Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

On the matter of what likely transpired between Mizen and Lechmere.

It is said that it is likelier that Mizen misunderstood Lechmere than it is that the PC lied.

How about he did neither?

Surely the absolutely most likely thing is that he heard correctly and was honest in telling the inquest about it?

And if he did, then that goes a long way to nailing the killer.

[Sam Flynn]

"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."

No. The Ripper cut throats, and the torso victims were beheaded. Saying that both sets of victims sustained a "cut neck" is to over-generalise to the point of shifting the goalposts. That is no mere case of a misuse of English, but a misrepresentation of the evidence.

[Robert]

Fish, I have absolutely no problem if you do the odd typo or misuse the occasional word. A recent example was when you used the word 'incomparable' and I replied by using the word 'incompatible' as a subtle hint.

The only time I get worried is when it has an important bearing on our understanding of the case. I took exception when you described Crossmere as visiting the murder sites, because I didn't want you to get in the habit of saying it. Of course, you believe that Crossmere visited the sites, because you believe he was the killer! But what you meant on this occasion was that he was near to the sites or in the vicinity of them.

[Sam Flynn]

Actually, Rob, is it not more accurate to say that Cross MIGHT have been in the vicinity of the sites?

[Robert]

Yes Gareth, but I've a feeling that Fish will want to have 'was.'

[Fisherman]

"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."

No. The Ripper cut throats, and the torso victims were beheaded. Saying that both sets of victims sustained a "cut neck" is to over-generalise to the point of shifting the goalposts. That is no mere case of a misuse of English, but a misrepresentation of the evidence.

If we look at the beheadings as unbroken sequences only, Gareth. As you have been informed on numerous occasions, we are faced with the very real possibility that the torso women first sustained the exact same cut as the Ripper victims, only to thereafter have their spines severed. As you would be aware, it was only the Pinchin Street victim where there was not a change of tools, and even so, it may have been the same in her case.

Therefore you should not say that there is any misrepresentation of the evidence. It instead applies that you only want to serve half of it, whilst obscuring the other half.

[Fisherman]

Fish, I have absolutely no problem if you do the odd typo or misuse the occasional word. A recent example was when you used the word 'incomparable' and I replied by using the word 'incompatible' as a subtle hint.

The only time I get worried is when it has an important bearing on our understanding of the case. I took exception when you described Crossmere as visiting the murder sites, because I didn't want you to get in the habit of saying it. Of course, you believe that Crossmere visited the sites, because you believe he was the killer! But what you meant on this occasion was that he was near to the sites or in the vicinity of them.

That is true, and I have no problem saying so. Putting things differently, he is one of the few people we have a reason to expect to have been near each and every one of the murder sites.

I didn´t mean that he stopped off to have tea there every once in a while.

[Fisherman]

Actually, Rob, is it not more accurate to say that Cross MIGHT have been in the vicinity of the sites?

That would put him on par with every other Londoner whose whereabouts at the times we have no record of. Or Englishman. Or person. Or Kosminski. Or Chapman. Or Druitt. Or Feigenbaum. It would be misrepresenting the facts, therefore, and an effort to diminish important evidence.

[Sam Flynn]

That would put him on par with every other Londoner whose whereabouts at the times we have no record of. Or Englishman. Or person. Or Kosminski. Or Chapman. Or Druitt. Or Feigenbaum

Let's keep it confined to East End residents, eh? Cross was certainly on a par with those, in that he lived locally and might have been in the vicinity at the appropriate times. We don't know that he was, though.

[Fisherman]

Let's keep it confined to East End residents, eh? Cross was certainly on a par with those, in that he lived locally and might have been in the vicinity at the appropriate times. We don't know that he was, though.

No, he was not on par with them. To be on par with him, you need to have routes that allow for suggesting that you passed the murder spots of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly at the approximate correct times, plus that you had reason to be in or close to Berner Street and Mitre Square at the correct times. I would suggest that this narrows the number down to a miniscule amount of people.

[Harry D]

What do we know of Robert Paul's work routes?

[Fisherman]

What do we know of Robert Paul's work routes?

That they took him from Foster Street, approximately 40 yards from Bath Street, where he took a right, crossed Brady Street and walked down Bucks Row. After that, he took a right turn on Bakers Row, and opted for Hanbury Street in the choice between it and Old Montague. On Hanbury Street, he proceeded to Corbett´s Court, to the right, off Hanbury Street, about a hundred yards from where Chaman was killed. And he would have started out at around 4 Am or shortly before that - he said he was late at 3.45 in Bucks Row.

He had no reason to use Old Montague Street to get to work, he had no reason to proceed past Corbetts court up to Dorset Street. If we should put him in the frame, he answers to Nichols and Chapman only

We have no reason on record for him to go to Berner Street or to Mitre Square. He may have had reason to, but it is not on record if he had.

Actually, the six murders rule out everybody but for Lechmere if we demand a link in each case.

Over the years, of course, it has been folly to demand such a thing - everybody knows that it will be nigh on impossible to find such links 130 years after the events.

But then we found Lechmere, who not only had problems on the name issue, the conversation with the police issue and a lot more, but who also DID have plausible links to each and every murder site.

So what do we do? Acknowledge that he is leagues ahead of any other suspect? Or say that the geography has become irrelevant?

[Sam Flynn]

No, he was not on par with them. To be on par with him, you need to have routes that allow for suggesting that you passed the murder spots of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly at the approximate correct times, plus that you had reason to be in or close to Berner Street and Mitre Square at the correct times. I would suggest that this narrows the number down to a miniscule amount of people.

We don't KNOW that his work routes or AN Other conjectural reason(s) took him close to those locations, nor at the appropriate times. You are asserting as much, but we have no evidence to that effect, only assumptions.

[Elamarna]

On the matter of what likely transpired between Mizen and Lechmere.

It is said that it is likelier that Mizen misunderstood Lechmere than it is that the PC lied.

How about he did neither?

Surely the absolutely most likely thing is that he heard correctly and was honest in telling the inquest about it?

And if he did, then that goes a long way to nailing the killer.

Why my dear Christer would it be any more likely than the alternatives, when it is based on the premise that one man lies while the other tells the truth.


An alternative which provides actual supporting evidence is surely more limely to be correct than one which is basically "Ibeleive A, but not B."


Steve

[Fisherman]

We don't KNOW that his work routes or AN Other conjectural reason(s) took him close to those locations, nor at the appropriate times. You are asserting as much, but we have no evidence to that effect, only assumptions.

We can safely assume that he walked to work within the area confined between the Hanbury Street route and the Old Montague Street route at somewhere before 4 AM in the mornings.