Favorite suspect/s?

[Elamarna]

I don´t think the police ever entertained any idea about the benefits of researching which way Lechmere took. I don´t think it crossed their minds that it could be useful information.

Possinly true, but we will never know for sure.

Steve

[Fisherman]

And I'll give you that you are an educator and a teacher, Fish. The fact that you remind me a bit of Will Hay does not in any way detract from your standing.

"Hay often portrayed incompetent authority figures who attempted to conceal their incompetence but whose true traits were exposed by those around him. "

This, Gareth, is probaly not a dig at me either, but instead another example of Roberts relentless consistence.

Do you know who YOU remind ME of, Robert?

Yourself.

Chilling, is it not?

[Fisherman]

Possinly true, but we will never know for sure.

Steve

We will PROBABLY never know for sure, but it is the appearance of matters.

Nighty-night.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Q1: In comparison with those who had no such ties, he is a likelier killer, all other things disregarded.

If the police had two equally viable suspects for the Stride murder ( one being CL) then they found out that CL’s mom lived nearby do you honestly believe that would tip the balance? Surely, in all seriousness, you cant? Unless its being suggested that these venues were used by CL after each murder to clean up and possibly store body parts then they can have no genuine connection.

Q2: In comparison with those who did not grow up in the area, he is a likelier killer, all other things disregarded.

So you would say, again if the police had 2 equally viable suspects, one who was born and was brought up 3 streets away instantly leaps ahead of the suspect who lived 3 streets closer? How can such a trivial fact make any significant difference.

In the docu, you may have noticed how Scobie says that "there is an pattern of offending, an area of offending to which he is linked". And he is linked in NO OTHER WAY than the one we are discussing, but it is not a case of Scobie thinking that having these links is criminal. He does things in the correct way, he FIRST points out that there are too many coincidences surrounding Lechmere for it to be a benevolent thing, and once he has decided that, he moves on to CHECK THE GEOGRAPHY - just like the police does. And the geography becomes the clincher.

There is no ‘clincher’ in CL’s case. If geography is required it is to show that CL ‘could’ have been at the crime scenes. No one, as far as i know, has used geography against him.

This is what you either choose to disregard (bias) or cannot comprehend (ignorance) and DESPERATELY need to understand before you can judge the case against Lechmere as regards the geograpy in a useful manner. You have a hangup on how you are certain that people must be able to pass areas without becoming murder suspects, but that is not how the case against Lechmere - or any other suspect - is built. You are giving the correct answer to the wrong question, Herlock!
Once you are a suspect, the geography is used as a litmus paper to check if the suspicions hold water. And whaddayaknow, Lechmere ticks ALL the boxes geographically.

What we know, in fact what we always knew, is that CL cannot be dismissed on geography. Chapman is an issue in terms of time though but obviously you will dismiss that because you ‘know’ that CL is guilty.

You are the one with the suspect and the theory Fish. We can all see where the endless flow of bias comes from, even to the extent that to defend your position you have to accuse others of it.

But in the world according to Herlock Sholmes, such things are irrelevant.

But in the world according to Fish all roads lead to Lechmere. Anything can be made to fit from the utterly fictional ‘Mizen Scam’ to the ignored fact that CL gave his real address which renders the whole name thing a non-issue. A world where we can dismiss the question “why when he had ample opportunity to get away scot-free did he hang around and call someone over to see his handiwork.” Or why he would kill at a spot that he, and for all we know only Paul as well, passed every day at the same time on his way to work? Maybe its you that should think twice before maligning an innocent man on such flimsy grounds?

[Robert]

You up again, Fish? I thought you were going to bed.

If you can't sleep, try counting routes to work.

[Abby Normal]

You up again, Fish? I thought you were going to bed.

If you can't sleep, try counting routes to work.

Hey Robert
Are you going to actually try and debate at all in this thread, or just continue with two line anecdotes, mistakes and personal attacks?

And by the way, your insult to fish about understanding English was disgraceful.

His grasp of English is better than most on here.

[Robert]

Abby, Fish and I go back years, We know what to expect from each other. We give it to each other and we get it back from each other. It's all in the game.

Fish is well able to look after himself.

The thing is, although Fish's English is very good, he must understand that he doesn't always grasp the nuances of the language. That's not his fault - if I were to learn Swedish and then go on a Swedish site, there would be things that I wouldn't grasp.

Finally I think that Fish should try not to be quite so rude to comparative newcomers to the boards.

[MrBarnett]

Anyway, I´m tired and a tad discouraged, so I will tuck in for the night (hope I got that right as far as English goes).

Perfect colloquial English, Fish - assuming you're about to enjoy an extended supper.

[MrBarnett]

Perfect colloquial English, Fish - assuming you're about to enjoy an extended supper.

To be 'tucked up/tucked in' is to have your bedclothes tightly folded around you.

To 'tuck in' is to start to eat.

To 'turn in' is to go to bed.

To be 'well tucked up' is to be outwitted by a Cockney.

To be 'Friar Tucked' is to be unduly intimate with a Cockney.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I have read of suggestions of what might have happened, written by you in answer to my questions,but rarely have I seen evidence fom you that prove those suggestions.For instance,what evidence places Cross in the company of Nichols while she was alive.You suggest,but cannot prove,it was because he lied about the time he had been at the place of her death,and before Paul' arrival.So answer the question, what proof have you?

[Fisherman]

But in the world according to Fish all roads lead to Lechmere. Anything can be made to fit from the utterly fictional ‘Mizen Scam’ to the ignored fact that CL gave his real address which renders the whole name thing a non-issue. A world where we can dismiss the question “why when he had ample opportunity to get away scot-free did he hang around and call someone over to see his handiwork.” Or why he would kill at a spot that he, and for all we know only Paul as well, passed every day at the same time on his way to work? Maybe its you that should think twice before maligning an innocent man on such flimsy grounds?

Yes, in my world, all the roads do lead to Lechmere. That is true.

What is not true is when you spak of "fiction". There is no more fiction in the Lechmere theory than in any other theory about any other suspect. On the contrary - there is some REAL evidence and timings and stuff, all of it strictly caserelated when it comes to hom, whereas the other suspects more often than not have only one thing going for them: "I think it was him". No factual basis, no case connection, no nothing
It is also disingenuous to claim that we can dismiss the question "Why did he not do a runner?" Far from having been dismissed, that question does the rounds on a regular basis. I can only say that there is ample evidence telling us that psychopathic killers (and more than ninety per cent of serial killers have this trait to a larger or smaller degree) will not panic, and actually sometimes even look for some extra thrill.
That is not dismissing the idea, it is countering it with established knowledge.

The stuff about "maligning an innocent man" is plain dumb, and it is even dumber to say that I shuld think twice before doing it. I have not thought twice, I have thought a million times, no other suspect evokes the reaction that we should not research our man as a suspect, and we have even spoken to the Lechmere family to make sure that they do not object to the research of Charles as the probable Ripper.

If anything, the different reactions evoked by the Lechmere theory, as compared to any other theory, tells us that we have at long last found a suspect where the grounds for the research are so very clearly indicative of guilt that it all suddenly becomes very real instead of a parlour game of "What if it was the milkman?"

[Fisherman]

You up again, Fish? I thought you were going to bed.

If you can't sleep, try counting routes to work.

Yes, I postponed my sleeping for about two minutes. And that is all you need to produce a post like this.

[Fisherman]

if I were to learn Swedish and then go on a Swedish site, there would be things that I wouldn't grasp.

You don´t need to learn Swedish to reach to that result, Robert. If you want to have a go anyway, I´d be happy to tutor you.

[Fisherman]

To be 'tucked up/tucked in' is to have your bedclothes tightly folded around you.

To 'tuck in' is to start to eat.

To 'turn in' is to go to bed.

To be 'well tucked up' is to be outwitted by a Cockney.

To be 'Friar Tucked' is to be unduly intimate with a Cockney.

Very comprehensive! Thanks for that, Gary. We actually have "törna in" as a direct result of your "turn in", and it means the exact same thing.

We do however not have any colourful phrases about cockneys. Then again, we have no cockneys either.

[Fisherman]

For Robert:

I have absolutely no problem accepting that I will not be as fluent in English as Brits are, and that I may miss out on the meaning of various expressions. I don´t think, however, that my overall posting out here is much affected by it or that I have somehow failed to make my points clear.

What I dislike is when somebody for example tells me that I may not say that the Ripper and the torso man both cut necks, the reason being that the Riper cut throats and the torso man cut necks.
The idea is an obvious one - to try and separate the series and lead on that there were two killers.

Since I was told this, I have seen a few docus where my version is used, for example docus about a woman on death row who cut her own throat in an effort to look innocent (so the prosecution says, anyway). In the docu, the narrator says that the woman cut her own neck. Plus there are other examples too.
I find that a bit sad. I have no problems with how the word "throat" may be much more in use, but I do have problems when I am attacked for using a phrase that English speaking narrators in TV docus also use.

On your point that I would be unneccesarily rude to people who are relatively new to the boards, I presume you may well be right. I do not want to be rude to them or indeed to anybody - but I am on the receiving end of far too much rudeness myself to always remember when it is called for to pull my punches. So in essence, if you manage to be a tad nicer to me, Robert, that may reflect itself in me being a tad nicer to newcomers.
The real problem may lie in how I have a talent for winding people up, in spite of my lacking English. Nobody likes being part of a group of people who jointly attack a single guy verbally - and loose the battle on account of being outgunned.

As you said yourself, I am well able to look after myself. I only wish I wouldn´t have to do it all the time. It would be nice to concentrate on the case issues only.
But if I can´t have that, I am perfectly able and willing to stand my ground.