Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

Or, he gave the name which he went by. Why couch things in such sinister terms? Oh, I know why...

He didnīt give the police his real name. My reason for pointing that out is that I suspect he was the killer, and I am looking at traits that may reinforce that notion, yes.
This is one such trait. Sorry.

[Fisherman]

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

Fact: He said 3.30 or 3.20. Neither time is in line with being in Bucks Row at 3.40. Or 3.45.

He may have gotten it wrong, but you know, Steve, what we have is what we work with.

... and then you add a few bits and bobs, like a lying Mizen.

[Robert]

Fish, English alert : over here to raise children can mean cooking their meals, washing their clothes etc but it can also mean earning the money to put food on their table and a roof over their heads.

[Robert]

Fish, what is a real name?

[Fisherman]

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?

The order of things for prostitutes was to secure punters where there was people around (the thoroughfares) and then to take them into alleys and back streets for the business itself.

[Fisherman]

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.

You said that in the Stride case, it was "irrelevant" that Lechmere had very clear geographical connections to the site. You either stand by it or you admit that this was the wrong thing to say, Herlock. Which is it?

To quantify matters is a hard thing to do, but the more obvious connection to a site you have, the more interesting that matter becomes to the police.

Whtīs that drivel about it being useless to say that you are visiting your mum if you carry a bloody knife??? Who on earth has suggested anything else? What I am saying is that the geographical ties he had to the spot tells us that he is a more likely contended than anybody who lacks those ties, end of. That is not affected to any degree at all by how you look suspicious carrying a bloody knife around!

Of course the likelihood of a man visiting a spot increases with knowledge that he has ties to the spot and a reason to visit it? I cannot fathom how you suppose to be able to clear that away? It is Alice in Wonderland stuff, WAYYYYY behind the mirror. People who have geographical ties to spots where murders occur do not become suspects on account of that singular factor, but once OTHER factors contribute to making somebody a suspect, THEN it is time to see if the suspect has geographical ties to the murder spot/s.

It is an extremely basic thing. Why are we even discussing it...?

[Fisherman]

Women looking for business in the Whitechapel Road presumably took their customers somewhere a bit more discreet to conclude the transaction.

You beat me to it, Gary!

[Fisherman]

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.

The moment we identify serial killers with families - like Russell Williams, John Eric Armstrong, Peter Kurten etc - that point fails miserably. Robert Ressler said that the typical serial killer is a family man with a steady job and kids.

Why do you think he said that, Robert? What possible reson could he have had?

It is time to move away from Fairytale Street and into Logical Lane. Letīs look at the reality instead of our prejudices and misconceptions.

[Fisherman]

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.

Who says he brought her back there? He MAY have, but he may equally have found here there after her having served another punter. There can be no knowing.

[Fisherman]

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.

Today I took another route (singular noun) to work. My route (singular noun) to work is never the same.

If you agree he worked at Pickfords, then why post that we do not know? Please explain.

[Fisherman]

Fish, English alert : over here to raise children can mean cooking their meals, washing their clothes etc but it can also mean earning the money to put food on their table and a roof over their heads.

Okay. And how is that incomparable with being a lousy father figure and a possible wife abuser?

[Robert]

Fish, I'm afraid Ressler will have to answer for himself.

I see that you're looking for a typical serial killer. That's right, Fish, keep on thinking outside the box.

[Fisherman]

Fish, what is a real name?

The one you are listed by with the authorities, in my book. I have said so before: that is what I am going by.

He may - as people did - have used another name, but if he did so, then he did apparently not use that name in contacts with any authorities.

There is an anomaly, like it or not. And it is an anomaly we have seen in thousands of cases where a criminal has tried to avoid responsibility for his deeds. We cannot know if this was the case here, but the implication is quite possibly there.

[Robert]

Fish, I suggest you take a crash course in sarcasm.

So the women weren't killed on his route to work - they were killed on his routes to work. Thanks, Fish.

His raising a family isn't incompatible with his being violent at home - but there isn't the slightest reason to think that he was.

[Fisherman]

Fish, I'm afraid Ressler will have to answer for himself.

I see that you're looking for a typical serial killer. That's right, Fish, keep on thinking outside the box.

Yes, Ressler will undoubtedly answer for himself. He was a criminal profiler who knew more about serial killers than just about any person on planet earth - and by experience as well as by education, so I donīt see him having any problems at all defending what he said.

I am not looking for a typical serial killer at all. I am looking for an eviscerator and dismemberment killer who was not a sadist other than possibly a necrosadist. The part about Ressler was in response to your inability to realize that fathers and family men can be - and often are - serial killers.

You had apparently misunderstood that. I corrected that misunderstanding. Thatīs exactly what the boards are for. They are not for leading on that Robert Ressler was the one who got it wrong.

Not that it is forbidden to make the suggestion. But it is kind of useless.