Favorite suspect/s?

[Herlock Sholmes]

With your reasoning, the police would never bother tracking the movements of a suspect if the murders they were investigated happened in the same town. You DO realize that is what you are saying...?

People CAN kill en route to work, there is no obstacle at all for it.

People CAN kill close by their other murder sites - it is even common.

People can kill in their front garden too but its unlikely that they would avoid detection.

Ill say again “what are the chances of someone committing a horrific murder at a spot that he and probably only one other person (Paul) passed six days a week at just that time.”

On the Torso thread you are constantly talking about ‘likelihoods.’ Now im mentioning one.

[MrBarnett]

I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but I wouldn't bet against there having been similar reports of the initial misidentification of bodies in the Victorian press, and Lechmere was literate, so he may not have needed a time machine to have come across one.

Whether he was innocent or guilty Lechmere felt the need to explain why he had approached the body from a spot where it presumably could not be clearly seen - while he on his way to work with not a lot of spare time on his hands.

[Fisherman]

CL has to be considered and looked at because he was there. Like most suspects we cannot categorically eliminate him even though the police at the time obviously did. It doesnt help by getting carried away and thats just what occurs. It smacks of desperation.

There is desperation around, I fully agree with that!

You say that Lechmere would have been an idiot not to run, and you guarantee that he would have gotten away scot-free if running. I disagree, and so did Andy Griffiths, who said the opposite thing - he would NOT have run.
I wonder who out of the two of you is best suited to... ? Nah, just joking, I don´t wonder that at all.

What you think is irrelevant is not all that important to me. I think YOU are irrelevant to the discussion in many a way for expressing that faulty view. The geographical implications are very important to me and to the police - but to you they are irrelevant. So be it. That´s your problem, not mine.

You say that spmebody must have passed before if somebody find a murder victim. and that is true if the person you speak of ONLY found the victim. If he lied about it, it becomes rather a different stroy, does it not?
Hadn´t thought of that, had you? WHich is why I say that many of your points are irrelevant - one of them being this one.

Insults? Do you dislike the pile of crap wording? Guess who came up with it? No I expect you to give Caz a good hiding. But you won´t do that, will you? You will condone HER speaking of piles of crap and condemn ME for answering in the same vein. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y is the spelling, Herlock.

[Fisherman]

People can kill in their front garden too but its unlikely that they would avoid detection.

Ill say again “what are the chances of someone committing a horrific murder at a spot that he and probably only one other person (Paul) passed six days a week at just that time.”

On the Torso thread you are constantly talking about ‘likelihoods.’ Now im mentioning one.

It cannot be measured exactly, but we do knbow that many serial killers have used very confined hunting grounds. Take a look at Joseph DeAngelo, for example, and his rape series. Take a look at Russel Williams, who visited his NEIGHBOURS on his spree! And who prioritized his very own street when burglarizing before killing.

WHAT-AN-IDIOT, eh?

[Robert]

Have you been at the surstromming again, Fish? You should keep away from that stuff.

Nothing went awry in my post. You told Herlock that the police care an awful lot about geography. Yet it seems that in 1888, the same man appearing on two murder streets at more or less the same time didn't induce them to raise even an eyebrow. And this despite the fact that his story was contradicted by one of their own officers - an officer graded as 'good,' Fish.

[MrBarnett]

Have you been at the surstromming again, Fish? You should keep away from that stuff.

Nothing went awry in my post. You told Herlock that the police care an awful lot about geography. Yet it seems that in 1888, the same man appearing on two murder streets at more or less the same time didn't induce them to raise even an eyebrow. And this despite the fact that his story was contradicted by one of their own officers - an officer graded as 'good,' Fish.

But, Robert, he wasn't even a suspect for Nichols, so why would they have bothered to plot his possible work routes and worked out his family connections to St Georges as the series progressed?

[Elamarna]

He had some days to construct his story, Caz, so it is not exactly an example of thinking on yur feet, is it?
The much more impressive thing in this context is how he concocted the Mizen scam - that shows us just how fast he was. And believe me, if he was the killer, then he was MUCH faster on the uptake than some ripperologists...

My dear Fish,
The "Mizen Scam" as you propose it merely one of at least 5 alternative explanations for what Mizen said occurred when he appeared at the inquest.
It is far from the strongest of the 5, and i am sure there could be other reasonable and viable explanation.
For me the strongest explanation, based on testimony and other sourcez is that Mizen did not give a truthful account at the inquest.

Steve

[Elamarna]

I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but I wouldn't bet against there having been similar reports of the initial misidentification of bodies in the Victorian press, and Lechmere was literate, so he may not have needed a time machine to have come across one.

Whether he was innocent or guilty Lechmere felt the need to explain why he had approached the body from a spot where it presumably could not be clearly seen - while he on his way to work with not a lot of spare time on his hands.

The question of course Gary is what would we do in those circumstances?
I think, i would check if i walked that way everyday and saw something unusual in a road on 24 foot wide.
I suggest few could catagorically deny they would do limewise.
The other point to taling into account, is that even running behind time, he had plenty of time to get to work without going any faster than a brisk walk (3.5-4mph).

Steve

[Robert]

Hi Gary

As the man who claimed to have found Nichols, Crossmere would have been a natural subject of interest to the police, especially once the Chapman murder occurred, coupled with Mizen's disagreement with his account.

I'm not suggesting that the police would have delved into his Berner St connection, but they would have checked out Crossmere, e.g. asking at Pickfords.

[Harry D]

Have to admit, Hutchinson is growing on me as a suspect. He was at the crime scene, he only came forward after the inquest when he was possibly seen by a witness, he claimed to know the victim, and he came up with a highly dubious suspect. If we believe the killer cried “Lipski” and wrote the GSG, perhaps he also invented a mustachioed shylock to deflect further suspicion on der Juden. I believe Abby Normal is a strong proponent of this theory?

[Fisherman]

Have you been at the surstromming again, Fish? You should keep away from that stuff.

Nothing went awry in my post. You told Herlock that the police care an awful lot about geography. Yet it seems that in 1888, the same man appearing on two murder streets at more or less the same time didn't induce them to raise even an eyebrow. And this despite the fact that his story was contradicted by one of their own officers - an officer graded as 'good,' Fish.

Care - cared.

Two different things.

I know for certain that the geographic factor is of immense importance to todays police. There is even a discipline called geographic profiling that goes to show the importance that is attached to it.

Back in 1888, the police were not up to scratch on many a level. I don´t think they realized the full importance of geographical indicators, although they of course knew that people who had been present at a crime scene were of importance. But I think they quickly wrote Lechmere off for the reason that he presented himself to them twice in combination with the Nichols murder.

They goofed up, sinmple as that. They were insufficient and inadequate, and they were prone to mistakes to an even higher degree than today - when mistakes nevertheless happen.

Hat.

[Fisherman]

Hi Gary

As the man who claimed to have found Nichols, Crossmere would have been a natural subject of interest to the police, especially once the Chapman murder occurred, coupled with Mizen's disagreement with his account.

I'm not suggesting that the police would have delved into his Berner St connection, but they would have checked out Crossmere, e.g. asking at Pickfords.

No, quite simply. They SHOULD have checked him out, but would have and should have are two different matters. They should have spoken to all the inhabitants of Bucks Row too, but had to be thrashed over their lazy bums before they did.
They were not up to scratch. They did not do things the way they are done today.

[Fisherman]

My dear Fish,
The "Mizen Scam" as you propose it merely one of at least 5 alternative explanations for what Mizen said occurred when he appeared at the inquest.
It is far from the strongest of the 5, and i am sure there could be other reasonable and viable explanation.
For me the strongest explanation, based on testimony and other sourcez is that Mizen did not give a truthful account at the inquest.

Steve

We have a man who seemingly did not tell the truth about the timings of his morning.
We have a man who seemingly did not tell the truth about when he noticed Paul.
We have a man who seemingly lied about his name.

There are no implications at all about Mizen telling any lie at all in any situation. What there is is a record of a policeman who served with honour, who was deeply religious and who took over his fathers farm and managed it with great success. He was not reprimanded by anyone, so he had nothing to hide or try to lie about. He could easily have said that the carmen told him about the woman, and that he sped off after having finished his knocking up business. He had no reason at al to bog himself down in any lies.

It is also all in line with him having been lied to that he never protested about Neils version - he very obviously believed that Neil was the finder, which is line with having been lied to by Lechmere.

Your personal take on things is nothing but that - and they are out of line with the facts.

[Mayerling]

People can kill in their front garden too but its unlikely that they would avoid detection.

Ill say again “what are the chances of someone committing a horrific murder at a spot that he and probably only one other person (Paul) passed six days a week at just that time.”

On the Torso thread you are constantly talking about ‘likelihoods.’ Now im mentioning one.

I only can think of one case that is close to the parameters of your description, and it was only five years after the Autumn of Terror.

In 1893 a woman was found dead near Wormwood Scrubbs prison. She had been beaten to death by a blunt instrument. The police constable on patrol in that area that night seemed to have had a regular night of proper visitations at business locations, etc., and never reported finding the dead woman. However, when the body was examined by other police constables and the local police surgeon, it was recognized to be a woman who had been giving a great deal of grief to the constable who had not reported the dead woman's body. The Constable, one George Cooke, had been a very good officer, but he fell in love with a prostitute, and tried to reform her . It didn't work, and she felt he had to support her. When he refused unless she reformed she became a personal threat to him, and at one point forced him to have to transfer from a more populated London district to the Scrubbs area. She pursued him there like one of the Greek furies. Cooke apparently ws being followed on his rounds and having had all he could stand took his truncheon and beat the woman to deah. He was arrested within a day, and would eventually be tried and convicted of the woman's murder and hanged (thus becoming, I believe, the only British police constable hanged for murder in the Victorian Era). I wrote an essay about Cooke two decades ago, and always felt sorry for the Constable. I find it instructive that he did not run off after the murder, but completed his rounds instead.

Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Caz,

I'm not sure I follow your first point. Are you suggesting that the chances of finding a dead body on the streets of Whitechapel in 1888 were significantly less than today? I'd have thought they would have been greater. Lots more homeless people giving up the ghost in the street, for instance. And given the comparative inefficiency of the street lighting in 1888, the chances of mistaking a body for something else would also have been more likely.

Presumably Lechmere's claim to have mistaken Polly's body for a tarpaulin must have had a degree of plausibility. So the question that arises is why does a man who is in a hurry to get to work stop and make himself even later to investigate an indeterminate dark patch in the street. Claiming that he thought the object might be a tarpaulin, something of value and interest to a carman, could be the truthful response of an innocent man, but it could also be that of a quick-thinking guilty one.

Gary

Bingo.

I am a little more sympathetic to fishes theory as I had something happen to me that was similar.