Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fish for responding to this. I note no one else has.
I wonder why-its a definite possibility.

Surely you donīt wonder why? You are being ironic, yes?

The simple truth of the matter is that the naysayers want to perpetuate a picture where the Mizen scam goes away if it can be proven that Paul was within earshot. They donīt want any discussion of another alternative.

Alternatives are only meant to dissolve any suggestion of red flags that attach to Lechmere. Not to open up pathways to enable the scam.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king". That is a quotation I like a lot, and in all probability something that will have the naysayer squad speaking of pots and kettles.

Let them.

[Abby Normal]

"Through the Epicenter of the murder spree at the relevant hours"

Really?

Nichols - yes

Chapman - probably on his route, but the timing is disputed.

Stride - Not on his route, the suggestion he was going or coming from his mothers is unprovable and hence is not evidence; just unsupported theory.

Eddowes - as Stride

Kelly, close to a possible route, however TOD is problematic, either too early or too late to support on his walk to work..

So no red flag.


Steve

he el

So no red flag.

well aman did give her a red hanky-so perhaps a little one? ; )

[Elamarna]

We donīt know that other people did notn have red flags pertaining to them. Thatīs just brilliant! How could I have forgotten this?

As for heavily interpreted, I take helium light on such nonsense.

The man walked right through the epicenter of the murder spree at the relevant hours. The man is on record as having disagreed with Mizen over what was said, and the wording Mizen offers is totally consistent with a wish to pass the police unsearched.

Those are two gigantic, humongous, collosal red flags in any sane world. Then again, this isnīt a world noted for itīs sanity, is it? It is cuckoo country.

I sometimes forget that.

"Through the Epicenter of the murder spree at the relevant hours"

Really?

Nichols - yes

Chapman - probably on his route, but the timing is disputed.

Stride - Not on his route, the suggestion he was going or coming from his mothers is unprovable and hence is not evidence; just unsupported theory.

Eddowes - as Stride

Kelly, close to a possible route, however TOD is problematic, either too early or too late to support on his walk to work..

So no red flag.


Steve

[Fisherman]

You mean he would have just legged it from the scene of the crime, and not had to:

1. Scam Paul
2. Scam Mizen
3. Give statement to Police
4. Attend Coroners Inquest



(drum roll) Agreed, Christer
My money`s on the phantom killer.

Yes, that is the only way we can perpetuate the Ripper myth, so I see the allure.

The really funny thing is when we look at other suspectologists. Some say that Lechmere disturbed Kosminski, some say he disturbed Druitt, Levy, Bury etc. Itīs quite Pythonesque.

By the way, for you to agree with me, you really need to know what I think first. And if you do, then you also realize that agreeing with me is naming Lechmere the Ripper.

So agree away, Jon!

[Abby Normal]

I have pointed out how Lechmere may have suggested to Paul that they should tell whichever PC they found that there was a policeman present in Bucks Row. The idea would be to guarantee that they were not detained and could walk on to their working places with no further delay.

I do favour the scenario where Paul is out of earshot, though, since I think Mizens leaving Paul out together with the passage "the other man, who went dwon Hanbury Street" points us in that direction. It also applies that Lechmere may have been unwilling to engage Paul in a lie that could be disclosed at a later date, giving Lechmere trouble.

Any which way, the scam is something that cannot be in any way excluded - and the phrasing suggested by Mizen is one that is in exact line with something that would more or less guarantee the carmen free passage.

That is either another coincidence - or not. And it is reasonably one of the matters that made Scobie say "A jury would not like that".

Thanks Fish for responding to this. I note no one else has.
I wonder why-its a definite possibility.

[Fisherman]

Firstly, he was seen standing in the road, not exactly near the body. Secondly, as I said above, we can hardly hold it against Cross if someone else, who just happened to use the same commuting route, was passing by.

How near is near, Gareth? How do we know where in the road he stood? Does "the middle of the road" mean EXACTLY in the middle of the road? Or could he have simply stood OUT IN THE ROAD? How wide was the road? 25 feet from wall to wall. Take away eight feet or so that were pavements. 17 feet left. So if he WAS in the middle of the road and in height with Nichols, he was some 8 feet away. And he may well have been closer than so.
Where did Paul say that he stood in the LLoyds article? "Where the body was". Is that indicative of him being close to or far from the body?

And now, the most relevant question of them all: Why is it beyond you to be able to say "yes, he could well have been very close to the body"?

What matters here, in the end? That we cannot say that he was very close to the body with any certainty - or that we CAN say that since we do not know how long before Paul he was there, it applies that he may well have had lots of time with the body?

There is absolutely nothing at all that clears him but for one thing: his own assertions. Nothing, nada, zilch.
There could easily have been, but there is not. Instead, we have him moving on to disagree with a serving PC about whatwas said that night, and he does so under a name we perfectly well know he is otherwise not known to have used in any authority contacts over the years.

And to you, that is no red flags.

The truth, the way I see it, is that there are so many and so red flags so as to make the old Soviet flag look greyish in comparison, but there is no proof that the red flags point us to a killer.

[Abby Normal]

Abby

Sorry but that just makes no sense to me.

If he is only 30-40 seconds ahead of Paul of course he will be seen near the body before he raises the alarm. Its not odd, it is just factual what must happen.

In no other case is there a 2nd person that close and in direct line of sight.

If however Lech was there even a full minute before Paul, the statement makes sense.
As it stands its just illogical.


Steve

no its not illogical. we don't know how long lech was with polly. no one saw him prior.

[Jon Guy]

Haha! Good one, Jon! I think we can safely say that IF Lechmere had been seen handling the body, knife in hand, we would not have this discussion today.

You mean he would have just legged it from the scene of the crime, and not had to:

1. Scam Paul
2. Scam Mizen
3. Give statement to Police
4. Attend Coroners Inquest

Whether Lechmere did a whole lot - knife in hand - BEFORE Paul arrived and could see anything at all is another matter. Going by how she bled afterwards, I think it is safe to say that either he or the dreaded .... (drumwhirl)...
PHANTOM KILLER did it.

(drum roll) Agreed, Christer
My money`s on the phantom killer.

[Abby Normal]

Firstly, he was seen standing in the road, not exactly near the body. Secondly, as I said above, we can hardly hold it against Cross if someone else, who just happened to use the same commuting route, was passing by.

aww. I see. so Paul is standing near lech when he speaks to Mizen, but Lech isn't near the body when hes seen by Paul? seems your definition of near changes to suit your argument.

[Elamarna]

"...who appear to be less than a minute apart..."

Appearances, appearances.

Ok more semantics.
Who according to the sources was less than a minute in front of Paul.
Unfortunately Paul gives no indication of the distance he first noticed Lechmere. We have only Lechmere's testimony.
Any thing else is pure imagination.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Because there was nobody else who happened to pass by, and the bodies they found weren't on anybody's route to work. We can hardly hold that against Cross.Actually, we don't know that, because we have little biographical information on them, except perhaps for Dymshitz, whom we know got in trouble with the law on another occasion. Besides, as I see it, there are no material discrepancies or red flags pertaining to Cross, apart from the heavily-interpreted ones promoted by Fisherman etc.

We donīt know that other people did notn have red flags pertaining to them. Thatīs just brilliant! How could I have forgotten this?

As for heavily interpreted, I take helium light on such nonsense.

The man walked right through the epicenter of the murder spree at the relevant hours. The man is on record as having disagreed with Mizen over what was said, and the wording Mizen offers is totally consistent with a wish to pass the police unsearched.

Those are two gigantic, humongous, collosal red flags in any sane world. Then again, this isnīt a world noted for itīs sanity, is it? It is cuckoo country.

I sometimes forget that.

[Sam Flynn]

the phrasing suggested by Mizen is one that is in exact line with something that would more or less guarantee the carmen free passage

But its not the phrasing used by Mizen. It's a press agent's, arguably garbled and incomplete, account of what was actually said in fuller terms at the inquest.

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby,

I don't understand this "before he raised the alarm"?

Tbis is tbe only murder in which there are two people (Lech and Paul) who appear to be less than a minute apart when a body is discovered.

For the sake of debate lets accept they are only 30-40 seconds apart, and Lechmere is not there earlier. In that case he raises the alarm with Paul, the closest person.

It's only an issue if Lechmere is proven to have been there for a number of minutes before Paul. Such has not been Proven. It is certainly suggested this occurred, but this is entirely dependent on Paul's arriving at exactly 3.45.

This is of course disputed by 3 seperate Police Officers. All of whom under oath say such cannot have been the case.
The balance of probabilities suggest that Paul is incorrect about his 3.45.

His not raising the alarm is therefore only significant if it can be established that Paul is correct, and the 3 Police are not.


Cheers


Steve

"...who appear to be less than a minute apart..."

Appearances, appearances.

[Fisherman]

Exactly Abby.
Cross was seen doing nothing suspicious by Paul, but the others could have been doing anything with the body, dead or alive.

Haha! Good one, Jon! I think we can safely say that IF Lechmere had been seen handling the body, knife in hand, we would not have this discussion today.

Whether Lechmere did a whole lot - knife in hand - BEFORE Paul arrived and could see anything at all is another matter. Going by how she bled afterwards, I think it is safe to say that either he or the dreaded .... (drumwhirl)...
PHANTOM KILLER did it.

[Fisherman]

Everyone does realize that if you think paul was never out of ear shot, then another explanation to the your wanted by a pc discrepency, is that paul heard lech say it and simply never said anything about it. Actually this goes for you too fish.

The more i think about it the more i think this is what could have happened, after a simple misunderstanding of course.

I have pointed out how Lechmere may have suggested to Paul that they should tell whichever PC they found that there was a policeman present in Bucks Row. The idea would be to guarantee that they were not detained and could walk on to their working places with no further delay.

I do favour the scenario where Paul is out of earshot, though, since I think Mizens leaving Paul out together with the passage "the other man, who went dwon Hanbury Street" points us in that direction. It also applies that Lechmere may have been unwilling to engage Paul in a lie that could be disclosed at a later date, giving Lechmere trouble.

Any which way, the scam is something that cannot be in any way excluded - and the phrasing suggested by Mizen is one that is in exact line with something that would more or less guarantee the carmen free passage.

That is either another coincidence - or not. And it is reasonably one of the matters that made Scobie say "A jury would not like that".