Favorite suspect/s?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

Because i read and form my own opinion without feeling the need to join a fan club.

On the diary ive said that its overwhelmingly likely to be a forgery but im not 100 % convinced yet. Thats because it takes a lot to convince me of something; i dont just jump on a bandwagon and pick the suspect that i like the most then defend him as if my life depended on it. Unlike some.

Ive also said, on this thread, that CL cannot be completely dismissed. He was around. More research is required because theres nowhere near enough evidence to justify anything like the confidence thats being shown. If you wish to scream ‘burn the heritic’ just because id rather think for myself rather than follow the leader then thats up to you.

Ripperology needs a whole lot more scepticism and a lot less zealous over-confidence based on next to nothing. This is why we get books proposing Mann, Bachert et al.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He didn´t see them until they had left Bucks Row, Jon. And how "together" they were in terms of distance is up for debate - but whichever distance applies, we know that Mizen said that "a" man came up to him and spoke. Not "two men".

I have said this before, and I will reiterate it: There is the possibility that Lechmere told Paul that he would fool any PC they met so they could slip past him and get to work faster. In such a case, Paul could/would have heard what was said, but would likely be reluctant to speak of it at the inquest.

However, I favour the option with Paul being out of earshot. Less risk involved.

Even if CL and Paul did lie to Mizen theres a perfectly reasonable and innocent explaination available especially when both men mentioned that they were concerned about getting to work on time.

[Joshua Rogan]

I was just making the point that it wasn`t that quiet, Christer.
A train woke up Mrs Lilley in her bed, so why not a 100 yards towards Bakers Row.
Apologies for not being clearer

As well as the line running north/south through Buck's Row, there was also the Metropolitan underground line which ran under Whitechapel Road and emerged from it's tunnel at the south end of Baker's Row.

[Robert]

Police-constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury-street and Baker's-row, when a carman, passing by in company with another man, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." The witness went to Buck's-row, when Police-constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance, he helped to put the deceased upon it.
A Juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness: No; I only finished knocking up one person.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/east_london_observer/elo880908.html

[Kaz]

Because i read and form my own opinion without feeling the need to join a fan club.

On the diary ive said that its overwhelmingly likely to be a forgery but im not 100 % convinced yet. Thats because it takes a lot to convince me of something; i dont just jump on a bandwagon and pick the suspect that i like the most then defend him as if my life depended on it. Unlike some.

Ive also said, on this thread, that CL cannot be completely dismissed. He was around. More research is required because theres nowhere near enough evidence to justify anything like the confidence thats being shown. If you wish to scream ‘burn the heritic’ just because id rather think for myself rather than follow the leader then thats up to you.

Ripperology needs a whole lot more scepticism and a lot less zealous over-confidence based on next to nothing. This is why we get books proposing Mann, Bachert et al.

No disrespect on my part

Was just an observation.

Some of your posts made it seem Lechmere shouldn't even be discussed... seems like you have less of a problem with CL but more a problem with Christer and his colourful standpoint.

[Fisherman]

it takes a lot to convince me of something

You can say that again.

[Fisherman]

Even if CL and Paul did lie to Mizen theres a perfectly reasonable and innocent explaination available especially when both men mentioned that they were concerned about getting to work on time.

Yes, there is always just the one truth - and then there are endless "alternative explanations".

Was alwas so, will always be so - and in no other place is it so richly on display as here.

[Fisherman]

As well as the line running north/south through Buck's Row, there was also the Metropolitan underground line which ran under Whitechapel Road and emerged from it's tunnel at the south end of Baker's Row.

Nowhere was it mentioned that a train passed or that the metro passed as the men spoke, and that they had problems hearing each other. Instead, it was said that the night was unusually quiet.

If Mizen had problems hearing, he had reason to ask what was said. He didn´t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No disrespect on my part

Was just an observation.

Some of your posts made it seem Lechmere shouldn't even be discussed... seems like you have less of a problem with CL but more a problem with Christer and his colourful standpoint.

No problem Kaz

Cards on the table here.

I actually have a lot of respect for Christer. He knows his subject and is obviously an excellent researcher. My ‘issues’ are twofold. Firstly, i just think that hes gotten carried away in his hunt to nail CL as the ripper. I dont think that the evidence justifies that confidence. Of course Fish is entitled to be as confident as he feels. Im not saying that Fish is being dishonest im just saying that on certain issues i think that hes mistaken. Thats all.
And secondly i have a natural resentment to being spoken to as if im the stupid kid in class who cant be made to understand. Or that im disagreeing just because im chairman of the Charles Levhmere fan club. I fully admit that i can react sarcastically or even irritably but i genuinly dont feel that im completely to blame. Perhaps Fish and i are destined to spending the rest of our lives bickering on here.
A scary though (for both of us.)

[Robert]

You and Fish will be confined to the matter/anti-matter corridor from Star Trek.

[Fisherman]

No problem Kaz

Cards on the table here.

I actually have a lot of respect for Christer. He knows his subject and is obviously an excellent researcher. My ‘issues’ are twofold. Firstly, i just think that hes gotten carried away in his hunt to nail CL as the ripper. I dont think that the evidence justifies that confidence. Of course Fish is entitled to be as confident as he feels. Im not saying that Fish is being dishonest im just saying that on certain issues i think that hes mistaken. Thats all.
And secondly i have a natural resentment to being spoken to as if im the stupid kid in class who cant be made to understand. Or that im disagreeing just because im chairman of the Charles Levhmere fan club. I fully admit that i can react sarcastically or even irritably but i genuinly dont feel that im completely to blame. Perhaps Fish and i are destined to spending the rest of our lives bickering on here.
A scary though (for both of us.)

Absolutely chilling!

[Jon Guy]

As well as the line running north/south through Buck's Row, there was also the Metropolitan underground line which ran under Whitechapel Road and emerged from it's tunnel at the south end of Baker's Row.

Yes, thanks JR. There must have been quite a din in the cavernous Bakers Row. Plus all that steam, visibility must have been limited.

[harry]

Herlock,
I entirely agree the evidence doesn't justify the facts.There is suspicion(not mine) Cross was the last person with Nichols,and so the person who killed her.
To counter that,there is the testimony of Cross that she was dead when he found her,and that testimony has never been proven to have been false..Never knew of a murder trial,where a person has been found guilty on suspicion,except perhaps that of Wallace,and that verdict was overturned.

Fisherman,

I believe you previously stated Scoby was reffering to Prima Facia evidence,and not trial.

[Robert]

In Paul's Press interview of September 2nd, which is coloured by Paul's seeming attempt to cast himself in the starring role while relegating Crossmere to a supporting player, Paul says that he spoke to Mizen and complained that Mizen had continued with the knocking up.

It must have been this interview which prompted the question to Mizen next day about his continuing to knock up, which Mizen denied, saying that he merely finished the knock-up that he'd started.

I would suggest that if Paul had not spoken to Mizen at all, the latter would have been anxious to contradict, in the clearest possible terms, not only Paul's allegation about the knocking up but also Paul's statement that he spoke to him. But he did not.

What's more, Mizen would probably have known what Crossmere was about to say, because Crossmere had made a statement to the police. If Mizen knew that Crossmere was about to say that Paul too had spoken to him, then that would have given him an extra incentive to contradict Paul.

It seems to me that Paul may have been lying or exaggerating about the continued knocking-up, but was telling the truth about speaking to Mizen.

[Fisherman]

Herlock,
I entirely agree the evidence doesn't justify the facts.There is suspicion(not mine) Cross was the last person with Nichols,and so the person who killed her.
To counter that,there is the testimony of Cross that she was dead when he found her,and that testimony has never been proven to have been false..Never knew of a murder trial,where a person has been found guilty on suspicion,except perhaps that of Wallace,and that verdict was overturned.

Fisherman,

I believe you previously stated Scoby was reffering to Prima Facia evidence,and not trial.

Scobie said that there was a prima facie case to answer for Lechmere, and this is the definition of such a case:

When the prosecution (which bears the evidential burden of proof) in a criminal case concludes its submission, the state's case is said to be prima facie if the evidence presented is sufficient for a conviction. Otherwise, the defense (which bears the persuasive burden of proof) will be able to submit that there is no case to answer and (if the court concurs) the case will be dismissed.

If course, since Scobie only saw the prosecution case, he could only say if he thought that the prosecution case would be sufficient for a conviction. After that, the defence would - perhaps - be able to provide evidence that was enough to either clear Lechmere or cast doubt on his guilt.

These are technicalities of the legal profession, but the gist of it all is that Scobie quite simply thoght that there was a case that would quite likely suffice for a verdict of guilty TAKEN ON IT`S OWN.

As you say, Lechmeres evidence has not been proven to be false, but as we all know, serial killers are unlikely in the extreme to give themselves up and confess, so in essence, it may well be that Lechmere´s evidence is a pack of lies and totally unreliable.

That is the window that is wide open for anybody who researches Charles Lechmere as the probable Ripper. If we were to take all testimony at face value, we would do the criinal world a collossal favour.