Favorite suspect/s?

[Elamarna]

I am saying that we canīt accept BOTH TOD:s for Kelly. And you know that, so there is no reason to sound surprised. She couldnīt 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 donīt 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.

[Fisherman]

All the press accounts of the inquest need to be treated with caution, too. Most, if not all, seem to derive from a news agency report, anyway, and if that was flawed then we need to be even more careful.

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!

Canīt have that, can we?

... but if we CAN, it applies that the press accounts from the find of the uterus bundle in the Jackson case contains three or more versions where it is said that the lower abdomen or the abdomen of a woman was found in the bundle. And the fewest accounts gainsay it, so I guess it must be true. Ā la Steve.

Ridiculous, ainīt it?

If it werenīt for the press accounts, ripperology would be a meagre discipline indeed. Weighing the material fairly and with an open mind is always a clever thing to do.

[Sam Flynn]

The Lloyds article must absolutely be treated with caution, yes.

All the press accounts of the inquest need to be treated with caution, too. Most, if not all, seem to derive from a news agency report, anyway, and if that was flawed then we need to be even more careful.

[Fisherman]

Unless the reporter spoke to the witness first hand, or was present when the witness said what he did, then the evidence is secondary and has to be treated with caution !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Lloyds article must absolutely be treated with caution, yes.

[Fisherman]

I more or less agree, Christer. I think that the information Baxter had, upon which he based his questions to Mizen, simply didn’t give Baxter any cause to think there was any significant distance between Lechmere and Paul throughout the whole encounter.

Or, indeed, any reason to think that he needed to establish that distance so as to rule in or out that Paul could have been out of earshot.

A very fair and balanced post, Frank.

[FrankO]

However, the way I see things, Baxter did not entertain any suspicion at all versus Lechmere, wherefore he had absolutely no reason to try and establish the exact distance inbetween the carmen and whether they were within earshot of each other or not. His question - however it was phrased (only Steve claims to know that well enough to be able to conclude factually from it) - was therefore more likely than not aimed to establish Pauls overall presence, and not the exact distance between the carmen.

I more or less agree, Christer. I think that the information Baxter had, upon which he based his questions to Mizen, simply didn’t give Baxter any cause to think there was any significant distance between Lechmere and Paul throughout the whole encounter.

We seemingly agree on that and so in my book, establishing (or trying to establish) the different likelihoods of a certain distance between the carmen at a certain time is a waste of good discussion power.

That would be a waste indeed, Fish.

[Trevor Marriott]

Itīs a pity for all of us that the issue was never clarified, Caz. Itīs a problem we all share. Pauls assertion of having spoken to Mizen is only laid down unequvocally in the Lloyds article, and we know that does not give a true reflection of what happened. Furthermore, it may be that the reporter spiced things up, and that Paul didnīt actually say that he did the talking.

Any which way, the issue is no more of a problem for me than for you.

Unless the reporter spoke to the witness first hand, or was present when the witness said what he did, then the evidence is secondary and has to be treated with caution !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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

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.

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.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,who would want to troll you.All you appear to be is a mouthpiece for two indiviuals who so far have not come forward to confirm you are telling the truth about them.That's stating a fact,not trolling.

What have you proven so far as guilt applies ?Nothing.Can you
place Cross in the company of Nichols while she was alive?No you cannot.

Can you prove factually,that Cross cut the throat of Nichols and caused the mutilatins to her body? No you cannot


Can you prove,that on leaving home that morning,or later on his way to work,the intent to kill and mutilate was a driving force? No you cannot
.

Can you prove that in his possession that morning was a weapon that caused the injuries to Nichols?No you cannot.

You have nothing in the way of proof.Nothing,and you claim to have prima facis evidence of guilt.How strange.

Sorry, Harry, but you have disqualified yourself from discussing the case with me.

[Fisherman]

Hi Steve,

What I find quite amusing is that Fish needs both men to have lied about the fact that Paul did his own share of the talking while in PC Mizen's company, but PC Mizen isn't playing ball.

What Fish needed was for PC Mizen to have exposed their lies by stating that not only did Paul not utter a sodding word to him, but he was not even in a good position to hear or confirm what Cross had told him, let alone judge how he - Mizen - should have reacted.

The problem for Fish is that PC Mizen never said anything like this, but meekly went along with the basic fact that two men were there when he was told about the woman and he just said "All right" in response. If Cross was the first to speak, then it was Cross who informed Mizen of the situation, with Paul chiming in. But if Paul never chimed in and wasn't even within earshot, it's a great pity for Fish that Mizen never did make that clear.

Love,

Caz
X

Itīs a pity for all of us that the issue was never clarified, Caz. Itīs a problem we all share. Pauls assertion of having spoken to Mizen is only laid down unequvocally in the Lloyds article, and we know that does not give a true reflection of what happened. Furthermore, it may be that the reporter spiced things up, and that Paul didnīt actually say that he did the talking.

Any which way, the issue is no more of a problem for me than for you.

[Fisherman]

And that is worrying, because you'd think if one or both carmen had been telling outright porkies, Mizen's account would have challenged theirs.

Love,

Caz
X

Not so, Iīm afraid. The story the carman told was confirmed to Mizen as he saw Neil up in Bucks Row - there WAS a PC in place, just as had been stated.

Following on, when Neil said that he was the finder of the body and that it was not true that two men had found it before him, Mizen had a reaffirmation of the carmans story.

Everything added up AS LONG AS NEIL STUCK TO HIS STORY.

Mizen must have been flummoxed, to say the least, by the developments that ensued. I think there is every chance that he will have asked himself where things did not add up, and that he may have weighed in the possibility that he himself could have in some way misheard or misunderstood the carmans words.

What I think he did was to then go to the inquest and state as honestly as he could what he thought had transpired, and I think he did so without nourishing any suspicion against Lechmere, something that was overall reflected by the rest of the participators too. None of them will have realized the explosive power built into the disagreement between Mizen and Lechmere. I have heard it stated that this suggestion is stupid and that anybody would realize that power, but the fact of the matter is that it was overlooked by generations of ripperologists and armchair detectives, and so I think it must be accepted that it was simply overlooked by the inquest too.

[Fisherman]

I suppose it all depends on whether Mizen was aware of what Paul had already said publicly, in that newspaper story.

If Mizen was aware that Paul had given himself the role of main spokesman, in order to trash the PC's lethargic reaction, and knew damned well that this man Paul had not even bothered to speak to him, but had let Cross do the talking and therefore had no idea what was said or if the PC's reaction had been in any way inappropriate, he'd have had every reason to say so, when asked if anyone was with Cross when the latter spoke to him:

"Two men approached together, but when Cross spoke to me, the other man was some little distance away and said nothing."

Not only would this have dealt neatly with the trouble Paul was trying to cause and put him back in his box, but it would have been Mizen's duty to say so, if he knew Paul had lied in that account because he had not told him the woman was dead, and in fact only Cross had said anything at all and had played down the urgency.

Love,

Caz
X

The first words clinch the matter - " it all depends".

[Fisherman]

Blimey, Fish, it might have been better for you if you had engaged your brain before putting your mouth into gear in the first place. But you don't know when to stop digging that hole for yourself, do you?

Love,

Caz
X

The only hole around here was dug by the poster who could not tell misogyny from a recommendation to take up less disturbing hobbies than ripperology. Since that poster (you, by the way) did notn have the decency to retract that mistake, I will make it abundantly clear how wrong it was.

So dig away, by all means.

[Fisherman]

He was also a man that was never presented with the case against CL’s guilt to compare. But according to Fish you only need to hear one side to make a fair decision (where have we seen evidence of that before .)

I have told you before to stop this nonsense. I do NOT think that a fair decision is reached by using one side only, but I DO think that it is om great imporatance and interest to hear if the prosecution side of a case thinks that the evidence is enough to take to court.

Please do not misrepresent me any more on this issue. Not out of ignorance or out of malice!