Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favorite suspect/s?

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Hi HS
    this has always been my main issue with Lech as a suspect. Killing on his way to work. so many issues with this-like you said-showing up with possible blood, knife, organs??
    Plus Post mortem types like to take there goodies somewhere private to be able to enjoy them more.
    But we don´t know what he was met by when he arrived at Broad Street, do we? Much hinges on that, and until we have established hs working conditions and the role he had there, I think it may be worrying about nothing to say that there was a problem involved in this regard.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Sorry, Steve, but when a poster does what you have done, they go through life with that blunder stamped in their foreheads. And if you want to know if it colours other posters perception of their veracity, then the answer is yes.

      And that is not some sort of an "attempt", it is a fact.
      Once again i post which bears little relation to the quote above. Entirely personal. Ignoring the bualk of the OP.

      so perhaps just to repeat:

      "Again back to front, the truth is that you have not proved that Paul was out of earshot or that there was any oppotunity (possibility)for such to occurr.
      I had to prove nothing. The onus was on you to prove such a possability could have happened, you have singularly failed to do such"


      Steve

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post
        Very good, HS!

        Added to this, a guilty Lechmere had already got past Paul and Mizen with neither suspecting a thing, cleaned himself up and stashed the knife out of harm's way. Paul's newspaper story made it even easier for Lechmere to stay out of the limelight. Mizen copped all the criticism for not responding more quickly to Paul informing him that a woman was down. Paul didn't describe Lechmere, not even saying he looked like a carman. He was just another man who went with him to find Mizen. No suspicion that Lechmere was anything other than a witness, just like Paul. Two strangers in the night who might not even have recognised each other again. No suggestion that Paul had left Lechmere still talking to Mizen. If Lechmere had manipulated the situation to his advantage so he could lie to Mizen and go off to work unidentified and unidentifiable, he could not have hoped to read a more comforting public account from Paul if he had coached him himself!

        Then blow me down, the daft hap'orth turns up at the inquest to identify himself as Paul's other man and the one who had actually been the first with Nichols. That's fine because he has his joker to play, when asked what he was doing in Buck's Row. He was on his way to work, using his normal route, if a little behind time. His employers will verify his explanation for being at the scene.

        Only no, they won't, if Pickfords don't have anyone called Cross on their books and nobody there knows a carman by that name! D'oh! So then, if enquiries are made at the home address Cross has given, to find out what the hell's going on, they will learn his 'official' name is actually Lechmere, and it'll be back to Pickfords to find they do employ a carman of that name - one who has now wasted police time by giving a different name which he knew would ring no bells there and would leave his one joker all used up but to no avail.

        But it all turned out "all right", as Mizen said, because nobody checked a thing, and Lechmere felt safe enough to do it all over again the following weekend, again on his way to work, but this time sans joker; sans any pesky witnesses and the need for a new and improved ruse; sans a care in the world in fact.

        We know all this is true - or Fish knows it is - because the bastard was never even suspected, let alone caught.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        Are you copying and pasting, Caz?

        The only thing that is new is the intro - and you got that wrong.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post
          But not running in Buck's Row meant running like hell from Hanbury St, Berner St, Mitre Square, Miller's Court and all other murder scenes you want Lechmere to have attended, if anyone were to come along while he was still there with the victim, just as Paul had.

          Was it made clear to Griffiths that Nichols would have been the first, or one of the first, of a whole series of victims supposedly attacked, murdered and mutilated by this same man, and therefore if Lechmere was that man he had stayed around with that early victim and made sure that the next man to come along [who would have been PC Neil just a few minutes later] did not hurriedly walk on by, giving him and Madame Tarpaulin a wide berth because of the dodgy neighbourhood, but was obliged to come and inspect the damage with the man who had just inflicted it, knife still in pocket, before going with him to inform the nearest policeman?

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          Yes, Griffiths was very clear about the suggested murder victims and the order in which they died.

          And yes again, Caz, you are sooooooo correct: if you use the ruse Lechmere used in Bucks Row, then you cannot use it again later.

          What are you suggesting? That he should have run and saved it for another day?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
            Once again i post which bears little relation to the quote above. Entirely personal. Ignoring the bualk of the OP.

            so perhaps just to repeat:

            "Again back to front, the truth is that you have not proved that Paul was out of earshot or that there was any oppotunity (possibility)for such to occurr.
            I had to prove nothing. The onus was on you to prove such a possability could have happened, you have singularly failed to do such"


            Steve
            I think I am on very safe ground when saying that there is not a single discerning poster who would not brandish the kind of suggestion you made.

            Beyond that, nothing more really needs to be said. We do not take newspaper articles and use them for producing facts when we know full well that the wordings in them were entirely the productions of journalists who had heard a PC answer "yes" to a question we do not uneqivocally know how it was worded and why it was asked.

            I can go on discussing this issue all day. I recommend you not to, however, for obvious reasons.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              Well, if they were - and I honestly can´t remember that they were - they are quickly approaching the oceans bottom now.

              In the Marianer trench.

              But, by all means, surprise me! Make me an unbiased book, full of revelations! Nobody would welcome that more than I would.
              It appears you truly beleive you can say what ever you want about posters and there is no comeback.
              The claim that i have said i accept Chapman's TOD is nonsense and unsupportable. The subsequent claim that i must support two times for Kelly is also unsupported.

              You are the last who would welcome any work which attempts to be objective if it does not point squarely at Lechmere.



              Steve
              .

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                Very good, HS!

                Added to this, a guilty Lechmere had already got past Paul and Mizen with neither suspecting a thing, cleaned himself up and stashed the knife out of harm's way. Paul's newspaper story made it even easier for Lechmere to stay out of the limelight. Mizen copped all the criticism for not responding more quickly to Paul informing him that a woman was down. Paul didn't describe Lechmere, not even saying he looked like a carman. He was just another man who went with him to find Mizen. No suspicion that Lechmere was anything other than a witness, just like Paul. Two strangers in the night who might not even have recognised each other again. No suggestion that Paul had left Lechmere still talking to Mizen. If Lechmere had manipulated the situation to his advantage so he could lie to Mizen and go off to work unidentified and unidentifiable, he could not have hoped to read a more comforting public account from Paul if he had coached him himself!

                Then blow me down, the daft hap'orth turns up at the inquest to identify himself as Paul's other man and the one who had actually been the first with Nichols. That's fine because he has his joker to play, when asked what he was doing in Buck's Row. He was on his way to work, using his normal route, if a little behind time. His employers will verify his explanation for being at the scene.

                Only no, they won't, if Pickfords don't have anyone called Cross on their books and nobody there knows a carman by that name! D'oh! So then, if enquiries are made at the home address Cross has given, to find out what the hell's going on, they will learn his 'official' name is actually Lechmere, and it'll be back to Pickfords to find they do employ a carman of that name - one who has now wasted police time by giving a different name which he knew would ring no bells there and would leave his one joker all used up but to no avail.

                But it all turned out "all right", as Mizen said, because nobody checked a thing, and Lechmere felt safe enough to do it all over again the following weekend, again on his way to work, but this time sans joker; sans any pesky witnesses and the need for a new and improved ruse; sans a care in the world in fact.

                We know all this is true - or Fish knows it is - because the bastard was never even suspected, let alone caught.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                Excellent stuff Caz
                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  Yes, Harry, you are correct. Disqualification is what lies behind my choosing other debating partners than you.

                  You are equally welcome to find yourself new discussion partners. If you can find somebody who - like you - can guarantee that Nichols was already murdered when Lechmere found her, I´m sure you will feel a lot better. Then you can huddle up together, assuring each other that you must be correct, and celebrate your victory.

                  I won´t crash the party, promise. I´ll make sure to be somewhere else.
                  There are words to describe the tone of this post but I won’t use them
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    I avoid nothing. Ever. I work from the presumption that as long as I have the best case possible, I will always be able to defend my view.

                    So far, that works very well.

                    You were the one who said I had to accept Kellys TOD, and since the TOD:s for Kelly are TWO, I thought you were making a particularly ridiculous suggestion. And so I decided to point that out to you.

                    Anything more you feel I am "avoiding"?
                    The post said

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

                    If so then we NEITHER ca we accept thre TOD Chapman!(typo there, should have read

                    " if so than never can we accept the TOD for 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."



                    At no point do I tell you you must accept the TOD for Kelly, rather I was clearly pointing out that if one accepts the Problems with the Kelly TOD, one must acknowledge that the Chapman TOD based on the same evidence, : body temp by touch and RM, is also likely to be inaccurate and thus invalidate your original claim.

                    The claim you have now made above is not supported by any objective reading of post 1297.
                    you are avoiding taking responsibility for what you post.


                    Steve
                    Last edited by Elamarna; 06-14-2018, 07:33 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      I think I am on very safe ground when saying that there is not a single discerning poster who would not brandish the kind of suggestion you made.

                      The suggestion was that with out sources to challenge what was already said by the carmen, any other possibility was a non starter.
                      Of course you dont wish to address such because the alternative claim that I proved he was out of earshot suites you better.
                      Of course no such claim was made . The issue was that you had failed to prove that the evidence pointed at the carmen seperating. Its different!



                      Beyond that, nothing more really needs to be said. We do not take newspaper articles and use them for producing facts when we know full well that the wordings in them were entirely the productions of journalists who had heard a PC answer "yes" to a question we do not uneqivocally know how it was worded and why it was asked.

                      I can go on discussing this issue all day. I recommend you not to, however, for obvious reasons.
                      you are suggesting ignoring sources in favour of what we think it should say?

                      What obvious reasons are they?

                      You have made claims about me that are simply untrue.

                      I will continue to debate without recourse to personal attacks.




                      Steve
                      Last edited by Elamarna; 06-14-2018, 07:35 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                        It appears you truly beleive you can say what ever you want about posters and there is no comeback.
                        The claim that i have said i accept Chapman's TOD is nonsense and unsupportable. The subsequent claim that i must support two times for Kelly is also unsupported.

                        You are the last who would welcome any work which attempts to be objective if it does not point squarely at Lechmere.



                        Steve
                        .
                        You see, that is why I say you are biased - you work from an assumption that it is not in my DNA to accept anything that points in any way away from Lechmere.

                        But that is not so. I have said a good many times, and I don´t mind doing so again, that the second we find something that exonerates Lechmere, I will accept that and move on.

                        If you want to reject that, then go ahead and do so - it is your prerogative. But I would like to remind you that in this odd parallel universe we call Ripperology, I have been subjected to hundreds of attacks saying that I am overinterpreting the evidence and being too assertive that Lechmere is our man. I find it interesting that the moment somebody overstepped the line and claimed something - that can not in any way be proven - as a genuine fact, that somebody was you.

                        Not me.

                        Whatever book you produce, I will admit whatever strenghts I think it has regardless if they point to or away from Lechmere being the culprit. Everybody out here knows our history inside out, Steve, and so it would render my evaluation of the book useless if I criticized it on unwarranted grounds.

                        Therefore, I find it quite sad that you are already now, BEFORE any book has been produced, saying that no matter what, my view must be looked away from since I cannot possibly be a fair critic.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          There are words to describe the tone of this post but I won’t use them
                          How lucky for me that you are such a low-key man, Herlock!

                          I take it that you have no objections at all to Harry presenting it as a fact that Nichols was dead when Lechmere arrived?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                            The post said

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

                            If so then we NEITHER ca we accept thre TOD Chapman!(typo there, should have read

                            " if so than never can we accept the TOD for 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."



                            At no point do I tell you you must accept the TOD for Kelly, rather I was clearly pointing out that if one accepts the Problems with the Kelly TOD, one must acknowledge that the Chapman TOD based on the same evidence, : body temp by touch and RM, is also likely to be inaccurate and thus invalidate your original claim.

                            The claim you have now made above is not supported by any objective reading of post 1297.
                            you are avoiding taking responsibility for what you post.


                            Steve
                            Dear me, how many things you think I am "avoiding". I take full responsiblity for EVERYTHING I post.

                            Happy?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              A major point? When it is "irrelevant" that Stride died where Lechmere grew up and still had his mother and daughter living?

                              Utterly, absolutely, totally, manifestly, childishly obviously completely irrelevant!

                              And you list it alongside the idea that he MUST have run if he could - a point where you have been gainsaid by a murder squad leader, etremely well versed in criminology, whereupon you deemed his answer, and I quote, "idiotic".

                              Is that detective labouring under the misapprehension that CL was somehow ‘trapped at the scene’ and therefore had no option but to ‘brazen it out?’ If not then we are asked to believe that CL was not just a risk-taker but someone who was suicidally stupid as it would have been obvious to him that he would not be able to avoid o confrontation with the police.

                              Can you see why I do not invest all that much in your take on things?

                              Yes I can. It’s because you are biased and only see things through the Lechmere goggles.

                              Because I am hellbent on accusing Lechmere? No, because YOU are helbent on not allowing any suspicion against him.

                              Nope. Everyone can see it Fish. I’m happy to let the unbiased posters judge.

                              If Lechmere sat straddled over her neck, face to the west, he may actually have used the clothing as a shield against any blood spatter. And we have Jason Payne James saying that there would not necessarily be any blood at all visible on his person.

                              The point is, and it would be obvious to a child Fish, how could C in the dark, in the struggle to subdue a kill, be anything like certain that he hadn’t become contaminated in her blood. Your ‘defence’ is an
                              embarrassment to reason
                              .

                              Maybe he joins the ranks of people who say idiotic things for stating that?

                              Ditto above post. CL couldnt have been anything like certain. Surely he’d want a level of certainty that some stray blood wouldn’t lead him to the gallows?Perhaps the murder of Polly Nichols was a convoluted suicide scam.

                              If he had no blood on his hands - and he could check them - then there would be very little risk that he had blood all over his face and hair. And in the end, serial killers are psychopaths nine times out of ten, and psychopaths are liars who like to take chances and play games and who will not panic since they CAN NOT panic.

                              And the evidence that CL was a psychopath is....



                              I have explained this a thousand times, and so I really don´t think you have come up with any "major" obstacle for the Lechmere theory.

                              Replace ‘explained’ with ‘wriggled’ or ‘contorted’ and you’ll find are rare piece of accuracy. What Ive done is thrown up yet another serious doubt to add to the others. If you dismiss them then you are biased. End of.

                              I would have loved to say "close but no cigar", but I´m afraid I can only offer you the lacking smoke.

                              To dismiss a calm and reasoned post in the manner that you do shows that you no longer deserve to be taken seriously. You’re obsession has gradually worn away your reason and we can all see it. Painting yourself as the lone voice of reason no longer washes with people Fish. You are an obsessive, desperately trying to breathe life into a theory that had little life in the first place. What respect that many had for you is dwindling rapidly because of the lengths that you will go to to oppose contrary opinion and to twist every situation to suit the ‘Lechmere was guilty’ side.

                              Really, Herlock!

                              I used to get annoyed by the dismissive and condescending tone that you always employ against those that disagree with you but no longer.

                              Its just.....blah, blah, blah.


                              I’ll continue to post. To bring up points that I feel are relevant. As should everyone; on either side. But I think that it goes without saying that we can see where the bias lies. We can see where the exasperated mocking lies. We can see where the desperation is.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                How lucky for me that you are such a low-key man, Herlock!

                                I take it that you have no objections at all to Harry presenting it as a fact that Nichols was dead when Lechmere arrived?
                                Nope.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X