Favorite suspect/s?

[caz]

There is the other little matter of Cross's handy explanation for being seen near any of the murder locations, close to the time of death, only working the once. If he played his joker so early on in the game in Buck's Row, and then nearly blew it by giving a name that wouldn't have checked out, he couldn't keep saying: "Well officer, I was on my way to work/mother's house when I saw something else that looked like a tarpaulin, and would you Adam an' Eve it...", every time he committed another murder on one of his legitimate routes to wherever.

So would he not have been safer not to kill again and again on routes that could all have been associated with him in time and place, one way or another? How could his 'legitimate' excuse for being there have possibly worked a second, third or fourth time?

I could see the killer doing this on the first and subsequent occasions, all the while he came to nobody's attention, and keeping the joker up his sleeve, to be used once only in case of need. But if the idea was to use the same tactic again and again, it would have been sheer lunacy to go out of his way to draw attention to himself on the very first occasion, or at least one of the first, and think "Well that worked a treat so I'll stick to the game plan in case I need exactly the same cover story in the future".

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

You keep repeating this nonsense. And it is such.
I will say again.
There is nothing in the acvount of Mizen which challenges the account of the Carmen, that they were together and both spoke to Mizen.
Therefore it is not possible that Paul was out of earshot.

Steve

There we go - a total copout. You claim that it is not even possible that Paul was out of earshot, and that is simply bad research, bad understanding and a sign of a dangerously low ability of perception.

The very fact that Mizen does not involve Paul in his testimony, instead saying that "a man came up to me and said..." is very clearly indicative of how a man came up to Mizen and spoke to him.

It is ot indiative of TWO men doing it, and that does not change when Mizen answers the coroners question, which is a generalized question, quite likely only meaning "Was there more than one man present in the street?"

It certainly does not lay down that Paul was in close proximity to Lechmere, and much less does it establish any distance between the two men.

You are free to say that you THINK Paul was within earshot. You are free to say that it would be strange if he was not (although it would be no such thing at all). But you are not free to cook up facts from personal belief. None of us are, Steve.

There goes whatever level of credibility I have at times invested in you.

[Fisherman]

That's you told, Caz!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

More jestering.

[Joshua Rogan]

2. The "a man" referred to might actually have been Paul!

Sorry Sam, this is clarified by the Evening News report;

"Police-constable Mizen, of the H Division, said on Friday last, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker's-row, at the end of Campbell-street. A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row."

A man named Cross was here brought into the room and identified by witness as the man to whom he referred."

Of course, if Paul had been located at this time, perhaps they would both have been brought in.

[Fisherman]

This isn't "my way" of weighing evidence. The evidence is there, for all to see. You've just latched on to that report about "a man" speaking to Mizen because it suits your method of weighing the evidence. Apart from there being other accounts that Paul also spoke with Mizen, I might point out two things:

1. "a man" speaking to Mizen does not rule out another having done so;

2. The "a man" referred to might actually have been Paul!

It matters not a iot if some evidence "suites my method of weighing the matter". If the evidence is there and works together with my theory (which in your world is pronounced "suites my method of weighing evidence", thanks for the vote of confidence, Gareth!), then I´m sure it´s an absolute bummer for you.

But ... how does that change or take away the evidence? How does it mean that it becomes non-existant or forbidden to point to? WHy should we only be able to use evidence that does not work with my theory?

If I had known that, I would never have entered ripperology in the first place.

[Fisherman]

There is the other little matter of Cross's handy explanation for being seen near any of the murder locations, close to the time of death, only working the once. If he played his joker so early on in the game in Buck's Row, and then nearly blew it by giving a name that wouldn't have checked out, he couldn't keep saying: "Well officer, I was on my way to work/mother's house when I saw something else that looked like a tarpaulin, and would you Adam an' Eve it...", every time he committed another murder on one of his legitimate routes to wherever.

So would he not have been safer not to kill again and again on routes that could all have been associated with him in time and place, one way or another? How could his 'legitimate' excuse for being there have possibly worked a second, third or fourth time?

I could see the killer doing this on the first and subsequent occasions, all the while he came to nobody's attention, and keeping the joker up his sleeve, to be used once only in case of need. But if the idea was to use the same tactic again and again, it would have been sheer lunacy to go out of his way to draw attention to himself on the very first occasion, or at least one of the first, and think "Well that worked a treat so I'll stick to the game plan in case I need exactly the same cover story in the future".

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, this is going to come as a surprise and a total revelation to you, I´m sure, but..., lean closer to me, and I will whisper it: Pssst! It is ALWAYS safer not to murder people. Always! Promise!!!

[caz]

That's you told, Caz!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

Yes, Robert, hilarious stuff.

If I would do better to stick to knitting, baking or running - very slowly, perhaps Fishy would do better to stick to reading crime fiction instead of writing it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Yes, Robert, hilarious stuff.

If I would do better to stick to knitting, baking or running - very slowly, perhaps Fishy would do better to stick to reading crime fiction instead of writing it.

Love,

Caz
X

I do read crime fiction. Never more so than in your posts Caz.

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry Sam, this is clarified by the Evening News report;

"Police-constable Mizen, of the H Division, said on Friday last, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker's-row, at the end of Campbell-street. A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row."

A man named Cross was here brought into the room and identified by witness as the man to whom he referred."

Thanks for picking me up on that, Josh. Of course, my first point still applies, namely that "a man" speaking to Mizen doesn't preclude another doing so also.

Edit: I'd also add that the Evening News report in question contains mistakes, which I'm sure has been pointed out before. For one thing, it omits to mention that Cross was in the company of another as this happened, a detail which other papers include; for another, it renders Hanbury Street as the (non-existent?) Campbell Street.

[caz]

Caz, this is going to come as a surprise and a total revelation to you, I´m sure, but..., lean closer to me, and I will whisper it: Pssst! It is ALWAYS safer not to murder people. Always! Promise!!!

Er, did you miss my point deliberately? Or were you too busy being misogynous to grasp it?

Lechmere would have been safer from your theorising had he stayed at home that morning to make the breakfast, do the washing up and darn the kids' socks. But no, the stupid man had to go off to make a living and get himself accused in the distant future of murdering people.

Your argument was that he thought he was safer to go on murdering women on routes where he'd have a ready excuse for being there at the time in question if and when he was seen.

My point was that if Lechmere was as smart as you seem to think he was, he'd have known this could never have worked again after he'd drawn attention to himself in Buck's Row.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

"Passed"

I definitely get the impression this was an extremely brief encounter, very casual. And Mizen was probably distracted by the knocking-up.

Not much time for Paul to get very far out of earshot, anyway - unless he was hard of hearing, like Fish.

[Darryl Kenyon]

If Lechmere's story didn't ring true 100% in anyway, shape, or form. He would have remained a person of interest, and the police would have kept tabs on him. And would probably have asked one or more of the witnesses who may have seen the ripper in the following murders Long, Lawende, Smith etc if they possibly could identify Lechmere with the person they saw.
Two murders, twice in the vicinity, decent evidence. But this doesn't seem to have been the case.

[Sam Flynn]

"Passed"

I definitely get the impression this was an extremely brief encounter, very casual.

I do, too, Robert.

Not much time for Paul to get very far out of earshot, anyway

And, after all, we're talking about the narrow streets of Old London Town, not Sunset Boulevard.

[Fisherman]

"Passed"

I definitely get the impression this was an extremely brief encounter, very casual. And Mizen was probably distracted by the knocking-up.

Not much time for Paul to get very far out of earshot, anyway - unless he was hard of hearing, like Fish.

How long does it take to get out of earshot, Robert? Which is the time limit in these circumstances? And how certain can we be that your "impression" is the correct one?

[Fisherman]

Thanks for picking me up on that, Josh. Of course, my first point still applies, namely that "a man" speaking to Mizen doesn't preclude another doing so also.

Edit: I'd also add that the Evening News report in question contains mistakes, which I'm sure has been pointed out before. For one thing, it omits to mention that Cross was in the company of another as this happened, a detail which other papers include; for another, it renders Hanbury Street as the (non-existent?) Campbell Street.

Can you find me a single paper that didn´t get something wrong, Gareth?