serial killers is control. Running wiuld be handing that control over to higher powers, staying would mean keeping the control in his own hands.

But let´s throw that to the wind too, shall we?

[Fisherman]

Any response?

Yes, absolutely: read the inquest reports.

[Fisherman]

Only you could consider getting away scot free 'reckless and stupid'

No, not even I could do that.

Nor did I.

So all we have is one more example of you misrepresenting me.

You need to stop now, it´s running over the brim.

[Fisherman]

Mock ye not, Mr Williams.

Just imagine that you were a respectable woman who had found herself living in 'Tiger Bay' in the 1860s. Your much younger husband has close encounters with the local riff-raff, including the 'Tigresses', on an almost daily basis and your adolescent son risks coming into contact with such people every time he leaves the house. Wouldn't you be tempted to instil in him a wariness/dislike of the bad streets, bad men and, perhaps above all, the bad women in the neighbourhood?

Since it is a habit inbetween my opponents always to hail the worst of efforts on each other´s behal with a "Very good post!", I really must take the opportunity to do the same now:

What a splendid post, Gary!

[Fisherman]

Its pretty clear from my response:


"To answer your question It may have been, but i think it unlikely. Morelikely there was a reason, which need not be suspicious"

The comma, which you have missed out has meaning. That the reason may not be suspecious, not that it is not.
And of course not knowing what the reason was, we cannot be sure if it suspicious or not.

Anyone who could say it definitely was or was not suspicious is oversteping the available evidence.


The comma which you missed out is the important part there and makes it clear the more likely applies to there being a reason, rather than oversight.

But of course you are well aware of that, so why ask?



Steve

I am very well aware of language issues. And I can tell you that it does not mean a iot if you remove the comme, the phrase has the exact same meaning nevertheless.

"More likely there was a reason, which need not be suspicious" means exactly the same as "More likely there was a reason which need not be suspicious".

The "which" turns the second part into a subordinate clause as effectively as any comma.