Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    None of them were seen near the body of a victim before they had raised the alarm. And none have other discrepencies and possible red flags.
    Hi Abby,

    I don't understand this "before he raised the alarm"?

    Tbis is tbe only murder in which there are two people (Lech and Paul) who appear to be less than a minute apart when a body is discovered.

    For the sake of debate lets accept they are only 30-40 seconds apart, and Lechmere is not there earlier. In that case he raises the alarm with Paul, the closest person.

    It's only an issue if Lechmere is proven to have been there for a number of minutes before Paul. Such has not been Proven. It is certainly suggested this occurred, but this is entirely dependent on Paul's arriving at exactly 3.45.

    This is of course disputed by 3 seperate Police Officers. All of whom under oath say such cannot have been the case.
    The balance of probabilities suggest that Paul is incorrect about his 3.45.

    His not raising the alarm is therefore only significant if it can be established that Paul is correct, and the 3 Police are not.


    Cheers


    Steve

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      None of them were seen near the body of a victim before they had raised the alarm
      Because there was nobody else who happened to pass by, and the bodies they found weren't on anybody's route to work. We can hardly hold that against Cross.
      And none have other discrepencies and possible red flags.
      Actually, we don't know that, because we have little biographical information on them, except perhaps for Dymshitz, whom we know got in trouble with the law on another occasion. Besides, as I see it, there are no material discrepancies or red flags pertaining to Cross, apart from the heavily-interpreted ones promoted by Fisherman etc.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
        Because there was nobody else who happened to pass by, and the bodies they found weren't on anybody's route to work. We can hardly hold that against Cross.Actually, we don't know that, because we have little biographical information on them, except perhaps for Dymshitz, whom we know got in trouble with the law on another occasion. Besides, as I see it, there are no material discrepancies or red flags pertaining to Cross, apart from the heavily-interpreted ones promoted by Fisherman etc.
        Hi Sam
        The only witnesses who were near the victims close to time of death and have red flags ( discrepencies/possible suspicious behavior) is Hutch, lech and Richardson. they may not be red flags to you, and may have innocent explanations...yet they have to be accounted for. none of the other witnesses come close to rising to this criteria.
        Last edited by Abby Normal; 06-13-2018, 05:28 AM.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
          Hi Abby,

          I don't understand this "before he raised the alarm"?

          Tbis is tbe only murder in which there are two people (Lech and Paul) who appear to be less than a minute apart when a body is discovered.

          For the sake of debate lets accept they are only 30-40 seconds apart, and Lechmere is not there earlier. In that case he raises the alarm with Paul, the closest person.

          It's only an issue if Lechmere is proven to have been there for a number of minutes before Paul. Such has not been Proven. It is certainly suggested this occurred, but this is entirely dependent on Paul's arriving at exactly 3.45.

          This is of course disputed by 3 seperate Police Officers. All of whom under oath say such cannot have been the case.
          The balance of probabilities suggest that Paul is incorrect about his 3.45.

          His not raising the alarm is therefore only significant if it can be established that Paul is correct, and the 3 Police are not.


          Cheers


          Steve
          simply put el-all the other witnesses who discovered the body were first seen raising the alarm.

          Lech is the only one seen near the body before he did. right at that moment-even if completely innocent, I find it odd.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
            Lech is the only one seen near the body before he did. right at that moment-even if completely innocent, I find it odd.
            Firstly, he was seen standing in the road, not exactly near the body. Secondly, as I said above, we can hardly hold it against Cross if someone else, who just happened to use the same commuting route, was passing by.
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              simply put el-all the other witnesses who discovered the body were first seen raising the alarm.

              Lech is the only one seen near the body before he did. right at that moment-even if completely innocent, I find it odd.

              Abby

              Sorry but that just makes no sense to me.

              If he is only 30-40 seconds ahead of Paul of course he will be seen near the body before he raises the alarm. Its not odd, it is just factual what must happen.

              In no other case is there a 2nd person that close and in direct line of sight.

              If however Lech was there even a full minute before Paul, the statement makes sense.
              As it stands its just illogical.


              Steve

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                Much as it is true that somebody has to find a body, I think it is not a very wise thing to do to regard these finders as certain cases of innocence if they find that body alone and at a time when the victim was quite possibly still alive, but with damage that would bleed the body out over a relatively short period of time.
                When such things happen, any policeman with a little something behind his skull bone should accept that unless a perpetrator is found, it is of the essence to look closely into the original "finder".

                It is not as trivial and undramatic a role as you seem to imagine (or want to imagine) under these circumstances.
                As it doesn’t indicate guilt that a killer should be so humongously stupid as to murder a woman at the very spot that he passed, possibly only with one other person, at the same time, six days a week.
                Regards

                Herlock






                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                  I have to agree with you and Abby that this is most likely. Whether or not Mizen set off thinking he was being summoned by a policeman, the moment he reached the end of White's Row he was indeed summoned by Neil flashing his lantern, which would have planted/reinforced the impression.
                  Could Mizen have thought, after Paul's account was published, that he might be asked why he had left his beat on the sole word of two workmen whose details he had failed to take? Would it not have helped him to add that he understood he was wanted by a fellow officer [which was technically true as he was immediately sent for the ambulance], even if this later appeared to have been a minor misunderstanding? He'd have covered himself, wouldn't he?

                  After all, Mizen quickly appreciated, if he hadn't done initially, that both men had been at the scene of a brutal murder [not long after the brutal murder of Tabram] and he had let them go on their way without asking a single question. The only response we have from him is "All right", isn't it? If neither carman had gone to the papers or come forward voluntarily, I'm not sure if or when Mizen would have dared mention the encounter, because if he did they would both instantly be treated as persons of interest, but with bugger all to go on regarding their identities, movements or current whereabouts!

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    But Cross didn't find the body "alone" and, at least as far as the other finder's testimony is concerned, he was standing further away from the body than Davis, Dymshitz, Watkins or even perhaps Bowyer, at the time.
                    So who was with Lechmere as he found the body, Gareth?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      So who was with Lechmere as he found the body, Gareth?
                      Paul, by all accounts. Except yours, and you weren't there.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                        Everyone does realize that if you think paul was never out of ear shot, then another explanation to the your wanted by a pc discrepency, is that paul heard lech say it and simply never said anything about it. Actually this goes for you too fish.

                        The more i think about it the more i think this is what could have happened, after a simple misunderstanding of course.
                        I have pointed out how Lechmere may have suggested to Paul that they should tell whichever PC they found that there was a policeman present in Bucks Row. The idea would be to guarantee that they were not detained and could walk on to their working places with no further delay.

                        I do favour the scenario where Paul is out of earshot, though, since I think Mizens leaving Paul out together with the passage "the other man, who went dwon Hanbury Street" points us in that direction. It also applies that Lechmere may have been unwilling to engage Paul in a lie that could be disclosed at a later date, giving Lechmere trouble.

                        Any which way, the scam is something that cannot be in any way excluded - and the phrasing suggested by Mizen is one that is in exact line with something that would more or less guarantee the carmen free passage.

                        That is either another coincidence - or not. And it is reasonably one of the matters that made Scobie say "A jury would not like that".

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                          Exactly Abby.
                          Cross was seen doing nothing suspicious by Paul, but the others could have been doing anything with the body, dead or alive.
                          Haha! Good one, Jon! I think we can safely say that IF Lechmere had been seen handling the body, knife in hand, we would not have this discussion today.

                          Whether Lechmere did a whole lot - knife in hand - BEFORE Paul arrived and could see anything at all is another matter. Going by how she bled afterwards, I think it is safe to say that either he or the dreaded .... (drumwhirl)...
                          PHANTOM KILLER did it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                            Hi Abby,

                            I don't understand this "before he raised the alarm"?

                            Tbis is tbe only murder in which there are two people (Lech and Paul) who appear to be less than a minute apart when a body is discovered.

                            For the sake of debate lets accept they are only 30-40 seconds apart, and Lechmere is not there earlier. In that case he raises the alarm with Paul, the closest person.

                            It's only an issue if Lechmere is proven to have been there for a number of minutes before Paul. Such has not been Proven. It is certainly suggested this occurred, but this is entirely dependent on Paul's arriving at exactly 3.45.

                            This is of course disputed by 3 seperate Police Officers. All of whom under oath say such cannot have been the case.
                            The balance of probabilities suggest that Paul is incorrect about his 3.45.

                            His not raising the alarm is therefore only significant if it can be established that Paul is correct, and the 3 Police are not.


                            Cheers


                            Steve
                            "...who appear to be less than a minute apart..."

                            Appearances, appearances.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              the phrasing suggested by Mizen is one that is in exact line with something that would more or less guarantee the carmen free passage
                              But its not the phrasing used by Mizen. It's a press agent's, arguably garbled and incomplete, account of what was actually said in fuller terms at the inquest.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                Because there was nobody else who happened to pass by, and the bodies they found weren't on anybody's route to work. We can hardly hold that against Cross.Actually, we don't know that, because we have little biographical information on them, except perhaps for Dymshitz, whom we know got in trouble with the law on another occasion. Besides, as I see it, there are no material discrepancies or red flags pertaining to Cross, apart from the heavily-interpreted ones promoted by Fisherman etc.
                                We don´t know that other people did notn have red flags pertaining to them. That´s just brilliant! How could I have forgotten this?

                                As for heavily interpreted, I take helium light on such nonsense.

                                The man walked right through the epicenter of the murder spree at the relevant hours. The man is on record as having disagreed with Mizen over what was said, and the wording Mizen offers is totally consistent with a wish to pass the police unsearched.

                                Those are two gigantic, humongous, collosal red flags in any sane world. Then again, this isn´t a world noted for it´s sanity, is it? It is cuckoo country.

                                I sometimes forget that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X