Favorite suspect/s?

[Fisherman]

Er, did you miss my point deliberately? Or were you too busy being misogynous to grasp it?

Lechmere would have been safer from your theorising had he stayed at home that morning to make the breakfast, do the washing up and darn the kids' socks. But no, the stupid man had to go off to make a living and get himself accused in the distant future of murdering people.

Your argument was that he thought he was safer to go on murdering women on routes where he'd have a ready excuse for being there at the time in question if and when he was seen.

My point was that if Lechmere was as smart as you seem to think he was, he'd have known this could never have worked again after he'd drawn attention to himself in Buck's Row.

Love,

Caz
X

Misogynous? How am I misogynous? Please explain!

On your question, yes , Lechmere had spent the possibility to bluff after Bucks Row. And yes, he would have known that. So?

Do you suggest that it would make him stop kill?

[Robert]

In a post on the Forums, Fish, I think you gave Crossmere a line to say which you estimated would have taken him six seconds.

[Fisherman]

If Lechmere's story didn't ring true 100% in anyway, shape, or form. He would have remained a person of interest, and the police would have kept tabs on him. And would probably have asked one or more of the witnesses who may have seen the ripper in the following murders Long, Lawende, Smith etc if they possibly could identify Lechmere with the person they saw.
Two murders, twice in the vicinity, decent evidence. But this doesn't seem to have been the case.

Like Sutcliffe. Nine times interviewed, and every time it seems his story was readily accepted.

What does that tell us?

[Sam Flynn]

Can you find me a single paper that didn´t get something wrong, Gareth?

That's not the point. The Evening News is demonstrably deficient in this specific context, and that's all we need to know.

[Fisherman]

I do, too, Robert.
And, after all, we're talking about the narrow streets of Old London Town, not Sunset Boulevard.

Oh - they were so narrow so it was impossible to get out of earshot on them? That´s the most baffling accoustic phenomenon I have ever heard of!

[Sam Flynn]

Like Sutcliffe. Nine times interviewed, and every time it seems his story was readily accepted.

What does that tell us?

Never trust a man with facial hair.

[Fisherman]

In a post on the Forums, Fish, I think you gave Crossmere a line to say which you estimated would have taken him six seconds.

Perhaps so, yes - I don´t think, though, that I said it WOULD have taken him six seconds, I probably said it COULD have since I try to be discerning in these matters.

And?

[Robert]

Confined spaces tend to close in sound, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Never trust a man with facial hair.

Now you are jestering. I suppose it was the only way out.

[Fisherman]

I´m taking another way out. See you later.

[Robert]

No twerking at the party, Fish!

[Elamarna]

There we go - a total copout. You claim that it is not even possible that Paul was out of earshot, and that is simply bad research, bad understanding and a sign of a dangerously low ability of perception.

No "copout" at all.

Defunitions of such are :

"an instance of avoiding a commitment or responsibility"

Or

"to avoid doing something that you should do or that you have promised to do because you are frightened, shy, or you think it is too difficult: "

Given that my view and posts are based on fact and avoid nothing, they merely disagree with yours, it seems you have a problem with the useage of the term.

My views are based on the evidence of the carmen. You wish to ignore that, fine produce some factual rather than faith based argument to prove it.

The insults are pointsless, you are wrong, I am rught.

The very fact that Mizen does not involve Paul in his testimony, instead saying that "a man came up to me and said..." is very clearly indicative of how a man came up to Mizen and spoke to him.

Not at all, it may mean that although Paul spoke, Mizen did not engage with him, much in keeping with the testimony of Lechmere. It may however mean Lechmere wishes to avoid discussing Paul. That is s real possability when it was Paul's article that was the catalist for Mizen's story.

It is ot indiative of TWO men doing it, and that does not change when Mizen answers the coroners question, which is a generalized question, quite likely only meaning "Was there more than one man present in the street?"

The question in all probaility included the word "spoke", as in who was present when Lechmere spoke to you.
You inaccurately claimed yesterday that the word "spoke" was not used. While we cannot be sure obviously, the probability given the other reports is that "spoke" was part of the question, it was not a general question but a highly specific one.
However in no way would even a general question and response provide a source which could damage the accounts of the carmen

It certainly does not lay down that Paul was in close proximity to Lechmere, and much less does it establish any distance between the two men.

It certainly does not in anyway seperate them, which is what is require to challenge the accounts of the carmen. The onus for proving they seperate is on you.

You are free to say that you THINK Paul was within earshot. You are free to say that it would be strange if he was not (although it would be no such thing at all). But you are not free to cook up facts from personal belief. None of us are, Steve.


Which facts are cooked up? Pot/kettle again!


There goes whatever level of credibility I have at times invested in you.

I care not for your opinion of me, as for your own credibility lets others judge if your posts are in any way, shape or form credible?

Steve

[caz]

A donkey, a rat, a mentally disturbed dove and an alpacka would easily all unddrstand that this means that this particular suspect is PERFECTLY in line with being the killer, as regards the geography.
Speaking about how others also lived in the area is to stoop way below any respectable intelligence level.

You have GOT to look at the suspect FIRST, and THEN you check him for geography. When you do that with Lechmere, ALL the alarm bells ring, but for those visiting the annual deaf ripperologists festival.

Oh Fishy, what wonderful images you conjure up.

And it might all have worked in your favour if only you didn't want your silly ass of a dirty rat to have killed each and every time on his legitimate route to wherever, so he could use exactly the same excuse if necessary, as he did when he made absolutely sure he was seen [and identified] near Nichols in Buck's Row, where many believe the ripper committed his first murder.

Cross: "I was near Nichols because I went that way to work".

Fair enough.

Cross: "I was near Chapman because I went that way to work. You got a problem with that, officer?"

You can guess the rest.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

In terms of the witness type suspects I think the following are viable:

Hutch (my favored, along with blotchy), Barnett, lech, Richardson and bowyer.
more or less in that order.

any other witness suspects people like?

[caz]

Misogynous? How am I misogynous? Please explain!

Maybe you should try another, less sinister hobby. Knitting? Baking? Running, but only very slowly?

Got it now?

On your question, yes , Lechmere had spent the possibility to bluff after Bucks Row. And yes, he would have known that. So?

Do you suggest that it would make him stop kill?

No, I'm suggesting that the sole reason you give for him continuing to kill on his legitimate routes to wherever would have evaporated into thin air after Buck's Row. He'd have been better off killing in places that he could not be associated with after the event, because he sure as hell could not afford to be seen again near any victim at any time or in any place. As you say, he had already spent all his bluffing tokens on Nichols.

Love,

Caz
X