Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kaz View Post
    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.
    It would only be hypocritical if id have made a criticism whilst proposing a suspect of my own. Which i dont. Im more wary than many when it comes to suggesting that someone was a serial killer on the flimsiest of evidence. CL is not a strong suspect. Present more evidence (not conjecture or contrived ‘scams) and he might become a stronger one. Im afraid i wont conform to the ‘it must be true because Fish says so’ mentality.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

    Comment


    • It's dizzying to try to keep up with this, especially considering it seems to me that, despite the ethereal imagination it takes to even consider Cross/Lechmere as a real suspect, there are some interesting points being made. Forgive me if I've missed the answer to this, but, supposing Mary Ann Nichols was soliciting when she was accosted by her murderer, wouldn't it have been much more likely that it would have been in Whitechapel Road? It makes a lot more sense that then she would have taken her client to the seclusion of Buck's Row. That being a good possibility, would not then Cross/Lechmere's route to work through Buck's Row precluded him from even bumping into Nichols?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
        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.
        CL and Paul left the body together with a joint purpose of finding a police officer. They would have walked along Buck’s Row together. They came upon Mizen together. There is not an iota of evidence that CL then pulled Mizen to one side, out of Paul’s earshot, so that he could lie to him. This is a contrived scenario based on zero evidence purely to incriminate CL and should be regarded as such.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by John Malcolm View Post
          It's dizzying to try to keep up with this, especially considering it seems to me that, despite the ethereal imagination it takes to even consider Cross/Lechmere as a real suspect, there are some interesting points being made. Forgive me if I've missed the answer to this, but, supposing Mary Ann Nichols was soliciting when she was accosted by her murderer, wouldn't it have been much more likely that it would have been in Whitechapel Road? It makes a lot more sense that then she would have taken her client to the seclusion of Buck's Row. That being a good possibility, would not then Cross/Lechmere's route to work through Buck's Row precluded him from even bumping into Nichols?


          John that is possible not the case.




          Steve
          Last edited by Elamarna; 06-04-2018, 07:23 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by John Malcolm View Post
            It's dizzying to try to keep up with this, especially considering it seems to me that, despite the ethereal imagination it takes to even consider Cross/Lechmere as a real suspect, there are some interesting points being made. Forgive me if I've missed the answer to this, but, supposing Mary Ann Nichols was soliciting when she was accosted by her murderer, wouldn't it have been much more likely that it would have been in Whitechapel Road? It makes a lot more sense that then she would have taken her client to the seclusion of Buck's Row. That being a good possibility, would not then Cross/Lechmere's route to work through Buck's Row precluded him from even bumping into Nichols?
            It does seem more likely John. Obviously we cant say for certain why she ended up in Buck’s Row but that spot would surely have been a less likely place to find a customer than the Whitechapel Road. A prostitute in search of a customer would, as you say, be less likely to try their luck in an almost deserted back street.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              But it is not, is it? Anybody is allowed to make a defence case for him. Scobie was asked to see if the case for the prosecution was a good one, and he said it was good enough to warrant a trial. And he foreshadowed that such a trial would end in a cinviction for Lechmere, unless he had good answers to the questions he would be asked.

              Once again, it was no trial, it was a docu researching Lechmere as a suspect, not as an innocent witness, and as Paul Begg said, it was completely relevant to ask Scobie about the prosecution side only. Maybe the time has come to stop the crocodile tears flowing, Herlock...?
              So, in effect, what you are saying is that a fair and unbiased opinion can be arrived at by only hearing one side of the debate.

              Really?
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                It does seem more likely John. Obviously we cant say for certain why she ended up in Buck’s Row but that spot would surely have been a less likely place to find a customer than the Whitechapel Road. A prostitute in search of a customer would, as you say, be less likely to try their luck in an almost deserted back street.
                Herlock,
                There is ample evidence to suggest that Bucks Row and the surround streets were well known for ladies of the night, shall we say.

                Steve

                Comment


                • Do we tjhink there is any chance of this thread reverting to topic?
                  Not a critism, just a question..

                  If so maybe we could discuss some of our fav 2nd string suspects.


                  Steve

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    So, in effect, what you are saying is that a fair and unbiased opinion can be arrived at by only hearing one side of the debate.

                    Really?
                    No, that´s YOUR approach, not mine.

                    What I am saying is that the prosecutions view matters a whole lot. If they find that there is enough to go to trial on in a case, then there is a lot to go to trial on.

                    That is what we can learn from Scobie - the case AGAINST Lechmere is a strong one.

                    After that, it is not as if the defence side (and that is you, Herlock) has been silent and appreciative, is it?

                    No, you have piled up one ingenuous defence after another: "Maybe he was queasy, and didn´t want to touch her", "Maybe he was called Cross at work, and didn´t want to hurt the feelings of his family", "Maybe the clothing fell down over the wounds by itself", "Maybe Paul and Lechmere wore soft sneakers", "Maybe he said ´she weezed` and Mizen thought he said ' a police¨"

                    There is plenty of defending going on, so both sides are represented, Herlock.

                    Comment


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



                      Steve
                      Implied? Maybe you should look at what I say and not at what you think is implied by it?

                      How about that?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                        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.
                        I think you need to expand on how the railway influenced it, Jon. That was your point, was it not?

                        If it wasn´t and if you are making the point that the distance between the actors in the drama could have lowered the odds of hearing what was said, then you really should say so.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                          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.
                          Fish thinks that this is a possibility, going by the article in the Echo. But I prefer to clarify what I think myself.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            Implied? Maybe you should look at what I say and not at what you think is implied by it?

                            How about that?
                            Sorry, if you say he ran his fathers business successfully, that must mean he worked hard.

                            If he had just run the business and it surived, it might mean he only did what was needed to stay afloat, successful implies "hard work" in this instances.


                            Steve

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                              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
                              I really don´t follow you here. You need to spell things out a bit clearer.

                              If all you have to say is "I could be wrong, but so could you", then you can save the space.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kaz View Post
                                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.
                                Yes, it is nothing short of pathetic. But I take heart in what I think it tells us!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X