The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Great post, Harry.

Going by your list, Lechmere would seem no more likely to have killed Nichols than Mulshaw.

If that's the case (and assuming Mulshaw can't be eliminated by other known facts about him), then perhaps it does all boil down to the name change, which has yet to prove in any way suspicious, let alone incriminating.

Love,

Caz
X

Welcome to the buffoon club, Toots! You and Harry are the first and honorary members. Anybody who manages to think that Lechmere and Mulshaw are on equal footing as suspects belong here. Plus itīs a lifetime membership, no less.

Have fun!

[Fisherman]

Different opinion, Fisherman. Not meaning. That doesn't make sense in English.

But are those other medicos also prosectors? Have you looked up the role of a prosector on Wikipedia? I'd strongly advise it.



As far as I can tell, Prosector's case against his suspect would not suffer one jot if he was wrong about the minimum amount of anatomical knowledge and dissection skill the killer needed. If his suspect did attend dissections, he needn't have been any good at putting his observations into practice. Conversely, your case goes down the proverbial plughole if Prosector is even half right and Lechmere cannot be shown to have taken any interest in the subject.

Love,

Caz
X

My case does not go down the plughole? Thank you, thank you, thank you, Caz - I was SO worried!!!

Not.

[caz]

I repeat.Up to this point in time no evidence of an incriminating nature has been presented against Cross.

Mulshaw,lets see.
About 30 years of age,matching e stimates given by witnesses.
Born in the area,still living and working in the area.
On the night of Nichols murder,night watchman in an adjoining street.
Working alone,enabling him to be absent without notice.
Work place enabled him to retreat to and clean up unobserved.
Presented himself at the murder scene while body still there.
Claimed to have been told of the murder,claims that could not be substanciated.
Workplace only minutes from the latter murders of,Tabram,Chapman,and Kelly.
Lived in Rupert Street near the Stride,Mckenzie,and Pinchin street killings.
A ll good information,but useless, unless incrminating evidence ca n first be e stablished,but much more suggestive than the information on Cross.

Great post, Harry.

Going by your list, Lechmere would seem no more likely to have killed Nichols than Mulshaw.

If that's the case (and assuming Mulshaw can't be eliminated by other known facts about him), then perhaps it does all boil down to the name change, which has yet to prove in any way suspicious, let alone incriminating.

Perhaps you should start a thread called The Mulshaw Scam, arguing that he invented the man who told him about the murder, so nobody would suspect him of committing it himself and returning to the scene just for jolly.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

You don't say, Abby. It was Fisherman who totally misunderstood this in his responses to me, which is why I had to explain again - and again - that I was asking how Lechmere learned the techniques required to do what was done to subsequent victims after killing them. I never even mentioned the ease of overpowering these desperate women in the first place, which would have been stating the beedin' obvious.

Love,

Caz
X

Here is what was said, Toots:

Originally Posted by*pinkmoon*
My dear caz people seem to forget that whoever was committing these appalling crimes certainly knew how to kill very quickly and very efficiently.


Not a word about the eviscerations, thus - all that is mentioned is that he killed quickly and eeficiently- Then yiu answer:


Indeed so, pinkster.
Where, when and how might Lechmere have acquired the necessary know-how? He seems to have worked the usual long hours over many a long year, when he wasn't at home making babies.


Again, not a word about the eviscerations.

So then I asked:

Do you think it took a lot to kill either of Chapman and Eddowes?

Not a word about eviscerations.

And you answered:

Ask Prosector. I tend to think it took what Prosector - a professional - says it took. And there is*nothing*at present to suggest Lechmere had what it took.

Once again, the eviscerations are not mentioned. It is spoken of the ability to KILL, nothing else.

So you are the whole cause of the confusion, Caz, not me. Ever so sorry, but there you are.

[caz]

Caz, you may have worded yourself a bit vaguely or I may have misunderstood.

As for Prosectors thoughts, it remains that other medicos have been of a different meaning.

Different opinion, Fisherman. Not meaning. That doesn't make sense in English.

But are those other medicos also prosectors? Have you looked up the role of a prosector on Wikipedia? I'd strongly advise it.

Should we ditch the others and go with Prosector? Who has a theory to defend? I am in no way accusing him of anything at all, but it remains that people with suspects must be regarded with a bit more care than those who stand free of such things.

As far as I can tell, Prosector's case against his suspect would not suffer one jot if he was wrong about the minimum amount of anatomical knowledge and dissection skill the killer needed. If his suspect did attend dissections, he needn't have been any good at putting his observations into practice. Conversely, your case goes down the proverbial plughole if Prosector is even half right and Lechmere cannot be shown to have taken any interest in the subject.

Love,

Caz
X