Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Again it must be obvious,

    That he was told he was wanted by another policeman.

    Is that clear now my dear Christer.

    Steve
    To ME it is clear, but I wanted it to be clear to anybody who reads the boards that you are not establishing that he lied, but simply suggesting that he did so.

    And all the while, we have no record of him doing any wrong in any shape or form, while we know that Lechmere withheld his true name, was in Bucks Row at the wrong time given when he left home, said that he only noticed Paul when he was 30-40 yards off, etcetera.

    Thank you.

    Comment


    • Well Fish, I pointed out that Crossmere raised countless children by keeping a steady job for a number of years, and you told me that we have no evidence that he wasn't a vicious wife-beater.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        while we know that Lechmere withheld his true name
        Or, he gave the name which he went by. Why couch things in such sinister terms? Oh, I know why...
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          To ME it is clear, but I wanted it to be clear to anybody who reads the boards that you are not establishing that he lied, but simply suggesting that he did so.

          And all the while, we have no record of him doing any wrong in any shape or form, while we know that Lechmere withheld his true name, was in Bucks Row at the wrong time given when he left home, said that he only noticed Paul when he was 30-40 yards off, etcetera.

          Thank you.
          Sorry there is mo proof that he gave a wrong time for leaving home, the time is given as about 3.30
          The suggestion he gives a wrong time is based on using that as an absoluteAnd acceptung Paul's time of 3.45 which is contradicted by 3 seperate officers.

          There is absolutly no source to suggest that when he said he became aware of Paul is tuntrue, just supposition ito support a theory is all you have.


          Steve

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Robert View Post
            Well Fish, I pointed out that Crossmere raised countless children by keeping a steady job for a number of years, and you told me that we have no evidence that he wasn't a vicious wife-beater.

            His mother was seemingly a woman of independent means and ran two businesses in the East End. He lived close to her for many years and one of his daughters lived with her grandmother. I would be careful about assuming that CAL's maintaining a 'v.decent' household and starting a business in later life (after his mother had died) was entirely the result of his own hard work and frugality.

            Further evidence of Ma's influence on the family finances may be deduced from the fact that at the time she was in the cat's meat business her eldest grandson (Thomas Allen?) was working as a cat's meat salesman and living in Winthrop Street. Though, of course, if CAL was himself carting cat's meat for Pickfords, then perhaps he was the brains behind the business in which the family were involved until at least the 1930s.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
              Hi Gareth,
              The route turns south at Spelman, and that assumes the entrance in in Eldon street.
              If of course any of the other proposed entrances was possible everything changes.
              Indeed, Steve, but whatever the true route(s), we have to believe that he had the good fortune to happen upon suitable victims as he passed along these side-streets, as opposed to the more major thoroughfares where unfortunates or beggars tend to hang out for obvious reasons. This is particularly puzzling in the case of the small and decidedly obscure Bucks Row; what on earth would Polly Nichols have been doing there at that time of the morning?
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • . Progress! So now, geography is "of course" important! It is not irrelevant! Hoorah! Yu are no longer ignorant about that part, Herlock - congratulations!

                Then you move on to say that it is however of no importance if we know that a killer may have had reason to pass a murder site, if others could also have had reason to do so, and you thereby bog yourself back down in the ignorance swamp again.
                Let´s put it as simple as possible: It does not matter how many other people could have had access to a murder site, and it does not matter how tenuous a connection a man may have with a murder site - it nevertheless is important to a case when it can be shown that he DOES have some sort of connection! If it can be shown that the suspect lives nearby a murder site, the importance is VERY large (even if others live in the same street), and if we only know that he used to have his hair cut close by a murder spot, then that too is of interest, because it tells us that the area is not unknown to the suspect - he has a history involving a connection to the spot.
                In our case, you claimed that it is irrelevant that Lechmere had grown up in houses surrounding the murder spot and that he had his mother living a stones throw away, together with his own daughter. That means that he knew the area very well and had all the reason in the world to visit it on a regular basis. To call that irrelevant is not a useful thing to do, Herlock!!! Until you understand and recognise that, we cannot have a useful debate.
                I am all for recognising that other people also had reason to visit the spot, but that does not mean that the connection on the suspects (Lechmeres) part goes away, does it?
                You are getting there, Herlock. Just take the last step and you will be there.
                I have to point out that i never made the blanket statement that geography was unimportant as you have stated. Just not on your micro-basis.

                How much would it raise a suspects likelihood of guilt if we could move from a) he could have been in the area, to b) he might have had a reason to be in the area?

                Walking through Whitechapel in the wee small hours, probably contaminated with blood, probably carrying a knife, how much help to the killer would have been the phrase ‘im going to visit my mum?’

                I just cannot see how these ‘connections’ can point us to an increased likelihood of CL being at the murder sites. That it could show that he was familiar with the area is as far as it goes but that was never in doubt as far as im concerned.
                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  Indeed, Steve, but whatever the true route(s), we have to believe that he had the good fortune to happen upon suitable victims as he passed along these side-streets, as opposed to the more major thoroughfares where unfortunates or beggars tend to hang out for obvious reasons. This is particularly puzzling in the case of the small and decidedly obscure Bucks Row; what on earth would Polly Nichols have been doing there at that time of the morning?
                  Women looking for business in the Whitechapel Road presumably took their customers somewhere a bit more discreet to conclude the transaction.

                  Comment


                  • Hi Gary

                    It isn't a question of where Crossmere got the money from to start a business. It may have been from his mum - though she doesn't seem to have left a will - or it may, for all I know, have been the result of prolonged thieving from Pickfords. My point is, that he does seem to have worked regularly and stuck with his family. I mean, all those kids - not very easy on a chap's nerves.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      Indeed, Steve, but whatever the true route(s), we have to believe that he had the good fortune to happen upon suitable victims as he passed along these side-streets, as opposed to the more major thoroughfares where unfortunates or beggars tend to hang out for obvious reasons. This is particularly puzzling in the case of the small and decidedly obscure Bucks Row; what on earth would Polly Nichols have been doing there at that time of the morning?
                      A good point.

                      One that ive made before is that if CL left home at 3.30 and had to be at work by 4 do we think that 30 minutes would be sufficient time for a killer to allow himself to - find a victim - find a spot - commit the murder - check himself over for blood - head off to work. If CL was guilty he couldnt have relied on the ‘good fortune’ of bumping into Polly without having to deviate from his route to work. If its suggested that he met her elsewhere why would he then bring her back to a spot that he (and very, very few others) passed 6 days a week at pretty much exactly the same time?

                      Its always seemed tight to say the least to me.
                      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-03-2018, 03:46 AM.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                        I'm not saying he lied about his workplace.

                        Hat, Fish.
                        Then you agree that he worked at Broad Street, Robert. Thank you for that! Or are we assuming that he, eh, misremembered it?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                          So, Hanbury St might not have been on his usual route to work?
                          Obviously, he had more choices that Hanbury Street. That does not make it an unusual route, however, it only tells us that there were options, based on the Hanbury Street route with different deviations and the Old Montague ditto.

                          This has all been discussed ad infinitum before, by the way.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                            Oh dear Christer, that statement is wrong i am afraid.

                            There are two routes to Eldon street via Old Montague:
                            These are 2808 & 2964 yards approx.

                            The two routes (there are more) viaSpelman are 2806 and 2698 yards.

                            Geographical facts.

                            Steve
                            Quickest, Steve, That was what I said. And I know that Edward has timed it, whereupon it was evident that the Old Montague route was the quickest one.

                            So instead of being wrong, I am actually quite the opposite: correct.

                            And in the end, it matters very little since the REAL point I am making about these two routes is that they were approxiately equally long, meaning that he could have used BOTH without any substantial delays.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                              Well Fish, I pointed out that Crossmere raised countless children by keeping a steady job for a number of years, and you told me that we have no evidence that he wasn't a vicious wife-beater.
                              Yes. Is there? Is raising kids evidence that you are not violent?

                              Peter Kurten treated his wife like a queen, whereas he killed other women.

                              NO!!! THAT cannot be true, can it?

                              Do we know that Charles raised the kids? Do we know that he was a father who was present at all times, and took part in the upbringing?

                              Is it possible that a father can be a bad father?

                              Surely not...?

                              Comment


                              • Fish, of course I agree that he worked at Pickfords. Crossmere himself said so and the police almost certainly checked it.

                                BTW you're the one who keeps talking about his route (singular noun) to work.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X