Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    The surrounding street were all empty and silent, so yes, it seems to me to have been a spot that could not offer up prostitution on the night and time. I always thought there was a lot of it to be had in nearby Whitechapel Street.

    What I want to know is whether there was actual soliciting going on in Bucks Row, or if it was only a street known to be a place where punters and prostitutes came to finish the deals.

    Whichever applies, Lechmere cannot be ruled out on neither ground.
    Christer

    The evidence as to if solicting went on actual on Bucks Row, or if it was just where the deed took place as you ask, is unclear, but it seems that the immediate area, not just Bucks Row was used, and known to be used, by both locals and Police.

    Such would account for why Nichols headed East rather than back to the busy spitlefields after meeting Emily Holland.

    Steve

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      thanks for clarifying el

      well if its "COULD.. place lech...in the eye of the storm" than its correct.

      theres no doubt that blood still oozing from the wound indicates she was killed very close in time to lech finding her, or of course, that he did it.

      I mean what is a realistic time frame for blood still oozing?? I'm thinking half an hour at the most. and the futher out you go the more improbable it becomes, least of is that the chances that she would have been found earlier by someone else!
      Payne-James suggested a few minutes only.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        And how much did he have to clean up? Jason Payne-James: "I don´t think he will have had necessarily any blood visible on his person".
        Indeed, Cross wiped his hand on Paul`s shoulder.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          Unless of course we debate CL’s guilt and then it’s a foregone conclusion?
          No, there can be no knowing in that case either. Don´t lie about me.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            The only thing thats pathetic is the ridiculous over confidence and inflated ego that's on display whenever Lechmere is mentioned. Contortions and distortions purely for the obsessive purpose of being ‘the man who solved the case.’

            Just out of interest, herlock, why do you sit on the fence with the Diary and yet Lechmere is a complete non-starter, someone who shouldn't even be considered?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              That would not be me in either case. I am standing in the line behind Michael Connor, Derek Osborne and Edward Stow. So that, I´m afraid, robs you of the possibility to try and make me look like somebody looking for fame and glory; an effort that, if I may be so bold, also is pathetic.
              It’s irrelevant who went before you or who agrees with you Fish. You are the one arguing with certainties where none can exist. He was there.....that’s pretty much it. Anyone who says that they know who the ripper was is wrong. Your over-zealousness shows when you constantly get irate when people dare to disagree with you.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                Indeed, Cross wiped his hand on Paul`s shoulder.
                "Touched him on the shoulder" is the wording. Whether there was blood on the hand or not is an unknown factor.

                Comment


                • My main problem with Lechmere is that he wasn’t somewhere he wasn’t meant to be. So, either he chanced on Nichols while walking to work and decided to take out his bloodlust there and then, or he was an innocent bystander whose routine happened to coincide with a murder, just like the other carman not far behind. Giving his stepfather’s surname (but volunteering his place of work) isn’t sufficient grounds for suspicion imo. I certainly encourage Fisherman & others to keep digging if they can but I’m not sure how anyone can condemn him so emphatically.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                    Indeed, Cross wiped his hand on Paul`s shoulder.
                    Or vice versa. Personally, I haven't entirely ruled out Robert Paul yet
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      It’s irrelevant who went before you or who agrees with you Fish. You are the one arguing with certainties where none can exist. He was there.....that’s pretty much it. Anyone who says that they know who the ripper was is wrong. Your over-zealousness shows when you constantly get irate when people dare to disagree with you.
                      I don´t say that I know who the Ripper was. I say that I THINK I know who the Ripper was. Don´t lie about me.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                        My main problem with Lechmere is that he wasn’t somewhere he wasn’t meant to be.
                        I wish I'd said that! Nicely put, Harry.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                          My main problem with Lechmere is that he wasn’t somewhere he wasn’t meant to be. So, either he chanced on Nichols while walking to work and decided to take out his bloodlust there and then, or he was an innocent bystander whose routine happened to coincide with a murder, just like the other carman not far behind. Giving his stepfather’s surname (but volunteering his place of work) isn’t sufficient grounds for suspicion imo. I certainly encourage Fisherman & others to keep digging if they can but I’m not sure how anyone can condemn him so emphatically.
                          You must admit, though, that killing en route to work would provide him with an alibi if found close to a murder site. That seems clever to me.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            I wish I'd said that! Nicely put, Harry.
                            You HAVE said it. Numerous times and in numerous wordings. So far, it has not been an obstacle at all.

                            Comment


                            • Still having trouble with the word 'we,' Fish?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                                thanks for clarifying el

                                well if its "COULD.. place lech...in the eye of the storm" than its correct.

                                theres no doubt that blood still oozing from the wound indicates she was killed very close in time to lech finding her, or of course, that he did it.

                                I mean what is a realistic time frame for blood still oozing?? I'm thinking half an hour at the most. and the futher out you go the more improbable it becomes, least of is that the chances that she would have been found earlier by someone else!
                                Given her wounds i would suggest blood would start to clott within 10 minutes of the attack, however we must remember that she was disturbed by Paul and Lechmere, before Neil arrived, such could start blood to ooze again..

                                At first sight, i saw it as a real possability of setting a time of attack, but its not.

                                I would suggest, no more, that the attack took place approx 10 minutes max before Paul arrived, but its guess work, the tools to be more pricise do not exist now and certainly did not in 1888.
                                And of course if Fish is correct that the abdomen wounds were first and the cause of death (which they could be, but inconsider highly unlikely) then the whole game would change even if the hypothesis worked, which is doesn't.


                                Steve

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X