Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

Again back to front, the truth is that you have not proved that Paul was out of earshot or that there was any oppotunity (possibility)for such to occurr.
I had to prove nothing. The onus was on you to prove such a possability could have happened, you have singularly failed to do such

Its becoming very clear now ever increasing attempts to belittle,

And not very good attempts at that.


Steve

Sorry, Steve, but when a poster does what you have done, they go through life with that blunder stamped in their foreheads. And if you want to know if it colours other posters perception of their veracity, then the answer is yes.

And that is not some sort of an "attempt", it is a fact.

[Fisherman]

I win on a disqualification do I Fisherman.Good,then since you have thrown the towel in,perhaps someone else of the persuasion that Cross killed Nichols will answer the post you duckted out on.
There are not many of them I understand,but any one of them is welcome to front up,and please,should anyone do so,do not start with, he was standing in the road near her body so is connected to her murder.He was connected to finding her body,nothing else.She had already been murdered.

Yes, Harry, you are correct. Disqualification is what lies behind my choosing other debating partners than you.

You are equally welcome to find yourself new discussion partners. If you can find somebody who - like you - can guarantee that Nichols was already murdered when Lechmere found her, I´m sure you will feel a lot better. Then you can huddle up together, assuring each other that you must be correct, and celebrate your victory.

I won´t crash the party, promise. I´ll make sure to be somewhere else.

[Fisherman]

This must be one of the very worst posts i have seen on casebook in a long time, all over the place, ignoring the OP that we cannot place Lechmere in the area of the murders at the time of the murders other than for Nichols.
Is the whole post simply constructed to avoid that issue?

You are getting a bit tedious, Steve.

The TOD:s are not exact, and yes, to a degree they are unreliable. But it applies that the closer in time the victim died to the establishing of the TOD, the smaller the risk of getting it wrong.

You lead on that I "avoid" Richardson, but i named Long and Cadosh since they were the ones who stretched the time most, and who I find must be discarded - the way Swanson opened up for discarding them, and for the same reason - I don´t think Phillips will have been monumentally wrong.

You imply that my post was "constructed to avoid" that Lechmere can be placed at one murder site only. But have I ever avoided that fact, Steve? I think not. And I am not beginning now.

If you think that my post was one of the worst you have seen, I take lightly on that. After all, you saw your way through to regarding it as proven that Paul could not have been out of earshot, and so I don´t really invest anything at all in your judgment.

I strive on, and if you are unimpressed, I am fine with that.

[caz]

Read the post again, Gareth - Andy Griffiths said that he WOULD n ot have run, nt that he could not have done so. Nobody is suggesting that he couldn´t have, provided he had legs to move on.
The point Griffiths made was that Lechmere was not likely to run, not that he was not able to do so.

But not running in Buck's Row meant running like hell from Hanbury St, Berner St, Mitre Square, Miller's Court and all other murder scenes you want Lechmere to have attended, if anyone were to come along while he was still there with the victim, just as Paul had.

Was it made clear to Griffiths that Nichols would have been the first, or one of the first, of a whole series of victims supposedly attacked, murdered and mutilated by this same man, and therefore if Lechmere was that man he had stayed around with that early victim and made sure that the next man to come along [who would have been PC Neil just a few minutes later] did not hurriedly walk on by, giving him and Madame Tarpaulin a wide berth because of the dodgy neighbourhood, but was obliged to come and inspect the damage with the man who had just inflicted it, knife still in pocket, before going with him to inform the nearest policeman?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Going over old ground again but I think that this is important. Its CL’s presence near the body.that make him a suspect for some of course.

We know that CL wasn’t ‘caught’ in the act as it were. Its an impression that has been given in the past but we know that CL stood in the road because he’d heard the sound of footsteps approaching from around 30 yards away on that poorly lit street. As soon as he’d heard those footsteps a guilty CL was faced with a question that Joe Strummer asked many years ago “do I stay do I go?”

Could he have gotten away? Well I don’t think that there can be any doubt about that. By the time that Paul had arrived on scene CL would have been at least 30 yards away. Even then Paul might not have noticed the shape lying in the dark. He might have noticed it but decided that it was a tarpaulin too or just another Whitechapel drunk. He need to get to work so off he might have gone. He might of course have gone over for a look. Pretty tentatively maybe. He might have given her a shake or even have checked her pulse? Then what? He might have walked on, not wanting to get involved? What about standing there shouting for a police officer? Possible I suppose. What if he’d heard CL’s footsteps, connected the two, and decided to chase a knife wielding murderer in the dark? Unlikely surely? More likely he’d have walked on hoping to find a constable. By the time that he makes his decision and sets of CL is long gone.

Its reasonable to assume that the killer didn’t want to be caught. He wanted to remain free to carry on. Serial killers do take risks of course (risks are par for the course.) Sailing close to the wind often gives a thrill to the whole business. In his career Jack negotiated a few tricky situations (Mitre Square, Miller’s Court, Berner Street,) and remained at large. My question is though, was waiting around for Paul a risk or was it almost suicidal for a guilty CL? What outcome could he have reasonably have hoped for? Firstly, as he couldn’t seen the owner of the footsteps, he would surely have been aware of the possibility that it might have been a Constable on his beat? The Constable would have examined the body; concluded that she’d been murdered and detained CL. CL would have been likely to have had blood on him and would have been in possession of a bloodstained knife (if he’d thought quickly enough of course he might have discarded the knife in the shadows but the police might reasonably have asked why another killer would have left his knife at the scene.) And so the arrival of a Constable would pretty much have meant the gallows.

If it was a non-Constable (as it was) what outcome could CL have expected? Might the man have said ‘nothing to do with us, let’s go?) Possibly but Paul would have appeared pretty heartless when only very little effort would have been required. CL could have expected that fortunate (for hi) attitude from Paul? I’d suggest that it’s not reasonable to assume so. The overwhelming likelihood would have been that the ‘mystery footsteps’ would have suggested looking for a Constable. Not a happy outcome more a man likely to have blood on him and to have been carrying a bloodstained knife. The important question is though: how confident could he have been that, pretty much on the spur of the moment, he would have been able to have come up with a plan so that he could avoid any unwanted interest from the Constable? CL couldnt have refused to look for one as it would have immediately made him suspicious to Paul and consequently to the police. How could he have known, or even had any level of confidence that he would have been able to lie to the Constable out of Paul’s earshot? Does this seem at all likely?

My point is an obvious one. By refusing the glaring opportunity to get away Scot-free CL wasn’t ‘brazening it out’ or just being a bit of a thrill seeker he was almost certainly putting his neck firmly in the noose. Is this at all likely? Did he exhibit any further bouts of suicidal stupidity?

This crime scene is the origin of the case against CL. Its what made people suspicious in the first place. Looking at it though it’s pretty much impossible to see CL’s behaviour as that of anything other than a man who found a body. Told a passer-by then went to inform a police officer.

Then it was discovered that his ‘real’ name was Lechmere and there was a chorus of ‘aha’s’ But we know Cross was his stepfathers name. We know that he’d used that name on a census. We know that he still used his correct Christian names. And, most damning of all to the ‘mystery’ he gave his correct address so I fail to see how this can still be used to point the finger? CL gained absolutely no advantage from it. Its a non-issue.

So the ‘behaviour’ at the crime scene and the ‘non-issue’ of the name taken together leave us with nothing to be suspicious about. How can we get from that to being ‘confident’ that CL was guilty? And those two issues are the ‘biggies!’ The rest is clutching at straws; conjecture and wish-thinking. Anyone is of course free to consider CL as a person of interest, we cannot categorically exonerate him. However we are surely on reasonable, sensible grounds to say that he’s an unlikely Jack?

Very good, HS!

Added to this, a guilty Lechmere had already got past Paul and Mizen with neither suspecting a thing, cleaned himself up and stashed the knife out of harm's way. Paul's newspaper story made it even easier for Lechmere to stay out of the limelight. Mizen copped all the criticism for not responding more quickly to Paul informing him that a woman was down. Paul didn't describe Lechmere, not even saying he looked like a carman. He was just another man who went with him to find Mizen. No suspicion that Lechmere was anything other than a witness, just like Paul. Two strangers in the night who might not even have recognised each other again. No suggestion that Paul had left Lechmere still talking to Mizen. If Lechmere had manipulated the situation to his advantage so he could lie to Mizen and go off to work unidentified and unidentifiable, he could not have hoped to read a more comforting public account from Paul if he had coached him himself!

Then blow me down, the daft hap'orth turns up at the inquest to identify himself as Paul's other man and the one who had actually been the first with Nichols. That's fine because he has his joker to play, when asked what he was doing in Buck's Row. He was on his way to work, using his normal route, if a little behind time. His employers will verify his explanation for being at the scene.

Only no, they won't, if Pickfords don't have anyone called Cross on their books and nobody there knows a carman by that name! D'oh! So then, if enquiries are made at the home address Cross has given, to find out what the hell's going on, they will learn his 'official' name is actually Lechmere, and it'll be back to Pickfords to find they do employ a carman of that name - one who has now wasted police time by giving a different name which he knew would ring no bells there and would leave his one joker all used up but to no avail.

But it all turned out "all right", as Mizen said, because nobody checked a thing, and Lechmere felt safe enough to do it all over again the following weekend, again on his way to work, but this time sans joker; sans any pesky witnesses and the need for a new and improved ruse; sans a care in the world in fact.

We know all this is true - or Fish knows it is - because the bastard was never even suspected, let alone caught.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

We have to accept that there would have been at least a reasonable chance that the Ripper would have experienced some kind of blood contamination after killing Polly. For the ‘CL was Jack’ side this would have meant that he was there in Buck’s Row at approximately 3.40 still needing to get to work for 4.

We know how poorly lit and dark the streets were at that period, especially backstreets like Buck’s Row and so CL would have found it pretty much impossible to check himself over for blood. In all reasonableness is it likely that CL would have been prepared to walk into work with the risk of being contaminated with blood? Surely not? Fish, I believe (and I’ll stand to be corrected if I’ve mis-remembered here) has suggested that as he might have handled animal carcasses as part of his job his clothes might already have been stained with blood and so not suspicious. Two points there 1) Would fresh bloodstains have stood out? and 2) what if he’d gotten blood on his hand, or one hand or on his face or in his hair or beard? A guilty CL would surely have been extremely wary of this risk. Of turning up at work, walking into the light, being amongst workmates, and have it pointed out that he had blood in his hair or on his hands. Am I being reasonable here? I feel that I am.

Therefore it is surely overwhelmingly likely that CL would have wanted to check himself over for incriminating blood contamination and, if required, to have cleaned himself up. And this with 15 or 20 minutes to get to work in The I’ll-lit back streets. He would have needed light to check and clean himself. Is it likely therefore that a guilty CL would have stood under or near to a street lamp to check himself over and then, knowing that there were policeman on patrols, would have proceeded to clear himself down in full view of anyone? As far as the possibility of him having blood on his face or in his beard or on the back part of his jacket can we assume that CL carried a mirror with him

No doubt I’ll be accused of being ignorant or biased or something but can anyone really say that this post is unreasonable. We can’t say that CL was a genius but it’s reasonable to say that he wasn’t a blithering idiot. Would he have left himself in a position where there was a very good chance that he had Polly Nichols blood on him and he had only 15 or 20 minutes to find somewhere to check himself over and clean up that wasn’t under a street lamp in full view of any passerby.

Isnt it far, far more likely that Jack The Ripper would have had somewhere to go after killing? Somewhere he had some privacy to clean up? And certainly not to work?

This has to be a major point, added to the others like why he didn’t escape when he had every chance (i couldn’t be less interested in Andy Griffiths opinion [I’d like to ask however if he was led to believe that CL was somehow ‘ caught in the act’,and that’s why he comes up with this silly notion?]). Major doubts put up against the linguistic and evidential contortions so often on display for the purpose of shoehorning CL into the ripper’s shows.

Its just not working though

Hi HS
this has always been my main issue with Lech as a suspect. Killing on his way to work. so many issues with this-like you said-showing up with possible blood, knife, organs??
Plus Post mortem types like to take there goodies somewhere private to be able to enjoy them more.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have to accept that there would have been at least a reasonable chance that the Ripper would have experienced some kind of blood contamination after killing Polly. For the ‘CL was Jack’ side this would have meant that he was there in Buck’s Row at approximately 3.40 still needing to get to work for 4.

We know how poorly lit and dark the streets were at that period, especially backstreets like Buck’s Row and so CL would have found it pretty much impossible to check himself over for blood. In all reasonableness is it likely that CL would have been prepared to walk into work with the risk of being contaminated with blood? Surely not? Fish, I believe (and I’ll stand to be corrected if I’ve mis-remembered here) has suggested that as he might have handled animal carcasses as part of his job his clothes might already have been stained with blood and so not suspicious. Two points there 1) Wouldn’t fresh bloodstains have stood out? and 2) what if he’d gotten blood on his hand, or one hand or on his face or in his hair or beard? A guilty CL would surely have been extremely wary of this risk. Of turning up at work, walking into the light, being amongst workmates, and have it pointed out that he had blood in his hair or on his hands. Am I being reasonable here? I feel that I am.

Therefore it is surely overwhelmingly likely that CL would have wanted to check himself over for incriminating blood contamination and, if required, to have cleaned himself up. And this with 15 or 20 minutes to get to work in The I’ll-lit back streets. He would have needed light to check and clean himself. Is it likely therefore that a guilty CL would have stood under or near to a street lamp to check himself over and then, knowing that there were policeman on patrols, would have proceeded to clear himself down in full view of anyone? As far as the possibility of him having blood on his face or in his beard or on the back part of his jacket can we assume that CL carried a mirror with him

No doubt I’ll be accused of being ignorant or biased or something but can anyone really say that this post is unreasonable. We can’t say that CL was a genius but it’s reasonable to say that he wasn’t a blithering idiot. Would he have left himself in a position where there was a very good chance that he had Polly Nichols blood on him and he had only 15 or 20 minutes to find somewhere to check himself over and clean up that wasn’t under a street lamp in full view of any passerby.

Isnt it far, far more likely that Jack The Ripper would have had somewhere to go after killing? Somewhere he had some privacy to clean up? And certainly not to work?

This has to be a major point, added to the others like why he didn’t escape when he had every chance (i couldn’t be less interested in Andy Griffiths opinion [I’d like to ask however if he was led to believe that CL was somehow ‘ caught in the act’,and that’s why he comes up with this silly notion?]). Major doubts put up against the linguistic and evidential contortions so often on display for the purpose of shoehorning CL into the ripper’s shows.

Its just not working though

[Elamarna]

Perfect, Steve.

That's the way to go.

Had Mizen mentioned or reported the encounter at the earliest opportunity, I would have expected the sources to have reflected that fact, or at least to have been consistent with it. I assume you have found nothing to suggest he said a word about it until Paul's account was published?

Love,

Caz
X

Not a word of the story he gave at the inquest, in any source before the inquest.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, many cases are lost. But in those cases too, it applies that the prosecution has made the call that the case is good enough to win, otherwise they would not have gone to court.

I am not saying that a case against Lechmere would have been won. I am saing that Scobie thought that it looked like a case that could have been won, a case good enough to prosecute.

And far from just saying that the case could not be dismissed - which, incidentally, is what people out here are saying in many a case - he actually said that the case suggests that Lechmere was guilty. And he added that a jury would not like the implications.

So I´m afraid that you will have to learn to consort with Scobie. His is an important view. And yes, potentially other barristers may disagree with him. But it will take a barrister disagreeing with him before that is an established fact. And even if it happens, we will still have a situation where legal experts are discussing the bouyancy of a legal case against Lechmere.

I have asked before, but have never gotten an answer: Which other Ripper suspect has that going for him, as a suspect?

The answer is of course: Not a single one.

You mean which other suspect has a Barrister deciding that there might be a case against him after only seeing one side of the debate?

How willing do you think that Mr Scobie might feel about walking into court to prosecute CL clueless about what points the Defence might bring up and throw at him? Answer: he wouldn’t. He would investigate any points/opinions/evidence/interpretations that might point to CL’s innocence.

This is not a criticism of Scobie. He obviously has a well deserved reputation. He was asked to give his opinion on the strength of the prosecution case. He came to the conclusion that ‘on the face of it’ there appeared to be a case for the purpose of the documentary. But this only means ‘from what I’ve read.’

Scobie keeps being used as a prop for the case against CL. Its very difficult to see why the person that does this can’t accept the shortcomings of this approach.

[caz]

Hi Caz

Yes indeed it is. Of course the aim of Mizen was to prevent certain public questions being asked about his performance (none of which had any effect on the actual murder) and this he achieved perfectly, to the extent it was not looked at seriously until Lechmere was proposed as a suspect.

Of course i beleive that the combination of Neil's testimony on 1st and the Lloyds article 2nd are the reason for Mizen's story ( and i use that word intentionally) at the inquest on the 3rd.
However i came to this conclusion from anaylisis of the various sources, i didn't come up with the idea and then go looking for the stuff to support it.

Steve

Perfect, Steve.

That's the way to go.

Had Mizen mentioned or reported the encounter at the earliest opportunity, I would have expected the sources to have reflected that fact, or at least to have been consistent with it. I assume you have found nothing to suggest he said a word about it until Paul's account was published?

Love,

Caz
X

[Elamarna]

And still, Steve was able to prove that Paul was never out of earshot - using press accounts only. Astonishing! He used three basically similar accounts and said that since there were not as many accounts contradicting them, they became true. Abra-cadabra!

Again back to front, the truth is that you have not proved that Paul was out of earshot or that there was any oppotunity (possibility)for such to occurr.
I had to prove nothing. The onus was on you to prove such a possability could have happened, you have singularly failed to do such

Its becoming very clear now ever increasing attempts to belittle,

And not very good attempts at that.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Then again, you apparently also came to the conclusion that Kelly died twice and that it is proven that Paul was never out of earshot in Bucks Row.


A blatantly false statement, I fail to see how you arrive at this conclusion, when in post 1297 it's very clear stated that I did not accept any of the TODs.
Such blatant untruths, for the purpose of misleading, simply reflects terribly on you

And you did that all on your own too, analysing the various sources.

I must say I am looking forward to your book by now.

Is that the true purpose of these comments? To attempt to belittle something you have not seen? Obviously the levels of concern must be high.

[harry]

I win on a disqualification do I Fisherman.Good,then since you have thrown the towel in,perhaps someone else of the persuasion that Cross killed Nichols will answer the post you duckted out on.
There are not many of them I understand,but any one of them is welcome to front up,and please,should anyone do so,do not start with, he was standing in the road near her body so is connected to her murder.He was connected to finding her body,nothing else.She had already been murdered.

[Elamarna]

I am saying that we can´t accept BOTH TOD:s for Kelly. And you know that, so there is no reason to sound surprised. She couldn´t have died twice, once at 2 AM and then again at 6 AM.
At least one of the doctors must be wrong. That goes without saying. And consequentially both can be wrong.


Clearly demonstrating that the TODs are unreliable. You confirm my point.
I am not using the TOD'S to question your statement that the murders occurred within the required hours, i am rejecting the TOD'S .


Pointing that out should not be necessary. In any serious debate, it would never be. Here? Different story.


When you claim the TOD can establish a murder within the required hours of course it needs to be pointed out

You move on to say that if I don´t accept Kellys TOD, I cannot accept Chapmans TOD either.
But you know, I really can.

Not only was there no contesting TOD:s in Chapmans case, it also applies that the time elapsed was much shorter, and so the task of establishing a TOD becomes easier.

Moreover, in Chapmans case, Phillips gave a span, not a decided time. He said that she had been dead at least two hors and probably more.


Phillips based his TOD on RM, extremely unreliable now, more so in 1888 with the lack of medical knowledge they had.
If we cannot accept one TOD as reliable for these reasons, we cannot accept another for the same reasons.

However i accept that you will accept anything which can be used in an attempt to bolster your theory, no matter what failings it has.


In the rational world, that means that there is no real chance for Long and Cadosh to be correct - if they were on the money, I feel quite convinced that Chpman would not have been just about totally cold. And that applies regardless of the uncertainty involved in the establishing of TOD back then.

No in the Rational world, a disputed timing, which requires us to ignore a witness sitting next to where the body was, if Phillips is correct, needs that statement of Richardson to be challenged and explained away factually.
It is very telling that you refer to Long and Cadosh but ignore Richardson.

Again taking subjective statements like "totally cold" as meaningful.
No actual temperatures taken, the assement made by touch!
No assesment made of the effect the wounds would have on body temperature

To suggest that "total cold" has any forensic value demonstrates a lack of actual knowledge or a willingness to not care.

So, you see, I am once again effectively disallowing you to impose upon me how I must reason, and opt for the logical route instead.


If only you would opt for the logical route, rather than the faulty one you do.

That leaves you with having to accept two deaths for Kelly, since you accept Chapmans TOD, and since you say that if we accept one thing in one case we must do so in the next too.

Really, Steve? Kelly died two times?


What are you talking about? i do not accept Chapman's TOD, nor the TOD 's given for Kelly. I have argued the exact opposite.
Post 1297 said clearly i did not accept any of of the TOD's.

The post is utter nonsense


I leave the remark about my insults uncommented on for obvious reasons.

This must be one of the very worst posts i have seen on casebook in a long time, all over the place, ignoring the OP that we cannot place Lechmere in the area of the murders at the time of the murders other than for Nichols.
Is the whole post simply constructed to avoid that issue?

[Sam Flynn]

Weighing the material fairly and with an open mind is always a clever thing to do.

Quite.