The "Suspects": Current Opinion

[DVV]

Read the context. I said 5 ft 7 OR THEREABOUTS. And I said that a useful case could be made for such a man. The deduction you were supposed to make was that an equally good case could NOT be made for a 6 ft 7 man.

So I did not say that he WAS 5 ft 7 - as some others do.

I guess you don't realize how grotesque is your post.
All other casebookers do, I'm afraid.

[Fisherman]

If you have not noticed, the discussion is over.

Fisherman

[DVV]

In Fisherman's world, clerical mistakes never happen.
No matter if common-sense and evidence (MJK, Barnett, Venturney, people who knew Mary when she was about to marry Fleming, his weight, the medical records about his health, and so on...) do tell otherwise. No matter if someone shorter was exhibited as a giant in a circus. No matter if statistics make such a thin giant quite a unique case in 1888.

Let me ask you one question, Fish : at what height would you start you have the shadow of a doubt ?
9'7 ?
14'11 ?

[DVV]

If you have not noticed, the discussion is over.

Fisherman

I will still comment what I want to comment, including your absurd posts.

[Barnaby]

Hi Patrick,

Earlier you said that you have no problem with Cross (and many others) as suspects, but you would consider Cross an unlikely suspect. Fair enough. I was wondering if by "unlikely" you mean simply in absolute terms (i.e., Cross is unlikely to be the Ripper) or even relative to the other suspects (i.e., all of the suspects are various degrees of improbable, but Cross is unlikely even among them). To me there is something to be said for one of the more likely unlikely suspects, but I'm guessing you also are using the term relatively.

Best,

Barnaby

[tji]

Hi Lynn

Not sure. Whichever you wrote about. I seem to recall that he was worried he would hurt someone. Of course, it was a good bit ago I read your fine article.

Thank you for the compliment. I am fighting with a hangover so please bear with me.
I think you may be thinking of the 1890 incarceration, but do you not think this would strengthen someone as a suspect?

Tracy

[lynn cates]

no memory

Hello Tracy. Thanks.

Well, it would make me think that IF any murder were previously committed, it would have been in a state so impaired that there was no memory of it. Of course, with his condition, that would have been possible.

Cheers.
LC

[pinkmoon]

Hello (again) Patrick.

" I think it's reasonable to entertain the idea that there was more than one killer and it would be foolish to absolve a suspect because he he had an alibi for one killing."

Remarkable. So perhaps I'm not the ONLY lunatic posting on these boards?(heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,the two man theory has never been properly researched and would explain a lot it would certainly explain the different discriptions also it would explain the killers boldness.

[DVV]

Hi Lynn,the two man theory has never been properly researched and would explain a lot it would certainly explain the different discriptions also it would explain the killers boldness.

Hi Pinkmoon,

Sorry, the the idea of two killers is nothing new and has even been contemplated in 88. Not to mention Knight, or more recently, Hutch-the-minder.

[DRoy]

PC Long

He didn't find the apron at 2:20 because he planted it at 2:20. He wrote the GSG. How do we know he did? He 'forgot' his notebook during the inquest because he didn't want his handwriting to match that of the GSG. He went by the alias Lipski. He's fooled everyone for over 125 years.

I'm kidding

Cheers
DRoy

[caz]

Fall?
Don't you mean Autumn?

Patrick I cut and pasted - then when it didn't seem to make sense I reworded.
I take it that you are at a loss to decide whether it was one killer, multiple killers and you are undecided whether the killer or killers worked alone.

That covers all eventualities.

I would plump for nearly all of the killings being by one person acting alone and living fairly local. That is how these things tend to pan out and you don't need a lab to suss that out.

Funny thing is, Lech, modern forensic techniques could most probably have confirmed it if one individual was responsible for two or more of the murders (as was certainly believed at the time in most quarters), but might have been quite unable to establish it if several killers were involved, or a different killer for each crime. Even CCTV along the main roads might not have helped much in that regard, given how many innocent men may have been approached by the victims in the run up to their final moments.

Like you and Observer, I couldn't work out what Patrick S was on about, or why he got so tetchy when his own contradictory and ill thought-out statements were repeated back to him for clarification.

I still think there is no possible case against Lechmere, but you know that already.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

I still think there is no possible case against Lechmere, but you know that already.

Love,
Caz
X

No possible case? Blimey, Caz - what is it that makes it impossible? What actually disenables him to have been the killer? I donīt mean things that you think hint at one thing or another - I mean technical proof that he could never have been the Ripper.

I mean, I know there will always be the odd bitter poster who claims that Lechmere is a nonstarter, but I did not have you figured for such a person. Itīs kind of fascinating.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

3. Due that fact that forensic science was in its infancy, I am beginning to believe more strongly that these crimes were the work of several killers, working independently of one another, perhaps copying previous killings.

Hi Patrick,

That's not paraphrasing; it's a direct quote.

And as has been pointed out to you, it makes absolutely no sense.

How can a lack of forensics in 1888 help you to form any kind of opinion on how many hands were responsible for this string of murders - let alone lead you to a strong belief in 'several' killers?

If you didn't mean to word it like that, or meant something else entirely, you'd have been miles better off admitting it, clarifying your thoughts and moving on. People understand that and are almost always sympathetic - it happens. What they don't like is being accused of stupidity or twisting your words and then lectured about modern forensics and what can be achieved with them, when that had bugger all to do with anything.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

No possible case? Blimey, Caz - what is it that makes it impossible? What actually disenables him to have been the killer? I donīt mean things that you think hint at one thing or another - I mean technical proof that he could never have been the Ripper.

I mean, I know there will always be the odd bitter poster who claims that Lechmere is a nonstarter, but I did not have you figured for such a person. Itīs kind of fascinating.

The best,
Fisherman

Well, Fishy, be my guest and produce a case against Lechmere. You and Lech have been trying for a long while now, and I am - rashly I admit - presuming it would have emerged by now had it been possible.

Your call entirely to show it is possible to make such a case.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Well, Fishy, be my guest and produce a case against Lechmere. You and Lech have been trying for a long while now, and I am - rashly I admit - presuming it would have emerged by now had it been possible.

Your call entirely to show it is possible to make such a case.

Love,

Caz
X

Yeah, yeah, thatīs all fine, Caz - but that was not the issue here. You claimed that there is NO POSSIBLE case against him, and that had me interested.

If it is not possible to make a case, then there has to be an obstacle or more involved that disenables such a case. Proof that he was not there, proof that he could not have done it. THEN you can say that there is no possible case against him.

If you have not got that kind of proof, then you will have to settle for something else, like you donīt think it was him, or something such. Less dramatic, sort of.

And THAT is YOUR show to present, Caz, once you claim that a case cannot even be made.

Bet youīll fail, though ...

The best,
Fisherman