Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

What? It's pathetic to object to someone being condemned on flimsy and/or exaggerated evidence?

No, it´s pathetic to weep crocodile tears publically and cry out "The poor man, the POOR MAN!" on an internet forum for researching Jack the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Its very clear, I beleive on 4 of the 5 issues I am correct. However my ego is able to cope with the possability i could be incorrect on some of them.(but i don't think so)
However i have no such doubts on the Blood evidence at all. That particular issue is dead in the water.


Steve

The last time I heard that phrase used to try and nullify the Lechmere case, it was Trevor Marriot who used it.

But you need to be precise. If you have it, flaunt it, Steve!

[Elamarna]

I suggested a move to a more appropriate thread many moons ago.

And here we are.

Has i said Christer not a critism, we are all responsible to varing degrees.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, it is nothing short of pathetic. But I take heart in what I think it tells us!

The only thing thats pathetic is the ridiculous over confidence and inflated ego that's on display whenever Lechmere is mentioned. Contortions and distortions purely for the obsessive purpose of being ‘the man who solved the case.’

[Fisherman]

Cheers Steve, i recall you pointing that out before. My only point would be that Buck’s Row appeared to be fairly qiuet at that time and that maybe a main thoroughfare might have been a better bet. Of course we cant know this for certain.

The surrounding street were all empty and silent, so yes, it seems to me to have been a spot that could not offer up prostitution on the night and time. I always thought there was a lot of it to be had in nearby Whitechapel Street.

What I want to know is whether there was actual soliciting going on in Bucks Row, or if it was only a street known to be a place where punters and prostitutes came to finish the deals.

Whichever applies, Lechmere cannot be ruled out on neither ground.

[Elamarna]

The last time I heard that phrase used to try and nullify the Lechmere case, it was Trevor Marriot who used it.

But you need to be precise. If you have it, flaunt it, Steve!

Not til the book is out.
That would be so unfair,.

You should enjoy the appendices (sources).even if you dont agree with the first section.


Steve

[Fisherman]

But we know that there were two men there. CL did the talking then Paul went down Hanbury Street after the convo ended.

We don´t know that at all, I´m afraid. And we have no idea about the distance inbetween the actors in the drama.

Well, that is not strictly correct; you DO have a fixed idea it seems. More succinctly, there can be no knowing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or whether CL would butcher a prostitute leaving himself around 15 minutes to clean up and get to work.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We don´t know that at all, I´m afraid. And we have no idea about the distance inbetween the actors in the drama.

Well, that is not strictly correct; you DO have a fixed idea it seems. More succinctly, there can be no knowing.

So where did Paul vanish to if he wasn’t with CL when they met Mizen?

[Abby Normal]

Some confusion Abby, let me clarify, Christer view is that the "blood evidence", places Lechmere " at the eye of the storm"

However, it does no such thing. So its not that he rules Lechmere out; but it rules Christer's interpretation out.

It cannot Rule Lechmere out, nor can it place him at the scene. Forget for a momment the testimonies of Neil and Mizen, the actually hypothesis is faulty and does not work.


Steve

thanks for clarifying el

well if its "COULD.. place lech...in the eye of the storm" than its correct.

theres no doubt that blood still oozing from the wound indicates she was killed very close in time to lech finding her, or of course, that he did it.

I mean what is a realistic time frame for blood still oozing?? I'm thinking half an hour at the most. and the futher out you go the more improbable it becomes, least of is that the chances that she would have been found earlier by someone else!

[Fisherman]

The only thing thats pathetic is the ridiculous over confidence and inflated ego that's on display whenever Lechmere is mentioned. Contortions and distortions purely for the obsessive purpose of being ‘the man who solved the case.’

That would not be me in either case. I am standing in the line behind Michael Connor, Derek Osborne and Edward Stow. So that, I´m afraid, robs you of the possibility to try and make me look like somebody looking for fame and glory; an effort that, if I may be so bold, also is pathetic.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.there can be no knowing.

Unless of course we debate CL’s guilt and then it’s a foregone conclusion?

[Fisherman]

Or whether CL would butcher a prostitute leaving himself around 15 minutes to clean up and get to work.

And how much did he have to clean up? Jason Payne-James: "I don´t think he will have had necessarily any blood visible on his person".

[Jon Guy]

I think you need to expand on how the railway influenced it, Jon. That was your point, was it not?

If it wasn´t and if you are making the point that the distance between the actors in the drama could have lowered the odds of hearing what was said, then you really should say so.

I was just making the point that it wasn`t that quiet, Christer.
A train woke up Mrs Lilley in her bed, so why not a 100 yards towards Bakers Row.
Apologies for not being clearer

[Fisherman]

So where did Paul vanish to if he wasn’t with CL when they met Mizen?

Out-of-earshot. Not vanish. Out-of-earshot. Capisce?