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:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Batman 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (28 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (13 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (3 posts)
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - (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
  #211  
Old 06-01-2018, 12:20 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
So did Diemschutz with Stride.

Davis could have killed Chapman earlier and returned to ‘discover’ the body.

Robert Paul could have killed Nichols and then doubled back to ‘discover’ her or to hope that someone else would.

McCarthy might have had the proven opportunity to kill Kelly.

Maybe. Possibly. Who knows?
Yes, Diemschutz had proven opportunity. And that means that we MUST research him. When we do, nothing pops up. And Mortimer more or less tells us that he could not have been the killer. Weighed together, very little points to him.

The rest of your post is crap.

Proven opportunity is something that we can never take lightly on. That Davis COULD have returned does not mean that he had proven opportunity. Thatīs just useless poppycock. All the "might have" opportunity matters are the exact same.

Lechmere was there, and the ony person to give him an alibi is himself. If you give that some hard afterthought, you may see what I am saying.

Then again, you may equally return and say "What about Queen Elizabeth? She may have had opportunity, she was in London!"

Make your choice, Herlock.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 06-01-2018, 12:22 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
"So you are saying that once we know that a person who was found alone close by a murder victim..."

As I've said before, the use of "found" implies "found out" or "caught", and "close by" implies a greater proximity than the evidence permits.

All we can safely say is that he was seen in the road, and called Paul's attention to himself and something lying on the pavement. Cross was not "found" by Paul, therefore; if anything, it was the other way round.
Poppycock. Lechmere was there, and he has no alibi other the one he gives himself. Ergo, he may have killed her, he had proven opportunity.

That, my semantically acrobatic friend, is ALL that matters. All, alles, tout, tutti.

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-01-2018 at 12:50 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 06-01-2018, 12:22 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
OK-hows this-he was seen near the body of a murder victim before he tried to raise any kind of alarm, the only instance of this happening in the whole series. i do find it odd-just at that moment.
Donīt encourage him, Abby.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 06-01-2018, 12:27 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varqm View Post
This was debated before? Lechmere had oppurtunity to kill Nichols,we do not know what he was doing 20-30 sec or a minute or more before Paul arrived.But where was the knife,the police searched Bucks Row and Paul accompanied Lechmere all the way to Mizen.But as the first murder in the series and also in regards to the knife,Lechmere was not "processed" correctly as a witness like Lawende - Major Smith was trying to test his honesty/sharpness, Millers Court - nobody leaves until they give a full statement,Barnett - 4 hour interrogation and frisked.Then we would have known if Lechmere was another Prater or Lewis or the murderer. Not Lechmere's fault don't you think?

-
Yes, where, oh where, was the knife?

On him, Varq.

And no, it was not Lechmereīs fault that he was not scrutinized the way he should have been. It rarely lies on the culprits to disclose themselves, that is the task of the police.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 06-01-2018, 12:27 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
It would be good to get back to the general topic of the thread.

Favourite suspect/s, anyone?
Yes, Lechmere.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 06-01-2018, 01:00 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Victoria. Not Elizabeth. I got it wrong in post 211. A royal mistake...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 06-01-2018, 02:07 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,895
Default

"Please donīt be daft, Herlock. When researching a suspect, the police WILL inevitably check the paths of that suspect. They WILL look for any geographical connection the suspect have or has had to the murder spots.

Are you saying that this is untrue? Or are you saying that it is of no consequence? That the police are idiots for doing so?

Why is it that logic and consequence fly out the window once you hear the name Lechmere? "Anyone could have had reason to be anywhere" - so it does not matter that we can prove that Lechmere had ties to the exact area where Stride was killed?

You know, if that is how you are going to argue, then I understand why you say that there is nothing at all on Lechmere."

But Fish, I thought you were the one who was arguing that Crossmere was never seriously questioned or suspected by the police. What a turnaround!

"Why is it that logic and consequence fly out the window once you hear the name Lechmere?"

Indeed.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 06-01-2018, 02:18 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
"Please donīt be daft, Herlock. When researching a suspect, the police WILL inevitably check the paths of that suspect. They WILL look for any geographical connection the suspect have or has had to the murder spots.

Are you saying that this is untrue? Or are you saying that it is of no consequence? That the police are idiots for doing so?

Why is it that logic and consequence fly out the window once you hear the name Lechmere? "Anyone could have had reason to be anywhere" - so it does not matter that we can prove that Lechmere had ties to the exact area where Stride was killed?

You know, if that is how you are going to argue, then I understand why you say that there is nothing at all on Lechmere."

But Fish, I thought you were the one who was arguing that Crossmere was never seriously questioned or suspected by the police. What a turnaround!

"Why is it that logic and consequence fly out the window once you hear the name Lechmere?"

Indeed.
Is it as warm over there as it is here? If so, the heat may have gotten the better of you, Robert. There seems to be a turnaround - in your head.

I recommend a hat, something cool to drink and a place in the shade.

But then again, you have already placed yourself there, have you not. And wisely so!

I stand firmly by how I think Lechmere was never questioned in the capacity of a suspect (see post 214, for example). But I fear that does not change how the geographical implications are of the utmost importance - contrary to what Herlock thinks. To him, they are of no importance at all.

How about you, Robert? Do you think the police are wise to research such things, or do you agree with Herlock that they are blaha, blaha and uninteresting? That we need not worry about such things and that pointing to a geographical connection does not influence a case against a suspect? Which is it?

Now, go get that hat!

PS. Iīm glad to hear that you agree that Herlock looses out on the logic side when he hears the name Lechmere!

Last edited by Fisherman : 06-01-2018 at 02:23 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 06-01-2018, 02:18 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
Ah, but we have to remember that to Fish, Crossmere was James Bond. Instead of running or walking swiftly away, he stays to bluff it out. Later he bluffs Mizen too. And when he eventually visits the police station, he has the officers eating out of his hand with his David Niven charm.

Plus, he looks rather defiant in that photograph.
Hi Robert,

Added to that he was a time traveller. He knew that innocent people, not expecting to ever see a lifeless human being while going about their normal business, will tend to think it is some inanimate object, like a mannequin - or a tarpaulin. Only recently there was a case on tv of a woman who, it turned out, had committed suicide by slashing her neck with a broken bottle. She was found on open ground by someone who thought it was a mannequin. How would a killer in 1888 have had that kind of insight to come out with a lie like that?

It's infinitely more likely that this was the completely natural reaction of an innocent person - man or woman [and if Charles Cross had been a Charlotte Cross we wouldn't be having this conversation] - who was simply not expecting this 'object' in the street to be a dead or dying human being, so they saw it as something else to begin with.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 06-01-2018, 02:34 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi Robert,

Added to that he was a time traveller. He knew that innocent people, not expecting to ever see a lifeless human being while going about their normal business, will tend to think it is some inanimate object, like a mannequin - or a tarpaulin. Only recently there was a case on tv of a woman who, it turned out, had committed suicide by slashing her neck with a broken bottle. She was found on open ground by someone who thought it was a mannequin. How would a killer in 1888 have had that kind of insight to come out with a lie like that?

It's infinitely more likely that this was the completely natural reaction of an innocent person - man or woman [and if Charles Cross had been a Charlotte Cross we wouldn't be having this conversation] - who was simply not expecting this 'object' in the street to be a dead or dying human being, so they saw it as something else to begin with.

Love,

Caz
X
So, in your former post, you concluded that if Nichls was dead when Lechmere arrived in Bucks Row, then he probably was not her killer.

And now, you conclude that nobody in 1888 would have been able to think up a lie about how he initially mistook a dead body for a tarpaulin. Impossible - could only be done today, absolutely not back then!

This promises to be an interesting day, and I donīt exclude that your mentioning suicide may bring Freud into the discussion when it comes to assessing your efforts.

Dear, dear me!
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 04:38 PM.


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