Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Now you are jestering. I suppose it was the only way out.
    Not in the least, because the example you gave was weak. Most criminals don't draw attention to themselves by staying rooted at the scene of their crime, calling another to the scene, before heading off in their company to find, and speak, with a police officer. Did Sutcliffe, or anyone else, do anything like that?
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Speaking about how others also lived in the area is to stoop way below any respectable intelligence level.
      So it's unintelligent to bear in mind the fact that tens of thousands of other men lived and/or walked those streets? I'd say that the contrary is true, and that to ignore the demographics is downright stupid.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Like Sutcliffe. Nine times interviewed, and every time it seems his story was readily accepted.

        What does that tell us?
        Actually, Fish, Sutcliffe was suspected at least once, but when he was flagged up by the officers who interviewed him because he didn't have a Geordie accent he was not followed up on. Plus his wife gave him an alibi, I think at least twice.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          "The University courtyard was proved"?

          I think you meant "quod", Fish
          And I think you meant cod, Fish.
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            There is no much reason to comment on this but for saying that you make an own goal directly:

            As it should be.

            No. We should keep an open mind, and accept that BOTH version may be true.

            Everything points to the fact that CL and Paul met with Mizen together.

            No. What Mizen said points straight away from it.

            It is a wilful stretch of the imagination to say that Paul was out of earshot just because you require it to be true.

            I did not say that Paul was out of earshot. I said that he may have been, since the evidence allows for it. And I don´t require it to be true at all, Herlock, it may be that Lechmere and Paul decided together to con Mizen.

            So you see, there is nothing at all correct in what you write. You are welcome to have another view of what went down, but you are not equally welcome to misrepresent my view.
            Nope. Because CL and Paul were together at the crime scene and that they decided together to go for a police officer and that they walked along Buck’s Row together and they found Mizen together it is more than reasonable to suggest that they did not suddenly split up. Just because Mizen appears to say that CL did the talking he also said that he was in the company of another man. Other reports say that Paul soke too. So, overall there is no reason to suggest or believe that Paul was out of earshot.

            “it may be that Lechmere and Paul decided together to con Mizen.”

            And even if they did it would have been so that they could get to work without any delays and not because CL was the ripper.

            No own goals Fish. Plenty of “back of the net’s” though
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              Regardless of the reason, why would a scheming Lechmere have lied, whether to Mizen or to Baxter in any case? What had he to gain from doing so?

              It was almost certainly a simple misunderstanding.
              Even if he had ‘scammed’ his way past Mizen he didnt flee the country so yes Fish...what did he gain from the scam. Mizen could identify him as could Paul. The police knew that he worked somewhere local as he had to be there by 4. He would only have benefitted if he had the knife on him and wanted to avoid being searched but as soon as he decided to wait for Paul to arrive hed have known that contct with the police was unavoidable so wouldnt he have discarded it before Paul arrived.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                Plenty of “back of the net’s” though
                A net is a bit like Fisherman's theory - largely strung together from nothing, and full of holes.
                Last edited by Sam Flynn; 06-08-2018, 10:14 AM.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • Kosminski too is like Fish's theory - simply won't wash.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    "A man" came up to me and spoke.

                    That points away from TWO men having come up to him and spoken.

                    A very hard thing to realize, apparently...?
                    But if “and there was a man with him” added to that statement would you conclude that the man was across the road or yards away?
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      He said, conveniently ignoring the reports which said that BOTH men spoke with Mizen.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                      “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Nope. No deal. If I want to suggest what Lechmere MAY have said, I am perfectly free to do so.

                        But you are not free to misrepresent me, I´m afraid. So stop doing it. It is a perfectly simple request that anybody interested in a serious debate should be able to follow.
                        Fish the victim again.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                        “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post
                          Agreed, Gareth. All the unknowns have to be imagined in a way that casts Cross in the worst possible light, in order to make the case against him, which is a completely pointless exercise because one could make a case against anybody on that basis if they have no known alibis.

                          In a trial situation Cross would have to be acquitted on what is known, and given the benefit of the doubt on what is not, because those unknowns can also all be imagined in alternative ways which would remove suspicion from him, eg the real possibility that he called himself Charlie Cross when he began work as a carman, and was still known by that name when he found a ripper victim on his way to work and when he was absent from work to attend the inquest. His very witness status was bound up with where he was going that morning and in what capacity, so if the police wanted to check his given reason for being in Buck's Row at that time, they would have asked at Pickfords about a Charles Cross.

                          If Fisherman's argument is that Lechmere was careful to kill only on one of his legitimate routes to work, so he had a legitimate reason for being there if he had to explain himself, wouldn't that in itself show that he was anticipating this very possibility right from the start? It would therefore have been insane of him to give the police a surname that wouldn't register with his employers, if confirmation was sought that he was on a legitimate route to work at the time he should have been. In fact it makes no sense at all. If the whole idea was to have a readily checkable innocent explanation for his whereabouts for each murder, how did he think it would work if he provided a different surname from the one he was known by at his place of work??

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          Excellent post Caz
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                          “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                          Comment


                          • .
                            Isn't it high time the whole name change nonsense was finally put out of its misery? He had to be known as Cross at his place of work, or the whole point of killing on one of his routes to work to avoid suspicion goes up in smoke.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            __________________

                            Yes it is Caz. It would have been suggestive if hed called himself Fred Smith of 23 Flower and Dean Street but he didnt. He gave a name that hed used on a census. The surname of his step father along with his correct christian names and.....his correct address. How is that hiding in any way?

                            It might convince people who know nothing about the case who watch the documentary but no one else.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by John Malcolm View Post
                              It's dizzying to try to keep up with this, especially considering it seems to me that, despite the ethereal imagination it takes to even consider Cross/Lechmere as a real suspect, there are some interesting points being made. Forgive me if I've missed the answer to this, but, supposing Mary Ann Nichols was soliciting when she was accosted by her murderer, wouldn't it have been much more likely that it would have been in Whitechapel Road? It makes a lot more sense that then she would have taken her client to the seclusion of Buck's Row. That being a good possibility, would not then Cross/Lechmere's route to work through Buck's Row precluded him from even bumping into Nichols?
                              I tend to agree with this reasoning, John, because the simplest explanation for me is that Nichols did meet her killer on the Whitechapel Road; she herself suggested Buck's Row as a more secluded spot for business; and that's where he struck her down, shortly before Lechmere and then Paul would have come along if both were innocently on their way to work at that time. It may be that he would have inflicted more severe damage on her body had he not been aware that someone might come along the street at any minute, as we know they did. Might also explain why he accompanied Chapman into that back yard the following weekend, thinking he might get away with doing more, which he did.

                              I think it's a stretch to have Lechmere happy enough to potentially be seen picking up a victim along Whitechapel Road, if this was not on his usual route to work, encountering Nichols and then going with her to Buck's Row, so he'd be back en route with a ready excuse for being there when collaring Paul and asking him to inspect the damage!

                              We are told that it's 'equally' possible that she had just finished serving a punter in Buck's Row when Lechmere the ripper saw her and seized the moment, but in that case it would have been equally possible for that 'phantom' punter to have been the supposed 'phantom' killer instead. Yet that's the possibility that gets rejected in order to keep alive the Lechmere theory.

                              So did Nichols accompany her killer to that spot, or did they arrive separately?

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              Last edited by caz; 06-08-2018, 10:34 AM.
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • As for identifying some other men whose work route took them through or close to the Ripper's streets at that particular time in the morning, and who had a connection with Berner St, it's clear that when Fish challenges us to do this he hasn't the slightest idea of the difficulties involved.

                                And who said that the killer had regular work, or even any work at all?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X