Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Evening news 3 Sept - Robert Paul, a carman, has made the following remarkable statement: He says: It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her.
    Point 1 It was too dark. Cross could easily have hurried away without Paul giving any kind of description of him.
    Point 2 He came a little towards me and i tried to give him a wide berth. In other words Paul hadn't seen a body nor did he show any interest in encountering Cross. It was Cross who encountered Paul. Does this seem like the actions of a man who has just committed a murder ?
    Point 3 It was too dark to see the blood about her. For all we know, and Cross, if Paul did see the body in the dark, and there is no guarantee of that. How do we know, and Cross again, that he wouldn't have just thought it was some drunk just fallen over and sleeping it off. A not uncommon site in Whitechapel. Plus he also might have thought it was a ruse, [Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot ], and hurried on by.
    Last edited by Darryl Kenyon; 05-31-2018, 09:23 AM. Reason: Adding

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      Id be curious to take inventory and to see what members here favorite suspect/s are. Please feel to give a brief explanation as to why.
      My favorite suspect is anyone Danish who might possibly be connected to the case. Since I'm based in Denmark, it'd be silly to root for someone half a world away, how would I ever research him and become a millionaire from solving the case???
      So at the moment pretty much:
      1. Christian Hansen, Danish sailor and self-confessed murderer

      Of established suspects, my favourite is astrakhan man. I see no compelling reason to discount Hutchinson's testimony, so it follows that the man he saw must be considered extremely suspect.

      Comment


      • My main objection with Astrakhan Man is that, if Hutchinson was telling the truth and he went to the extent of stooping down to look at his face, would AM have then gone on to murder Mary Kelly? He was a) far better dressed than your average Whitechapel denizen and so would have stood out and b) he would have known that Hutchinson would have been able to identify him and place him in the victims company shortly before her murder.

        Would Jack have been so cavalier as to his own safety?
        Regards

        Herlock






        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

        Comment


        • Being 'cavalier' and daring is part of the makeup of a number of serial killers.
          Taking a risk provides the killer with adrenaline, it's part of the thrill. Killing a woman in a backyard, under windows where tenants were sleeping (Hanbury St.), and in a single room within an occupied court while people are coming and going, again just heightens the thrill aspect.

          That aside, Astrachan is likely innocent. Kelly was seen outside the Britannia at 3.00 that morning, and she was not with Astrachan.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            Would Jack have been so cavalier as to his own safety?
            Would Jack have changed from shabby genteel to one of wealth and ostentation in the space of three months, whilst taking on the appearance of a lowly sailor in between?

            And before anyone suggests it, I'd just observe that chameleonic masters of disguise usually only turn up in things like Scooby Doo
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              Would Jack have changed from shabby genteel to one of wealth and ostentation in the space of three months, whilst taking on the appearance of a lowly sailor in between?

              And before anyone suggests it, I'd just observe that chameleonic masters of disguise usually only turn up in things like Scooby Doo
              And they would have gotten away with it too if it werent for ...... aah, memories
              Regards

              Herlock






              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                Ok. Blotchy (Cox),Sailor man (Lawende),foreign looking man (Long) maybe BS Man.All the rest are non-suspects - if people realized this then the case progressed.

                -
                And yet, the one character who was witnessed accosting women. Was respectably dressed, and carried the proverbial 'black bag'. And was seen within a hundred plus feet of the last murder in Dorset St., around the time of the murder, just doesn't appear on anyone's suspect list.

                What does a guy have to do to get attention.....
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Yes, Mrs. Paumier's suspect. Now, if only we had a name.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                    Yes, Mrs. Paumier's suspect. Now, if only we had a name.
                    Blotchy, Broadshoulder-man, & Sailor-man didn't have names either, but they are one everybodys list.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      Blotchy, Broadshoulder-man, & Sailor-man didn't have names either, but they are one everybodys list.
                      Suspect Broad Shoulder Man accompanying Stride was the same person on Eddowes hand bill.

                      Frank Carter was a Royal Engineer.

                      Let you lot sort that out
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                        Blotchy, Broadshoulder-man, & Sailor-man didn't have names either, but they are one everybodys list.
                        Hi wicker
                        That guys always intrigued me. I wouldn’t rule him out.

                        But he not on everyone’s list probably because he wasn’t seen with a victim.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          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.
                          Or evidence, to put it more succinctly. I don´t think that what the police does when researching a suspect is called speculation. And you are normally very careful when it comes to how things should be phrased, are you not?
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 06-01-2018, 12:30 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post
                            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
                            What a silly post. "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."

                            Yes, if she was already dead when Lechmere arrived, then he could not have killed her. Heureka!

                            What was that you said about crap....?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post
                              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.
                              Yawn. Did I say it is criminal to find a dead or dying body?

                              I don´t think so, Harry.

                              I said that opportunity is of the essence when looking at somebody as a suspect. THAT is what I said.

                              Can you see how these things differ?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                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.
                                Please don´t be daft, Herlock. When researching a suspect, the police WILL inevitably check the paths of that suspect. They WILL look for any geographical connection the suspect have or has had to the murder spots.

                                Are you saying that this is untrue? Or are you saying that it is of no consequence? That the police are idiots for doing so?

                                Why is it that logic and consequence fly out the window once you hear the name Lechmere? "Anyone could have had reason to be anywhere" - so it does not matter that we can prove that Lechmere had ties to the exact area where Stride was killed?

                                You know, if that is how you are going to argue, then I understand why you say that there is nothing at all on Lechmere.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X