Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

But where exactly were Lechmere and Mizen when they spoke.

Exactly? In inches?

They were up at where Bakers Row ends up at the Hanbury Street inlet, justaboutish.

[Fisherman]

As someone who is in love with the English language, I can assure you, Fisherman, that you use it with greater clarity, grammatical propriety, and assurance than many native speakers.

I blushingly bow to that, Ginger. Many thanks! I am, however, fully aware that there can be details I miss out on, on account of not being a thoroughbred Brit myself.

[Fisherman]

yeah but pretty sure speculation. I don't know for sure the sun is going to come up tomorrow but its a pretty safe bet.

the fact remains, Lech lived at point A, worked at point B and route took him near the murders sites at roughly the same time.

sure thousands of other men lived and worked in the vicinity. how many were near a murder location near the time? a handful. how many were seen near the body of murder victim? one.

Isn´t that nitpicking?

[Fisherman]

No. It puts him in exactly the same situation as John Davis, Louis Dymshitz and PC Watkins.

Davis was there a very long time after Chapman died.

Not the same thing - he was innocent, very clearly.

Diemschutz was there at the time of death, approximately. But Mortimers evidence pretty much clears him, there was precious little time for him to kill Stride. And there is absolutely nothing that points to him, which means that it is time for ME to draw on YOUR speciality: somebody HAD to find her, eh?

Watkins was a copper who would have to leave his beat to do the other murders. And he had precious little time to kill too.

Very, very unlikely.

None of these three men can be proven to have links to any other murder sites than the ones they frequented singularly.

None of these men have anything at all pointing to them.

They are therefore on a very different footing than Lechmere is, and that is mirrored in the suspects department out here.

Can you find any of them there? No?

Guess why.

On a separate note, I´d say that Diemschutz, a foreigner and a Jew, would be much more likely to be hauled over the coals than any good old, honest British carman!

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

You’re falling into the trap of not assuming CL to be guilty.

Hope this helps

Actually Herlock I starting from a position that he was in the area and was a witness to one murder, therefore it is entirely possible that he could be a killer.
I then look at the various sub theories presented against him to see if tge case was indeed strong as some suggest:

1. His arrival time in Bucks Row and his home departure time suggest a problem.

Such a view is dependent on taking his departure time as being set. When in fact it seems clear it could be in a range either side of 3.30.
It also depends on the pace walked and the route taken to reach Brown's Yard.
Finally it is dependent on accepting the timing of Paul, over that of 3 seperate Police Officers..

2. The Scam.

There are various alternative veiws of what actually happened.
The easiest to accept is there was a genuine misunderstand, this was where I started.
The research however has lead me to eschew this easy option in favour of a more difficult one to prove. However there is sufficient evidence to make that view, that Mizen lied, the strongest of the options.
The " Classic Scam" so to speak is almost entirely dependent on accepting that A (Lechmere) lied and B (Mizen) told the truth.


3. The Blood Evidence.

On the surface this seemed highly promising.
However the hypothesis is faulty has it is constructed.
The data used for it, the arrival times and descriptions of Neil and Mizen, do not fit with the known scientific facts.

4. The name issue.

This remains an issue for some, for others not. Recent research has come tantilisingly close to providing an answer, but ultimately fails to do so.

5. There were no easy escape routes.

This is just basically nonsense. There are some 20+ possible routes of which at least 16 are viable.


After assesing thos points above in regards purely to the Murder of Nichols, it is clear that much of the case presented against Lechmere is flawed.
However such cannot and does not rule Lechmere out. It merely demonstates he is just another of many who were in the area and viable.


Steve


Steve

[Fisherman]

Actually Herlock I starting from a position that he was in the area and was a witness to one murder, therefore it is entirely possible that he could be a killer.
I then look at the various sub theories presented against him to see if tge case was indeed strong as some suggest:

1. His arrival time in Bucks Row and his home departure time suggest a problem.

Such a view is dependent on taking his departure time as being set. When in fact it seems clear it could be in a range either side of 3.30.
It also depends on the pace walked and the route taken to reach Brown's Yard.
Finally it is dependent on accepting the timing of Paul, over that of 3 seperate Police Officers..

2. The Scam.

There are various alternative veiws of what actually happened.
The easiest to accept is there was a genuine misunderstand, this was where I started.
The research however has lead me to eschew this easy option in favour of a more difficult one to prove. However there is sufficient evidence to make that view, that Mizen lied, the strongest of the options.
The " Classic Scam" so to speak is almost entirely dependent on accepting that A (Lechmere) lied and B (Mizen) told the truth.


3. The Blood Evidence.

On the surface this seemed highly promising.
However the hypothesis is faulty has it is constructed.
The data used for it, the arrival times and descriptions of Neil and Mizen, do not fit with the known scientific facts.

4. The name issue.

This remains an issue for some, for others not. Recent research has come tantilisingly close to providing an answer, but ultimately fails to do so.

5. There were no easy escape routes.

This is just basically nonsense. There are some 20+ possible routes of which at least 16 are viable.


After assesing thos points above in regards purely to the Murder of Nichols, it is clear that much of the case presented against Lechmere is flawed.
However such cannot and does not rule Lechmere out. It merely demonstates he is just another of many who were in the area and viable.


Steve


Steve

No, it is not clear that the case against Lechmere is flawed. It can well be exactly spot on. You SUGGEST it is flawed, but believe me, that is an entirely different matter. Quad erat demonstrandum.

[Jon Guy]

Exactly? In inches?

They were up at where Bakers Row ends up at the Hanbury Street inlet, justaboutish.

For God`s Sake, Christer
Stop being so defensive, man !!!

Last time I looked it wasn`t certain where they stood, and where Cross, Paul and Mizen stood in relation to each other.

You were arguing the point as if these details were know.

[Elamarna]

No, I have never told you that Mizen was hard working and honest. You need to stop putting words in my mouth!
I have told you that there is nothing to contradict the suggestion that he was. Just like how Lechmere can have been a good or bad father, Mizen can have been a good or bad police. It of course applies that he got a good grade, so one must accpet that he took care of his duties in a commendable way, but that´s as far as the evidence takes us.
He WAS religious, and he DID succeed when taking over his fathers business.


Please !!! I did not quote you, but gave the essence of what you have posted you have previously on this thread said:

"What there is is a record of a policeman who served with honour, who was deeply religious and who took over his fathers farm and managed it with great success. He was not reprimanded by anyone, so he had nothing to hide or try to lie about. "

The comment that he managed his fathers business with great success implies he was hard working, how can it do anything else.
Indeed you repeat it above. To suggest i am putting words in your mouth, that are not obviously implied by your posts is untrue.



Why do you claim that a quotation from Hans Rosling applies to my take on Mizens veracity and honesty? I don´t understand why you allow yourself to drop to these levels of misrepresenting me!

I am not using a quote from Hans Rosling, or anyone.
Just what is implied by your own post.
You are NOT MISREPRESENTED.



Steve

[Robert]

Yes, where was Paul? Fish thinks that he went off alone - he has to think that, otherwise Crossmere would have been forced to lie to Mizen in front of Paul.

[Elamarna]

No, it is not clear that the case against Lechmere is flawed. It can well be exactly spot on. You SUGGEST it is flawed, but believe me, that is an entirely different matter. Quad erat demonstrandum.

Christer, of the 5 issues raised 4 are very clear. It is only the name issue that remains.
If you could demonstrate my view on those four is indeed wrong, then you could possibly say QED, however my being wrong, which is of course possible, would not mean your take on those issues was correct.


Steve

[Kaz]

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.

Have had the same slurs branished around over on the James Maybrick threads

Its a nauseating superiority complex... not to mention hypocritical..


Keep up the great work, fisherman. I remember watching your Channel 4 programme, top draw.

[Sam Flynn]

Quad erat demonstrandum.

"The University courtyard was proved"?

I think think you meant "quod", Fish

[Abby Normal]

Actually Herlock I starting from a position that he was in the area and was a witness to one murder, therefore it is entirely possible that he could be a killer.
I then look at the various sub theories presented against him to see if tge case was indeed strong as some suggest:

1. His arrival time in Bucks Row and his home departure time suggest a problem.

Such a view is dependent on taking his departure time as being set. When in fact it seems clear it could be in a range either side of 3.30.
It also depends on the pace walked and the route taken to reach Brown's Yard.
Finally it is dependent on accepting the timing of Paul, over that of 3 seperate Police Officers..

2. The Scam.

There are various alternative veiws of what actually happened.
The easiest to accept is there was a genuine misunderstand, this was where I started.
The research however has lead me to eschew this easy option in favour of a more difficult one to prove. However there is sufficient evidence to make that view, that Mizen lied, the strongest of the options.
The " Classic Scam" so to speak is almost entirely dependent on accepting that A (Lechmere) lied and B (Mizen) told the truth.


3. The Blood Evidence.

On the surface this seemed highly promising.
However the hypothesis is faulty has it is constructed.
The data used for it, the arrival times and descriptions of Neil and Mizen, do not fit with the known scientific facts.

4. The name issue.

This remains an issue for some, for others not. Recent research has come tantilisingly close to providing an answer, but ultimately fails to do so.

5. There were no easy escape routes.

This is just basically nonsense. There are some 20+ possible routes of which at least 16 are viable.


After assesing thos points above in regards purely to the Murder of Nichols, it is clear that much of the case presented against Lechmere is flawed.
However such cannot and does not rule Lechmere out. It merely demonstates he is just another of many who were in the area and viable.


Steve


Steve

Bingo.
and nothing on those specific points rules him out as a suspect, and they don't either rule out Fish's interpretation of them.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, where was Paul? Fish thinks that he went off alone - he has to think that, otherwise Crossmere would have been forced to lie to Mizen in front of Paul.

yup. I think of all fishs interpretations/speculations. this is probably the weakest.

[Elamarna]

Bingo.
and nothing on those specific points rules him out as a suspect, and they don't either rule out Fish's interpretation of them.

Abby I have never said they do rule him out. Indeed in that very post I make that very clear and such was never the aim of the research.

I am sorry to disagree with you, but the blood evidence, WILL when presented in detail rule out Christer's interprtation 100%.

The scam, if accepted, will rule out Christer's take on that.

The timings of course will always be open to interpretation, but the counter arguments will seriously question the view on such present by our Dear Fish. Such will never be conclusive either way.

The escape routes is something, which while pushed in the documentary, is not something Christer pushes himself, he prefers an alternative reason for Lechmere not running. On facebook it has been argued more than once that there were no escape routes.
And thats the whole point, its not anti Christer or even anti Lechmere, it is merely looking to correct misconceptions some hold on Bucks Row.

The name issue remains completely unresolved, and to be honestv its not something i really look at, the arguments from both sides have pro and con points.


Not sure why Bingo!
My post to Herlock is a very brief summary, with no details. And two of those points are clearly contary to the veiws presented by Christer..

All the best


Steve