Favorite suspect/s?

[Elamarna]

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

Appearances, appearances.

Ok more semantics.
Who according to the sources was less than a minute in front of Paul.
Unfortunately Paul gives no indication of the distance he first noticed Lechmere. We have only Lechmere's testimony.
Any thing else is pure imagination.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

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.

aww. I see. so Paul is standing near lech when he speaks to Mizen, but Lech isn't near the body when hes seen by Paul? seems your definition of near changes to suit your argument.

[Jon Guy]

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.

You mean he would have just legged it from the scene of the crime, and not had to:

1. Scam Paul
2. Scam Mizen
3. Give statement to Police
4. Attend Coroners Inquest

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.

(drum roll) Agreed, Christer
My money`s on the phantom killer.

[Abby Normal]

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

no its not illogical. we don't know how long lech was with polly. no one saw him prior.

[Fisherman]

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.

How near is near, Gareth? How do we know where in the road he stood? Does "the middle of the road" mean EXACTLY in the middle of the road? Or could he have simply stood OUT IN THE ROAD? How wide was the road? 25 feet from wall to wall. Take away eight feet or so that were pavements. 17 feet left. So if he WAS in the middle of the road and in height with Nichols, he was some 8 feet away. And he may well have been closer than so.
Where did Paul say that he stood in the LLoyds article? "Where the body was". Is that indicative of him being close to or far from the body?

And now, the most relevant question of them all: Why is it beyond you to be able to say "yes, he could well have been very close to the body"?

What matters here, in the end? That we cannot say that he was very close to the body with any certainty - or that we CAN say that since we do not know how long before Paul he was there, it applies that he may well have had lots of time with the body?

There is absolutely nothing at all that clears him but for one thing: his own assertions. Nothing, nada, zilch.
There could easily have been, but there is not. Instead, we have him moving on to disagree with a serving PC about whatwas said that night, and he does so under a name we perfectly well know he is otherwise not known to have used in any authority contacts over the years.

And to you, that is no red flags.

The truth, the way I see it, is that there are so many and so red flags so as to make the old Soviet flag look greyish in comparison, but there is no proof that the red flags point us to a killer.

[Abby Normal]

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".

Thanks Fish for responding to this. I note no one else has.
I wonder why-its a definite possibility.

[Fisherman]

You mean he would have just legged it from the scene of the crime, and not had to:

1. Scam Paul
2. Scam Mizen
3. Give statement to Police
4. Attend Coroners Inquest



(drum roll) Agreed, Christer
My money`s on the phantom killer.

Yes, that is the only way we can perpetuate the Ripper myth, so I see the allure.

The really funny thing is when we look at other suspectologists. Some say that Lechmere disturbed Kosminski, some say he disturbed Druitt, Levy, Bury etc. It´s quite Pythonesque.

By the way, for you to agree with me, you really need to know what I think first. And if you do, then you also realize that agreeing with me is naming Lechmere the Ripper.

So agree away, Jon!

[Elamarna]

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.

"Through the Epicenter of the murder spree at the relevant hours"

Really?

Nichols - yes

Chapman - probably on his route, but the timing is disputed.

Stride - Not on his route, the suggestion he was going or coming from his mothers is unprovable and hence is not evidence; just unsupported theory.

Eddowes - as Stride

Kelly, close to a possible route, however TOD is problematic, either too early or too late to support on his walk to work..

So no red flag.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

"Through the Epicenter of the murder spree at the relevant hours"

Really?

Nichols - yes

Chapman - probably on his route, but the timing is disputed.

Stride - Not on his route, the suggestion he was going or coming from his mothers is unprovable and hence is not evidence; just unsupported theory.

Eddowes - as Stride

Kelly, close to a possible route, however TOD is problematic, either too early or too late to support on his walk to work..

So no red flag.


Steve

he el

So no red flag.

well aman did give her a red hanky-so perhaps a little one? ; )

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fish for responding to this. I note no one else has.
I wonder why-its a definite possibility.

Surely you don´t wonder why? You are being ironic, yes?

The simple truth of the matter is that the naysayers want to perpetuate a picture where the Mizen scam goes away if it can be proven that Paul was within earshot. They don´t want any discussion of another alternative.

Alternatives are only meant to dissolve any suggestion of red flags that attach to Lechmere. Not to open up pathways to enable the scam.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king". That is a quotation I like a lot, and in all probability something that will have the naysayer squad speaking of pots and kettles.

Let them.

[Abby Normal]

Exactly Abby.
Cross was seen doing nothing suspicious by Paul, but the others could have been doing anything with the body, dead or alive.

Hi Jon
I'm a little confused by this-can you please explain?

[Fisherman]

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

"Could Mizen have thought....?"

Yes, he could have thought anything - just look at all the fancy suggestions that are offered on his account out here!

And I don´t think that the carmen would have been regarded as persons of interest at all, Caz - somebody had to find the body, don´t ya´know.

[Fisherman]

Hi Jon
I'm a little confused by this-can you please explain?

Yes, I´m especially intrigued by how Jon suggests that people can do things dead or alive...

[Fisherman]

"Through the Epicenter of the murder spree at the relevant hours"

Really?

Nichols - yes

Chapman - probably on his route, but the timing is disputed.

Stride - Not on his route, the suggestion he was going or coming from his mothers is unprovable and hence is not evidence; just unsupported theory.

Eddowes - as Stride

Kelly, close to a possible route, however TOD is problematic, either too early or too late to support on his walk to work..

So no red flag.


Steve

The epicentre is the area between Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street where Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly perished. Lechmere passed through there ate times that are seemingly consistent with all the murders, including Chapmans that was performed at the latest 4.30 according to Phillips.

If you don´t see the potential relevance of this, then I won´t point out to you what that says about you. There has been too many degrading things said out here already.

The fact that you want to use the TOD for Kelly as given by Bond and Phillips as if either man must be correct says a whole deal about your bias. The bias of never admitting any possible guilt on Lechmeres´ behalf, no matter how ridiculous an excuse you must use. (And this is not the time to go on about how you have never said that Lechmere cannot be guilty; it would be very unbecoming).

Thank you for the revelation, Steve. One of many!

[caz]

Maybe Mizen wanted to pay Paul back for his newspaper interview by relegating him to a bit part player.

Something of the sort, Robert, wouldn't surprise me in the least. Mizen would have been smarting and in damage limitation mode after Paul's very public condemnation of his attitude, especially if he had also failed to report his brief encounter with both men. Downplaying Paul's role could have been a snub, but he missed a trick if Paul really hadn't said a word or was far enough away not to have known or cared what Cross was saying.

Mizen could have made much more of this when asked by Baxter if Cross was with anyone else at the time. We can all imagine why Baxter asked the question, if Mizen was saying that 'a' man [Cross] spoke to him and made no mention initially of another man being there too. The newspaper account had Paul telling Mizen about the woman down, so Baxter understandably needed to clear this up and establish there were indeed two men involved in the reporting. It was Paul according to Paul, with the other man reduced to a cameo performance, while it was just Cross according to Mizen - until he admitted this other man - the cop hater - was there too. In light of Paul's scathing account, this was the golden opportunity for Mizen to put the boot in and say the other man kept his distance while Cross did the talking, if that was the truth of the matter, but no - he let Paul off the hook. Why? Because he knew very well that both men had reported the matter together and that Cross would confirm it?

Love,

Caz
X