Favorite suspect/s?

[Wickerman]

Hi Herlock

I too was totally against the "stay and bluff" scenario and was very critical to fish and poster lech when they first presented it. The obvious thing to do is high tail it out of there at the first sound/sight of someone approaching--and I still believe this is usually what a killer in these circs would do.

but! Ive become more sympathetic as I had something similar to me happen.
Rounding the corner into a back alley parking lot late one night to go to my car I saw a man down and another man standing over him. The standing man said quick go get some help, i think this guys been beat up. So I quickly turned from where I was went back into the street, flagged down a cop and returned. standing man was long gone and the downed man was just trying to get up and told us the standing man knocked him out and stole his wallet and watch.

now of course the perp didnt stick around, nor go with me to the cop, and high tailed it out of there first chance he got. But bluffing it out isnt as nuts as I first thought.

That instinct to do what he told you just might have saved your life.

[Abby Normal]

That instinct to do what he told you just might have saved your life.

Yup. Or his. I’m kind of a bad ass. ; )

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yup. Or his. I’m kind of a bad ass. ; )

Abby i can just picture you dashing into the nearest telephone kiosk and tearing off your shirt to reveal that famous blue costume with the red ‘s’ on the front

Youd have been totally f*%*!d over here because all of our phone boxes have been vandalised by demented cave-dwellers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I often wish that we used the phrase ‘bad ass.’

I cant imagine Jacob Rees-Mogg using it to describe someone though

[Abby Normal]

I often wish that we used the phrase ‘bad ass.’

I cant imagine Jacob Rees-Mogg using it to describe someone though

And I can’t imagine any American with the name Jacob Rees-Mog?!?!
Lol. What a name!

[Abby Normal]

Abby i can just picture you dashing into the nearest telephone kiosk and tearing off your shirt to reveal that famous blue costume with the red ‘s’ on the front

Youd have been totally f*%*!d over here because all of our phone boxes have been vandalised by demented cave-dwellers.

You still have phone boxes?? Cave dwellers indeed!

[Wickerman]

You still have phone boxes?? Cave dwellers indeed!

They ain't just ordinary phone boxes though....

[Robert]

Bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. Well that's what the estate agent said anyway.

[harry]

What appears incredible to me is that a person of Scobies' repute would disregard any evidence favourable to Cross.He should know that such evidence was available,and could be used in a Prima facia hearing.He should also ask himself, why if the evidence speaks so clearly of guilt,the police of that time failed to understand it.Fisherman asks me what evidence of innocence exists.It is the statement of Cross which contains not one element of self incrimination in Nichols murder,plus the absence of any incriminating evidence from any other source. In a prima facia hearing the prosecution would fail miserably

[Harry D]

Hi Herlock

I too was totally against the "stay and bluff" scenario and was very critical to fish and poster lech when they first presented it. The obvious thing to do is high tail it out of there at the first sound/sight of someone approaching--and I still believe this is usually what a killer in these circs would do.

but! Ive become more sympathetic as I had something similar to me happen.
Rounding the corner into a back alley parking lot late one night to go to my car I saw a man down and another man standing over him. The standing man said quick go get some help, i think this guys been beat up. So I quickly turned from where I was went back into the street, flagged down a cop and returned. standing man was long gone and the downed man was just trying to get up and told us the standing man knocked him out and stole his wallet and watch.

now of course the perp didnt stick around, nor go with me to the cop, and high tailed it out of there first chance he got. But bluffing it out isnt as nuts as I first thought.

Difference being Abby that you caught this guy on the hop, as he was standing over the victim. Contrary to popular belief, Lechmere wasn’t huddled over Polly, he was stood in the middle of the street. Had Lechmere been the murderer, he clearly had time to dust himself off and back away from Polly before Paul’s approach. If that was the case, why not scraper while he had the chance?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You still have phone boxes?? Cave dwellers indeed!

I passed one yesterday as i was taking a hansom cab to a tea dance with Lady Ascot

[Fisherman]

Back from (to?) the party!

I find that the debate out here has now reached the point I was looking for - we have moved from a flat out denial that Paul could have been out of earshot to a position where the next step will inevitably be posting material saying that we can ALMOST be certain that Paul was not within earshot. He MAY technically have been out of earshot, but that possibility is laughably small, and so on and so on and so on.

After all, these are boards were posters can say that there is a 0,0000000000000001 possibility that Lechmere was the killer, and then move on to assure us that Bury was almost certainly the Ripper.

On such boards, you can never get fairness on a general level. All you can do is to point out where people are going too far in their determination to confirm or deny what cannot be confirmed or denied, and as I said, itīs mission accomplished on that point.

I will comment on a few posts.

In post 907, Gareth posts the Morning Advertiser take on what was said between the coroner and Mizen, and we can once again see how Mizen gave a generalistic answer to a generalistic question: Yes, there was a other man there.

If it had all boiled down to whether Paul was very close to Lechmere as the latter spoke, if the inquest had wanted to clear Lechmere from any suspicion, the question should have been phrased accordingly. But Lechmere was never suspected and all Baxter wanted to establish was whether there were one or two carmen in the street. He didnīt even ask about how many of them spoke to Mizen, and why would he? Mizen had already answered that.

Post 914 is a good one, by Abby;

"I also think all this back and forth about paul is obsfuscating the main issue:

Mizen, a PC in good standing, with no reason to lie testified under oath that Lech told him that he was wanted in bucks row by another policeman.

Probably a misunderstanding in my view, but he said it, its written in stone and he may have heard correctly-which means Lech said it and lied.

its a red flag. OK potential red flag."

Things like these are very important to keep in mind. Gareth earlier asked "Why on earth would Paul not be within earshot as Lechmere spoke, when they examined the body together, and walked away together?"

If there was nothing more to it, then yes, it would be a useful question. But once we have these matters, like how it seems Mizen was lied to, then it suddenly becomes of the utmost importance to check every little bit of information there is about the carmans doings on the murder night and in combination with the deed.

Once a single little thing (and this is NOT a single little thing, of course) seems odd, then we must scrutinize all the information to see if a path can be discerned that may lead to our capture of the killer.

The sad thing that follows is when it is said that I only point to matters like the one with Paul perhaps being out of earshot in Bakers Row, because I am obsessed with Lechmere and willing to go to any lengths to pin the murders on him.

That is doing ripperology a great disservice.

It applies that for Lechmere to remain a viable candidate, he must have taken the knife with himself from Bucks Row. No weapon was found there. And so, if he was the killer, then he will have had it stashed on his person as the two carmen met Mizen. And in such a case, Lechmere would be faced with a situation where he could absolutely not allow himself to be searched.

Therefore, when Mizen tells us that the carman served him a story where he made it look like he was NOT the finder of the body, where he did NOT own up to how serious the errand was and where he claimed that a PC was in place, we can see that if I am on the money about Lechmere being the killer, then he served a story that is in every detail perfectly consistent with that suggestion.

It is not me trying to pin the murder on Lechmere. It is the sources confirming that what happened in Bakers Row is entirely consistent with the idea of the carman being the perpetrator, and not only that - it becomes entirely logical to say that if Mizen was correct, then there is ample reason to suspect Lechmere.

We can of course say that Nah, Mizen will have lied or he will have been mistaken. But that does not detract in any way from the justification in saying that Lechmere passes the test here as a viable suspect, and that what happened actually encourages us to keep researching him as a suspect in his own right.

Sooner or later we will come to the situation where we say "Okay, there are a number of things that allow for entertaining suspicion about the carman - or even urges us to see him as a suspect - and so we should move on to doing the mandatory geographical test - what can we say about his paths and the possible ties to one or more of the murder sites?"

This is where some of you will say "we really should not check that, because London and itīs East End was so crammed with people that any dovetailing we may find becomes irrelevant."

And that in itīs turn is why I say that we cannot always listen to what posters suggest out here, we need instead to press on and do it the accepted way: check and see if the suspicions are verified in any way by the geography.

And you all know how that check works out.

The last post I would like to comment on is post 920. In it, Joshua Rogan writes "Which makes me wonder why a scamming Lechmere would have openly contradicted a policeman in court, when he could have just put it down to such a mishearing."

I personally think that it would sound more suspicious if Lechmere had suggested a mishearing: "No, the PC must have misunderstood me, I only said that the case required a policeman".
I think that denying it altogether was a better option, since the missing Paul would always stand as a guarantee for the carman being correct - he could possibly be found and questioned, and so Lechmere would reasonably never lie about it. That, I suspect, is how the jury must have reasoned, and it cemented their view of him as a truthful man, whereas Mizen simply HAD to be wrong.

As long as Lechmere was never suspected, he was destined to get away with this kind of a lie, the whole scenario disenabled Mizen to be correct. Regardless of HOW Mizen would have gotten it wrong, it must have appeared to the jury that this was the only option.
As for Mizen, I think he would be quite likely to press his point about having been told about another PC if Lechmere suggested a wording that Mizen knew was not correct. As long as you are not served that kind of a specific wording, you are left to use your own phantasy about how you caould have gotten it wrong, and such a thing will make it easier to accept. "Maybe I did mishear him?" instead of "No, he certainly did not say that!"

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I can’t imagine any American with the name Jacob Rees-Mog?!?!
Lol. What a name!

Rees-Mogg, who is jokingly called The Minister For The Eighteenth Century holds the record for using the longest word ever used in parliament.

https://youtu.be/GmXQOJhd0_0

You should see the names of his children. One is called Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher Rees-Mogg. Another is Alfred Wulfric Leyson Pius Rees-Mogg. The rest of his family have normal names like Anselm and Annunziata Mary Granville.

Just a normal, everyday English family.

[Robert]

But Fish, Crossmere might have known that Paul would almost certainly be found - especially after giving an interview to a newspaper - and if you're right that Paul was out of hearing, Paul would not have been in a position to back Crossmere up. Crossmere may have scored a temporary success with the jury - if they were thinking that far ahead - but in the end it would be his word against Mizen's. Better to go for the misunderstanding - less risk of arousing suspicion in the minds of jury, coroner and police.

[Jon Guy]

Rees-Mogg, who is jokingly called The Minister For The Eighteenth Century holds the record for using the longest word ever used in parliament.

https://youtu.be/GmXQOJhd0_0

You should see the names of his children. One is called Sixtus Dominic Boniface Christopher Rees-Mogg. Another is Alfred Wulfric Leyson Pius Rees-Mogg. The rest of his family have normal names like Anselm and Annunziata Mary Granville.

Just a normal, everyday English family.

His old man helped save Mick Jagger from being sent to jail in 1967