Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

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

If so then we NEITHER ca we accept thre TOD 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.

What is unbecoming is the continual personal slights and attacks on those who do not agree with the views posted.


Steve

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

[harry]

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.

[Elamarna]

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

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

[caz]

Afraid thats not how real research works.

Lechmere gives an account which has both him and Paul speaking to Mizen, if Paul is not within earshot that would not be possible.
Paul's Lloyds account also has Paul speaking.

Therefore you do indeed need prove the carmens accounts are faulty, thats how historicalbor for that matter any research works

It becomes increasing obvious that refuting their accounts, other than to simply say they lied is impossible, it is also clear that you are very aware of this.


Steve

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

[caz]

...there is absolutely nothing in Mizen's account which challenges the accounts of Lechmere or Paul...

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.

If anything it's the other way round, if Paul's newspaper account successfully challenged Mizen to report the encounter in the first place, and of course Lechmere did challenge Mizen's account - at the inquest - by denying having told him a PC wanted him in Buck's Row.

Do we have anything at all to suggest that Mizen said more than just "All right"?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Try and imagine what I have suggested: The two men turn the corner from Bucks Row, and they see Mizen standing thirty, forty yards away (not sure of the distance, but it is not a very important matter for this experiment).
They then walk towards Mizen, who sees them coming closer in company. Then Mizen sees one of the men saying something to the other, and then the two split up intermittently, Paul walking straight ahead, and Lechmere veering off towards Mizen. As Lechmere comes close, he makes a short halt, and says "Officer, there´s a woman lying flat on her back down in Bucks Row. Another PC sent us here, me and my pal".
Mizen says "Alright", and the two part. Lechmere increases his walking speed and catches up with Paul, and Mizen finishes his knocking up business before setting off for Bucks Row.

Now, imagine at the inquest that Baxter, afther having heard Mizen speak of Lechmere only, asks the PC either:

"There was another man in company with Cross?"

or, for that matter

"There was another man present as you spoke with Cross?"

or

"There was another man in the street as you spoke with Cross?"

or

"There were two carmen, were there not, as this happened?"

or something along those lines.

Would you expect Mizen to deny it by saying no?

Or would you expect him to say "Well, strictly speaking, the other man some little way away"?

Bottom line: We do NOT know what was said. We know that Baxter suggested another man´s presence, but we do not know in which wording. And we can see very clearly that Mizen would be in his right to answer "yes" even if Paul was not close enough to Mizen and Lechmere to be able to make out what was said.

This is no longer an issue. It never was, to be honest.

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

[Elamarna]

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 .)

That is not a problem for me Herlock.
The issue for me is treating it as if its more than it is.


Steve

[caz]

THERE`S the post I was looking for! Caz´s explanation to why I am supposedly misogynous:

She quotes me, highlighting two words:

"Maybe you should try another, less sinister hobby. Knitting? Baking? Running, but only very slowly?"

...and she asks "Got it now?"

So, the conclusion is that suggesting knitting and baking as alternative hobbies for a person who cannot stand the idea of having a person suspected for being Jack the Ripper is misogynous.

As somebody who has visited Kaffe Fassets exhibitions of knitwork and spoken to him, expressing my deep admiration for his work, and as somebody who bakes a lot, I find that hilarious.

To me, it seems that you think that these matters are ties only to women? They are not.

I am not and have never been misogynous. I am - as very many Swedish men - a professed feminist, who regards the emancipation as the perhaps most important development in Swedish society over the last century. I stayed at home with my three children when they were small, me and my wife shared the child caretake days down the middle. I have often expressed the view that we need a female Swedish prime minister and it was a sorrow to me when Anna Lindh was murdered in Stockholm.

I have hear many strange accusations about myself, but this arguably takes the bisquit, Caz. But let me rephrase myself: Maybe you should get a more placid and less bloody and gory hobby, like remote control model cars, playing cards or growing bonsai trees.

There , is that better? And never mind apologizing for having called me misogynous. It would be a woman admitting to having been wrong in an exchange with a man, and we can´t have that, can we?

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

[Abby Normal]

And Druitt - dead in the water.

Love,

Caz
X

Now that was good

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do wish you would stop this quoting Scobie as if a Prima facie is anything other than a decision to proceed to trial.
Every prosecution by the authorities requires such, that those whom are found innocent and guilty.

Its nothing more than a Barrister saying that on the evidence available the case cannot be dismissed.

Scobie however is just one man, others in his profession may not agree with him.

And of course many cases which go to court are dismissed or simply lost.


Steve

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 .)

[caz]

Kosminski too is like Fish's theory - simply won't wash.

And Druitt - dead in the water.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have a man that found a body and then suicidally waited for, and then called over a man to show him his handiwork (remembering that those footsteps could have turned out to be a Constable) this alone should pretty much dismiss CL asa suspect. And all this happened just before CL killed a women in just about the most incriminating place possible. Also that CL was so ‘busy about his work’ that he actually got caught in the act. And then, on the spur of the moment, he came up with ‘The Scam’ and managed to manipulate Paul out of earshot of the Constable whilst he gave his false message.

Its about time we kicked this in to touch

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon
I'm a little confused by this-can you please explain?

Yes, of course, Abby (and Christer)

Simply... the other finders didn`t have anyone to corroborate their story of finding the victim.

[Elamarna]

Proven theories are no longer theories, you know. If it is proof you are talking about. If it is only evidence, then there is evidence that points to Lechmere as potentially being the killer. So much so, that James Scobie said it makes for a prima facie case that suggests that he was the killer.

I do wish you would stop this quoting Scobie as if a Prima facie is anything other than a decision to proceed to trial.
Every prosecution by the authorities requires such, that those whom are found innocent and guilty.

Its nothing more than a Barrister saying that on the evidence available the case cannot be dismissed.

Scobie however is just one man, others in his profession may not agree with him.

And of course many cases which go to court are dismissed or simply lost.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thats my point.

We dont know for sure, but we do have the testimony of Lechmere who says he saw her moments before hearing Paul and Paul who only says he sees him ahead.
No mention of how far away and no mention of any movement before he says Lechmere
Is coming towards him.

To be odd Lechmere must be there earlier than he claims. There is no reliable source which indicates that. Paul's 3.45 is not reliable.

Yes we can use the suggestion as the starting point for a theory, But witbout evidence it remains just that.


Steve

You are literally wasting your time here Steve but I admire your honest and unbiased pursuit of reason and truth. Its just a pity it’s not contagious