Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    No, he didnīt. I never wrote a word that Scobie read.

    He looked at the prosecution side of the case
    , and i had nothing to do with the compilation. The closest I have come to the text he read is to say that it is a measly and cowardly thing to predispose that it was full of faults anddesinformation.

    I can think of only a few men who wouold resort to such things.

    Now, try and get things correct, please! If you donīt know, just ask. Donīt think things up, it will end in disaster.
    Exactly. The prosecution side. Whoever wrote it is irrelevant, the point is that he didnt balance his judgement by looking into the case against CL being guilty. How can that be fair?
    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 Sam Flynn View Post
      Apparently a Press Agency report carried, with slight variations, by the Daily News, Daily Telegraph, ELO and IPN:
      [Cross] and [Paul] left the deceased, and in Baker's row they saw [Mizen] whom they told that a woman was lying in Buck's row. The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." The policeman answered, "All right." The other man left witness soon afterwards.

      Note that both men were imparting information to Mizen, evidently as part of the same brief exchange. This is borne out by the Times which, whilst apparently based on the same Press Agency report, gives us very specific, and very useful, information about what "soon afterwards" really meant:
      ...The constable replied "All right." The other man left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett's court. (The Times)

      Now they met Mizen at Baker's Row, so unless Cross's eyesight allowed him to see a great distance and around corners, he couldn't possibly have seen Paul enter Corbett's Court without being there to see it happen. So, far from Paul going off on his own after, or during, the meeting with Mizen, Cross evidently walked the length of Hanbury Street with him. The "corner of Hanbury Street" referred to is evidently the one at the western end, because that's where Corbett's Court was, not (as might be assumed) the corner of Hanbury St/Baker's Row where the encounter with Mizen took place.
      You are relying on Lechmeres testimony to be truthful.

      I donīt do that.

      I never said the two did not arrive at Corbetts Court together. I said that Paul may have walked ahead and Lechmere may have caught up.

      Please keep up.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
        Until such time as you can prove the carmen both lied, your theory is dismissed by them.
        Your statement is incorrect.

        Steve
        Until such time as you can prove that neither carman lied, my theory is very much alive and well.

        There are always two sides to a coin, Steve. Trying to free Lechmere by accepting what he said is allowing a suspect to corooborate his own story.

        Letīs not do that. It is potentially extremely stupid.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Robert View Post
          I wonder if Fish plays bridge? In that game, when you're up against it you have to work out how the cards would need to be distributed for you to succeed, and play for that.
          I wonder if Robert does Ripperology?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            Why couldnt Paul have killed Polly and then doubled-back and waited for someone to discover his handiwork? We now that serial killers like to insinuate themselves into the investigation. What do we know about Paul
            Enough to place him in Bucks Row and to reaslize that he was close to 29 Hanbury Street - and that thre is nothing more to burden him. And that he was apparently interrogated by the police - and let go.

            I would go for Amelia Cox instead.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
              Exactly. This is why i dont put much weight on the location of CL’s mothers house. I bet you could do it with someone like Kosminski. Relatives living locally, a synagogue near to Mitre Square. The problem with searching for things is getting carried away when we find things!

              Fish tried to make it appear that i was dismissing geography enirely but i wasnt. We cant dismiss CL on geography. But we cant dismiss Kosminski or Druitt or Bury or Hutchinson on those grounds either. Or wuite a few others. We needmuch more than that though.
              Donīt just bet that you can do the same with Kosminski - DO IT. Donīt think it has not been tried, though.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                What does that have to do with it? Has it been suggested? Is it relevant? How hard can it be to conduct a serious debate? Catch up, man!
                The point that i was making was an obvious one. Just because something isnt utterly impossible it in no way allows us to act as if it was likely.

                If youre whole case rests on statements like : “well it wasnt completely impossible” then you really are skating on thin ice.
                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


                • And that he was apparently interrogated by the police - and let go..
                  As opposed to CL who the police always suspected of course
                  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 Sam Flynn View Post
                    Where did Baxter get that idea from, and why would he have made it up? Coroners didn't turn up "cold", but had access to paperwork, depositions and witness statements. Furthermore, not everything that was said was reported in the papers. The idea that Cross and Paul spoke with Mizen together originated in Baxter's imagination is untenable, if that's what you're suggesting.

                    The two men examined the body together, they set off to tell a policeman together, and it's almost certain that they spoke with him together. That much should be apparent, even without Baxter's exchange with Mizen as reported in the press.
                    Which idea are we talking about?

                    That there was another man in company with Lechmere? He would have known that from what was written in Lloyds and, as you say, from the paperwork, so that he wouldnīt have to turn up cold.

                    The problem is, we donīt know what Baxter said. In the Morning Advertiser, he is directly quoted as saying "There was another man in company with Cross?" Other papers lead on that he may have said more, but neither suggestion can be substantiated.

                    The two examined the body together, and the two agreed to go find a PC and set off together.

                    How does that make it "almost certain" that not only Lechmere spoke to Mizen? Espaecially when that is what Mizen himself said? What curious mechanism is it that makes people who examine a dead body together, and leave to find a copper together, also talk to that copper together?

                    Hereīs a useful thing:

                    Ask yourself "who suggested the examination?"

                    The ask yourself "who suggested that they should leave together"

                    The ask yourself "Could it be that Lechmere made the calls and decided for them what to do? And if so, could it be that Lechmere told Paul to lay low as he himself spoke to Mizen? And if so, is THIS why Mizen says that "a man", not "two men" contacted him and talked to him?"

                    There is absolutely nothing even reminiscent of a certainty that both men talked to the PC, Iīm afraid. It may be in your dreams, it may be something you feel warmly about, it may be that you are hellbent on trying to make me wrong, but that changes nothing.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      More fantasy.

                      You have shown that something wasnt impossible and you call that mission accomplished? There are many things that arent impossible Fish. What has that achieved? There is a mountain of evidence to show that there is absolutely reason to beieve in a scam. You have suggested the scam therefore it is you that need to prove it but you cant.
                      Once more, if you think I set out to prove that Paul was out of earshot, you are wrong. Once again, I set out to disprove the claim that he MUST have been within earshot, something you presented as a fact or a near fact - not least you.

                      You were wrong, as has been shown.

                      Bummer, but there you are.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        And the evidence that CL deliberately took Mizen to one side and that Paul meekly accepted this action is completely non-existant. It is wish-thinking to bolster an ailing theory....pure and simple. CL remains on the outer-fringes where most are quite happy for him to remain.....unless youve already nailed your colours to the mast of course.
                        I think Lechmere conned Mizen. Mizen tells us that Lechmere said that another PC was in place in Bucks Row. If he did, then he conned Mizen.

                        The signs are written on the wall. If you cannot read (can you?), then thatīs your problem.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          Exactly. The prosecution side. Whoever wrote it is irrelevant, the point is that he didnt balance his judgement by looking into the case against CL being guilty. How can that be fair?
                          It can be fair in a professional sense. He can make a very fair judgment if the evidence warrants a trial, before the defence has presented itīs case.

                          And it is his professional judgment the docu makers were after. As I have said, Paul Begg immediately thrashed those who cried out "Where is the defence?" over the bum, and correctly so. It is common procedure to do it this way when presenting a case against somebody in a docu.

                          If you can get him off the hook, then do so. If you can produce uneqivocal proof that he was innocent, then do so. You gab about how the onus of proof is on me, but letīs try your abilities here!

                          Comment


                          • So Paul was part of the scam, and stood aside while Crossmere lied to Mizen. Then Paul gives a newspaper interview in which he places himself at centre stage. But that's OK as far as Paul's concerned, because he wasn't on oath to the journalist. And it was only a murder investigation - no big deal.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              The point that i was making was an obvious one. Just because something isnt utterly impossible it in no way allows us to act as if it was likely.

                              If youre whole case rests on statements like : “well it wasnt completely impossible” then you really are skating on thin ice.
                              But it doesnīt. In this particular instance, it rests on how Mizen said that Lechmere spoke to him, and forgot that Paul was even there. It also rests on how what seems to point to the two being close together is a biproduct of a sttement from a man who was not on the site.

                              I have very good reason to suggest that Paul may have been out of earshot.

                              All in all, if Lechmere was the killer, then the written reports and articles will not spell it out. You have to explore avenues that have not been explored before, and you have to allow for there being material that seems to gainsay the theory to a smaller or lesser degree.

                              It is a complex thing, but if a theory cannot be dismissed although there is written material covering what happened, then it is a theory that cannot be lightheartedly dismissed.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                As opposed to CL who the police always suspected of course
                                No, they never suspected him - as far as we can tell. We have no signs at all of it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X