Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by Robert View Post
    I always knew Fish's theory was pants.
    Fish's theory had its chips right from the start, Robert.

    It should be done for salt and battery, unlike Cross, who should not be done for assault and battery. He was no seasoned killer.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Which is the exact distance inbetween people disclosed by the phrase "in company of"? Please expand on that, since it seems there is a lot to learn.
      I'd say that if you're not close enough to converse with someone - or hear their conversation with a third party - then you can't be said to be in company with them.

      Comment


      • Yes he thought that after all those years he'd finally managed to ketchup with the killer. But all he found was breadcrumbs.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
          I'd say that if you're not close enough to converse with someone - or hear their conversation with a third party - then you can't be said to be in company with them.
          Works for me Joshua
          Regards

          Herlock




          “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
          “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
          “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
          “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
          “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by harry View Post
            The record of solved murders in 1880,differ little from the records of today,that is dspite the improvements in crime detection that is now available.The reason the police would not have concentrated on Cross,is that there was no evidence that pointed to his story being false.No circumstancial or eye witness evidence that placed him in the company of Nichols when she was alive.

            So it's another false claim to suggest it was poice incompetance that allowed Cross to get away with murder.
            Thank you Harry!

            Had Cross been seen near Chapman's body as well, before anyone else knew she was dead, I don't doubt the police would have been all over him like a rash. And he'd have been the world's most stupid murderer ever, for having allowed himself to come to police attention with Nichols, when there was never any need.

            As it was, even the police knew someone had to be first to find each victim, and there's nothing suspicious about Cross doing so.

            Confirmation bias would have it that he must have taken extra care with all his subsequent victims, so he would never be seen with another one, alive or dead, because bluffing his way out of it would not have worked twice. So why continue to kill in such risky locations, where he had no better control over who might come along before he could make a safe exit?

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              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.
              No it isn't.

              I have already posted that psychologists have identified that ordinary people when presented with an extraordinary sight will try and interpret what they see in a way that makes sense to them, based on their previous experiences.

              Thus Cross having seen something unusual lying in the street identified it initially as a tarpaulin, not a dead body.

              This makes sense if he was indeed just a carman heading off to work in the early hours.

              It would not be unusual for him see a tarpaulin in the street, it would however be unusual for him to be confronted with a murder victim.

              Also, if he was the killer, why not simply say to the police that he saw a woman lying in the street and went to help her.

              Why invent a tale about a tarpaulin?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                Criminals-can-lie. They-WILL-do-so-on-many-an-occasion
                Holy $hit, he's turning into a dalek!
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post
                  Why invent a tale about a tarpaulin?
                  Cover story.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                    I'd pay you to knock up some fish and chips.

                    From your post #614 :

                    I think that there is nothing at all gainsaying that the two men arrived in the street in close physical company with each other, and that Lechmere then said "There´s a copper! I´ll talk to him, and you just go on ahead so you won´t be late!"

                    From your post #601 :

                    He clearly said that ONE man came up to him and spoke to him, and the coroner asked if there was not another man present as the conversation took place, which Mizen answered with a "yes".

                    Do you not see any contradiction here, Fish?
                    Hi Robert
                    Seeing both were late I could see it happening as they are walking together, they see the policeman, lech goes directly up to him as Paul starts to go his separate way as they get close. Lech could have said you go on, illl tell him.

                    And then Paul didn’t hear the lie, o r did and didn’t really care at that point since they both were trying to get to work.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      "In the company of" doesn't mean "standing five yards away", let's put it that way. And Paul was in Cross's company when he spoke with Mizen - not just before he spoke, not just after he spoke, but when he spoke.

                      There is no indication at all that Cross stepped forward, or took Mizen to one side to confide in him, and there's zero justification for believing as much.
                      It could mean 5 yards, especially if Mizen saw them approach together and especially in the context of a deserted street. Paul may have held back a few yards as Lech approached and spoke with Mizen.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post
                        I quite agree. That post of yours was absolute poppycock.

                        Lechmere was the first man to be seen near Nichols after she had been murdered. He was not seen with her while she was alive and still had the potential to be murdered.

                        See the difference?

                        No, thought not.

                        The man seen canoodling with Eddowes near Mitre Square had a proven opportunity to murder her because she was seen alive and in his company at that point. Doesn't mean he went on to kill her, but he had the opportunity. He either took it, or someone else did very shortly afterwards.

                        Lechmere could only have had a proven opportunity if Nichols had been seen alive with him at any point, and there is no evidence whatsoever in his case that she was. If she had been seen alive with him shortly before being pronounced dead, then yes of course, he'd not only have had the opportunity, but would almost certainly have been her killer. That's why it is meaningless to talk about 'opportunity' in these circumstances.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        well since no one was seen with her right before her time of death, it seems the only person we know of who had the opportunity was lech, no?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                          It could mean 5 yards, especially if Mizen saw them approach together and especially in the context of a deserted street. Paul may have held back a few yards as Lech approached and spoke with Mizen.
                          Abby,

                          That is all possible of course, but there is absolutly nothing to say it is so.
                          Indeed the overwhelming evidence is that it did not

                          Both carmen say that Paul spoke during the exchange with Mizen.
                          Surely therefore actual evidence is needed to refute those reports/statements.

                          I pointed out earlier, that at no time does Mizen say Paul never spoke, he just does not mention him. Omission is not the same as saying he didn't talk.



                          Steve

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            Cover story.
                            Sorry Sam, I genuinely don't get your point.

                            Where is the advantage of saying "I went over because I thought it was a tarpaulin", as opposed to "I went over because I saw a woman who seemed in need of assistance?"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post
                              No it isn't.

                              I have already posted that psychologists have identified that ordinary people when presented with an extraordinary sight will try and interpret what they see in a way that makes sense to them, based on their previous experiences.

                              Thus Cross having seen something unusual lying in the street identified it initially as a tarpaulin, not a dead body.

                              This makes sense if he was indeed just a carman heading off to work in the early hours.

                              It would not be unusual for him see a tarpaulin in the street, it would however be unusual for him to be confronted with a murder victim.

                              Also, if he was the killer, why not simply say to the police that he saw a woman lying in the street and went to help her.

                              Why invent a tale about a tarpaulin?
                              to distance himself from the fact that he was her killer?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                Cover story.
                                lol. good one . but also possibly true.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X