Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

Is that an order? I don't think I called a whole post of yours rubbish, did I? Just something you wrote in one of them. But if the cap fits...



Now that wasn't rubbish. I trust Scobie would be of the same meaning. Sorry, I meant 'opinion'. I'm not turning Swedish, honestly!



So what then? Put him in some kind of eternal limbo of suspicion? Pull out his toenails until he coughs? If he doesn't, confine him in history's prison because he can't be proved innocent?



That many, eh? How many guilty ones have you managed to produce?



Except that everyone here has acknowledged that Lechmere can't effectively be cleared - only presumed innocent unless he can be proven guilty, in the time-honoured fashion. So who are you accusing of clearing Lechmere using this shitload of innocent explanations?

By the way, that really stung you, didn't it, when you wrote that misogynous rubbish and were rightly called out on it. If you don't like your posts being described as misogynous, don't write misogynous posts in the first place, and then try to shift the blame onto the person they were directed at. I don't actually give a stuff because at least you didn't say it in private or behind my back, so it tells us all something useful. But don't insult your readers by pretending you didn't write it and mean it.

Love,

Caz
X

Misogyny is hating women.

Recommending somebody to knit, bake or read as a placid pastime is not misogynous and has nothing at all to do with hating women - especially not since I enjoy baking and reading myself plus I go to knitting exhibitions. You CAN read, can´t you?

There is no shame in misunderstanding, but it DOES help to admit it when you do.

Both about misogyny and Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

Like most ‘suspects’ we cannot categorically exonerate CL. Its overwhelmingly unlikely that we will ever be able to unless we get freakishly lucky (or unlucky from your point of view) and someone finds proof that CL was elsewhere at the time of one of the murders. There is a difference though between suspecting that CL might have been guilty and continuing to research him and having such a high level of confidence in his guilt based on such flimsy or non-existence evidence. The constant refrain of “well its not impossible” really does speak of the weakness of the case. No jury would come even close to finding CL guilty on the evidence that exists.

You are not really advancing, Herlock. Stating that it would help a suspect if it can be proven that he was 200 miles away, for example - I fail to see how that is applicable in our case. I have so far not seen a scrap of evidence that clears Lechmere. Have you?

It therefore applies that when a barrister says that he thinks a case is a prima facie case that suggests that the suspect was the killer - and where thre is not a scrap of evidence to clear him - we can be reasonably certain that the suspect is one who carries great weight.

It is that simple, and that applies regardless of how many people go out of their way to think up innocent explanations. When I pointed out to Caz that there is a shitload of such alternative innocent explanations, she asked me "And how many guilty explanations do you have?", obviosuly thinking that it is a battle of the sheer numbers that will settle the issue!

It is daft behind comprehension.

The point you couldnt understand is tied to this: The path taken by the killer, regardless of who he was, is an extremely narrow one. It only involves ONE choice of action at each stage, whereas when we conjure up alternative innocent explanations, there is no end to them. To exemplify, if Lechmere was the killer, then he covered up the body to conceal the wounds. That is the one and only possibility if we look at him as the killer.

But if we try to find as many innocent alternatives as possible, we can do so with great gusto: The clothes fell back over her by themselves, the clothes were pushed down by the wind, a passing cat pulled them down, they were not as far down as Paul thought but instead the wounds were visible, a passer-by pulled the clothes down out of prudency (this actually happened in a murder case from the Australian sixties), Nichols pulled them down herself since she was not really dead etcetera.
Researching a suspect is being offered only the narrowest of paths when there is caserelated evidence at hand. If we are instead dealing with guys like Kosminski, there is NO caserelated evidence, and so he can easily be dealt the killers role since we may conjur up anything we like: Maybe he was there, maybe he hated prostitutes, maybe he had a long knife, maybe he knew the areas, maybe he had reason to visit Mitre Square, maybe he was a mad killer, maybe he heard voices telling him to kill. All very easy and convenient.

Not so with Lechmere. There are checking points laid down that he can be tested against. So far, they have not been any trouble at all for the suggestion of him being the killer. If you disagree, please tell me which factual circumstance you believe comes closest to ruling him out.
Most people answer "He wouldn´t kill enroute to work" or "He was a family man, he would not kill" or "He would have run" or something such on that question - something that is in no way possible to prove, that is sometimes demonstrably wrong and that is never any factual obstacle to Lechmere being the killer.

Far from being 200 miles away, he was there as the body was still bleeding - and would go on to bleed for a considerable amount of minutes although the neck was nearly severed and she had major damage to the abdomen, severing many vessels.

When you have something that comes within a country mile of the 200 mile suggestion, you have a good case. Once you havent, the case stands.

[Sam Flynn]

If you disagree, please tell me which factual circumstance you believe comes closest to ruling him out.

I think the problem we're having is in establishing a factual element which rules him IN, Fish.

[Kattrup]

What I am saying is another thing: that we should treat people as being truthful and honest until it can be proven that they are not.

Excellent principle. But most of your posts seem unable to honor it when it comes to Charles Cross. Too bad.

[Fisherman]

Excellent principle. But most of your posts seem unable to honor it when it comes to Charles Cross. Too bad.

And here he is again, the man who avoids all Lechmere discussions... (drumwhirl)... KATTRUP!!!

Basically, what he now tells us is that we should not research a single suspect or entertain any suspicion at all about anybody.

I was - as should be abundantly clear - not making a recommendation to regard the world as devoid of dishonesty or evil. I was making the point that those who research a case must be regarded as doing it in a fair way until it can be proven that they are not. Apparently, that was too subtle a point for the Great Dane of these boards. Woof!

[Fisherman]

I think the problem we're having is in establishing a factual element which rules him IN, Fish.

Joining Robert in jestering, I see. No real point to make, and so this is where you end up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are not really advancing, Herlock. Stating that it would help a suspect if it can be proven that he was 200 miles away, for example - I fail to see how that is applicable in our case. I have so far not seen a scrap of evidence that clears Lechmere. Have you?

Its you that isn’t advancing or indeed understanding. The ‘200 miles away’ point was just me illustrating how unlikely it is that we will ever be able to categorically exonerate CL. Please pay attention Fish.

It therefore applies that when a barrister says that he thinks a case is a prima facie case that suggests that the suspect was the killer - and where thre is not a scrap of evidence to clear him - we can be reasonably certain that the suspect is one who carries great weight.

Not if that Barrister hasn’t been exposed to facts, situations or alternative interpretations that might have altered his opinion. His confidence might have been misplaced. To form an opinion on the case why can’t you admit that someone needs to view the case from both sides.

It is that simple, and that applies regardless of how many people go out of their way to think up innocent explanations. When I pointed out to Caz that there is a shitload of such alternative innocent explanations, she asked me "And how many guilty explanations do you have?", obviosuly thinking that it is a battle of the sheer numbers that will settle the issue!

It is daft behind comprehension.

Pot. Kettle. Black again Fish. On here you’ve often spoke of how you look at what we know and look at the alternative explainations that can exist to show that CL’s candidature remained intact. Why are only your ‘alternative explainations’ valid or worthwhile.

The point you couldnt understand is tied to this: The path taken by the killer, regardless of who he was, is an extremely narrow one. It only involves ONE choice of action at each stage, whereas when we conjure up alternative innocent explanations, there is no end to them. To exemplify, if Lechmere was the killer, then he covered up the body to conceal the wounds. That is the one and only possibility if we look at him as the killer.

And, perfectly reasonably, if he wasn’t the killer he did it out of respect for the dead. He called Paul over to see her! Did he cover up her throat wounds?!

But if we try to find as many innocent alternatives as possible, we can do so with great gusto: The clothes fell back over her by themselves, the clothes were pushed down by the wind, a passing cat pulled them down, they were not as far down as Paul thought but instead the wounds were visible, a passer-by pulled the clothes down out of prudency (this actually happened in a murder case from the Australian sixties), Nichols pulled them down herself since she was not really dead etcetera.

Why is your ‘guilty’ interpretation’ anymore ‘valid’ than the innocent one? Answer, it’s not Fish. Unless you have an unfettered ego.

Researching a suspect is being offered only the narrowest of paths when there is caserelated evidence at hand. If we are instead dealing with guys like Kosminski, there is NO caserelated evidence, and so he can easily be dealt the killers role since we may conjur up anything we like: Maybe he was there, maybe he hated prostitutes, maybe he had a long knife, maybe he knew the areas, maybe he had reason to visit Mitre Square, maybe he was a mad killer, maybe he heard voices telling him to kill. All very easy and convenient.

Or the FACT that he was mentioned at the time by very senior police officers as a suspect. Do you have any EVIDENCE that they must have lied Fish? To save you the effort, the answer to that is no. Therefore Kosminski has to be considered at least.

Not so with Lechmere. There are checking points laid down that he can be tested against. So far, they have not been any trouble at all for the suggestion of him being the killer. If you disagree, please tell me which factual circumstance you believe comes closest to ruling him out.

There are none Fish. As ive said too many times to keep repeating. The problem is that we can say the same thing for most suspects.


Most people answer "He wouldn´t kill enroute to work" or "He was a family man, he would not kill" or "He would have run" or something such on that question - something that is in no way possible to prove, that is sometimes demonstrably wrong and that is never any factual obstacle to Lechmere being the killer.

At a distance of 130 years it’s pathetic to virtually say “if you can’t come up with a fact or facts that categorically exonerate him then he’s likely to be guilty!” Apart from the fact that he was there there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to make us think him guilty. Apart from your fanciful interpretations of course.

Far from being 200 miles away, he was there as the body was still bleeding - and would go on to bleed for a considerable amount of minutes although the neck was nearly severed and she had major damage to the abdomen, severing many vessels.

I’ll leave medical evidence to others, as I always do. Paul saw no blood on CL though. Neither did Mizen. And despite being at the scene CL was never suspected by the police. Not conclusive but certainly worth mentioning.

When you have something that comes within a country mile of the 200 mile suggestion, you have a good case. Once you havent, the case stands.

The case against CL exists because you exist. It’s nothing to do with the strength of your arguments. He was there. That’s all. All else is interpretation and imagination on your part whilst wearing the Lechmere Goggles.

I think that the problem is that you have this way of thinking. You look at aspects of the case and say “can I take Lechmere fit?” Then when you find that you can can your thinking appears to be “well ive sorted this now so why the hell are these people disagreeing with me? They must be ignorant or biased. Simply unwilling to accept that I must be right.

Your arguments are becoming wearying. Black is white and white is black. You can ‘interpret’ but when anyone else does it they are wilfully trying to exonerate an obviously guilty Lech. You accuse posters of things and then get on your high horse when they respond. Despite the fact that all (I believe) posters accept that CL cannot be categorically exonerated and that further research is of course legitimate this isn’t good enough for you. Unless everyone bows down and says “yes Fish you are right and CL was obviously guilty” you can’t rest. Sadly, unless you come up with some mildly convincing evidence this will never happen. Put away the shoehorn Fish and take a deep breath

[Abby Normal]

I think the problem we're having is in establishing a factual element which rules him IN, Fish.

Hi Sam
how about the factual element that he was seen standing near the body of a recently murdered victim?

which is a dam sight more than most if not all other ripper suspects.

[Elamarna]

[[/B]

That is not strictly correct. The two could have agreed to con Mizen, as I said before.

Could have once again.

But just as you say, there may be things that do not sit well with the picture of Lechmere as the killer.

The evidence you mean.

Is it a problem for you that I in such cases look for how he could nevertheless be the killer? After all, I believe he was and I am researching him as the killer, and so I feel I must test if the accusations can hold water.

No issue with testing, but when the tests are based on wishfully thinking and could bes and a continual claim that he must prove innocence when there is very little factual evidence against him, The results will be fairly meaningless

Perhaps you want to join Caz, knitting, baking and reading instead of being subjeted to the harsh reality of somebody actually presenting a long since dead man as a Ripper suspect?

Its really not possible for you to make a comment without personal digs. Argue the case not the man or woman.

Is it not time to end this charade now? To stop the crocodile tears flowing? And to try and get some sort of foothold in reality?

I have no tears for anyone but the victims. So not sure what all that is about,


You can begin by answering Gary Barnetts post directed to you. Speaking about a dire need to get real.

If that is post 1145, i have given the answer very clearly a few times before that post, no need to repeat it.
I see questioning of my view by Gary, asking if i am confusing likelihood (probability) with possability, which is a perfectly reasonable. I gave my reason in post 4088.

I do not see it as " speaking about a dire need to get real", that seems to be your own reading of it.

Steve

[MrBarnett]

[[/B]

If that is post 1145, i have given the answer very clearly a few times before that post, no need to repeat it.
I see questioning of my view by Gary, asking if i am confusing likelihood (probability) with possability, which is a perfectly reasonable. I gave my reason in post 4088.

I do not see it as " speaking about a dire need to get real", that seems to be your own reading of it.

Steve

Steve,

Which post on this thread are you referring to (your answer to my question)?

Gary

[harry]

Fisherman,
I belong to no company.Unlike you I prefer to write from my own knowledge of the subject.Rarely do I rely,as you seem to,on the opinion of others.It is you that introduced Scobie and Grffiths,so it is not unfair to question the validity of the comments attributed to them.Your quotes of them are merely hearsay to me,and you have yourself in the past placed little value on hearsay.So,if I say I place little value on your words regarding those two perons,I'm sure you will now understand why.


Guilty,means a fact of wrongdoing.When was standing in a road,seeking help ,an fact of wrongdoing?


Cross has the assumption of innocence under common law.Which means facts of guilt must be established to render a Prima Facia case.I have yet to see even one fact of guilt levelled against him ,over the mrder of Nicholls.

[Fisherman]

I think that the problem is that you have this way of thinking. You look at aspects of the case and say “can I take Lechmere fit?” Then when you find that you can can your thinking appears to be “well ive sorted this now so why the hell are these people disagreeing with me? They must be ignorant or biased. Simply unwilling to accept that I must be right.

Your arguments are becoming wearying. Black is white and white is black. You can ‘interpret’ but when anyone else does it they are wilfully trying to exonerate an obviously guilty Lech. You accuse posters of things and then get on your high horse when they respond. Despite the fact that all (I believe) posters accept that CL cannot be categorically exonerated and that further research is of course legitimate this isn’t good enough for you. Unless everyone bows down and says “yes Fish you are right and CL was obviously guilty” you can’t rest. Sadly, unless you come up with some mildly convincing evidence this will never happen. Put away the shoehorn Fish and take a deep breath

You post is more of the same old, same old, Herlock, and as always misrepresenting what I say.

You ask why my interpretations are more valid than the innocent interpretations, and that is of course asking the wrong question. You make it look as if I had said so, and that it is a knee-jerk reaction from my side. But I have never said that my interpretations are more or less likely that yours to be true, other than perhaps in isolated cases. Generally speaking, when we do not know what happened, it is impossible to weigh likelihoods.
This I have said before, but you always come back asking why I must be right and you wrong. Which is a tad tiresome.

You ask why I cat admit that a case must be seen from both sides, and voilà, you did it again, made it out to look as if I am all for never letting the defence have a say.
It is unworthy of intelligent reasoning, Herlock. I have never said that the defence should not have a say! What I AM saying is that no expert who is asked if the prosecution side is a strong one should be criticised for giving a fair answer to that particular question. And I am saying that it is perfectly legitimate to present that material in a suspect based docu!

You need to stop doing this, Herlock. Or I need to stop answering posts like these. They are an abomination, I´m afraid.

You say that there would be no case against Lechmere but for me. But the case was there long before I took it up, so you are demonstrably totally and utterly wrong - again. Plus you say that there is absolutely nothing but for his finding the body in the case. That befits somebody who claims that it is "irrelevant" that we know that Stride died in the midst of the houses where he grew up and where he still had his mother and own child living.

Such suggestions are either bogus, deceitful, ignorant, nauseating, thick or ridiculous. The real problem for you is that we cannot rule out any of these suggestions.

I think I am done with the discussion with you. I tend to honour the thesis that one should not lower oneself to levels where ones opponents feel very much more at home.
Still, there were glimpses of light every now and then, and I don´t exclude that you can discuss the case in a more productive way. But I fear you are not willing to, so it´s perhaps best to let you go on alone.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I belong to no company.Unlike you I prefer to write from my own knowledge of the subject.Rarely do I rely,as you seem to,on the opinion of others.It is you that introduced Scobie and Grffiths,so it is not unfair to question the validity of the comments attributed to them.Your quotes of them are merely hearsay to me,and you have yourself in the past placed little value on hearsay.So,if I say I place little value on your words regarding those two perons,I'm sure you will now understand why.


Guilty,means a fact of wrongdoing.When was standing in a road,seeking help ,an fact of wrongdoing?


Cross has the assumption of innocence under common law.Which means facts of guilt must be established to render a Prima Facia case.I have yet to see even one fact of guilt levelled against him ,over the mrder of Nicholls.

So you are a force of your very own?

Now, how could I have missed that?

[Fisherman]

Hi Sam
how about the factual element that he was seen standing near the body of a recently murdered victim?

which is a dam sight more than most if not all other ripper suspects.

Well, Abby, Gareth will probably tell you that such a thing is nothing interesting at all; somebody had to find the body.

Then we have Herlock, who claims that his being found with the body is the only thing there is to point a finger at Lechmere by.

So, you see, although they all have the same united ultimate goal of denying that Lechmere is of any value at all as a suspect, they seem unable to agree about how to go about it.

I think I will leave these respected and honourable gentlemen to their musings and do something either better or funnier.

It should not be too hard to come up with something such.

[Sam Flynn]

Joining Robert in jestering, I see. No real point to make, and so this is where you end up.

I wasn't jesting, Fish. It's clear that most of us don't seem to see any convincing reason to suspect Cross.