Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Michael W Richards 32 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Michael W Richards 41 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Michael W Richards 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Sam Flynn 7 hours ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Wickerman 14 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - (11 posts)
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - (5 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > General Suspect Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #501  
Old 06-04-2018, 05:52 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Actually Herlock I starting from a position that he was in the area and was a witness to one murder, therefore it is entirely possible that he could be a killer.
I then look at the various sub theories presented against him to see if tge case was indeed strong as some suggest:

1. His arrival time in Bucks Row and his home departure time suggest a problem.

Such a view is dependent on taking his departure time as being set. When in fact it seems clear it could be in a range either side of 3.30.
It also depends on the pace walked and the route taken to reach Brown's Yard.
Finally it is dependent on accepting the timing of Paul, over that of 3 seperate Police Officers..

2. The Scam.

There are various alternative veiws of what actually happened.
The easiest to accept is there was a genuine misunderstand, this was where I started.
The research however has lead me to eschew this easy option in favour of a more difficult one to prove. However there is sufficient evidence to make that view, that Mizen lied, the strongest of the options.
The " Classic Scam" so to speak is almost entirely dependent on accepting that A (Lechmere) lied and B (Mizen) told the truth.


3. The Blood Evidence.

On the surface this seemed highly promising.
However the hypothesis is faulty has it is constructed.
The data used for it, the arrival times and descriptions of Neil and Mizen, do not fit with the known scientific facts.

4. The name issue.

This remains an issue for some, for others not. Recent research has come tantilisingly close to providing an answer, but ultimately fails to do so.

5. There were no easy escape routes.

This is just basically nonsense. There are some 20+ possible routes of which at least 16 are viable.


After assesing thos points above in regards purely to the Murder of Nichols, it is clear that much of the case presented against Lechmere is flawed.
However such cannot and does not rule Lechmere out. It merely demonstates he is just another of many who were in the area and viable.


Steve


Steve
No, it is not clear that the case against Lechmere is flawed. It can well be exactly spot on. You SUGGEST it is flawed, but believe me, that is an entirely different matter. Quad erat demonstrandum.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-04-2018 at 05:59 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 06-04-2018, 06:00 AM
Jon Guy Jon Guy is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 2,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Exactly? In inches?

They were up at where Bakers Row ends up at the Hanbury Street inlet, justaboutish.
For God`s Sake, Christer
Stop being so defensive, man !!!

Last time I looked it wasn`t certain where they stood, and where Cross, Paul and Mizen stood in relation to each other.

You were arguing the point as if these details were know.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 06-04-2018, 06:04 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
No, I have never told you that Mizen was hard working and honest. You need to stop putting words in my mouth!
I have told you that there is nothing to contradict the suggestion that he was. Just like how Lechmere can have been a good or bad father, Mizen can have been a good or bad police. It of course applies that he got a good grade, so one must accpet that he took care of his duties in a commendable way, but that´s as far as the evidence takes us.
He WAS religious, and he DID succeed when taking over his fathers business.


Please !!! I did not quote you, but gave the essence of what you have posted you have previously on this thread said:

"What there is is a record of a policeman who served with honour, who was deeply religious and who took over his fathers farm and managed it with great success. He was not reprimanded by anyone, so he had nothing to hide or try to lie about. "

The comment that he managed his fathers business with great success implies he was hard working, how can it do anything else.
Indeed you repeat it above. To suggest i am putting words in your mouth, that are not obviously implied by your posts is untrue.



Why do you claim that a quotation from Hans Rosling applies to my take on Mizens veracity and honesty? I don´t understand why you allow yourself to drop to these levels of misrepresenting me!
I am not using a quote from Hans Rosling, or anyone.
Just what is implied by your own post.
You are NOT MISREPRESENTED.



Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 06-04-2018, 06:04 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,902
Default

Yes, where was Paul? Fish thinks that he went off alone - he has to think that, otherwise Crossmere would have been forced to lie to Mizen in front of Paul.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 06-04-2018, 06:16 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
No, it is not clear that the case against Lechmere is flawed. It can well be exactly spot on. You SUGGEST it is flawed, but believe me, that is an entirely different matter. Quad erat demonstrandum.
Christer, of the 5 issues raised 4 are very clear. It is only the name issue that remains.
If you could demonstrate my view on those four is indeed wrong, then you could possibly say QED, however my being wrong, which is of course possible, would not mean your take on those issues was correct.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 06-04-2018, 06:24 AM
Kaz Kaz is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 382
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

The stuff about "maligning an innocent man" is plain dumb, and it is even dumber to say that I shuld think twice before doing it. I have not thought twice, I have thought a million times, no other suspect evokes the reaction that we should not research our man as a suspect, and we have even spoken to the Lechmere family to make sure that they do not object to the research of Charles as the probable Ripper.

Have had the same slurs branished around over on the James Maybrick threads

Its a nauseating superiority complex... not to mention hypocritical..


Keep up the great work, fisherman. I remember watching your Channel 4 programme, top draw.

Last edited by Kaz : 06-04-2018 at 06:36 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 06-04-2018, 06:41 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Quad erat demonstrandum.
"The University courtyard was proved"?

I think think you meant "quod", Fish
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 06-04-2018, 06:44 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Actually Herlock I starting from a position that he was in the area and was a witness to one murder, therefore it is entirely possible that he could be a killer.
I then look at the various sub theories presented against him to see if tge case was indeed strong as some suggest:

1. His arrival time in Bucks Row and his home departure time suggest a problem.

Such a view is dependent on taking his departure time as being set. When in fact it seems clear it could be in a range either side of 3.30.
It also depends on the pace walked and the route taken to reach Brown's Yard.
Finally it is dependent on accepting the timing of Paul, over that of 3 seperate Police Officers..

2. The Scam.

There are various alternative veiws of what actually happened.
The easiest to accept is there was a genuine misunderstand, this was where I started.
The research however has lead me to eschew this easy option in favour of a more difficult one to prove. However there is sufficient evidence to make that view, that Mizen lied, the strongest of the options.
The " Classic Scam" so to speak is almost entirely dependent on accepting that A (Lechmere) lied and B (Mizen) told the truth.


3. The Blood Evidence.

On the surface this seemed highly promising.
However the hypothesis is faulty has it is constructed.
The data used for it, the arrival times and descriptions of Neil and Mizen, do not fit with the known scientific facts.

4. The name issue.

This remains an issue for some, for others not. Recent research has come tantilisingly close to providing an answer, but ultimately fails to do so.

5. There were no easy escape routes.

This is just basically nonsense. There are some 20+ possible routes of which at least 16 are viable.


After assesing thos points above in regards purely to the Murder of Nichols, it is clear that much of the case presented against Lechmere is flawed.
However such cannot and does not rule Lechmere out. It merely demonstates he is just another of many who were in the area and viable.


Steve


Steve
Bingo.
and nothing on those specific points rules him out as a suspect, and they don't either rule out Fish's interpretation of them.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 06-04-2018, 06:47 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
Yes, where was Paul? Fish thinks that he went off alone - he has to think that, otherwise Crossmere would have been forced to lie to Mizen in front of Paul.
yup. I think of all fishs interpretations/speculations. this is probably the weakest.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 06-04-2018, 07:02 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Bingo.
and nothing on those specific points rules him out as a suspect, and they don't either rule out Fish's interpretation of them.
Abby I have never said they do rule him out. Indeed in that very post I make that very clear and such was never the aim of the research.

I am sorry to disagree with you, but the blood evidence, WILL when presented in detail rule out Christer's interprtation 100%.

The scam, if accepted, will rule out Christer's take on that.

The timings of course will always be open to interpretation, but the counter arguments will seriously question the view on such present by our Dear Fish. Such will never be conclusive either way.

The escape routes is something, which while pushed in the documentary, is not something Christer pushes himself, he prefers an alternative reason for Lechmere not running. On facebook it has been argued more than once that there were no escape routes.
And thats the whole point, its not anti Christer or even anti Lechmere, it is merely looking to correct misconceptions some hold on Bucks Row.

The name issue remains completely unresolved, and to be honestv its not something i really look at, the arguments from both sides have pro and con points.


Not sure why Bingo!
My post to Herlock is a very brief summary, with no details. And two of those points are clearly contary to the veiws presented by Christer..

All the best


Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 06-04-2018 at 07:15 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.