Favorite suspect/s?

[caz]

Yes, Caz, you are perfectly correct - once he had called himself Cross, he could not use that ruse any more. And yes, Caz, you are correct - he went on killing anyway. And yes, Caz, you are correct - that meant taking a risk.

Only in your own mind did Lechmere kill anyone, never mind go on killing.

But again, that was not my point.

Your argument - yours - was that he deliberately went on killing in places where, just like Buck's Row, he would have an innocent explanation ready for being in that particular place at the time in question.

But of course, as you and I both know, he could not have risked being seen in that place, or any other place, either with or near another victim, either alive or dead. So the handy innocent explanation ploy would not have worked a second time. It went with Nichols in Buck's Row. So he may as well have taken his chances after that and killed in places he could not have been associated with after the event. If he was seen and identified at or near the scene it would have been game over in any case. But if he was not seen at the time, he stood a far greater chance of not coming to police attention again than if he could be associated later with each murder location by reference to his known movements or whereabouts.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

In which case, please justify the claims you have made.
Or acknowledge they are incorrect.

Steve

I have already explained to you why I posted what I posted - YOU spoke about ME having to accept Kelly´s TOD. There are TWO TOD:s for her, so it was an exercise in folly. And so I proceeded in that vain, introduced by you.

If you can pull my leg, I can pull yours. Does that make you feel unjustifiedly dealt with, Steve?

[Elamarna]

So, Steve, are you now saying that you have never claimed it as a fact that Paul was never out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen?

Is that it?

It would be welcome.

I am Saying you have not proven that such was possible given the evidence available, its significantly different.


Steve

[Fisherman]

You know very well that like most suspects CL will never be categorically exonerated unless so geographical anomaly comes up (which is unlikely in the extreme.) And so to use that as the guideline for whether CL should remain a suspect is so self serving as to not really require mentioning.

A suspect can only become a suspect on factual grounds, Herlock. And regardless of how rewarding and satisfying you find it to say "he is not a suspect", that does not change matters.

[Elamarna]

Dear me, how many things you think I am "avoiding". I take full responsiblity for EVERYTHING I post.

Happy?

In which case, please justify the claims you have made.
Or acknowledge they are incorrect.

Steve

[Elamarna]

You see, that is why I say you are biased - you work from an assumption that it is not in my DNA to accept anything that points in any way away from Lechmere.

But that is not so. I have said a good many times, and I don´t mind doing so again, that the second we find something that exonerates Lechmere, I will accept that and move on.

If you want to reject that, then go ahead and do so - it is your prerogative. But I would like to remind you that in this odd parallel universe we call Ripperology, I have been subjected to hundreds of attacks saying that I am overinterpreting the evidence and being too assertive that Lechmere is our man. I find it interesting that the moment somebody overstepped the line and claimed something - that can not in any way be proven - as a genuine fact, that somebody was you.

Once again misrepresenting what was said, the claim was that you had not proven that Paul being out of earshot was a possibility, not that i had proven anything
Not me.

Whatever book you produce, I will admit whatever strenghts I think it has regardless if they point to or away from Lechmere being the culprit. Everybody out here knows our history inside out, Steve, and so it would render my evaluation of the book useless if I criticized it on unwarranted grounds.

Therefore, I find it quite sad that you are already now, BEFORE any book has been produced, saying that no matter what, my view must be looked away from since I cannot possibly be a fair critic.

I have never said your view "must be looked away from" only that you would not welcome the work. Totally different things.
Again implying something that is not said.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Harry can say what he likes.

I don’t trespass on medical grounds. It appeared that she was dead. I’ll leave others to debate that.

Oh, Harry can say what he wants?

And how about me? "Lechmere was in all probability the killer, and is by far the best suspect there is".

I find that is something I am disallowed to say unattacked.

As an aside, appearing to be dead is ever so slightly different from being dead.

It´s like trying to be clever, more or less. No guarantee that we pull that one off either.

[Fisherman]

I’ll continue to post. To bring up points that I feel are relevant. As should everyone; on either side. But I think that it goes without saying that we can see where the bias lies. We can see where the exasperated mocking lies. We can see where the desperation is.

Yes, we can all see where the bias lies, definitely!

It is irrelevant that Stride was killed in Lechmere´s old neighbourhood, where his mother still lived with one of his daughters.

Andy Griffits is idiotic when disagreeing with you over whether Lechmere would have run.

And it is quite OK to say that Nichols was murdered before Lechmere arrived outside Browns.

So it is truly no problem at all to find the bias here, that´s for sure - you are on the money on that one!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nah - makes sense. And dovetails nicely with your overall efforts out here.

Harry can say what he likes.

I don’t trespass on medical grounds. It appeared that she was dead. I’ll leave others to debate that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You see, that is why I say you are biased - you work from an assumption that it is not in my DNA to accept anything that points in any way away from Lechmere.

But that is not so. I have said a good many times, and I don´t mind doing so again, that the second we find something that exonerates Lechmere, I will accept that and move on.

If you want to reject that, then go ahead and do so - it is your prerogative. But I would like to remind you that in this odd parallel universe we call Ripperology, I have been subjected to hundreds of attacks saying that I am overinterpreting the evidence and being too assertive that Lechmere is our man. I find it interesting that the moment somebody overstepped the line and claimed something - that can not in any way be proven - as a genuine fact, that somebody was you.

Not me.

Whatever book you produce, I will admit whatever strenghts I think it has regardless if they point to or away from Lechmere being the culprit. Everybody out here knows our history inside out, Steve, and so it would render my evaluation of the book useless if I criticized it on unwarranted grounds.

Therefore, I find it quite sad that you are already now, BEFORE any book has been produced, saying that no matter what, my view must be looked away from since I cannot possibly be a fair critic.

You know very well that like most suspects CL will never be categorically exonerated unless so geographical anomaly comes up (which is unlikely in the extreme.) And so to use that as the guideline for whether CL should remain a suspect is so self serving as to not really require mentioning.

[Fisherman]

Nope.

Nah - makes sense. And dovetails nicely with your overall efforts out here.

[Fisherman]

you are suggesting ignoring sources in favour of what we think it should say?

What obvious reasons are they?

You have made claims about me that are simply untrue.

I will continue to debate without recourse to personal attacks.




Steve

So, Steve, are you now saying that you have never claimed it as a fact that Paul was never out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen?

Is that it?

It would be welcome.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How lucky for me that you are such a low-key man, Herlock!

I take it that you have no objections at all to Harry presenting it as a fact that Nichols was dead when Lechmere arrived?

Nope.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A major point? When it is "irrelevant" that Stride died where Lechmere grew up and still had his mother and daughter living?

Utterly, absolutely, totally, manifestly, childishly obviously completely irrelevant!

And you list it alongside the idea that he MUST have run if he could - a point where you have been gainsaid by a murder squad leader, etremely well versed in criminology, whereupon you deemed his answer, and I quote, "idiotic".

Is that detective labouring under the misapprehension that CL was somehow ‘trapped at the scene’ and therefore had no option but to ‘brazen it out?’ If not then we are asked to believe that CL was not just a risk-taker but someone who was suicidally stupid as it would have been obvious to him that he would not be able to avoid o confrontation with the police.

Can you see why I do not invest all that much in your take on things?

Yes I can. It’s because you are biased and only see things through the Lechmere goggles.

Because I am hellbent on accusing Lechmere? No, because YOU are helbent on not allowing any suspicion against him.

Nope. Everyone can see it Fish. I’m happy to let the unbiased posters judge.

If Lechmere sat straddled over her neck, face to the west, he may actually have used the clothing as a shield against any blood spatter. And we have Jason Payne James saying that there would not necessarily be any blood at all visible on his person.

The point is, and it would be obvious to a child Fish, how could C in the dark, in the struggle to subdue a kill, be anything like certain that he hadn’t become contaminated in her blood. Your ‘defence’ is an
embarrassment to reason.

Maybe he joins the ranks of people who say idiotic things for stating that?

Ditto above post. CL couldnt have been anything like certain. Surely he’d want a level of certainty that some stray blood wouldn’t lead him to the gallows?Perhaps the murder of Polly Nichols was a convoluted suicide scam.

If he had no blood on his hands - and he could check them - then there would be very little risk that he had blood all over his face and hair. And in the end, serial killers are psychopaths nine times out of ten, and psychopaths are liars who like to take chances and play games and who will not panic since they CAN NOT panic.

And the evidence that CL was a psychopath is....


I have explained this a thousand times, and so I really don´t think you have come up with any "major" obstacle for the Lechmere theory.

Replace ‘explained’ with ‘wriggled’ or ‘contorted’ and you’ll find are rare piece of accuracy. What Ive done is thrown up yet another serious doubt to add to the others. If you dismiss them then you are biased. End of.

I would have loved to say "close but no cigar", but I´m afraid I can only offer you the lacking smoke.

To dismiss a calm and reasoned post in the manner that you do shows that you no longer deserve to be taken seriously. You’re obsession has gradually worn away your reason and we can all see it. Painting yourself as the lone voice of reason no longer washes with people Fish. You are an obsessive, desperately trying to breathe life into a theory that had little life in the first place. What respect that many had for you is dwindling rapidly because of the lengths that you will go to to oppose contrary opinion and to twist every situation to suit the ‘Lechmere was guilty’ side.

Really, Herlock!

I used to get annoyed by the dismissive and condescending tone that you always employ against those that disagree with you but no longer.

Its just.....blah, blah, blah.

I’ll continue to post. To bring up points that I feel are relevant. As should everyone; on either side. But I think that it goes without saying that we can see where the bias lies. We can see where the exasperated mocking lies. We can see where the desperation is.

[Fisherman]

The post said

"Are you saying we cant accept the TOD for Kelly by the Doctors?

If so then we NEITHER ca we accept thre TOD Chapman!(typo there, should have read

" if so than never can we accept the TOD for Chapman.")

One cannot with any integrity say in one line Phillips TOD places a murder in the required time frame and only a few lines later say that we cannot use TOD by Phillips in tge Kelly case because it does not fit the required hours.

And of course I do not accept any of them."


At no point do I tell you you must accept the TOD for Kelly, rather I was clearly pointing out that if one accepts the Problems with the Kelly TOD, one must acknowledge that the Chapman TOD based on the same evidence, : body temp by touch and RM, is also likely to be inaccurate and thus invalidate your original claim.

The claim you have now made above is not supported by any objective reading of post 1297.
you are avoiding taking responsibility for what you post.


Steve

Dear me, how many things you think I am "avoiding". I take full responsiblity for EVERYTHING I post.

Happy?