The "Suspects": Current Opinion

[DVV]

Hi Fish,

Thanks to the witnesses of the double event, we can reasonably assume that the killer was around 30, perhaps a bit younger.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks to the witnesses of the double event, we can reasonably assume that the killer was around 30, perhaps a bit younger.

Mrs Cox put Blotchy at around 35 or 36, Kennedy/Lewis put 40 on the Bethnal-Green/Britannia Bogeyman, and Elizabeth Long put her man at about 40 - as far as she could tell from the back. So, on balance, I'd put money on a killer who was in his mid 30s. This allows for the necessary "plus/minus" leeway typically encountered when trying to guess someone's age - which, when factored in, accommodates most of the witness descriptions.

Or, to take another approach, it's clear that most witnesses did NOT report seeing a man in his teens or twenties, nor one in his fifties or sixties. Taking the middle-ground leaves us in the same mid-30s ballpark.

[Fisherman]

Mrs Cox put Blotchy at around 35 or 36, Kennedy/Lewis put 40 on the Bethnal-Green/Britannia Bogeyman, and Elizabeth Long put her man at about 40 - as far as she could tell from the back. So, on balance, I'd put money on a killer who was in his mid 30s.

Mid thirties? Do the math, Gareth! 40+40+35,5= 115,5.

115,5 divided by three is 38,5.

So that is the exact number you are looking for: 38,5 years of age - the EXACT age Lechmere had in the autumn of terror.

I think you´ve nailed him.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

Thanks to the witnesses of the double event, we can reasonably assume that the killer was around 30, perhaps a bit younger.

Cheers

You will find - if you read Gareths post - that not everybody agrees with you.

Not everybody agrees with me either.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Mid thirties? Do the math, Gareth! 40+40+35,5= 115,5.

115,5 divided by three is 38,5.

So that is the exact number you are looking for: 38,5 years of age - the EXACT age Lechmere had in the autumn of terror.

Oh Lawdy! There goes the thread...

[DVV]

Mrs Cox put Blotchy at around 35 or 36, Kennedy/Lewis put 40 on the Bethnal-Green/Britannia Bogeyman, and Elizabeth Long put her man at about 40 - as far as she could tell from the back. So, on balance, I'd put money on a killer who was in his mid 30s. This allows for the necessary "plus/minus" leeway typically encountered when trying to guess someone's age - which, when factored in, accommodates most of the witness descriptions.

Or, to take another approach, it's clear that most witnesses did NOT report seeing a man in his teens or twenties, nor one in his fifties or sixties. Taking the middle-ground leaves us in the same mid-30s ballpark.

Too bad Mrs Paumier's suspect has no age, Gareth.

[Fisherman]

Oh Lawdy! There goes the thread...

Steady on, old boy! I´ll be ever so gentle with you, and leave you to it...

The best,
Fisherman

[Barnaby]

Mid thirties? Do the math, Gareth! 40+40+35,5= 115,5.

115,5 divided by three is 38,5.

So that is the exact number you are looking for: 38,5 years of age - the EXACT age Lechmere had in the autumn of terror.

I think you´ve nailed him.

Fisherman

Tabram was stabbed 39 times. Surely not a coincidence. He rounded up. My mind is blown.

[caz]

Yeah, yeah, that´s 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 don´t 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 you´ll fail, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

You misunderstood, Fishy, or perhaps you failed to read what I actually wrote.

You, and anyone else who has been trying to build a case for an awfully long while now, using millions of words, are demonstrating the impossibility, not me.

I don't have to, because you have yet to produce anything amounting to a case for Lechmere being a murderer. He doesn't need me to defend him until the prosecution gets him into court. And you appear to be finding that impossible.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

He's in court with his trousers and apron on.

[caz]

He's in court with his trousers and apron on.

Well Fishy would beg to differ, Ed:

...we may need to realize that the Buck´s Row murder was something that was seemingly done by a seasoned killer...

So we must either be looking for someone wearing salt and pepper trousers, or a salt with a penchant for assault.

Love,

Caz
X

[Hatchett]

Hi,

Caz is obviously right.

It is not a case trying to prove that someone couldnt have dont it. In fact, following that argument through you would probably have a case for about three and a half million poeple who could have done it. Probably more.

It has to follow that there must be evidence to PROVE that someone has done it. If that can't be done, then there is no case.

Best wishes.

[caz]

Indeed, Hatchett. Thanks.

And to be fair to the Crossmere botherers, I would extend that to all the named suspects, against whom a case has yet to be made that would stand up and lead to a prosecution in the court of history.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Hatchett
Caz was actually claiming that there was no possible case against Lechmere.
In other words she was saying that it was impossible for Lechmere to be guilty.

That is clearly nonsense. Just as it is nonsense to claim that it is impossible for any of the (let’s say) three and a half million people who cannot be connected to the case in any way to be guilty.

It is impossible for someone to be the murderer if they were dead at the time or if they were not yet born, or if we know for a fact that they were not in London on the relevant dates (some or all of the dates if you wish to exclude certain victims from the total) or they were otherwise incapacitated.

Making a case is not the same as proving guilt.
Clearly at this remove no one will ever be able to prove guilt such as would stand up in a court.

Since Caz’s extravagant claim that there was no possible case against Lechmere, she has subtly shifted her position to whether or not a convincing case has been made out against him.
This is clearly a matter of opinion.
Maybe she has set her personal bar very high in defining what ‘making out a case’ or ‘a case to answer’ consists of.
She certainly seems now to be saying that a ‘case’ hasn’t been made against any named person.

If you look at late Victorian murder trials or attempted prosecutions, several went forward with less basis than the 'case' already presented against Lechmere - and probably other Ripper 'suspects'.

I'm not sure what the jurisdiction of the 'court of history' is, nor of its policy in entertaining prosecution.
As well as going for the job of site moderator, maybe Caz is offering herself up as Director of Historic Prosecutions so her strict guidelines can be enforced?

Instead of 'case' perhaps she can suggest an alternative word for people to use in the ever popular sub genre of Ripperological Suspectology.

[caz]

Hatchett
Caz was actually claiming that there was no possible case against Lechmere.
In other words she was saying that it was impossible for Lechmere to be guilty.

Nope. You missed my point, Ed.

I was saying that in all the millions of words used so far, I see no case against Lechmere. Not even the beginnings of one. I infer from this (perhaps prematurely, but I doubt it) that a case is never going to be made (in other words, will prove impossible to make) or it would have been made by now. That doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination, mean it's impossible for him to have been guilty. A world of difference between the two - which is actually good news for you because if by some unlikely miracle hard evidence were to emerge that, for example, Lechmere was habitually violent towards women and can be connected directly with other knife attacks or murders, that would be a case in itself - but not one that would have been helped or hindered by the previous millions of words. I take it you have not found any such evidence, therefore your 'case' is built on absolutely nothing but "what if..." conjecture?

Making a case is not the same as proving guilt.
Clearly at this remove no one will ever be able to prove guilt such as would stand up in a court.

Again that was not my point. The case hasn't yet been made that would even get Lechmere arrested on suspicion, let alone charged, let alone convicted. You have to learn to toddle first, before you can walk, never mind run.

Since Caz’s extravagant claim that there was no possible case against Lechmere, she has subtly shifted her position to whether or not a convincing case has been made out against him.

Nope. No shift in position, you simply misunderstood what I said originally. I didn't realise I was being too subtle.

If you look at late Victorian murder trials or attempted prosecutions, several went forward with less basis than the 'case' already presented against Lechmere - and probably other Ripper 'suspects'.

Several? You mean five or six? More? Any examples to back that up? Less basis than the total conjecture required to put Lechmere's known behaviour and movements in any kind of sinister light?

Instead of 'case' perhaps she can suggest an alternative word for people to use in the ever popular sub genre of Ripperological Suspectology.

Fanciful wanderings into suspect ripperology?

Sorry, that was five words.

Just short of a million.

Love,

Caz
X