Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Not so.
    You will be able to get it signed. scanned signature and message avaliable

    Steve
    Technology!

    What about a 3d pop-up version
    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
      What about a 3d pop-up version
      We've had 3D popup devices for years - we call them "toasters".
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
        Technology!

        What about a 3d pop-up version
        Yes thats called the Tour


        Steve

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          We've had 3D popup devices for years - we call them "toasters".
          Even in Wales?
          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


          • So there's absolutely no possibility that Lechmere, who found (or claimed to have found) Polly's body and probably as a consequence put himself forward as the spokesman of the pair, could have uttered a a single sentence without Paul hearing it?

            Not likelihood - possibility?
            Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-10-2018, 04:48 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
              I said as much quite a while ago on one of Fish's threads, and he shredded me and supplied examples of married 20th century serial killers (I suppose now the Golden State/ East Area Rapist will join them) who didn't seem too tired to go out murdering.

              Sigh... Anyway, I agree with you!
              The very idea that after a hard day's graft a working class East End man would have had the energy to indulge in violent behaviour is absurd. They were all tucked up in bed with a soothing cup of cocoa, surely?

              Comment


              • I see nothing wrong in Paul allowing Cross to do the talking,being as Cross was first on the scene in Bucks Row.I do however believe Paul would have made sure he(Paul) was in a position where he could hear what Cross said.

                As for a scam, there need be a reason for one,and if the scam was to hide a killing,shouldn't it be reasonable to prove first,that Cross was a killer?


                It seems a case of putting the horse before the cart,where you have a horse but no cart.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                  So there's absolutely no possibility that Lechmere, who found (or claimed to have found) Polly's body and probably as a consequence put himself forward as the spokesman of the pair, could have uttered a a single sentence without Paul hearing it?

                  Not likelihood - possibility?
                  No, Gary, no such possibility exists. And that is guaranteed by Steves high standards of research.

                  Of course, no distance inbetween the carmen can be established.

                  Of course, we have no idea in how loud a voice Lechmere spoke.

                  Of course, the wordings of the three corroborating sources Steve use are all construed by journalists, after Mizen answered Baxter in the affirmative on the coroner´s question - which we don´t know how it was phrased. We only know that the one paper that reported ad verbatim and mentioned the exchange had it "There was a man in company with Cross?". But Steve has - all the time using an extremely high level of research - ruled out that this could have been all that the coroner asked. He must, Steve assures us, have asked in a manner that fully establishes that Paul was in an extremely close contact with Mizen and Lechmere every second of the drama. Not that we have the exact wording that establishes this, but we may conclude it nevertheless.

                  Of course, we do not know what Mizen actually thought he answered - a generic question about whether Lechmere was the only carman in the street or perhaps a question asking whether Paul was at every time so close to Lechmere that he could not possibly have been out of earshot, regardless of how loudly the latter spoke.
                  No wait - since we are certain that Paul was never out of earshot, we DO of course know which question Mizen answered - the coroner MUST of course have asked about it in a manner that ensures that Mizen´s "yes" rules out every possibility that Paul was out of earshot, and Mizen MUST have affirmed this exact thing with his "yes". How stupid of me to miss that!

                  I originally thought that the material at hand was totally insufficient to draw any firm conclusions from. But that´s water under the bridge now that Steve has made his decision.

                  I simply bid Steve goodbye on hearing this, realizing that there was no reason to resist. I hope you realize that too - Steve´s got matters in hand, and he is certain to get it right (he has pushed that point a number of times, he is actually right and I am wrong, something I failed to see initially. He had to tell me that I am deceiving myself into thinking things that are untrue before I saw sense), since he is not only unbiased but also governed by a decision only to work strictly scientifically when establishing what happened in Bucks Row.

                  So sit tight, Gary, and don´t fear that something may go wrong. It can´t, when Steve is handling things. Paul can never have been out of earshot, mark my words. Sorry, I mean Steves words. I certainly won´t rob him of the full credit for his insights.

                  I know that it can be tempting to fight for your convictions, but my advice to you is to clam up and instead buy his book when it arrives. In it, all the real answers are revealed. If they are construed in much the same way as his take on how Paul must have heard what Lechmere said, it promises to be something extra.

                  Now I really have nothing more to say on this as it stands. If you are still in doubt about any aspect of the errand, just ask Steve and he will tell you what applies.
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 06-11-2018, 01:06 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Going over old ground again but I think that this is important. Its CL’s presence near the body.that make him a suspect for some of course.

                    We know that CL wasn’t ‘caught’ in the act as it were. Its an impression that has been given in the past but we know that CL stood in the road because he’d heard the sound of footsteps approaching from around 30 yards away on that poorly lit street. As soon as he’d heard those footsteps a guilty CL was faced with a question that Joe Strummer asked many years ago “do I stay do I go?”

                    Could he have gotten away? Well I don’t think that there can be any doubt about that. By the time that Paul had arrived on scene CL would have been at least 30 yards away. Even then Paul might not have noticed the shape lying in the dark. He might have noticed it but decided that it was a tarpaulin too or just another Whitechapel drunk. He need to get to work so off he might have gone. He might of course have gone over for a look. Pretty tentatively maybe. He might have given her a shake or even have checked her pulse? Then what? He might have walked on, not wanting to get involved? What about standing there shouting for a police officer? Possible I suppose. What if he’d heard CL’s footsteps, connected the two, and decided to chase a knife wielding murderer in the dark? Unlikely surely? More likely he’d have walked on hoping to find a constable. By the time that he makes his decision and sets of CL is long gone.

                    Its reasonable to assume that the killer didn’t want to be caught. He wanted to remain free to carry on. Serial killers do take risks of course (risks are par for the course.) Sailing close to the wind often gives a thrill to the whole business. In his career Jack negotiated a few tricky situations (Mitre Square, Miller’s Court, Berner Street,) and remained at large. My question is though, was waiting around for Paul a risk or was it almost suicidal for a guilty CL? What outcome could he have reasonably have hoped for? Firstly, as he couldn’t seen the owner of the footsteps, he would surely have been aware of the possibility that it might have been a Constable on his beat? The Constable would have examined the body; concluded that she’d been murdered and detained CL. CL would have been likely to have had blood on him and would have been in possession of a bloodstained knife (if he’d thought quickly enough of course he might have discarded the knife in the shadows but the police might reasonably have asked why another killer would have left his knife at the scene.) And so the arrival of a Constable would pretty much have meant the gallows.

                    If it was a non-Constable (as it was) what outcome could CL have expected? Might the man have said ‘nothing to do with us, let’s go?) Possibly but Paul would have appeared pretty heartless when only very little effort would have been required. CL could have expected that fortunate (for hi) attitude from Paul? I’d suggest that it’s not reasonable to assume so. The overwhelming likelihood would have been that the ‘mystery footsteps’ would have suggested looking for a Constable. Not a happy outcome more a man likely to have blood on him and to have been carrying a bloodstained knife. The important question is though: how confident could he have been that, pretty much on the spur of the moment, he would have been able to have come up with a plan so that he could avoid any unwanted interest from the Constable? CL couldnt have refused to look for one as it would have immediately made him suspicious to Paul and consequently to the police. How could he have known, or even had any level of confidence that he would have been able to lie to the Constable out of Paul’s earshot? Does this seem at all likely?

                    My point is an obvious one. By refusing the glaring opportunity to get away Scot-free CL wasn’t ‘brazening it out’ or just being a bit of a thrill seeker he was almost certainly putting his neck firmly in the noose. Is this at all likely? Did he exhibit any further bouts of suicidal stupidity?

                    This crime scene is the origin of the case against CL. Its what made people suspicious in the first place. Looking at it though it’s pretty much impossible to see CL’s behaviour as that of anything other than a man who found a body. Told a passer-by then went to inform a police officer.

                    Then it was discovered that his ‘real’ name was Lechmere and there was a chorus of ‘aha’s’ But we know Cross was his stepfathers name. We know that he’d used that name on a census. We know that he still used his correct Christian names. And, most damning of all to the ‘mystery’ he gave his correct address so I fail to see how this can still be used to point the finger? CL gained absolutely no advantage from it. Its a non-issue.

                    So the ‘behaviour’ at the crime scene and the ‘non-issue’ of the name taken together leave us with nothing to be suspicious about. How can we get from that to being ‘confident’ that CL was guilty? And those two issues are the ‘biggies!’ The rest is clutching at straws; conjecture and wish-thinking. Anyone is of course free to consider CL as a person of interest, we cannot categorically exonerate him. However we are surely on reasonable, sensible grounds to say that he’s an unlikely Jack?
                    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


                    • An eloquent and comprehensive summing-up, Herlock.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Thanks Gareth. I suspect that someone might disagree 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 Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          Going over old ground again but I think that this is important. Its CL’s presence near the body.that make him a suspect for some of course.

                          We know that CL wasn’t ‘caught’ in the act as it were. Its an impression that has been given in the past but we know that CL stood in the road because he’d heard the sound of footsteps approaching from around 30 yards away on that poorly lit street. As soon as he’d heard those footsteps a guilty CL was faced with a question that Joe Strummer asked many years ago “do I stay do I go?”

                          Could he have gotten away? Well I don’t think that there can be any doubt about that. By the time that Paul had arrived on scene CL would have been at least 30 yards away. Even then Paul might not have noticed the shape lying in the dark. He might have noticed it but decided that it was a tarpaulin too or just another Whitechapel drunk. He need to get to work so off he might have gone. He might of course have gone over for a look. Pretty tentatively maybe. He might have given her a shake or even have checked her pulse? Then what? He might have walked on, not wanting to get involved? What about standing there shouting for a police officer? Possible I suppose. What if he’d heard CL’s footsteps, connected the two, and decided to chase a knife wielding murderer in the dark? Unlikely surely? More likely he’d have walked on hoping to find a constable. By the time that he makes his decision and sets of CL is long gone.

                          Its reasonable to assume that the killer didn’t want to be caught. He wanted to remain free to carry on. Serial killers do take risks of course (risks are par for the course.) Sailing close to the wind often gives a thrill to the whole business. In his career Jack negotiated a few tricky situations (Mitre Square, Miller’s Court, Berner Street,) and remained at large. My question is though, was waiting around for Paul a risk or was it almost suicidal for a guilty CL? What outcome could he have reasonably have hoped for? Firstly, as he couldn’t seen the owner of the footsteps, he would surely have been aware of the possibility that it might have been a Constable on his beat? The Constable would have examined the body; concluded that she’d been murdered and detained CL. CL would have been likely to have had blood on him and would have been in possession of a bloodstained knife (if he’d thought quickly enough of course he might have discarded the knife in the shadows but the police might reasonably have asked why another killer would have left his knife at the scene.) And so the arrival of a Constable would pretty much have meant the gallows.

                          If it was a non-Constable (as it was) what outcome could CL have expected? Might the man have said ‘nothing to do with us, let’s go?) Possibly but Paul would have appeared pretty heartless when only very little effort would have been required. CL could have expected that fortunate (for hi) attitude from Paul? I’d suggest that it’s not reasonable to assume so. The overwhelming likelihood would have been that the ‘mystery footsteps’ would have suggested looking for a Constable. Not a happy outcome more a man likely to have blood on him and to have been carrying a bloodstained knife. The important question is though: how confident could he have been that, pretty much on the spur of the moment, he would have been able to have come up with a plan so that he could avoid any unwanted interest from the Constable? CL couldnt have refused to look for one as it would have immediately made him suspicious to Paul and consequently to the police. How could he have known, or even had any level of confidence that he would have been able to lie to the Constable out of Paul’s earshot? Does this seem at all likely?

                          My point is an obvious one. By refusing the glaring opportunity to get away Scot-free CL wasn’t ‘brazening it out’ or just being a bit of a thrill seeker he was almost certainly putting his neck firmly in the noose. Is this at all likely? Did he exhibit any further bouts of suicidal stupidity?

                          This crime scene is the origin of the case against CL. Its what made people suspicious in the first place. Looking at it though it’s pretty much impossible to see CL’s behaviour as that of anything other than a man who found a body. Told a passer-by then went to inform a police officer.

                          Then it was discovered that his ‘real’ name was Lechmere and there was a chorus of ‘aha’s’ But we know Cross was his stepfathers name. We know that he’d used that name on a census. We know that he still used his correct Christian names. And, most damning of all to the ‘mystery’ he gave his correct address so I fail to see how this can still be used to point the finger? CL gained absolutely no advantage from it. Its a non-issue.

                          So the ‘behaviour’ at the crime scene and the ‘non-issue’ of the name taken together leave us with nothing to be suspicious about. How can we get from that to being ‘confident’ that CL was guilty? And those two issues are the ‘biggies!’ The rest is clutching at straws; conjecture and wish-thinking. Anyone is of course free to consider CL as a person of interest, we cannot categorically exonerate him. However we are surely on reasonable, sensible grounds to say that he’s an unlikely Jack?
                          You of course know that Andy Griffiths said that his opinion was that the killer would certaibly not run for it.

                          You have countered that by saying that you think your take on things is a better one.

                          You are entitled to that take. However, what I would do personally if I was told by an ex-murder squad leader with lots of psychological insights and studies behind himself, would be to accept that he probably was the better judge.

                          That´s not to say that I would accept what he said as an absolute truth, but I would certainly accept that he was not talking out of the blue.

                          You make another choice, and you are free to do so. And I am free to point out the possible fallpit involved in it.

                          As for the name, you work from an acceptance as a fact that Lechmere gave his address to the inquest. As you know, that is something that is under much contention, and certainly, if he gave a name he otherwise did not use in authority contacts and perhaps not at all, and coupled this with not giving his address, then the red flag that produces is large and deeply coloured.

                          Once again, you are free to sweep the material that is in conflict with your preferred thinking under the carpet. And once again, I am free to point out that it may be a very unwise choice.

                          As I told you before, my work means that I look for the options involved - could Lechmere be guilty, or are there major obstacles? When applying that thinking, I certainly accept Griffiths view, not as something that cannot be contested, but as something that very much allows for Lechmere being guilty. The same thing applies for the address - I don´t say that he cannot possibly have given it to the inquest (he can, and all but for one journalist can have decided not to write it down), but I am certainly regarding the option that he never gave the address as a very viable one, and I accordingly see no definitive obstacle for my theory on that account either.

                          Ironically, having been told by you so many times how closed my mind is, it seems we are now having a situation where you choose to close yours. And guess what? You are free to do so, and I am free to point out the peril of it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            If you are still in doubt about any aspect of the errand
                            I've noticed that you use the word "errand" quite often - is this a translation of the Swedish "ärende" I wonder? I note from Google Translate that "ärende" appears to be a synonym for "matter", which would fit the way in which you use it (e.g. "if you're still in doubt about any aspect of the matter", as above). However, in English, an "errand" means a task or undertaking, often done on someone else's behalf; e.g. "he went on an errand to pick up his granny's newspaper from the shop". It's not a word that's used particularly often but, when it is, it's not in the sense in which you appear to use it.

                            Your English is excellent, as many have rightly observed, so I'm by no means nit-picking - just being helpful, I hope.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              You of course know that Andy Griffiths said that his opinion was that the killer would certainly not run for it.
                              Of course he could have run for it - not that he'd need to run, given his proximity to potential escape routes - and the idea that he "certainly" couldn't have done so is frankly baffling.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • Serial killers are risk-takers but are they unnecessary risk-takers? Dahmer only brazened it out because one of his victims had escaped and he needed to regain control of the situation. Not so in Lechmere's case. He could've slipped into one of the side-streets and been on his merry way before Paul was any the wiser.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X