Favorite suspect/s?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, we’ve gotten the sarcasm out of the way. What makes you think that the blood was still flowing when Neil found her? I only asked to be reminded.

Any response?

[MrBarnett]

Only on this thread could that statement be called into question Gareth

But what happens if he runs? Paul is immediately alerted and the idea that the women might be drunk or has died of natural causes goes out of the window. It's obvious to Paul that it must be a case of assault at least and possibly bloody murder. He starts shouting at the top of his voice, 'Police! Murder!' or whatever, and should Lechmere's escape route take him within sight or earshot of a copper, he's bang to rights. On the other hand, if Lechmere (as killer) keeps calm and takes control of the situation, initially by approaching Paul to assesses what he may have seen, he might be able to carry on his merry way without let or hindrance - as indeed he did.

Surely there's some merit in that possibility?

Why on earth he would later call at the police station to explain his actions is another matter altogether.

[MrBarnett]

I know I said I wouldn't comment on this subject again, but I do find it odd that Francis Thompson makes some of the lists.

Why?

Apart from the fact that he was an oddball who wrote some gruesome poetry and was apparently in the East End at some point (we really don't know exactly when) what has he got going for him?

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Fish. The dropsy COD rings a bell now, Im sure you or Ed must have mentioned it before.

The GRO has his age at death as 34, which ties in with his marriage cert, but I seem to remember that was at odds with earlier Census returns which suggest he was a few years younger.

There were some inconsistencies as regards the age, yes. I will have to look into it, but my feeling is that he was in his late thirties.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE]. “Pick the one detail that you think speaks loudest for his innocence, and we will scrutinize it together. ‘ [/QUOTE]

This from you in pose #1405

I made my point on #1417

You made your length ‘case against’ in post #1425

To which I responded in post #1435.

Since then you’ve made 5 posts unconnected.

Is that your idea of ‘scrutiny?’

[Fisherman]

I think most of us would disagree with you on that, Fish. He had every opportunity to run away - indeed, no need to run given that there was a choice of escape routes within easy walking distance.

What really would have been reckless and stupid would be for a guilty man to call attention to himself and accompany another to find a policeman, after having savagely mutilated a woman en route to work.

Once again, itīs called a disagreement, and in the end, what rules things stupid or not is the outcome. It was not given in any way in Bucks Row, but we CAN see that if Lechmere was the killer, the outcome was a very placid one.

.... and now is when you say that this is circular and I agree but point out that it nevertheless applies, and you ... Zzzzzzzzzzzz..zzzz

[Fisherman]

Please medicine was in its infancy.
Rigor Mortis does not work the way they beleived it did in 1888.

"The body should have been quite warm at that stage" really?
Even with massive injuries, the body laid open, and far more importantly temperature judged by touch?

No one is asking you to beleive in Long, why do you continually mention her? Very odd.

Steve

Yes, even with the far-reaching injuries, the body should still by warm after an hour. Compare, if you will, with Eddowes who was "quite warm" 45 minutes after being found.

In 1888, medicos had had ample opportunity to observe rigom mortis and how it worked. No doubt we know more, but they knew about the logical onset times back then too.

[Fisherman]

It is more likely that it wasn't suspicious because, apart from his full name - albeit using a perfectly understandable alternative surname - he also gave his address and place of work.

I was asking about a linguistic matter, Gareth, and I was hoping to have an answer from Steve, not you. Only he can answer why he wrote as he did.

[Fisherman]

By 'duffed up' I mean physically assaulted:

[ATTACH]18694[/ATTACH]

From the Morning Advertiser of 2nd Feb., 1864. It could of course have been another H Div Thomas Cross.

Ah! I thought you mean that Lechmere was duffed up by a prostitute. No such luck!

[Abby Normal]

But what happens if he runs? Paul is immediately alerted and the idea that the women might be drunk or has died of natural causes goes out of the window. It's obvious to Paul that it must be a case of assault at least and possibly bloody murder. He starts shouting at the top of his voice, 'Police! Murder!' or whatever, and should Lechmere's escape route take him within sight or earshot of a copper, he's bang to rights. On the other hand, if Lechmere (as killer) keeps calm and takes control of the situation, initially by approaching Paul to assesses what he may have seen, he might be able to carry on his merry way without let or hindrance - as indeed he did.

Surely there's some merit in that possibility?

Why on earth he would later call at the police station to explain his actions is another matter altogether.

Hi Gary
I somewhat agree with this, and believe its fishs explanation too. Like I mentioned before, I have become much more amenable to this idea as I had something similar happen to me. Now, that being said, lech could have gone his own way after assessing what paul had seen or not seen.

on your last point-I think the reasoning is, once Paulhad mentioned him in the press, Lech felt like he needed to come forward. Very similar to my favored suspect hutch, who after lewis, felt it would be better to come forward as a witness rather than be sought out as a possible suspect.

[Fisherman]

Its pretty clear from my response:


"To answer your question It may have been, but i think it unlikely. Morelikely there was a reason, which need not be suspicious"

The comma, which you have missed out has meaning. That the reason may not be suspecious, not that it is not.
And of course not knowing what the reason was, we cannot be sure if it suspicious or not.

Anyone who could say it definitely was or was not suspicious is oversteping the available evidence.


The comma which you missed out is the important part there and makes it clear the more likely applies to there being a reason, rather than oversight.

But of course you are well aware of that, so why ask?



Steve

I am very well aware of language issues. And I can tell you that it does not mean a iot if you remove the comme, the phrase has the exact same meaning nevertheless.

"More likely there was a reason, which need not be suspicious" means exactly the same as "More likely there was a reason which need not be suspicious".

The "which" turns the second part into a subordinate clause as effectively as any comma.

[Fisherman]

Mock ye not, Mr Williams.

Just imagine that you were a respectable woman who had found herself living in 'Tiger Bay' in the 1860s. Your much younger husband has close encounters with the local riff-raff, including the 'Tigresses', on an almost daily basis and your adolescent son risks coming into contact with such people every time he leaves the house. Wouldn't you be tempted to instil in him a wariness/dislike of the bad streets, bad men and, perhaps above all, the bad women in the neighbourhood?

Since it is a habit inbetween my opponents always to hail the worst of efforts on each otherīs behal with a "Very good post!", I really must take the opportunity to do the same now:

What a splendid post, Gary!

[Fisherman]

Only you could consider getting away scot free 'reckless and stupid'

No, not even I could do that.

Nor did I.

So all we have is one more example of you misrepresenting me.

You need to stop now, itīs running over the brim.

[Fisherman]

Any response?

Yes, absolutely: read the inquest reports.

[Fisherman]

But what happens if he runs? Paul is immediately alerted and the idea that the women might be drunk or has died of natural causes goes out of the window. It's obvious to Paul that it must be a case of assault at least and possibly bloody murder. He starts shouting at the top of his voice, 'Police! Murder!' or whatever, and should Lechmere's escape route take him within sight or earshot of a copper, he's bang to rights. On the other hand, if Lechmere (as killer) keeps calm and takes control of the situation, initially by approaching Paul to assesses what he may have seen, he might be able to carry on his merry way without let or hindrance - as indeed he did.

Surely there's some merit in that possibility?

Why on earth he would later call at the police station to explain his actions is another matter altogether.

One of the major things sought after by serial killers is control. Running wiuld be handing that control over to higher powers, staying would mean keeping the control in his own hands.

But letīs throw that to the wind too, shall we?