Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

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....?’

But in that case I did not speak of SINGULAR events or details, but instead of two or more SIMILAR events or details.

Can you see how that works? The difference?

In THIS case, I say that there will always be very odd SINGULAR events and detials, and so we should not use that knowledge to try and rule out the occurence of OTHER such events and details.

On the other thread, I said that when the SAME odd detail or event pops up, it will almost certainly not be coincidental if the location and time matches.

Surely you can tell these matters apart, Herlock?

[Fisherman]

Caz doesnt make a habit of it. For you its par for the course.

Oh, yes, Caz DOES make a habit of it. Now, be a good boy, run along and start checking her posts to me. I want her crucified by you for it. That´s what you do, right?

[Fisherman]

Oh how wrong you are about so much.



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.




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.



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.




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 mot 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.



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".).



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

Apparently, you can manage both things.

[Robert]

I have ignored nothing, Fish. I am merely at a loss to understand how events in Europe could have influenced the British police.

[Abby Normal]

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!

good points Fish, and taken. you are correct-Abberline did say he interrogated hutch-but after that nothing.

so maybe he was just briefly a person of interest but managed to 'Charm" abberline as well. ; )

[Fisherman]

I have ignored nothing, Fish. I am merely at a loss to understand how events in Europe could have influenced the British police.

I was speaking about how close the entire world was still to the witch processes in 1888, Robert, something tht must have illuded you. The British executed their last witches 206 years before Whitechapel. In 1888 it was thought that masturbating eroded the mind, for example. And the society as a whole dabbled in criminal anthropology, as evinced by prison doctors, mental health care medicos etc.

It was not a very insightful society, and the police in it was not a very good police force in a historical perspective. That could not be asked for either, but it deserves remembering that the force you put so much stock in, thinking that they would have lived up to todays standards, was actually way below those standards.

Therefore I cannot see your assertion that Lechmere must have been thoroughy scrutinized as anything else than touching, at best.
At worst, well, that´s another matter entirely.

[Fisherman]

good points Fish, and taken. you are correct-Abberline did say he interrogated hutch-but after that nothing.

so maybe he was just briefly a person of interest but managed to 'Charm" abberline as well. ; )

Much speaks for it - Dews words on him are respectful and recognizes him as a patently honest (but mistaken) man, so he seems to have made a very favourable impression.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 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.

The thing is that I have no suspect or theory to defend Fish. I look at a situation or a suggestion and give an opinion based on what I believe to be logical or likely or believable. Rightly or wrongly; others (including yourself) are free to judge this. I’ll also leave it for others to judge whether it’s a bit rich to be accused of bias by you.

[Elamarna]

Apparently, you can manage both things.

Sorry to say. Not wrong at all.
Objective anaylisis of the evidence, without an overriding bias to prove one man guilty.

Result: Lechmere cannot be ruled out, he is viable he lives in the area, finds one body and that is All.
The strands of evidence used against him: the scam, the timings and the blood are All either wrongly intepreted or are simply inaccurate.

Steve

[Fisherman]

The thing is that I have no suspect or theory to defend Fish. I look at a situation or a suggestion and give an opinion based on what I believe to be logical or likely or believable. Rightly or wrongly; others (including yourself) are free to judge this. I’ll also leave it for others to judge whether it’s a bit rich to be accused of bias by you.

Any stance may involve a bias, including the "I am not at fault, for I know that his name will never be revelealed" stance, Herlock. Once you loose contact with relaity to make a point in your own favour, it has happened. I would suggest that the denial of the importance of the geographical factor is such a matter.

Did you understand the difference between what I argued on the torso thread and what I say on this one, by the way?

[Fisherman]

Off for now. See you tomorrow.

[Robert]

Fish, I think that your faith in modern policing is rather touching. Plenty of science, computers, profiles etc etc. Over here many people never see a policeman on his beat, let alone know him to talk to.

In Victorian times policemen were familiar figures.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh, yes, Caz DOES make a habit of it. Now, be a good boy, run along and start checking her posts to me. I want her crucified by you for it. That´s what you do, right?

Pot-kettle-black.

In recent posts you’ve accused me of “petty bitterness.”

Of being “irrelevant.”

Of being “biased.”

Of being “ignorant.”

You’ve also used the phrase “The rest of your post is crap.”

Your victim mentality doesn’t really sit well.

Debate with you is close to impossible I’m afraid.

I’ll walk.

[Fisherman]

Fish, I think that your faith in modern policing is rather touching. Plenty of science, computers, profiles etc etc. Over here many people never see a policeman on his beat, let alone know him to talk to.

In Victorian times policemen were familiar figures.

Yes, I´m sure they were. Whether that made them good policemen, though ... I don´t think so.

And I don´t have all that much faith in modern policing, to be honest. What I have faith in is the tools they have at hand. Sadly, they do not always use them to the best possible effect.

As for touching, I think you are VERY touching when it comes to your faith in the Victorian police. You seem to think they were up to scratch and practically infallible? It´s a very nice thought, Robert - but completely unrealistic.

[Fisherman]

Pot-kettle-black.

In recent posts you’ve accused me of “petty bitterness.”

Of being “irrelevant.”

Of being “biased.”

Of being “ignorant.”

You’ve also used the phrase “The rest of your post is crap.”

Your victim mentality doesn’t really sit well.

Debate with you is close to impossible I’m afraid.

I’ll walk.

But that was not what we were talking about, was it? If you find me insulting, so be it - but it seems odd to me that you are not pouncing on the chance to teach OTHER posters manners? Why is it just me you are after, and why are you willing to let it slip when other posters do it, Herlock? THAT is the issue here.

Could it be that you are totally biased?

PS. I am no victim at all. Least of all in relation to you. I am instead outraged by how you make yourself out as unbiased when you are no such thing at all, as shown by the above.

It´s something that victimizes truth and honesty - not me. DS.

Speaking about victims, I don´t think you should be too upset by what I say about your ripperology. Take the geography factor, for instance. Either:

1. You are correct and it is irrelevant
2. I am correct, and it is very relevant
or
3. You are biased, and misrepresent the matter

Once you find us some evidence that any police force any place on earth regards the geography factor as irrelevant, you will have proven yourself partly or wholly right.

I can provide dozens of cases where it has been a major factor, like Robert Black, Russell Williams, Joseph DeAngelo and so on and on and on.

Where is the evidence to back YOUR take up? Well, there IS no such evidence. It is therefore wrong to make the claim you do. And that means that you are either ignorant or biased. There are no other options, Herlock. It´s a bummer because it means we cannot go on pretending that your view is as viable as mine on the matter.

We can all see that this is the plain and simple truth - but you are complaining about how I point it out. Why? If you can show us that I am wrong, then do so.

Don´t tell me that I cannot be debated with when it instead a case of you having manouvered yourself into a position you cannot possibly win this particular debate from. It is just as impossible as any suggestion that you will own up and accept that fact.

I´m sorry, but it had to be said.