The "Suspects": Current Opinion

[Patrick S]

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,

You are correct. I'm lost when reviewing my comments on this thread. I THINK I know what I was trying to say, although, it hardly warrants an attempt to expand, at this point.

I'll let some of my posts on this thread stand as an ignominious reminder to:

1.) not try and formulate thoughts and post them while managing multiple work crises via conference call and skype, as they will likely be incoherent;

2.) do not use message boards as a respite from reviewing code, creating project plans, and writing system design documentation, at least not if you wish make even a modicum of sense;

3.) do not post when sleep deprived, extremely irritable, and trying to watch two kids (nine and five) while your wife runs off to manage her own work issues, as you may behave like an a$$hole;

Apologies to all, especially anyone trying to makes sense of it.

[Lechmere]

Fisherman
Don't get too hung up on the expression Caz used - she was merely ensuring I knew she wasn't slavishly agreeing with my every utterance, as we have been agreeing rather a lot lately across the forums. She was demonstrating her autonomy.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman
Don't get too hung up on the expression Caz used - she was merely ensuring I knew she wasn't slavishly agreeing with my every utterance, as we have been agreeing rather a lot lately across the forums. She was demonstrating her autonomy.

Ah - I understand. Itīs just that I get a bit annoyed by people who claim that no case whatsoever can be made for Lechmere, only to go on to claim that the onus of proof for this is reversed and lies on me and you.
I was always of the meaning that somebody who offers a dead certainty that has not ever been proven before, were also the ones who had an obligation to provide the underlying proof.

But if it all was a question of autonomy, then letīs leave her to it. She can be as autonomous as she likes for all I care.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

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.
Fisherman

Of course, all those who have discovered a victim were "there" and therefore could have done it.
It goes without saying, so if you choose Reeves, Davis, Cross or Watkins as a suspect, you have to provide much more than their presence at the crime-scene.
And Crossmere's age, behaviour at the crime-scene, life and personality make him a highly unlikely JtR.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Of course, all those who have discovered a victim were "there" and therefore could have done it.
It goes without saying, so if you choose Reeves, Davis, Cross or Watkins as a suspect, you have to provide much more than their presence at the crime-scene.
And Crossmere's age, behaviour at the crime-scene, life and personality make him a highly unlikely JtR.

Cheers

I think we HAVE provided much more than Lechmereīs presence at the murder site, David. You may be able to remember this too.

And just like you say, it goes without saying that it is not impossible to make a case for him - we have.

As for Crossmere's age, behaviour at the crime-scene, life and personality, Iīd say that we probably know a fair bit more about him than you do, that his behaviour at the crime scene is totally consistent with what could be expected from a psychopath killer - which many serialists are, and which Lechmere may of course also have been.
As for the "wrong age", I can only suppose that you think him too old?

Shawcross was 33-34, Albert Fish was 56 when he killed Grace Budd, David Parker Ray carried on until he was 60, Ray Copeland was 71 at his FIRST murder, Chikatilo started out at 42, Ed Gein was 51 when he killed Bernice Borden, Henry Lee Lucas killed between 24 and 46 years of age...

Shall I go on?

The thing is, David, we donīt have the slightest clue when Lechmere first killed. I think he must be looked at for the torso killings, and that would have him making his debut in his mid twenties or thereabouts. The Ripper killings are special and "flashy" - but they should perhaps not be looked upon as having been performed by a killer who started his killing carreer in Buckīs Row. On the contrary, we may need to realize that the Buckīs Row murder was something that was seemingly done by a seasoned killer, able to do what he wanted to do without a sound and equally able to either disappear without a trace - or boldly bluff his way out.
No matter which of the options apply here, we may at least recognize that you are wrong about the age factor.

All the best,
Fisherman
bound for the World Cup semifinals - go, Brazil!

[DVV]

Regarding the age factor, see the descriptions given by the witnesses of the double event, Fish.

To make Crossmere a plausible suspect, you have to reject them all. And that's another big problem.

Enjoy your match, and mind the mismatch

[Fisherman]

Regarding the age factor, see the descriptions given by the witnesses of the double event, Fish.

To make Crossmere a plausible suspect, you have to reject them all. And that's another big problem.

Enjoy your match, and mind the mismatch

The two described men were very different, David. One was a roughly clad in ill-fitting clothes, and the other was respectably clad. Thereīs your mismatch for you.

Which one do you favour for the Ripperīs role? The shortish one or the shortish one?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I will take this opportunity to publicly disagree with fisherman and possibly cause an almighty rift.

Well done Germany!

[Barnaby]

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

Hi Caz,

What do you mean by "produce a case?" Haven't they done that already? Of course we can accept it, reject it, ponder it, etc., but in my mind they have produced a case. Since you seemingly disagree, what haven't they done with Cross that -for example - Paley did with Barnett or Tully did with Kelly? Write a book? As usual, I'm confused.

[Lechmere]

Lechmere could be almost all of the people seen by eye-witnesses - with a couple of exceptions such as the A-man.
Although for good reason I put little store on any of the eye witness accounts of people supposedly seen with a victim.

[Harry D]

Show me a better suspect than Jacob Levy and I'll show you JTR.

[DVV]

The two described men were very different, David. One was a roughly clad in ill-fitting clothes, and the other was respectably clad. Thereīs your mismatch for you.

Which one do you favour for the Ripperīs role? The shortish one or the shortish one?

The best,
Fisherman

Fish, since you very well know what are witnesses descriptions....
The point isn't about "BSM and Sailor Man" are one and the same, but they sure can be. And that's a real big thing in the double event context.
The more you'll deny this, the more your bias will be obvious.

Cheers

[DVV]

Although for good reason I put little store on any of the eye witness accounts of people supposedly seen with a victim.

And the good reason is : you have a book to publish on Crossmere-the-psycho.

[Fisherman]

I will take this opportunity to publicly disagree with fisherman and possibly cause an almighty rift.

Well done Germany!

I actually agree ... Sorry!

El Globo writes that the Brazilians would not have had a chance with Neymar i the team, even, since the Brazilian team is one of the worst national teams ever to have represented their country, whereas the German team is one of the most talented teams ever to have played for Germany.

That just about clinches it.

I voted for Brazil anyway, since I am a bigger fan of Brazilian football than I am of German ditto. A pity, then, that the Brazilians could not play Brazilian football.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fish, since you very well know what are witnesses descriptions....
The point isn't about "BSM and Sailor Man" are one and the same, but they sure can be. And that's a real big thing in the double event context.
The more you'll deny this, the more your bias will be obvious.

Cheers

Donīt be silly, David. Why is it that the more and more damning evidence that is presented on Lechmere, the louder the accusations of a bias are heard?

Why would I deny that the two could have been one and the same? I am pointing out that they were described as differently clad, since BS man was said to have been respectably clad, whereas Sailor man was claimed to be clad in loose-fitting, shabby clothes.

Like Edward says, we cannot definitely say that EITHER man (or the only man, if we choose to look upon it like that) was the killer. In Strides case, there was time for another man to approach her, and Eddowes was not found slain where Sailor man stood with her.

As for the strange claim that I would be biased if I did not acknowledge that the two could be one and the same, I really donīt see how that works? Both could have been Lechmere, I guess.

Furthermore, just to give it a twist, they could actually have been the same man even if different clothes were worn on the two occasions.

Stride could have been killed at 12.45, leaving a whole hour before Eddowes died. If it was the same killer, then why did he not strike sooner after the Stride killing? The road to Mitre Square would have been quickly enough covered.

What if the killer was spooked by having been seen by two potential witnesses, Pipeman and Schwartz, and felt that he needed to first change his apparition before he struck again? If it was Lechmere, he could have snuck into Pickfords, changed to clothes he knew were at the premises, and then hit the streets again, finding Eddowes. And maybe the only clothing around were too big for him, and loosely fitting.

Donīt let me confuse you, David - I am not saying that this was what happened. I am just showing you that I can produce a perfectly viable scenario for how Lechmere could have been both BS man and Sailor man, and how both Schwartz and Lawende could have gotten the clothing correct.

The more interesting thing in this discussion is that when presenting a scenario such as this - which I donīt favour, but which is not totally unviable - Iīm supposedly moving away from any accusations of a bias.

So tell me how it is that I have a feeling that other posters than you may think and say the exact opposite: that the suggestion seems heavily biased?

At the end of the day, I guess what I would really like to know is why a theory cannot be looked upon without immediately presupposing that the originator/s are biased.
My own stance is that it is heavily biased to work from such a presupposition.

All the best, David!
Fisherman