Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • I dislike all the demands to produce examples of somebody who killed en route to work, etc.

    If Dahmer was never caught and it was suggested that the killer was the young man who approached and spoke to the police about the runaway Asian youngster, only to take him off the police´s hands and bring him home to kill him, I would fall short if somebody yelled "Show me an example of where this has ever happened in a serial killer case!" And we would stupidly allow that to hide the true facts.

    Every case is unique and serialists are extremely brazen at times. If Lechmere worked under circumstances that allowed him to arrive alone at his work and clean up and sort things out, then it would not be strange at all that he killed en route to work.

    As I say, it is not an obstacle until proven so.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
      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?
      yes Harry
      big time. its something that I think hutch came up with as the series got hotter and he felt like he had to come up with something, especially after being seen in stalking behaviour by Lewis.

      "lipski", then the GSG, then hutch's jewish Aman. all amidst the growing public sentiment that the ripper was jewish.

      coming up with a fake "suspect" is nothing new in the annals of crime. quite common actually.

      and that being said, I find a lot of similarities between hutch and Lech, another reason why I am sympathetic to fishs idea.

      although lech could have, if guilty, could have employed the same tactic but didn't. as in-"I saw a man hurridly walking away as I approached".

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        although lech could have, if guilty, could have employed the same tactic but didn't. as in-"I saw a man hurridly walking away as I approached".
        That would have involved a potential problem if it later transpired that somebody had been present in the flight route, someone who was able to deny the presence of any hurrying man - better then to leave it untouched upon, least he got tangled up in an obvious lie, Abby.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          That would have involved a potential problem if it later transpired that somebody had been present in the flight route, someone who was able to deny the presence of any hurrying man - better then to leave it untouched upon, least he got tangled up in an obvious lie, Abby.
          yup absolutely fish-a guilty lech could definitely have reasoned like that.

          Comment


          • Fish, this isn't rocket science. The police knew Crossmere was in Buck's Row. They knew he went down Hanbury St. They knew that a murder occurred there on the 8th. They would have been interested.

            I have seen Ed suggest that Crossmere murdered Chapman in an attempt to frame Paul. According to you, Ed was wasting his time, because the police would have said "Hanbury St? Isn't that the same place as.....Hanbury St?"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              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.

              Id back my own opinion on this over your ‘phone-a-friend.’ He might have brazened it out if hed have had no other option but he did. He could have easily gotten away but he didnt. The ripper didnt remain at large by taking stupid, unnecessary risks. This, on its own, makes CL an unlikely killer.

              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.

              No it’s everyone’s problem when you use it to try and shoehorn CL into guilt. As i said in my original post, it was a small area. ‘Connections’ would be easy to find. A murder site being on the way to his mothers house for eg would be pretty much irrelevant unless he popped in covered in blood for a clean up and asked her to look after a bag of body parts for him

              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.

              Of course I thought of it! What I object to is this deliberate use of the phrase ‘phantom killer’ which is an obvious ploy to make it appear that for a killer to have killed Nichols before CL got there he would have needed almost magical powers. Nothing proves CL as anything other than the unfortunate guy that found a body.

              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.
              Not hypocrisy. If you were only using Caz’s words then I apologise for not reading all the previous posts. I’m just so used to being insulted by you though as I’m ‘ignorant’ ‘biased’ etc.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                Fish, this isn't rocket science. The police knew Crossmere was in Buck's Row. They knew he went down Hanbury St. They knew that a murder occurred there on the 8th. They would have been interested.

                I have seen Ed suggest that Crossmere murdered Chapman in an attempt to frame Paul. According to you, Ed was wasting his time, because the police would have said "Hanbury St? Isn't that the same place as.....Hanbury St?"
                No, it is not rocket science - the police SHOULD have been interested, we can say that much. But how far that interest took the legal system is reflected in how the jury member who asked Lechmere whether he had spoken of a PC in Bucks Row was taken up on his question: Not at all.

                Lechmere was not raked over the coals - as he should have been. Mizen was not brought back in - as he should have been. It was not examined any further - as it should have been.

                You are putting way too much stock in a force that was less than 150 years removed from the witch processes of Europe. Waky-waky, Robert. Hat!

                As for Edwards suggestion, it stands for him as I gather you will be able to understand. I don´t agree, but I don´t disagree either. It hinges on the mindset of Lechmere. But the police knew that Paul worked very close to the murder site. Ask Herlock and he will tell you that meant nothing.

                Comment


                • Herlock Sholmes:

                  Id back my own opinion on this over your ‘phone-a-friend.’ He might have brazened it out if hed have had no other option but he did. He could have easily gotten away but he didnt. The ripper didnt remain at large by taking stupid, unnecessary risks. This, on its own, makes CL an unlikely killer.

                  Killers take unnecessary risks out of sheer desire to do so. Dahmer collected his young Asian "friend" from the hands of the police. Did he have to do that, Herlock, or did he choose to do it? I think the Ripper/Lechmere was incredibly smart and made a large number of staggeringly bold but clever moves.

                  No it’s everyone’s problem when you use it to try and shoehorn CL into guilt. As i said in my original post, it was a small area. ‘Connections’ would be easy to find. A murder site being on the way to his mothers house for eg would be pretty much irrelevant unless he popped in covered in blood for a clean up and asked her to look after a bag of body parts for him.

                  The geographical implications are NEVER irrelevant. End of. Sober up. Why do you think the Bury proponents are desperate to try and place Bury in Whitechapel? Why do you think the Kosminski proponents celebrated Christmas when he was shown to have a tenuous tie to Berner Street? That is because they recognize what you don´t.

                  Of course I thought of it! What I object to is this deliberate use of the phrase ‘phantom killer’ which is an obvious ploy to make it appear that for a killer to have killed Nichols before CL got there he would have needed almost magical powers. Nothing proves CL as anything other than the unfortunate guy that found a body.

                  Magical means appearing out of nowhere and disappearing the same way. Phantom killer is a very appropriate name for your invention.


                  Not hypocrisy. If you were only using Caz’s words then I apologise for not reading all the previous posts. I’m just so used to being insulted by you though as I’m ‘ignorant’ ‘biased’ etc.

                  There is sometimes ignorance - or bias - on your behalf, I´m afraid. It is manifested in this thread when it comes to your refusal to accept that importance of the geographical factor. I call it as I see it, and it is not as if I have not been called names out here for years, Herlock.
                  And yes, maybe you should read before you post, if you want to get it right.

                  So, now that you know, can we expect you to tell Caz not to insult people? Or is it just me who needs that information, while others are free to insult away? Let´s see, shall we?

                  Comment


                  • should hutch and Lech have been persons of interest? of course.
                    we have no record they were, but might have been, passingly-and it just wasn't recorded.

                    but probably they weren't--at all. who knows?

                    the police weren't idiots, but then again they weren't perfect either.
                    especially in that early period of detective work and serial homicide.

                    Comment


                    • Oh, sorry Fish, I hadn't realised that you believed that Crossmere had managed to charm Baxter too.

                      Can you give an example of a witch trial within 150 years of 1888 in the UK?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                        Oh, sorry Fish, I hadn't realised that you believed that Crossmere had managed to charm Baxter too.

                        Can you give an example of a witch trial within 150 years of 1888 in the UK?
                        I VERY clearly stated that I spoke of witch processes in EUROPE, Robert. Maybe you chose to ignore that?

                        We don´t know who Lechmere charmed, since most of the actors in the drama never said anything about him. Only Dew did, and he had him down as a somewhat rough but patently honest Eastender. So he seems charmed enough.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                          should hutch and Lech have been persons of interest? of course.
                          we have no record they were, but might have been, passingly-and it just wasn't recorded.

                          but probably they weren't--at all. who knows?

                          the police weren't idiots, but then again they weren't perfect either.
                          especially in that early period of detective work and serial homicide.
                          Hutchinson was interrogated by Abberline, Abby, so I think he was looked upon as a potential suspect and most certainly as a person of interest. Not so with Lechmere, though!
                          It must be said that Lechmere appeared very early on, and Hutchinson at the very end, and the police would have been wary of how they were scrutinized themselves at the latter stage!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            I dislike all the demands to produce examples of somebody who killed en route to work, etc.

                            If Dahmer was never caught and it was suggested that the killer was the young man who approached and spoke to the police about the runaway Asian youngster, only to take him off the police´s hands and bring him home to kill him, I would fall short if somebody yelled "Show me an example of where this has ever happened in a serial killer case!" And we would stupidly allow that to hide the true facts.

                            Every case is unique and serialists are extremely brazen at times. If Lechmere worked under circumstances that allowed him to arrive alone at his work and clean up and sort things out, then it would not be strange at all that he killed en route to work.

                            As I say, it is not an obstacle until proven so.
                            A noticeably different approach to the one you use on the Torso thread where youre quite happy to call on the history of crime to show ‘what are the chances of....?’
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              Herlock Sholmes:

                              Id back my own opinion on this over your ‘phone-a-friend.’ He might have brazened it out if hed have had no other option but he did. He could have easily gotten away but he didnt. The ripper didnt remain at large by taking stupid, unnecessary risks. This, on its own, makes CL an unlikely killer.

                              Killers take unnecessary risks out of sheer desire to do so. Dahmer collected his young Asian "friend" from the hands of the police. Did he have to do that, Herlock, or did he choose to do it? I think the Ripper/Lechmere was incredibly smart and made a large number of staggeringly bold but clever moves.

                              No it’s everyone’s problem when you use it to try and shoehorn CL into guilt. As i said in my original post, it was a small area. ‘Connections’ would be easy to find. A murder site being on the way to his mothers house for eg would be pretty much irrelevant unless he popped in covered in blood for a clean up and asked her to look after a bag of body parts for him.

                              The geographical implications are NEVER irrelevant. End of. Sober up. Why do you think the Bury proponents are desperate to try and place Bury in Whitechapel? Why do you think the Kosminski proponents celebrated Christmas when he was shown to have a tenuous tie to Berner Street? That is because they recognize what you don´t.

                              Of course I thought of it! What I object to is this deliberate use of the phrase ‘phantom killer’ which is an obvious ploy to make it appear that for a killer to have killed Nichols before CL got there he would have needed almost magical powers. Nothing proves CL as anything other than the unfortunate guy that found a body.

                              Magical means appearing out of nowhere and disappearing the same way. Phantom killer is a very appropriate name for your invention.


                              Not hypocrisy. If you were only using Caz’s words then I apologise for not reading all the previous posts. I’m just so used to being insulted by you though as I’m ‘ignorant’ ‘biased’ etc.

                              There is sometimes ignorance - or bias - on your behalf, I´m afraid. It is manifested in this thread when it comes to your refusal to accept that importance of the geographical factor. I call it as I see it, and it is not as if I have not been called names out here for years, Herlock.
                              And yes, maybe you should read before you post, if you want to get it right.

                              So, now that you know, can we expect you to tell Caz not to insult people? Or is it just me who needs that information, while others are free to insult away? Let´s see, shall we?
                              Caz doesnt make a habit of it. For you its par for the course.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • Oh how wrong you are about so much.

                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                We have a man who seemingly did not tell the truth about the timings of his morning.
                                Not at unless you are refering to Paul, in which case its not a lie, just a mistake.
                                Lechmere told no lies about his timing, seemingly or otherwise. The statement is unfoundrd in any fact.


                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                We have a man who seemingly did not tell the truth about when he noticed Paul.
                                Once again, there are no facts which suggest he did not tell the truth about when he first notice Paul.
                                There are opinions I grant you.
                                Opinions that he should have heard Paul earlier. Its just conjecture, no solid facts to back such up.

                                Opinions that he was the killer and hrard Paul turn into Bucks Row. Again pure conjecture based on his being the killer.

                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                We have a man who seemingly lied about his name.
                                He did not lie about his name, it was one he had been official registered under.
                                I grant it was not his official name on his birth certificate, but it was one he was entitled to use.


                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                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.
                                Au contraire, there is much to suggest he told untruths at the inquest.
                                Pointers towards this are:
                                His own testimony and accounts, the testimony of others, which do not agree.
                                His arrival at Browns Yard in comparison to the arrival of Neil and the departure from Browns yard of the carmen.
                                And much more.
                                He was not reprimaned I agree, but sometimes its best to let sleeping dogs lie, especially when the lie is to cover public perception rather than rule breaking, and the incident has absolutly no bearing on the murder.

                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                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.
                                Again its back to front Fish, its Neil and Paul who cause the story to be spun by Mizen in the first place. ( Remember this is only 1 of many possible viable explanations for the so called "Scam".).

                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                Your personal take on things is nothing but that - and they are out of line with the facts.
                                I think you will find the version I will give is supported by many "facts", from Many Sources.
                                Certainly more than the Opinion that Mizen is a decent, religious hard working guy who would never lie, while Lechmere is a murderer and a peddler of untruths, which is All the current "Scam " has to support it .

                                Do have fun waiting for the book, sorry its delayed, but better late than wrong.


                                Steve
                                Last edited by Elamarna; 06-01-2018, 08:37 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X