Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    no its not illogical. we don't know how long lech was with polly. no one saw him prior.

    Thats my point.

    We dont know for sure, but we do have the testimony of Lechmere who says he saw her moments before hearing Paul and Paul who only says he sees him ahead.
    No mention of how far away and no mention of any movement before he says Lechmere
    Is coming towards him.

    To be odd Lechmere must be there earlier than he claims. There is no reliable source which indicates that. Paul's 3.45 is not reliable.

    Yes we can use the suggestion as the starting point for a theory, But witbout evidence it remains just that.


    Steve

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      he el



      well aman did give her a red hanky-so perhaps a little one? ; )
      Love it Abby. Good one.

      Steve

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
        Thats my point.

        We dont know for sure, but we do have the testimony of Lechmere who says he saw her moments before hearing Paul and Paul who only says he sees him ahead.
        No mention of how far away and no mention of any movement before he says Lechmere
        Is coming towards him.

        To be odd Lechmere must be there earlier than he claims. There is no reliable source which indicates that. Paul's 3.45 is not reliable.

        Yes we can use the suggestion as the starting point for a theory, But witbout evidence it remains just that.


        Steve
        I see what your saying-but the only one we have to count on is the man in question. he could be lying how long he was there, when he left home etc.
        "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 caz View Post
          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
          ... and then they lived happily ever after.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
            I see what your saying-but the only one we have to count on is the man in question. he could be lying how long he was there, when he left home etc.
            If he was the killer, then we can probably elevate that "could" to a "would".

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

              Yes we can use the suggestion as the starting point for a theory, But witbout evidence it remains just that.

              Steve
              Proven theories are no longer theories, you know. If it is proof you are talking about. If it is only evidence, then there is evidence that points to Lechmere as potentially being the killer. So much so, that James Scobie said it makes for a prima facie case that suggests that he was the killer.
              Last edited by Fisherman; 06-13-2018, 07:38 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                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.

                Incorrect there, if Tabram is included it must be between whitechapel road and Hanbury street. George ysrd is off Old Montague agreed but south of it.
                We have no source to suggest he ever used Old Montague as you well know. The only route we know he used is Hanbury. Everyother suggestion is just conjecture. That is fine but its not as conclusive as you suggest.
                Basing TOD on RM alone is now known to be unreliable, Phillips's opinion is thus rendered equally unreliable, not becsuse he made any mistakes but because the science he applied honestly was faulty.


                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!

                Are you saying we cant accept the TOD for Kelly by the Doctors?

                If so then we NEITHER ca we accept thre TOD Chapman!

                One cannot with any integrity say in one line Phillips TOD places a murder in the required time frame and only a few lines later say that we cannot use TOD by Phillips in tge Kelly case because it does not fit the required hours.

                And of course I do not accept any of them.

                What is unbecoming is the continual personal slights and attacks on those who do not agree with the views posted.


                Steve

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  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.
                  Either that or Jack The Ripper did it
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                    I see what your saying-but the only one we have to count on is the man in question. he could be lying how long he was there, when he left home etc.
                    Yes he could, but that does not mean he is.

                    The only suggestions for him arriving earlier are:

                    the time he left home, unfortunately impricisely recorded.

                    Paul's 3.45 which if we accept it means 3 seperate Police Officers lied under oath, what would be the reason for this?

                    The probaility is that Paul had the incorrect time, easy if your clock or watch were incorrect, or at least not syncronised which most were not.


                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      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!
                      Making up drivel doesn’t help your case. This is pathetic, twisted, shameless shoehorning.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                        Thats my point.

                        We dont know for sure, but we do have the testimony of Lechmere who says he saw her moments before hearing Paul and Paul who only says he sees him ahead.
                        No mention of how far away and no mention of any movement before he says Lechmere
                        Is coming towards him.

                        To be odd Lechmere must be there earlier than he claims. There is no reliable source which indicates that. Paul's 3.45 is not reliable.

                        Yes we can use the suggestion as the starting point for a theory, But witbout evidence it remains just that.


                        Steve
                        You are literally wasting your time here Steve but I admire your honest and unbiased pursuit of reason and truth. Its just a pity it’s not contagious
                        Regards

                        Herlock






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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          Proven theories are no longer theories, you know. If it is proof you are talking about. If it is only evidence, then there is evidence that points to Lechmere as potentially being the killer. So much so, that James Scobie said it makes for a prima facie case that suggests that he was the killer.
                          I do wish you would stop this quoting Scobie as if a Prima facie is anything other than a decision to proceed to trial.
                          Every prosecution by the authorities requires such, that those whom are found innocent and guilty.

                          Its nothing more than a Barrister saying that on the evidence available the case cannot be dismissed.

                          Scobie however is just one man, others in his profession may not agree with him.

                          And of course many cases which go to court are dismissed or simply lost.


                          Steve

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                            Hi Jon
                            I'm a little confused by this-can you please explain?
                            Yes, of course, Abby (and Christer)

                            Simply... the other finders didn`t have anyone to corroborate their story of finding the victim.

                            Comment


                            • We have a man that found a body and then suicidally waited for, and then called over a man to show him his handiwork (remembering that those footsteps could have turned out to be a Constable) this alone should pretty much dismiss CL asa suspect. And all this happened just before CL killed a women in just about the most incriminating place possible. Also that CL was so ‘busy about his work’ that he actually got caught in the act. And then, on the spur of the moment, he came up with ‘The Scam’ and managed to manipulate Paul out of earshot of the Constable whilst he gave his false message.

                              Its about time we kicked this in to touch
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                                Kosminski too is like Fish's theory - simply won't wash.
                                And Druitt - dead in the water.

                                Love,

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


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X