Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A New Suspect?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Good suggestion Robert. The only doubt that I can think of is that he did give his address at the Inquest. Maybe CL just didn't think it through. No one is suggesting that he was Professor Moriarty Of course.
    Hi Abby,

    I think that you've just about summed it up. I've also seen it suggested (I can't recall who by though) that he 'might' have even felt that 'Lechmere' sounded a bit foreign?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by MysterySinger View Post
      No I don't believe Fisherman discovered "the name thing". The person who originally discovered it somehow got overshadowed by someone else who "discovered" it years later - neither of which were Fisherman to my knowledge. Fish is, of course, vocal as to Lechmere as a suspect (and does a good job imho but I'm not really convinced by the arguments so far). Someone will supply the correct names from the Boards I'm sure.
      Hi,

      I've heard the name Derek Osbourne mentioned in connection with CL. I think that I can remember him writing articles in Ripperologist or Ripperana but I can't recall the topics. Maybe it was him? As you've said, someone here will know.
      Regards

      Herlock






      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

      Comment


      • #33
        Henry are you in the pub?

        You've quoted me and replied to Abby
        Regards

        Herlock






        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          Henry are you in the pub?

          You've quoted me and replied to Abby
          I thought your double post was not sufficient. I intend to repost your words as often as I can, in any context possible.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
            I thought your double post was not sufficient. I intend to repost your words as often as I can, in any context possible.
            Much appreciated.
            Regards

            Herlock






            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

            Comment


            • #36
              Does anyone know if anyone has done any research on Paul. I'm assuming that someone must have.
              Regards

              Herlock






              "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

              Comment


              • #37
                I don't think that my book on Robert Paul is going to be much of a success
                Regards

                Herlock






                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  I don't think that my book on Robert Paul is going to be much of a success
                  Unless.... was Paul, by any chance..... a Freemason.....?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    >>Fisherman did make the discovery of what I tend to call 'the name thing,' <<

                    Nothing to do with Christer.

                    It was one of the best researchers in this field, the late Chris Scott, with the help, I believe, of some others. He didn't discover it to bolster any case for a suspect, simply for the benefit of knowledge. Ah, those were the days!

                    Derek Osbourne was the first to write about "Cross" as a suspect, way back in the early 2000's.
                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      >They were together but Christer came up with the Mizen Scam to get CL away from Paul so that he could lie to Mizen. <<

                      I may be wrong on this one, I'd have to check, but I think it was Ed Stow that first suggested Paul's separation from Mizen and Xmere.
                      dustymiller
                      aka drstrange

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        >... using an alias is common among criminals.<<

                        Usually to avoid being found by the police, in this case, Xmere went to the police of his own volition, negating that need for an alias.

                        We also know that it was completely normal for non criminals to use other names in the Victorian period. And contrary to claims by some, not illegal to use in a court or inquest setting.

                        Nothing odd or suspicious about the name issue in itself.
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Hunter View Post
                          Well now, that makes it all the more relevant.
                          Yes, Hunter, especially if I want my share of the royalties from Herlock's "ground-breaking book" (see post 1), it is very relevant. It's not as if I'm planning my own book, just offering some observations.

                          Originally posted by Hunter View Post
                          People never toot their own horn a bit, do they? Don't dare read any personal memoires.
                          One of my librarian colleagues wasn't big on autobiographies, no matter how historic the celebrity, for that very reason. I suppose I should have said "exaggerated," not "lied."

                          Originally posted by Hunter,424441
                          And yet he was interviewed by the press soon after the murder where he gave his exaggerated account wilfully. Yet, the police couldn't find him till a couple of weeks later because he was in hiding?
                          Oh, probably not in "hiding" as much as not reporting to either the police or the inquest as much of his own will as Lechmere seemed to have done. For someone who was probably a person of interest as soon as the interview was published, he seemed reluctant to give an official account... Or, so it could be argued in response to Herlock's "experimental hypothesis", which is all I was doing here (shrug).

                          Originally posted by Hunter,424441
                          Now that seals it. Didn't have to be on his route, it was next door.
                          Yes, the sociopath next door, right? Thanks for the response, Hunter, but I'm not all that serious about Paul's guilt-- just playing along with the premise of the thread.
                          Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                          ---------------
                          Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                          ---------------

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Successful experiment, I think

                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            Hi Pat

                            I think that it's just the fact that CL found the body and so had at least 'some' time alone with it is the difference between the two. We can say that CL gave the wrong name at the Inquest but he gained no advantage from it as he gave his correct address. We can point out discrepancies in statements but there's no reason why it has to be CL that lied. Paul did exaggerate his involvement in his Lloyds statement. A statement that he was keen to give as he obviously approached the press to give it rather than the other way around.
                            The killing and then 'doubling back' is by no means impossible but I'd accept unlikely. He wasn't bothered about touching the body whereas CL was. This has been cited as a suspicious point against CL but maybe it just shows that Paul was more 'comfortable' around a corpse than CL was
                            Hi, Herlock,

                            I think your experiment was successful. It is probably possible to try to find suspicious details about any witness, or anyone related to the case, and start a theory about them as the killer. Thanks for your response.
                            Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                            ---------------
                            Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                            ---------------

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                              well, i do have the word "saint" in my name dja which means i can't be all bad. always appreciate these extra bits that you fill in.

                              my current weightless & opposing suggestion for the "name change" herlock: the weekend of Polly's murder, Lechmere had no idea what a "Jack the Ripper" was, but he could have known what a "High Ripper" was, so he may have been providing some self-protection by not using his last name. iow his mind may have raced to the involvement of gang violence before the idea of a serial killer entered his mind, and he feared criminal reprisals... moreso considering he still had to walk that route to work.
                              Ripper mate!

                              Popular Oz reply
                              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
                                Hi, Herlock,

                                I think your experiment was successful. It is probably possible to try to find suspicious details about any witness, or anyone related to the case, and start a theory about them as the killer. Thanks for your response.
                                Thanks for that Pat.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






                                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X