Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

As I’ve written in my earlier post, Christer, I think the evidence as a whole firmly suggests that Paul didn’t walk on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen. So, to me, the fact that Mizen stated that “a man” (not two) addressed him in passing (not after “coming up to him”) is the only thing that might suggest that Paul, literally, remained somewhat in the background as the very short conversation took place.

On the other hand, the way I see it is that Mizen just wasn’t the best copper that he could be with regards to asking questions and giving information.


Cheers,

Frank

It takes two to tango, Frank. All the answers we lack could have been given by Mizen if Baxter only asked the pertinent questions.

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.

Wherever we end up on this score, one thing is very clear: just as the carmen may have been close together all the time, they may also have been apart at some time or times. 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.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
If sarcasm(not unusual for you),is all you can reply with,how can one take you seriously.Might be wise,seeimg the mess this theory of yours has turned out to be,to beg Griffiths or Scoby for help.Perhaps even to post and give us the truth of what was said between you.

Since this post implies that I am withholding the truth, you should be pleased that I am merely sarcastic.

If I avoided sarcasm, I would say that you are the type of poster who implies unsavoury things about others without having any proof to show for it. A particularly ugly internet troll, as it were.

[FrankO]

I am with you when it comes to the impression given by the various papers - it speaks of two men in company with each other. I am also with you on how that does not guarantee that they were in close company as Lechmere spoke to Mizen. You do ot mention it, but I believe you -just like me - will ascribe some of the doubt one can have on the point to how Mizen said that " a man" came up to him and spoke, not "two men". It is - at least in my view - indicative of Paul not having been part of that conversation. Not conclusive, but clearly indicative.

As I’ve written in my earlier post, Christer, I think the evidence as a whole firmly suggests that Paul didn’t walk on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen. So, to me, the fact that Mizen stated that “a man” (not two) addressed him in passing (not after “coming up to him”) is the only thing that might suggest that Paul, literally, remained somewhat in the background as the very short conversation took place.

On the other hand, the way I see it is that Mizen just wasn’t the best copper that he could be with regards to asking questions and giving information.


Cheers,

Frank

[Fisherman]

I wasn't jesting, Fish. It's clear that most of us don't seem to see any convincing reason to suspect Cross.

Since it is equally clear that no suspect has more going for him, I of course differ.

The idea that there is no convincing reason to suspect him is very much in line with much of the "thinking" out here, so I am used to it. As I said before, there are those who state that it is a less than 0.0000000000000000001 chance that Lechmere was the killer, so it is an environment that nurtures bad judgment. Or none at all.

Then again, if I turn to the (according to you misled) people out in the real world, I find that a very large number of people do not only identify reasons to suspect him - they actually are sure that he was the killer.

Then again, they do not own your superior expertise and highly discerning attitude.

[Fisherman]

Debate is impossible. As ive said before its like debating evolution with a Young-Earth Creationist.

Yes, I agree that debate is impossible, although I identify wholly different reasons for itn than you do.

What I see is somebody claing things on my behalf that I have never said.

Then, when I say "That is unfair", you instead say that I always paint myself out as the victim.

Then, when I say that I do not, you point out that I cannot always be right and you wrong.

It is not the best of soils for a useful debate to grow from, and so I have nothing to add until a better and less Kafka-like climate emerges. If ever.

[Elamarna]

Steve,

Which post on this thread are you referring to (your answer to my question)?

Gary

Hi Gary, hope all is ok and you are well.

Not sure where 4088 came from, no idea at all, sorry.
I gave an answer to a similar question to yours from Abby in post 1134,
I think i missed your post at first, But i should have pointed you in the direction of post 1134 anyway.

In a. Nutshell, my position is we have evidence (Lechmere and Paul) which if it stands leaves no possibility of any alternative scenero ( this is on the question of if they seperated) . You may not agree and that is fair, this is all about opinion.
Looking at the evidence of Mizen there is, in my view, nothing which challenges the accounts of the Carmen, and i am happy to exclude Lloyds if people want.


Its like any piece of evidence, if you can challenge it using other evidence, then possibilities exist. But if you can only challenge on maybe with nothing to support it in the way of evidence the resulting "possibilities" do not really exist.


All the best


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

You post is more of the same old, same old, Herlock, and as always misrepresenting what I say.

It must be contagious.


You ask why my interpretations are more valid than the innocent interpretations, and that is of course asking the wrong question. You make it look as if I had said so, and that it is a knee-jerk reaction from my side. But I have never said that my interpretations are more or less likely that yours to be true, other than perhaps in isolated cases. Generally speaking, when we do not know what happened, it is impossible to weigh likelihoods.
This I have said before, but you always come back asking why I must be right and you wrong. Which is a tad tiresome.

What is tiresome is debating aspects of the case with someone who could turn the drinking of a cup of tea into a finger of suspicion against CL

You ask why I cat admit that a case must be seen from both sides, and voilŕ, you did it again, made it out to look as if I am all for never letting the defence have a say.
It is unworthy of intelligent reasoning, Herlock. I have never said that the defence should not have a say! What I AM saying is that no expert who is asked if the prosecution side is a strong one should be criticised for giving a fair answer to that particular question. And I am saying that it is perfectly legitimate to present that material in a suspect based docYou need to stop doing this, Herlock. Or I need to stop answering posts like these. They are an abomination, I´m afraid.

No Fish! I really am getting fed up with hearing this! Please read the following words....digest them.....then perhaps read them again just so that you might (just might) get my point.
I commented that Scobie had based his opinion on reading the case for the prosecution of CL. I haven’t said that he was lied to, just that he’d only heard one side. You accepted this and said that it was standard procedure for a documentary. I, and others, have pointed out that this means that Scobie didn’t hear an opposing viewpoint which might (I’m only saying might) have altered his opinion. How can this be a controversial opinion. It is the calmest, most reasonable suggestion.
And yet you STILL keep going on about Scobie as if the judge would have donned the black cap. To give a fair and unbiased opinion anyone, even a Barrister, needs to hear both sides.

You say that there would be no case against Lechmere but for me. But the case was there long before I took it up, so you are demonstrably totally and utterly wrong - again. Plus you say that there is absolutely nothing but for his finding the body in the case. That befits somebody who claims that it is "irrelevant" that we know that Stride died in the midst of the houses where he grew up and where he still had his mother and own child living.

The fact that Stride died in the midst of the House where he grew up is irrelevant and desperate.
Everything apart from finding the body is an ‘effort.’ You have to resort to ‘scams’ to make him fit. Most of us can remember your ludicrous attempt to tie CL to the crimes by connecting him to lorry drivers and butchers

Such suggestions are either bogus, deceitful, ignorant, nauseating, thick or ridiculous. The real problem for you is that we cannot rule out any of these suggestions.

That paragraph speaks volumes about yourself. I ask anyone......have I ever resorted to such insults?

I think I am done with the discussion with you. I tend to honour the thesis that one should not lower oneself to levels where ones opponents feel very much more at home.
Still, there were glimpses of light every now and then, and I don´t exclude that you can discuss the case in a more productive way. But I fear you are not willing to, so it´s perhaps best to let you go on alone.

I’ll let my posts stand. Its you who resorts to insults. More against me than any other poster. I’m tired of trying to debate with a zealot. CL has become a religion with you Fish.


.

Debate is impossible. As ive said before its like debating evolution with a Young-Earth Creationist.

[harry]

Fisherman,
If sarcasm(not unusual for you),is all you can reply with,how can one take you seriously.Might be wise,seeimg the mess this theory of yours has turned out to be,to beg Griffiths or Scoby for help.Perhaps even to post and give us the truth of what was said between you.

[Sam Flynn]

Well, Abby, Gareth will probably tell you that such a thing is nothing interesting at all; somebody had to find the body

Yup, and that doesn't negate Herlock's point, either.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam
how about the factual element that he was seen standing near the body of a recently murdered victim?

which is a dam sight more than most if not all other ripper suspects.

It would only take someone to nominate Davis, Dymshitz, Watkins, Bowyer (etc) as a suspect, and they'd meet that criterion, too. Cross is only a suspect because he's been turned into one.

[Sam Flynn]

Joining Robert in jestering, I see. No real point to make, and so this is where you end up.

I wasn't jesting, Fish. It's clear that most of us don't seem to see any convincing reason to suspect Cross.

[Fisherman]

Hi Sam
how about the factual element that he was seen standing near the body of a recently murdered victim?

which is a dam sight more than most if not all other ripper suspects.

Well, Abby, Gareth will probably tell you that such a thing is nothing interesting at all; somebody had to find the body.

Then we have Herlock, who claims that his being found with the body is the only thing there is to point a finger at Lechmere by.

So, you see, although they all have the same united ultimate goal of denying that Lechmere is of any value at all as a suspect, they seem unable to agree about how to go about it.

I think I will leave these respected and honourable gentlemen to their musings and do something either better or funnier.

It should not be too hard to come up with something such.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I belong to no company.Unlike you I prefer to write from my own knowledge of the subject.Rarely do I rely,as you seem to,on the opinion of others.It is you that introduced Scobie and Grffiths,so it is not unfair to question the validity of the comments attributed to them.Your quotes of them are merely hearsay to me,and you have yourself in the past placed little value on hearsay.So,if I say I place little value on your words regarding those two perons,I'm sure you will now understand why.


Guilty,means a fact of wrongdoing.When was standing in a road,seeking help ,an fact of wrongdoing?


Cross has the assumption of innocence under common law.Which means facts of guilt must be established to render a Prima Facia case.I have yet to see even one fact of guilt levelled against him ,over the mrder of Nicholls.

So you are a force of your very own?

Now, how could I have missed that?

[Fisherman]

I think that the problem is that you have this way of thinking. You look at aspects of the case and say “can I take Lechmere fit?” Then when you find that you can can your thinking appears to be “well ive sorted this now so why the hell are these people disagreeing with me? They must be ignorant or biased. Simply unwilling to accept that I must be right.

Your arguments are becoming wearying. Black is white and white is black. You can ‘interpret’ but when anyone else does it they are wilfully trying to exonerate an obviously guilty Lech. You accuse posters of things and then get on your high horse when they respond. Despite the fact that all (I believe) posters accept that CL cannot be categorically exonerated and that further research is of course legitimate this isn’t good enough for you. Unless everyone bows down and says “yes Fish you are right and CL was obviously guilty” you can’t rest. Sadly, unless you come up with some mildly convincing evidence this will never happen. Put away the shoehorn Fish and take a deep breath

You post is more of the same old, same old, Herlock, and as always misrepresenting what I say.

You ask why my interpretations are more valid than the innocent interpretations, and that is of course asking the wrong question. You make it look as if I had said so, and that it is a knee-jerk reaction from my side. But I have never said that my interpretations are more or less likely that yours to be true, other than perhaps in isolated cases. Generally speaking, when we do not know what happened, it is impossible to weigh likelihoods.
This I have said before, but you always come back asking why I must be right and you wrong. Which is a tad tiresome.

You ask why I cat admit that a case must be seen from both sides, and voilŕ, you did it again, made it out to look as if I am all for never letting the defence have a say.
It is unworthy of intelligent reasoning, Herlock. I have never said that the defence should not have a say! What I AM saying is that no expert who is asked if the prosecution side is a strong one should be criticised for giving a fair answer to that particular question. And I am saying that it is perfectly legitimate to present that material in a suspect based docu!

You need to stop doing this, Herlock. Or I need to stop answering posts like these. They are an abomination, I´m afraid.

You say that there would be no case against Lechmere but for me. But the case was there long before I took it up, so you are demonstrably totally and utterly wrong - again. Plus you say that there is absolutely nothing but for his finding the body in the case. That befits somebody who claims that it is "irrelevant" that we know that Stride died in the midst of the houses where he grew up and where he still had his mother and own child living.

Such suggestions are either bogus, deceitful, ignorant, nauseating, thick or ridiculous. The real problem for you is that we cannot rule out any of these suggestions.

I think I am done with the discussion with you. I tend to honour the thesis that one should not lower oneself to levels where ones opponents feel very much more at home.
Still, there were glimpses of light every now and then, and I don´t exclude that you can discuss the case in a more productive way. But I fear you are not willing to, so it´s perhaps best to let you go on alone.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I belong to no company.Unlike you I prefer to write from my own knowledge of the subject.Rarely do I rely,as you seem to,on the opinion of others.It is you that introduced Scobie and Grffiths,so it is not unfair to question the validity of the comments attributed to them.Your quotes of them are merely hearsay to me,and you have yourself in the past placed little value on hearsay.So,if I say I place little value on your words regarding those two perons,I'm sure you will now understand why.


Guilty,means a fact of wrongdoing.When was standing in a road,seeking help ,an fact of wrongdoing?


Cross has the assumption of innocence under common law.Which means facts of guilt must be established to render a Prima Facia case.I have yet to see even one fact of guilt levelled against him ,over the mrder of Nicholls.