Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

What? He knew when he picked up Polly Nichols that he might well be 'found' near her dead body and would need to come up with a plausible "thought she was a tarpaulin" story, to mimic precisely what many an innocent witness would say in the future?
Love,

Caz
X

Of course, this passage referred to how he gave the name Cross at the inquest. Surely you realize that he had a day or two to ponder that?

[caz]

Oh, yes, Caz DOES make a habit of it. Now, be a good boy, run along and start checking her posts to me. I want her crucified by you for it. That´s what you do, right?

Right way up, or upside down, Fish? Can I put some clean undies on first and have a fish and chip supper as a last request?

I must admit, I didn't know crucifixion was your penalty of choice for saying the case against Cross is crap. But I should have guessed. You've already put Cross on the cross just for saying he's Cross.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Precisely my point, Fish! And that tells me Lechmere genuinely thought he was seeing a tarpaulin, because that's what Nichols looked like when he first saw her, lifeless in the dark from a distance. And like Paul, he didn't even assume she "must be a murder victim" when they got up close.

Love,

Caz
X

Criminals-can-lie. They-WILL-do-so-on-many-an-occasion.

The idea that his speaking about a tarpaulin would be ironclad proof - or even a slight indication - of innocence is bonkers.

[Fisherman]

Paul and Lechmere did not come from either end Busy Beaver, they both came from Bath street, and entered Bucks Row where it joined Brady Street,

There are lots of escape routes, West, North and South. Indeed one could even escape going East if one went South first.

If someone went West to the Board school and then turned left (South) they would be out of sight of anyone walking East to West along Bucks Row in around 30 seconds without even having to walk quickly.


Steve

It remains that not a soul was seen leaving the spot. Regardless if it was North, South, West or East.

It´s another bummer for Lechmere, regardless how we look at it. It does not mean he is guilty, but the opposite would be at least some little sign that he is not.

[Sam Flynn]

Of course, this passage referred to how he gave the name Cross at the inquest. Surely you realize that he had a day or two to ponder that?

What earthly good would it have done him to have used an alternative name for a dodgy purpose, unless "Charles Lechmere" was a known criminal?

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that Joshua

Far too much speculation and wish-thinking has to be done to try and prove the ‘scam.’ I think that we can, with more than a reasonable level of confidence, dismiss it.

It would be utterly stupid. And you dislike being called utterly stupid, remember?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,
I am also genuinely curious as to what source or sources lead you to think:

" that the two may have split up along it. Then they rejoined afterwards again".

Is this thought based on any tangible source evidence or just an dea based on a wide interpretation of language?
In essence unsupported by the sources.

Cheers


Steve

It is both a fact and a source.

The fact: Mizen did not say that both men spoke to him.

The source: The Echo article saying "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street".

[Fisherman]

So Mizen said that Paul was present during the conversation, but you disagree with Mizen.

No, I don´t. I think Paul was present in the street. I am present in Helsingborg, and you in La-La Land. A little presence of mind would help, Robert,

[Fisherman]

I see you're also disagreeing with the English language yet again.

No. It disagrees with me.

What a sad, sad figure you make with these remarks, Robert.

[Robert]

Whereas you, Fish, are cutting a hilarious figure.

[Sam Flynn]

It remains that not a soul was seen leaving the spot. It´s another bummer for Lechmere, regardless how we look at it.

How is not seeing someone from (say) a hundred metres away in a dark street a "bummer"? How is arriving at a scene after the killer had perhaps already departed a "bummer"?

For your "bummer" to work, one would have to assume that Cross was within easy viewing distance of the murder site in order to have stood any chance of seeing anyone fleeing the scene - and that only works if the killer was still there at that point.

[Sam Flynn]

It is both a fact and a source.

The fact: Mizen did not say that both men spoke to him.

The source: The Echo article saying "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street".

The same source, indeed the same sentence/paragraph, which says "[Coroner:] There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness".

In other words, when Cross spoke to Mizen, Paul was with him.

[Fisherman]

Right way up, or upside down, Fish? Can I put some clean undies on first and have a fish and chip supper as a last request?

I must admit, I didn't know crucifixion was your penalty of choice for saying the case against Cross is crap. But I should have guessed. You've already put Cross on the cross just for saying he's Cross.

Love,

Caz
X

I was referring to how you compared my argument with a pile of ****, and how Herlock got all teary-eyed and felt extremely insulted on your behalf when I turned the exact same phrase on you. I simply demanded that he would b fair enough to crucify you as he crucified me.

He would have none of it. I am to blame, solely, and you are to congratulate to have escaped crucifixion. Whether you choose to celebrate that in your undies, butt naked or in a more festive clothing is your own choice entirely.

[Fisherman]

What earthly good would it have done him to have used an alternative name for a dodgy purpose, unless "Charles Lechmere" was a known criminal?

Have you forgotten all the old threads...? He may have wanted to keep his real name from those who knew his paths and could start suspecting him.

[Fisherman]

Whereas you, Fish, are cutting a hilarious figure.

I prefer that, Robert.