Favorite suspect/s?

[harry]

As it was a necessary part of his livelihood and family associations that determined the murder sites be frequented by Cross,and being that the association had been in existence over a period of years prior to the Whitechapel murders,I fail to understand any significance in a claim of territorial usage being a factor.It was not an intent to murder that placed Cross
at the muder sites,if in fact he can be placed there,when the murders happened,but a coincidence of frequent and lawfull usage.

[Fisherman]

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

It would be more likely because the audibility would have been very good - a silent, empty street in the middle of the night. On that account, it is more likely that we hear correctly, generally speaking.

There are also a number of anomalies attaching to Lechmere and no such thing when it comes to Mizen.

It is impossible to weigh the likelihoods exactly, but I think the easiest explanation and the one that is mostly in line with good policing is that Mizen told the truth.

He was not reprimanded, and the coroner would reprimand any policeman who was not up to scratch as we have seen with Alfred Long and Spratling.

But of course, the implications of this being true are such as to deter just about anybody out here from touching it with a ten feet pole.

It´s actually hilarious.

[Fisherman]

As it was a necessary part of his livelihood and family associations that determined the murder sites be frequented by Cross,and being that the association had been in existence over a period of years prior to the Whitechapel murders,I fail to understand any significance in a claim of territorial usage being a factor.It was not an intent to murder that placed Cross
at the muder sites,if in fact he can be placed there,when the murders happened,but a coincidence of frequent and lawfull usage.

Can you see how that makes for a very good alibi?

Try this thought: Somebody who wants to kill asks himself: When and how can I do it in a situation where my presence will look justified and unsuspicious?

In Lechmeres case, can you identify any such situation?

[Sam Flynn]

... that determined the murder sites be frequented by Cross.

That hasn't been proven at all, Harry, except in the solitary instance of Polly Nichols.

[Fisherman]

Here´s a clip of Hans Rosling, a Swedish professor who knew how to debate. In this clip, he totally demolishes a Danish media person. Nothing is left behind but a small (embarrased) pile of ash.

He does what we are not allowed to do out here, he tells the Dane "This is not up for discussion, I am right and you are wrong. It is kind of refreshing!

He would render Herlock sleepless for years on end...

It´s the first few minutes of the clip only.

https://www.facebook.com/gapminder.org/videos/1060574540644170/

[Fisherman]

That hasn't been proven at all, Harry, except in the solitary instance of Polly Nichols.

Don´t be nervous, Gareth, Harry is simply making a generalized statement of how he perceives that people who are on a spot for logical, unsinister reasons will not be likely/able to be killers.

Statistically, he is completely correct to some degree - we are normally not killers and we normally have other reasons for being in place somewhere.

On the individual serial killer level, though, he is of course wrong.

[Elamarna]

It would be more likely because the audibility would have been very good - a silent, empty street in the middle of the night. On that account, it is more likely that we hear correctly, generally speaking.

There are also a number of anomalies attaching to Lechmere and no such thing when it comes to Mizen.

It is impossible to weigh the likelihoods exactly, but I think the easiest explanation and the one that is mostly in line with good policing is that Mizen told the truth.

He was not reprimanded, and the coroner would reprimand any policeman who was not up to scratch as we have seen with Alfred Long and Spratling.

But of course, the implications of this being true are such as to deter just about anybody out here from touching it with a ten feet pole.

It´s actually hilarious.

What is Hilarious is the fixation on a single version which fits a theory.

The refusal to even consider that Mizen did not tell the truth is amazing,
However that does not prevent the dismissal of his timing of 3.45 for the exchange when trying to fix Paul's entry to Bucks Row at the same time.

The suggestion that he probably heard correctly is conjecture and cannot in anyway demonstrate that he understood clearly what he was told.
More importantly it is irrelvant if he did not tell the truth.


The coroner did not reprimand him you say, but how would Baxter know his account was untrue, he was called before Lechmere, who denied Mizen's account.
No disparaging remarks were made to Lechmere by Mr Baxter, who made such remarks to Mann, Hatfield and Tomkins.

Given there is no record of Mizen's account before he speaks at the inquest no view could have been taken by any that day with regards to the authenticity of the account.

Is there evidence,which may suggest Mizen's account is untruthful, yes there is.
And I trust you will be able to view and digest that objectively.


Steve

[Jon Guy]

It would be more likely because the audibility would have been very good - a silent, empty street in the middle of the night.

Apart from the railway station and tracks running just behind the murder site.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Its called being blinkered.

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.

True. Lechmere is as unlikely as any.

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

Yup. He was around.

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.

Its likelier that he would have wanted to get away.

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.

Strange how the family seem quite happy about their relation being Jack

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?"

Strange that the police didnt suspect him though

CL remains on the ‘outer fringes’ as a suspect when even ‘main’ suspects dont have a massive amount going for them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
But then we found Lechmere, who not only had problems on the name issue,

He used the name of his step-father. A name that hed previously used on a census. Someone had obviously then told him though that on official documents he was obliged to use his true name. When the police asked he gave the name that he in all likelihood used from day to day. If he had anything to hide he would have a) given a completely different name or b) given the wrong address.

But he didnt. He gave a name that he used on a census (the surname of his step-father) and his correct address.

How long are you going to keep using this to create a ‘mystery’ where none exists?

[Fisherman]

Apart from the railway station and tracks running just behind the murder site.

...which was some hundred yards away and where no train was recorded to have passed as Lechmere and Mizen spoke. It was a night where many people spoke about how dead silent it was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
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.

Now ive no doubt that Mr Scobie deserves an excellent reputation. Its been a while since i saw the documentary but i seem to recall him sitting at his desk leafing through a dossier. Im assuming that this dossier was compiled by yourself and Ed Stow and was therefore the case against CL?

Im quite happy to be corrected or informed here.

My point is an obvious one. Did Scobie also have the opportunity to read someones case for CL’s defence? Did he have, say, a month or so to completely familiarise himself with the case, conditions at the time, Victorian policing etc.

No matter how expert Scobie is on legal matters he would have needed to see both sides of the debate to form a balanced judgement (im sure that you see this.) Now he might have seen an argument from the opposing side. I dont know. Could you let us know Fish

[Fisherman]

What is Hilarious is the fixation on a single version which fits a theory.

The refusal to even consider that Mizen did not tell the truth is amazing,
However that does not prevent the dismissal of his timing of 3.45 for the exchange when trying to fix Paul's entry to Bucks Row at the same time.

The suggestion that he probably heard correctly is conjecture and cannot in anyway demonstrate that he understood clearly what he was told.
More importantly it is irrelvant if he did not tell the truth.


The coroner did not reprimand him you say, but how would Baxter know his account was untrue, he was called before Lechmere, who denied Mizen's account.
No disparaging remarks were made to Lechmere by Mr Baxter, who made such remarks to Mann, Hatfield and Tomkins.

Given there is no record of Mizen's account before he speaks at the inquest no view could have been taken by any that day with regards to the authenticity of the account.

Is there evidence,which may suggest Mizen's account is untruthful, yes there is.
And I trust you will be able to view and digest that objectively.


Steve

The whole premise of your post is wrong. You say that I "refuse" to consider that Mizen lied, but how could I do that? I am saying that I don´t think he did, and that holds no refusal at all.

And no, I really don´t think there is any evidence at all pointing to Mizen as a liar. Let alone enough evidence to allow for saying straight out that he was, the way you did before.

[Fisherman]

CL remains on the ‘outer fringes’ as a suspect when even ‘main’ suspects dont have a massive amount going for them.

He remains the only suspect with a factual case clinging to him, and a good enough case to go to court, as witnessed about by James Scobie. That is harder to swallow than a horse-pill with sandpaper around it, I´m sure. But just as the horses need their medicine, so do some out here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can you see how that makes for a very good alibi?

Try this thought: Somebody who wants to kill asks himself: When and how can I do it in a situation where my presence will look justified and unsuspicious?

In Lechmeres case, can you identify any such situation?

Of course. He could say “im just off to visit my old mum,” at three o-clock in the morning.