Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    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
    hi El
    thanks!

    I am sorry to disagree with you, but the blood evidence, WILL when presented in detail rule out Christer's interprtation 100%.
    how on earth will blood still oozing from a victim rule out lech as the killer?
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      "The University courtyard was proved"?

      I think think you meant "quod", Fish
      My Bulgarian isn´t what it used to be.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Fish thinks that this is a possibility, going by the article in the Echo. But I prefer to clarify what I think myself.
        Pardon Christer, are you now refering to yourself in the third person. And if "Fish " thinks that does that not mean you do too?
        Or am i missing something here between you and Robert


        Steve

        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?
          Yes ive brought this up before. whats the chances shes trying to solicit in Bucks row?

          so if guilty, lech may have just lucked out and she was (highly doubtful), or knowing this, he went via WC road where she was solicitating and they went to more secluded bucks, or that he was going through bucks row and she was there perhaps looking for a place to sit/lie down and sleep??
          Last edited by Abby Normal; 06-04-2018, 07:48 AM.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Yes, it is nothing short of pathetic.
            What? It's pathetic to object to someone being condemned on flimsy and/or exaggerated evidence?
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            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?
              There can be no ruling out of Lechmere as a suspect on grounds like these. They could have struck a deal in Whitechapel Road and walked into Bucks Row, he could have come uopn her after she had sent a punter off post coitum etcetera, etcetera.

              People who are testified about by a serving PC as having said something that is in accordance with having conned their way past the police are actually quite good suspects, not least if they have geographical links to all sites in a murder series.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                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.
                Its very clear, I beleive on 4 of the 5 issues I am correct. However my ego is able to cope with the possability i could be incorrect on some of them.(but i don't think so)
                However i have no such doubts on the Blood evidence at all. That particular issue is dead in the water.


                Steve

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  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.
                  Yes, there IS such evidence, partly in how Mizen said that "a" man came up to him and spoke, not "two men", partly in how one article describes Paul as "the other man, who proceeded down Hanbury Street".

                  So you see, it is an outright falsity to claim there is no such evidence. Making the "point" that they somehow became siamese twins by walking together is not very useful.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                    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
                    Cheers Steve, i recall you pointing that out before. My only point would be that Buck’s Row appeared to be fairly qiuet at that time and that maybe a main thoroughfare might have been a better bet. Of course we cant know this for certain.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






                    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                      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
                      I suggested a move to a more appropriate thread many moons ago.

                      And here we are.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Yes, there IS such evidence, partly in how Mizen said that "a" man came up to him and spoke, not "two men", partly in how one article describes Paul as "the other man, who proceeded down Hanbury Street".

                        So you see, it is an outright falsity to claim there is no such evidence. Making the "point" that they somehow became siamese twins by walking together is not very useful.
                        But we know that there were two men there. CL did the talking then Paul went down Hanbury Street after the convo ended.
                        Regards

                        Herlock






                        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                          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
                          I´ve even forgotten what I originally disliked, and I can´t be arsed to look for it. Life´s too short. Just don´t put words in my mouth, please?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                            Pardon Christer, are you now refering to yourself in the third person. And if "Fish " thinks that does that not mean you do too?
                            Or am i missing something here between you and Robert


                            Steve
                            I´m just tired of the phrase "Fish thinks", for the simple reason that it is often folloed by what I DON´T think.

                            I would prefer "I believe Fish is of the meaning..." or something like that. I have enough of you guys in my head as it is, without you trying to speak for me.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                              how on earth will blood still oozing from a victim rule out lech as the killer?
                              Some confusion Abby, let me clarify, Christer view is that the "blood evidence", places Lechmere " at the eye of the storm"

                              However, it does no such thing. So its not that he rules Lechmere out; but it rules Christer's interpretation out.

                              It cannot Rule Lechmere out, nor can it place him at the scene. Forget for a momment the testimonies of Neil and Mizen, the actually hypothesis is faulty and does not work.


                              Steve

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                                Yes ive brought this up before. whats the chances shes trying to solicit in Bucks row?

                                so if guilty, lech may have just lucked out and she was (highly doubtful), or knowing this, he went via WC road where she was solicitating and they went to more secluded bucks, or that he was going through bucks row and she was there perhaps looking for a place to sit/lie down and sleep??
                                Maybe a great deal higher than you think Abby.


                                Steve

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X