Favorite suspect/s?

[MrBarnett]

[[/B]

If that is post 1145, i have given the answer very clearly a few times before that post, no need to repeat it.
I see questioning of my view by Gary, asking if i am confusing likelihood (probability) with possability, which is a perfectly reasonable. I gave my reason in post 4088.

I do not see it as " speaking about a dire need to get real", that seems to be your own reading of it.

Steve

Steve,

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

Gary

[Elamarna]

[[/B]

That is not strictly correct. The two could have agreed to con Mizen, as I said before.

Could have once again.

But just as you say, there may be things that do not sit well with the picture of Lechmere as the killer.

The evidence you mean.

Is it a problem for you that I in such cases look for how he could nevertheless be the killer? After all, I believe he was and I am researching him as the killer, and so I feel I must test if the accusations can hold water.

No issue with testing, but when the tests are based on wishfully thinking and could bes and a continual claim that he must prove innocence when there is very little factual evidence against him, The results will be fairly meaningless

Perhaps you want to join Caz, knitting, baking and reading instead of being subjeted to the harsh reality of somebody actually presenting a long since dead man as a Ripper suspect?

Its really not possible for you to make a comment without personal digs. Argue the case not the man or woman.

Is it not time to end this charade now? To stop the crocodile tears flowing? And to try and get some sort of foothold in reality?

I have no tears for anyone but the victims. So not sure what all that is about,


You can begin by answering Gary Barnetts post directed to you. Speaking about a dire need to get real.

If that is post 1145, i have given the answer very clearly a few times before that post, no need to repeat it.
I see questioning of my view by Gary, asking if i am confusing likelihood (probability) with possability, which is a perfectly reasonable. I gave my reason in post 4088.

I do not see it as " speaking about a dire need to get real", that seems to be your own reading of it.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

I think the problem we're having is in establishing a factual element which rules him IN, Fish.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are not really advancing, Herlock. Stating that it would help a suspect if it can be proven that he was 200 miles away, for example - I fail to see how that is applicable in our case. I have so far not seen a scrap of evidence that clears Lechmere. Have you?

Its you that isn’t advancing or indeed understanding. The ‘200 miles away’ point was just me illustrating how unlikely it is that we will ever be able to categorically exonerate CL. Please pay attention Fish.

It therefore applies that when a barrister says that he thinks a case is a prima facie case that suggests that the suspect was the killer - and where thre is not a scrap of evidence to clear him - we can be reasonably certain that the suspect is one who carries great weight.

Not if that Barrister hasn’t been exposed to facts, situations or alternative interpretations that might have altered his opinion. His confidence might have been misplaced. To form an opinion on the case why can’t you admit that someone needs to view the case from both sides.

It is that simple, and that applies regardless of how many people go out of their way to think up innocent explanations. When I pointed out to Caz that there is a shitload of such alternative innocent explanations, she asked me "And how many guilty explanations do you have?", obviosuly thinking that it is a battle of the sheer numbers that will settle the issue!

It is daft behind comprehension.

Pot. Kettle. Black again Fish. On here you’ve often spoke of how you look at what we know and look at the alternative explainations that can exist to show that CL’s candidature remained intact. Why are only your ‘alternative explainations’ valid or worthwhile.

The point you couldnt understand is tied to this: The path taken by the killer, regardless of who he was, is an extremely narrow one. It only involves ONE choice of action at each stage, whereas when we conjure up alternative innocent explanations, there is no end to them. To exemplify, if Lechmere was the killer, then he covered up the body to conceal the wounds. That is the one and only possibility if we look at him as the killer.

And, perfectly reasonably, if he wasn’t the killer he did it out of respect for the dead. He called Paul over to see her! Did he cover up her throat wounds?!

But if we try to find as many innocent alternatives as possible, we can do so with great gusto: The clothes fell back over her by themselves, the clothes were pushed down by the wind, a passing cat pulled them down, they were not as far down as Paul thought but instead the wounds were visible, a passer-by pulled the clothes down out of prudency (this actually happened in a murder case from the Australian sixties), Nichols pulled them down herself since she was not really dead etcetera.

Why is your ‘guilty’ interpretation’ anymore ‘valid’ than the innocent one? Answer, it’s not Fish. Unless you have an unfettered ego.

Researching a suspect is being offered only the narrowest of paths when there is caserelated evidence at hand. If we are instead dealing with guys like Kosminski, there is NO caserelated evidence, and so he can easily be dealt the killers role since we may conjur up anything we like: Maybe he was there, maybe he hated prostitutes, maybe he had a long knife, maybe he knew the areas, maybe he had reason to visit Mitre Square, maybe he was a mad killer, maybe he heard voices telling him to kill. All very easy and convenient.

Or the FACT that he was mentioned at the time by very senior police officers as a suspect. Do you have any EVIDENCE that they must have lied Fish? To save you the effort, the answer to that is no. Therefore Kosminski has to be considered at least.

Not so with Lechmere. There are checking points laid down that he can be tested against. So far, they have not been any trouble at all for the suggestion of him being the killer. If you disagree, please tell me which factual circumstance you believe comes closest to ruling him out.

There are none Fish. As ive said too many times to keep repeating. The problem is that we can say the same thing for most suspects.


Most people answer "He wouldn´t kill enroute to work" or "He was a family man, he would not kill" or "He would have run" or something such on that question - something that is in no way possible to prove, that is sometimes demonstrably wrong and that is never any factual obstacle to Lechmere being the killer.

At a distance of 130 years it’s pathetic to virtually say “if you can’t come up with a fact or facts that categorically exonerate him then he’s likely to be guilty!” Apart from the fact that he was there there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to make us think him guilty. Apart from your fanciful interpretations of course.

Far from being 200 miles away, he was there as the body was still bleeding - and would go on to bleed for a considerable amount of minutes although the neck was nearly severed and she had major damage to the abdomen, severing many vessels.

I’ll leave medical evidence to others, as I always do. Paul saw no blood on CL though. Neither did Mizen. And despite being at the scene CL was never suspected by the police. Not conclusive but certainly worth mentioning.

When you have something that comes within a country mile of the 200 mile suggestion, you have a good case. Once you havent, the case stands.

The case against CL exists because you exist. It’s nothing to do with the strength of your arguments. He was there. That’s all. All else is interpretation and imagination on your part whilst wearing the Lechmere Goggles.

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

[Fisherman]

I think the problem we're having is in establishing a factual element which rules him IN, Fish.

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

[Fisherman]

Excellent principle. But most of your posts seem unable to honor it when it comes to Charles Cross. Too bad.

And here he is again, the man who avoids all Lechmere discussions... (drumwhirl)... KATTRUP!!!

Basically, what he now tells us is that we should not research a single suspect or entertain any suspicion at all about anybody.

I was - as should be abundantly clear - not making a recommendation to regard the world as devoid of dishonesty or evil. I was making the point that those who research a case must be regarded as doing it in a fair way until it can be proven that they are not. Apparently, that was too subtle a point for the Great Dane of these boards. Woof!

[Kattrup]

What I am saying is another thing: that we should treat people as being truthful and honest until it can be proven that they are not.

Excellent principle. But most of your posts seem unable to honor it when it comes to Charles Cross. Too bad.

[Sam Flynn]

If you disagree, please tell me which factual circumstance you believe comes closest to ruling him out.

I think the problem we're having is in establishing a factual element which rules him IN, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Like most ‘suspects’ we cannot categorically exonerate CL. Its overwhelmingly unlikely that we will ever be able to unless we get freakishly lucky (or unlucky from your point of view) and someone finds proof that CL was elsewhere at the time of one of the murders. There is a difference though between suspecting that CL might have been guilty and continuing to research him and having such a high level of confidence in his guilt based on such flimsy or non-existence evidence. The constant refrain of “well its not impossible” really does speak of the weakness of the case. No jury would come even close to finding CL guilty on the evidence that exists.

You are not really advancing, Herlock. Stating that it would help a suspect if it can be proven that he was 200 miles away, for example - I fail to see how that is applicable in our case. I have so far not seen a scrap of evidence that clears Lechmere. Have you?

It therefore applies that when a barrister says that he thinks a case is a prima facie case that suggests that the suspect was the killer - and where thre is not a scrap of evidence to clear him - we can be reasonably certain that the suspect is one who carries great weight.

It is that simple, and that applies regardless of how many people go out of their way to think up innocent explanations. When I pointed out to Caz that there is a shitload of such alternative innocent explanations, she asked me "And how many guilty explanations do you have?", obviosuly thinking that it is a battle of the sheer numbers that will settle the issue!

It is daft behind comprehension.

The point you couldnt understand is tied to this: The path taken by the killer, regardless of who he was, is an extremely narrow one. It only involves ONE choice of action at each stage, whereas when we conjure up alternative innocent explanations, there is no end to them. To exemplify, if Lechmere was the killer, then he covered up the body to conceal the wounds. That is the one and only possibility if we look at him as the killer.

But if we try to find as many innocent alternatives as possible, we can do so with great gusto: The clothes fell back over her by themselves, the clothes were pushed down by the wind, a passing cat pulled them down, they were not as far down as Paul thought but instead the wounds were visible, a passer-by pulled the clothes down out of prudency (this actually happened in a murder case from the Australian sixties), Nichols pulled them down herself since she was not really dead etcetera.
Researching a suspect is being offered only the narrowest of paths when there is caserelated evidence at hand. If we are instead dealing with guys like Kosminski, there is NO caserelated evidence, and so he can easily be dealt the killers role since we may conjur up anything we like: Maybe he was there, maybe he hated prostitutes, maybe he had a long knife, maybe he knew the areas, maybe he had reason to visit Mitre Square, maybe he was a mad killer, maybe he heard voices telling him to kill. All very easy and convenient.

Not so with Lechmere. There are checking points laid down that he can be tested against. So far, they have not been any trouble at all for the suggestion of him being the killer. If you disagree, please tell me which factual circumstance you believe comes closest to ruling him out.
Most people answer "He wouldn´t kill enroute to work" or "He was a family man, he would not kill" or "He would have run" or something such on that question - something that is in no way possible to prove, that is sometimes demonstrably wrong and that is never any factual obstacle to Lechmere being the killer.

Far from being 200 miles away, he was there as the body was still bleeding - and would go on to bleed for a considerable amount of minutes although the neck was nearly severed and she had major damage to the abdomen, severing many vessels.

When you have something that comes within a country mile of the 200 mile suggestion, you have a good case. Once you havent, the case stands.

[Fisherman]

Is that an order? I don't think I called a whole post of yours rubbish, did I? Just something you wrote in one of them. But if the cap fits...



Now that wasn't rubbish. I trust Scobie would be of the same meaning. Sorry, I meant 'opinion'. I'm not turning Swedish, honestly!



So what then? Put him in some kind of eternal limbo of suspicion? Pull out his toenails until he coughs? If he doesn't, confine him in history's prison because he can't be proved innocent?



That many, eh? How many guilty ones have you managed to produce?



Except that everyone here has acknowledged that Lechmere can't effectively be cleared - only presumed innocent unless he can be proven guilty, in the time-honoured fashion. So who are you accusing of clearing Lechmere using this shitload of innocent explanations?

By the way, that really stung you, didn't it, when you wrote that misogynous rubbish and were rightly called out on it. If you don't like your posts being described as misogynous, don't write misogynous posts in the first place, and then try to shift the blame onto the person they were directed at. I don't actually give a stuff because at least you didn't say it in private or behind my back, so it tells us all something useful. But don't insult your readers by pretending you didn't write it and mean it.

Love,

Caz
X

Misogyny is hating women.

Recommending somebody to knit, bake or read as a placid pastime is not misogynous and has nothing at all to do with hating women - especially not since I enjoy baking and reading myself plus I go to knitting exhibitions. You CAN read, can´t you?

There is no shame in misunderstanding, but it DOES help to admit it when you do.

Both about misogyny and Lechmere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And you go on about "victim mentality". Again! You just cannot help yourself, can you?

No I can’t Fish. You are constantly accusing other people of things that you yourself are guilty of.

I use Scobies stance as a sign of the strenght of the prosecution case. Since he (probably) didn´t see the defence - which in my view only amounts to offering alternative reasons for the many accusation points WHAT?!?! - I cannot use it in any other way. I never said that Scobie crushed the defence, did I? I say that he sees enough in the prosecution part to state that there is a prima facie case to answer and that suggests that Lechmere was guilty.

I let anyone judge this point - If a barrister is presented with a prosecution case and says “its looking good “ you are not in the least worried about trumpeting the merit of that opinion? You don’t feel that evidence that might have been presented by the defence might have had a bearing on the prosecution Barristers opinion? You think that a prosecutor might still be willing to say “yes there’s a good enough case to proceed,” knowing, for example, that the defence might have either evidence that throws serious doubts or even evidence that the killer was 200 miles away at the time. Why can’t you accept this?

If you want more evidence then there is in Lechmere´s case, then you actually are not prepared to allow for anybody at all being pointed at as a Ripper suspect. No other suspect compares in that department, and consequentially, no other suspects has ever been weighed by a barrister and found good (or bad) enough for a trial.

He was near the body in Buck’s Row. No reason at all to get carried away though.

If a barrister says that the prosecution evidence is sufficient, then I´d say apart from conclusive proof, we can find no more sufficient grounds for naming a person as a suspect.

And that opposing viewpoints and alternative interpretations are inconvenient and therefore surplus to requirements. I’d have a guess that the Barrister was called Holmgren.

And in this context, you must accept that the alternative explanations so richly suggested by you and others, are not any facts at all. Rwturning to Scobie, he said that a jury would not like the material adhering to Lechmere one bit, and that has to stand as long as no REAL reason to alter it surfaces.

The fact that he chose to remain and put his head in the noose while he could easily have escaped is a FACT.

For example, when I say that he always otherwise used the name Lechmere in contact with authorities and that he is never recorded to have used the name Cross by his own choice other than in combination with a murder inquest, then we should not fool ourselves into believing that it is an established fact that he used Cross at Pickfords. It is not, it is nothing but a suggestion and we have no idea how Lechmere would have answered the point if the question was ever asked from him in a trial.

Conveniently omitting the fact that he used his real Christian names and gave his correct address. And the fact that Cross was his step-fathers name and that he’d previously used it in a census. The ‘name thing’ is a red herring.

The same goes for the other alternative suggestions: they represent a rich source of helpful alternative thinking that is tied to a number of rippeologists today and not to Lechmere himself. The accusation points, however, are factually grounded.

Don’t really understand that bit?

They may all have had factual answers if asked in 1888 - but as long as they were not, it remains that what we actually KNOW speaks against the carman being innocent. It tells a story that the jury would not like, as per Scobie.

You should organise a mock-trial Fish. I’d be staggered beyond belief if CL was found guilty. I’d also expect the judge to criticise the prosecution for wasting the courts time.

Like most ‘suspects’ we cannot categorically exonerate CL. Its overwhelmingly unlikely that we will ever be able to unless we get freakishly lucky (or unlucky from your point of view) and someone finds proof that CL was elsewhere at the time of one of the murders. There is a difference though between suspecting that CL might have been guilty and continuing to research him and having such a high level of confidence in his guilt based on such flimsy or non-existence evidence. The constant refrain of “well its not impossible” really does speak of the weakness of the case. No jury would come even close to finding CL guilty on the evidence that exists.

[caz]

First: given the quality of your posts, do not call my posts rubbish.

Is that an order? I don't think I called a whole post of yours rubbish, did I? Just something you wrote in one of them. But if the cap fits...

No, I would not hang Lechmere on the evidence existing.

Now that wasn't rubbish. I trust Scobie would be of the same meaning. Sorry, I meant 'opinion'. I'm not turning Swedish, honestly!

However, I would not free him, as you suggest, on account of suggestions made by posters out here! Certainly not!

So what then? Put him in some kind of eternal limbo of suspicion? Pull out his toenails until he coughs? If he doesn't, confine him in history's prison because he can't be proved innocent?

What is produced out here is a shitload of alternative, innocent explanations...

That many, eh? How many guilty ones have you managed to produce?

You see, no matter how clear-cut a case is, alternative innocent explanations can ALWAYS be provided. Using them to clear Lechmere in retrospect would be, to lend a phrase from a great thinker out here (specialising in misogyny and related topics) - outright rubbish.

Except that everyone here has acknowledged that Lechmere can't effectively be cleared - only presumed innocent unless he can be proven guilty, in the time-honoured fashion. So who are you accusing of clearing Lechmere using this shitload of innocent explanations?

By the way, that really stung you, didn't it, when you wrote that misogynous rubbish and were rightly called out on it. If you don't like your posts being described as misogynous, don't write misogynous posts in the first place, and then try to shift the blame onto the person they were directed at. I don't actually give a stuff because at least you didn't say it in private or behind my back, so it tells us all something useful. But don't insult your readers by pretending you didn't write it and mean it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

"The other man was some way away from the man I now know to be Cross, and out of earshot when we spoke, so he wasn't technically present at the time"?

And Cross would have been cross - seething in fact - to learn that Mizen had been both meticulously accurate and perceptive to a fault.



I think you mean the surreal picture, Fish. It's the English nuance thing again, so not your fault.



Wrong way round. It has NOT been established that there are viable grounds for claiming that Paul wasn't a party to the conversation, especially considering his account of it in the newspaper. How could he have hoped to get away with his complaint about Mizen if he didn't actually have a clue what Cross had reported to him?

CROSS TO PC MIZEN : Ah, officer, you are wanted by PC Daft in Buck's Row, where a cat has its eyes on a pigeon. No rush, he says, just poodle along there when you've finished knocking up and had a nice cuppa and a full English.

PAUL TO THE PRESS : Shame on that copper for leaving the poor bird to her fate. Cold as ice she was and feathers - sorry, blood [got carried away there] all over the shop. I told him she was a gonner but would he listen? Would he fvck? All coppers are bastards etc etc...



Crucial to making a case, you mean.



...been used to try and build a case from nothing, Fish will just find another way of 'mantling' them all over again.

Love,

Caz
X

If there is something - anything - of real relevance in this post, could you please point it out to me? I can´t find it, and I don´t want to seem misogynous by looking like I avoid you.

[Fisherman]

This "a man" red herring really needs to be put to bed. The account of Mizen's testimony reads:

"Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row [sic]"... When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man"

When he spoke. When. Not before or after, but when.

"A" man passing. Not "two men passing". And there are other representations of it. Plus there is Mizens pointing out of Lechmere as "the man he spoke to" or something such. Not "one of the two men he spoke to".

The Morning Advertiser (nowadays the paper the anti-Lechmereian brigade loaths more than any other paper) has it:

Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question).
I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?

The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

There goes YOUR red herring.

Nota bene how Paul is left out - as if he was never present or parttaking in the conversation. As if he was never even there, actually, until Baxter mentions him.

Now, what do we do when we have different wordings and different possible interpretations? Correct: we decide that just the one that fit our purposes is relied upon. And... no, wait - where did I get that from? It´s just plain wrong and lousy research. What I REALLY wanted to say was "we read Frank van Oploos post, since it shows us how a REALLY discerning poster does his homework".

I think your red herring may have turned blue in the face by now (sorry, couldn´t help myself. )

[Fisherman]

Problem Caz is that such does not fit the narrative of "Killer Lechmere".

Steve

That is not strictly correct. The two could have agreed to con Mizen, as I said before.

But just as you say, there may be things that do not sit well with the picture of Lechmere as the killer.

Is it a problem for you that I in such cases look for how he could nevertheless be the killer? After all, I believe he was and I am researching him as the killer, and so I feel I must test if the accusations can hold water.

Perhaps you want to join Caz, knitting, baking and reading instead of being subjeted to the harsh reality of somebody actually presenting a long since dead man as a Ripper suspect?

Is it not time to end this charade now? To stop the crocodile tears flowing? And to try and get some sort of foothold in reality?

You can begin by answering Gary Barnetts post directed to you. Speaking about a dire need to get real.