Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

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"?

I think we all know what applies. So there is no need for semantic acrobatics.

[Fisherman]

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.

You misunderstand, not I. Family men can be serial killers.

But I understand why you try to obfuscate that.

Does not work, however.

[Fisherman]

You are simply clutching at straws Fish.

You are still wrong. Geographical links are very important. You need to check the topic out, Herlock, before making things even worse.

[Fisherman]

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.

It does not mean that I think that he set out with no interntion to kill. It means that we cannot know what applies. And I acknowledge that. The Nichls strike can have been a spur of the monent thing and it can have been an intentional matter.

If you can disprove that, then do so.

[Fisherman]

"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....

Yes, that is true - there can be no knowing. But since the "other punter", the Phantom killer, is unrecorded, Lechmere remains the only person made up of flesh and blood that looks guilty.

[Fisherman]

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

As proven by...?

[Fisherman]

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

One of the best and most relevant questions asked so far.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Everyone else’s fault of course

Take the blinkers off for once.

[Fisherman]

Everyone else’s fault of course

Take the blinkers off for once.

That is the usual poppycock - I am insulting and arrogant and I blame everything on everybody else.

Please try and stay with the errand at hand - you claim that geography is irrelevant in the Stride case, that it is of no consequence that we know that the area was the one he grew up in and where he had his mother and daughter living when the Stride murder occurred.

The simple question of clearing this up should not end in you accusing me of being blinkered. It should end in you saying "Okay, I was wrong, of course it is of interest that he had these very clear ties."

Far from me doing anything wrong, the whole problem lies with you spreading misinformation and then not taking full responsibility for it.

Let´s hear it now - is the geographical factor irrelevant in the Stride case or not? Is it of no interest whatsoever that Lechmere can be tied to the area in a very clear way, since others lived there too? Is that how we should work? Is all the geographical linking that has been made visavi various suspects worthless? Shall we drop the demand for geographical ties? Is it time to accuse Dalai Lama of the murder? He lived in Tibet, but since geography matters not...?

You need to straighten yourself out.

[Elamarna]

Indeed, Steve, but whatever the true route(s), we have to believe that he had the good fortune to happen upon suitable victims as he passed along these side-streets, as opposed to the more major thoroughfares where unfortunates or beggars tend to hang out for obvious reasons. This is particularly puzzling in the case of the small and decidedly obscure Bucks Row; what on earth would Polly Nichols have been doing there at that time of the morning?

I have an answer to that question Gareth.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is the usual poppycock - I am insulting and arrogant and I blame everything on everybody else.

Please try and stay with the errand at hand - you claim that geography is irrelevant in the Stride case, that it is of no consequence that we know that the area was the one he grew up in and where he had his mother and daughter living when the Stride murder occurred.

The simple question of clearing this up should not end in you accusing me of being blinkered. It should end in you saying "Okay, I was wrong, of course it is of interest that he had these very clear ties."

Far from me doing anything wrong, the whole problem lies with you spreading misinformation and then not taking full responsibility for it.

Let´s hear it now - is the geographical factor irrelevant in the Stride case or not? Is it of no interest whatsoever that Lechmere can be tied to the area in a very clear way, since others lived there too? Is that how we should work? Is all the geographical linking that has been made visavi various suspects worthless? Shall we drop the demand for geographical ties? Is it time to accuse Dalai Lama of the murder? He lived in Tibet, but since geography matters not...?

You need to straighten yourself out.

Q: Does the fact that CL’s mother and daughter lived in the area of the Stride murder increase the likelihood of him being guilty?

A: Absolutely, categorically no.

Q: Does the fact that he grew up in that area increase the likelihood of CL’s guilt.

A: Absolutely, categorically no.

We cant even say for certain that the killer had local knowledge although its perhaps likely. Just saying that someone had a reason to be in a certain location is not evidence that points to guilt. The killer was at various locations to kill not because he was on the way to somewhere else.

And you heed to stop desperately scratching around for the flimsiest of threads to tie CL to the murders.

[Elamarna]

Fact: He said 3.30 or 3.20. Neither time is in line with being in Bucks Row at 3.40. Or 3.45.

He may have gotten it wrong, but you know, Steve, what we have is what we work with.

... and then you add a few bits and bobs, like a lying Mizen.

Yes what we have is what we work with

The facts suggest that 3.20, given in only a few reports ( i chose 12 random press reports only 2 said 3.20) a mistaken report. If 3.20 he could in noway say he was behind time if he started at 4.00. Plenty of time to get to pickfords
And thats using the speed you walked at in the Documentary, which was not at all quick.

And as many reports say about 3.30 as say 3.30 so the timing is certainly in dispute.
The 3.45 time is based on Paul whom is contradicted by 3 other witnesses.

There are ample sources and reasons to suggest Mizen was not truthful.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are still wrong. Geographical links are very important. You need to check the topic out, Herlock, before making things even worse.

CL could have been at the murder sites. No one is disputing that. The fact that one of the sites was near Old Mother Lechmere’s does not make him a more likely killer. Its childish to say that it does.

[Elamarna]

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??

Hi Abby,
Yes the simplist is he was mistaken, and that was my view when i set out researching Bucks Row. However, and it is a big however i have found several seperate sources and several different issues that suggest Mizen did indeed lie at the inquest.
When i publish then be my guest to take that apart, i may indeed be wrong but the evidence suggests otherwise.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Lech is the only one of the potential suspects whos daily route took him in close proximity to the murder sites and at roughly the right time.

Of the one that doesn’t quite fit, stride, his mother lived close by.

Does this make him guilty? Of course not. But it obviously helps the argument that he could have been.

To argue other wise is just plain wrong.

I think people’s personal feelings toward fish clouds there judgement.
It’s painfully obvious.