The "Suspects": Current Opinion

[Patrick S]

Is this the best you can do? What if's don't come into it. I provided a true life example in Sutcliffe where forensic science overruled common sense. Sutcliffe used more than one weapon. You still haven't answered my question. What if a killer changes weapon mid series? a procedure that has been adopted by serial killers. What good would tool mark analysis provide in this instance?

Give me time to google it.

[Observer]

Give me time to google it.

Haha. Ok Patrick. Don't take too long, I'm on form today, ready to pounce, I'm like a coiled Cumberland Sausage.

Regards

Observer

[Patrick S]

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.

Sure. Autumn then. Shall we set it up?

I DID cut and paste. I didn't reword. Read it. It makes perfect sense.

You've convinced me. Who needs labs and science when you've got all that common sense working for you. Yet....'nearly all'? Not 'all'? Sounds like you may be trying to cover all eventualities.

I think I see the disconnect here, Lechmere. You say this as an insult:

"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 am at a loss. As you should be. To say you have enough information to say definatively otherwise is utter foolishness. To say that you know it was one man and his name was (fill in the blank), borders on insanity. We can all have ideas, theories, etc. These are not fact. And to attack any idea that conflicts with your own serves no puropose. You seem to demand respect for your Lechmere scenario while offering others none at all.

I have studied the case for twenty-five years. Yet, I've learned as much in the time I've been apart of this forum, through simple discussion. There are many convincing arguments and interesting theories. I learned a great deal about Lechmere from you, Fisherman, others. But, the learning stopped weeks ago. Your theory is interesting. In the end, for me, it's not convincing. Respectful debate is something you and Fisherman cannot sustain. One either joins your party or the discussion turns into, well, what we've seen here. You feel it necessary to engage in semantical arguments, to inaccurately paraphrase, and to insult. It's the internet, right? What the hell. Insult away. I'm not taking the bait any longer.

Autumn then. We'll have a nice chat.

[DVV]

No, it doesn´t.

Fisherman

For the record, Fisherman has written an article in the Ripperologist about Fleming-the-best-suspect.

Pas de figure.

[Fisherman]

For the record, Fisherman has written an article in the Ripperologist about Fleming-the-best-suspect.

Pas de figure.

Oh - and you are wrong AGAIN! And you are misleading AGAIN!

Fisherman has written an article in Ripperologist some years ago where he presented how a possible case could be made for Fleming as the Ripper.

Fisherman did not however state that Fleming was "the best suspect" - he merely presented how a scenario with Fleming as the killer could look like.

What´s more, if Fleming WAS the killer (some actually believe that!), I still say that I have presented a viable solution for what the underlying factors could have looked like.

... but then I ran into Lechmere, made the comparison and ever since, Fleming has had comparatively miniscule attraction. And then it surfaced that he was 6 ft 7!

That´s how it goes, David - if you own a 1967 Peugeot, and if you are instead offered a Maserati Quattroporte, you don´t hesitate to do the swop.

Incidentally, I could have written about Kosminsky, Kelly, Tumblety and Bury too, researching and exploring how the best cases could be made for those gentlemen. But I never got around to it, and today it would be foolhardy to do so.

Topping Hutchinson, however, no - I would not have been able to present any decent scenario with him in the killers role for the life of me.

Is there anything more I can do for you, when it comes to explaining the facts? I do not wish for you to spread untruths about me, so if we can cooperate to stop it, I would be thankful.

And of course, if you could present something interesting instead of trying to provoke me, it would polish on your image.

All the best, mon pauvre!
Fisherman

[Rainbow]

To be fair to the man's memory, he clearly didn't kill anyone. That's obvious to all but three or four people posting on this board.

You are right , I am one of those people , but the funny thing is that you are claiming his innocence is clear and obvious .. you must have a supernatural sight ..

I hope this talent could help us determining any suspect than the PERSON OR PERSONS UNKNOWN theory

[Patrick S]

You are right , I am one of those people , but the funny thing is that you are claiming his innocence is clear and obvious .. you must have a supernatural
sight ..

I hope this talent could help us determining any suspect than the PERSON OR PERSONS UNKNOWN theory

I think it's fairly clear yes. To be fair, I also said that the theory was interesting, yet it was unconvincing. Therefore, I remain UNCONVINCED.

I also have no problems "determining suspects". Alas, suspects are just that. I can compile a list of 'suspects as long as my arm. Hell, anyone can be a suspect. Now, would you like to be more specific? Credible suspects? Unlikely suspects? To me, Cross is unlikely. If more comes to light, I may reconsider. From what I've seen to date, I'm a long way from that. You have proclaimed on this board that Lechmere and Fisherman have 'sealed the deal' for you. You're a Charles Cross man. Case closed. He's the killer. Good for you. The club grows by one.

[DVV]

Oh - and you are wrong AGAIN! And you are misleading AGAIN!

Fisherman has written an article in Ripperologist some years ago where he presented how a possible case could be made for Fleming as the Ripper.

Fisherman did not however state that Fleming was "the best suspect" - he merely presented how a scenario with Fleming as the killer could look like.

What´s more, if Fleming WAS the killer (some actually believe that!), I still say that I have presented a viable solution for what the underlying factors could have looked like.

... but then I ran into Lechmere, made the comparison and ever since, Fleming has had comparatively miniscule attraction. And then it surfaced that he was 6 ft 7!

That´s how it goes, David - if you own a 1967 Peugeot, and if you are instead offered a Maserati Quattroporte, you don´t hesitate to do the swop.

Incidentally, I could have written about Kosminsky, Kelly, Tumblety and Bury too, researching and exploring how the best cases could be made for those gentlemen. But I never got around to it, and today it would be foolhardy to do so.

Topping Hutchinson, however, no - I would not have been able to present any decent scenario with him in the killers role for the life of me.

Is there anything more I can do for you, when it comes to explaining the facts? I do not wish for you to spread untruths about me, so if we can cooperate to stop it, I would be thankful.

And of course, if you could present something interesting instead of trying to provoke me, it would polish on your image.

All the best, mon pauvre!
Fisherman

Uneasy with you past ?
I can understand.

Don't try to argue that you have written an article about "Fleming-a-mere-possible-suspect", because there are also many posts by Fisherman here, at the time you considered him the best suspect.

Of course, you have the right to change your mind - and I'm so pleased you did, if you ask me.

But your biased and ridiculous faith in the erroneous height of the medical records makes problem.

What else do you have ? Does this incredible height invalidates all the arguments in favour of Fleming that you have offered in the Ripperologist ?
If so, you can make your apologies to its readers.

And you daresay I'm provoking you... Poor old friend, I've merely pointed out that YOU could hardly try to mock a candidacy on which you have written an article.

Unless you write another article to explain why the previous one was in fact all garbage.

Considering Lechmere's trade, I'm afraid you're confusing a Maserati with an old cart.

All the best, Fish, and let us know when your Variorum Reprints will be available on Amazon.

[Fisherman]

DVV:

Uneasy with you past ?
I can understand.

Not at all - I think I wrote a good article on Fleming.

Don't try to argue that you have written an article about "Fleming-a-mere-possible-suspect", because there are also many posts by Fisherman here, at the time you considered him the best suspect.

I have never invested much faith in any suspect before Lechmere. If a chance in hundred is the best suspect, it´s still a measly one. And I argue EXACTLY what I want, by the way.

Of course, you have the right to change your mind - and I'm so pleased you did, if you ask me.

As evidence of this, your biased and ridiculous faith in the erroneous height of the medical records.

It´s a bias to be able to read? It´s a bias to accept asylum records that would have been read and reread by heaps of people? When there are NO competing records? That´s a bias?
And it´s not a bias to flatly deny the records? Tres amusant!

What else do you have ? Does this incredible height invalidates all the arguments in favour of Fleming that you have offered in the Ripperologist ?
If so, you can make your apologies to its readers.

It clearly diminishes the chance (risk) that Fleming was the Ripper. The rest of my article I stand for. It is a useful scenario I present.

And you daresay I'm provoking you... Poor old friend, I've merely pointed out that YOU could hardly try to mock a candidacy on which you have written an article.

Just watch me, David!

Unless you write another article to explain why the previous one was in fact all garbage.

It wasn´t. It was a good article, making as good a case as could be made for a 5 ft 7 Fleming. Or thereabouts.

Considering Lechmere's trade, I'm afraid you're confusing a Maserati with an old cart.

I never confuse Lechmere material. Or Maseratis. Least of all with 1967 Peugeots.

All the best, Fish, and let us know when your Variorum Reprints will be available on Amazon.

Never.
Let ME know when you get things correct, David, and when you will stop misrepresenting me. I guess the answer is the same...?

But I´m tired of this childishness now, and since it is unappropriate to the thread, I will once again ask you to switch channels, so that I can avoid talking to you there instead.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I think it's fairly clear yes. To be fair, I also said that the theory was interesting, yet it was unconvincing. Therefore, I remain UNCONVINCED.

Yes, the theory was interesting, although not so new.
It could be interesting because Crossmere is a local present at a murder-scene.
Alas, the way Lechmere-the-Ripper tries to paint Crossmere as a terrific serial killer who would have possibly killed 20 women makes him a second Sickert.

But that's the best way to make money out of it.
Nobody would understand why this little carman would have stopped after Dorset Street, so the case needs more sauce.

[DVV]

It was a good article, making as good a case as could be made for a 5 ft 7 Fleming. Or thereabouts.
Fisherman

Waow.
Most interesting.
But please, how could you know he was 5'7 ?
You saw it in your crystal ball(s) ?

As I've explained elsewhere, it's precisely from the mistaken height of the medical records that we can infer he was most probably 5'7.

But don't pay attention to this. He was a giant, passed unnoticed, worked hard with his very long famelic arms, was so sexy that Mary couldn't forget him, and Crossmere didn't run because he was soooooo cunning.

Cheers Fish, but I beg you, think twice about your Variorum Reprints. What about a foreword by the Monty Pythons?

[Lechmere]

It's a pity when you have to rely on denouncing a clear and unambiguous and not all that unusual record for you candidate.

Plenty of rather degraded and otherwise unremarkable serial killers have killed more than 5.
It is common sense to be open minded about all unsolved murders of a similar character in that general time frame.
Of course many serial killers never get caught and presumably stop of their own accord.

[lynn cates]

newspeak

Hello Ben.

"I prefer "Unsub". Now that's big boy $hit."

Ah! Your estimate of 21 st C newspeak coincides with mine.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

It's a pity when you have to rely on denouncing a clear and unambiguous and not all that unusual record for you candidate.

Lol. It's more funny to see how deaf and blind you are on the subject. Even people who do not favour Fleming don't believe in what is definitely incredible. For reasons I don't want to repeat. And they are right.

Plenty of rather degraded and otherwise unremarkable serial killers have killed more than 5.
It is common sense to be open minded about all unsolved murders of a similar character in that general time frame.
Of course many serial killers never get caught and presumably stop of their own accord.

All right. Problem is that your suspect isn't a serial killer at all. Nothing we know of his life and personality should allow us to accuse him of being a serial killer. So how could he be such a prolific one ?

Now if you want to compare Fleming and Cross, ask the FBI who is more likely to have been the Whitechapel serial killer... You won't waste much of their time.

[Fisherman]

DVV:

Waow.
Most interesting.
But please, how could you know he was 5'7 ?
You saw it in your crystal ball(s) ?

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.

As I've explained elsewhere, it's precisely from the mistaken height of the medical records that we can infer he was most probably 5'7.

I would not predispose that the height was mistaken if I were you. I would readily accept a syúggestion that this MAY have been the case, but once you state that it MUST have been so, you are in the Marianer grave.

But don't pay attention to this. He was a giant, passed unnoticed, worked hard with his very long famelic arms, was so sexy that Mary couldn't forget him, and Crossmere didn't run because he was soooooo cunning.

You are running out of arguments, I believe! What makes you think he passed unnoticed? The asylum certainly noticed every inch of him. And I don´t remember any records speaking of how unnoticed he was.

Let me tell you this, David: If another suspect appears, that has more going for him than Lechmere, then I will immediately opt for the new suspect being the better bid.
What are you going to do then?
Point your finger and laugh and say "That fellow used to believe Lechmere was the killer! What a dunce!"?

If so, ask yourself this:

Is it better to steadfastly never change your mind, no matter what evidence comes along?

Or is it wise to accept that new evidence will always have an impact?

Who is the dunce in such a case, David? The one who persists to claim that the earth is flat, since that applied yesterday, or the one who noticed that it is round?

Fisherman

A timely excuse to all posters who have taken part of this exchange; sad as it has been, I will not have my views misrepresented by anyone. Now that it´s been established, I will add nothing more.