Favorite suspect/s?

[Robert]

"We cannot know if this was the case here"

That's better, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Fish, I suggest you take a crash course in sarcasm.

So the women weren't killed on his route to work - they were killed on his routes to work. Thanks, Fish.

His raising a family isn't incompatible with his being violent at home - but there isn't the slightest reason to think that he was.

Hat. Hat, for Gods sake!

The women were killed along his route/s to work. How we phrase it is rather irrelevant once we can see the material suggestion.

And yes, being involved in the raising of a family (however close or distant you are) is no obstacle to being a serial killer - which was what you tried to lead on. It failed miserably, and that´s about all there is to say about it.

Now, a REALLY wide brim would perhaps help?

[Fisherman]

"We cannot know if this was the case here"

That's better, Fish.

And not new. I have never been black or white in my thinking. That´s more like you: "Family father? - in the clear!" "NO FAMILY?? - killer!"

Any more ploy you wish to try? Any more misconceptions you want to place in my mouth? Just bring it on!

[Robert]

Fish, add to the course on sarcasm a course on English comprehension.

[Robert]

Fish, there is no need for me to place misconceptions in your mouth. You're doing very well on your own.

[Fisherman]

Fish, add to the course on sarcasm a course on English comprehension.

Oh, so you have given up on trying factual arguments now, and decided to go for criticism of my English?

I was wondering when we would reach that stage. When you would realize that you were wrong on most points you try to make, from it not being in evidence that Lechmere worked at Broad Street to any idea you may nourish that you are a better source of understanding serial killers than Robert Ressler, take the consequences and start speaking about my poor grasp of English.
You have fine traditions in the field.

And here we are again.

I win te competission aboat the factoal matters, butt I amm houpless when itt come to selebrating dat viktory in co-rect Englissh.

[Fisherman]

Fish, there is no need for me to place misconceptions in your mouth. You're doing very well on your own.

But YOU were the one gabbing about how Lechmere did not work at Broad Street, YOU were the one leading on that Robert Ressler was ignorant and that family fathers with kids are not serial killers and YOU were the one suggesting that the killer would have killed in the main thoroughfares.

Or is that another misconception of mine?

[Fisherman]

Let´s hope you have had enough for now, Robert - I have got more important things to do for a while.

I will return, though, so think before you post and never take the hat of!

[Robert]

I haven't given up on factual arguments at all, Fish. I'm just fed up with your misunderstanding them.

Now be a good chap and keep out of the sun.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You said that in the Stride case, it was "irrelevant" that Lechmere had very clear geographical connections to the site. You either stand by it or you admit that this was the wrong thing to say, Herlock. Which is it?

Having a possible reason to walk past a site is irrelevant. We know that CL knew the area; we know the sites were close together; we cannot dismiss him on geographical grounds. Finding out that he ‘might’ have had to pass a murder site on the way to somewhere inreases his likelihood of guilt not one iota. Bluster all you want to. It doesnt.

To quantify matters is a hard thing to do, but the more obvious connection to a site you have, the more interesting that matter becomes to the police.

Walking past a site is not a connection to it. Especially in such a small area.

Wht´s that drivel about it being useless to say that you are visiting your mum if you carry a bloody knife??? Who on earth has suggested anything else? What I am saying is that the geographical ties he had to the spot tells us that he is a more likely contended than anybody who lacks those ties, end of. That is not affected to any degree at all by how you look suspicious carrying a bloody knife around!

Two hypothetical suspects. Both equally likely or unlikely. Both knew the area and walked it on a regular basis. Are you seriously trying to say that just because one suspect might have walked past, or near too, a murder site on the way to a family members house then that increases his likelihood of guilt in any meaningful way?! That is desperation personified.

Of course the likelihood of a man visiting a spot increases with knowledge that he has ties to the spot and a reason to visit it? I cannot fathom how you suppose to be able to clear that away? It is Alice in Wonderland stuff, WAYYYYY behind the mirror. People who have geographical ties to spots where murders occur do not become suspects on account of that singular factor, but once OTHER factors contribute to making somebody a suspect, THEN it is time to see if the suspect has geographical ties to the murder spot/s.

Because the killer, whether CL or not, could have got to the site anyway. He would have needed no pretext. Its not Alice In Wonderland stuff at all. Its a refusal to read too much into something that neither adds nor detracts from CL’s candidature (unless you want it to be of course.)

It is an extremely basic thing. Why are we even discussing it...?

We are discussing it because you are using a largely irrelevant ‘fact’ to bolster your case. And very obviously so. And by employing your usual tone of exasperated condescension doesnt alter that fact.

You are simply clutching at straws Fish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Who says he brought her back there? He MAY have, but he may equally have found here there after her having served another punter. There can be no knowing.

Then you believe that CL just set out to work with no intention to kill, saw Nichols and thought ‘why not?’ I personally feel that Jack deliberately set out to kill on the nights in question.

I wonder if you managed to type “There can be no knowing,” with a straight face.

[Robert]

"Who says he brought her back there? He MAY have, but he may equally have found here there after her having served another punter. There can be no knowing."

Indeed. That other punter may even have just murdered her.

Ah, there can be no knowing....

[Abby Normal]

Christer, would have assumed it was pretty clear

He told a lie under oath, that is my suggestion. Is that not breaking the law?

Steve

Hi el
What is it about Lechmere threads that make people lose there minds?

Now mizen is lying and a criminal? Talk about speculation.

Isn’t the simplest explanation he was mistaken??

[Sam Flynn]

Women looking for business in the Whitechapel Road presumably took their customers somewhere a bit more discreet to conclude the transaction.

Indeed, which is bad news for Fisherman because Cross didn't go to work via Whitechapel Road that morning.

[Sam Flynn]

The women were killed along his route/s to work. How we phrase it is rather irrelevant once we can see the material suggestion.

There's a lot of relevance in phrasing, though. For example:

Do we say "ALL the women", "SOME of the women" or "ONE of the women"?

Do we say "KNOWN routes to work" or "ASSUMED routes to work"?