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:
Rippercast: Questions for Michael Hawley - Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Iconoclast 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by GUT 10 hours ago.
Rippercast: One on one with Stephen Senise - by jmenges 11 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Iconoclast 12 hours ago.
Rippercast: Questions for Michael Hawley - Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety - by Hercule Poirot 12 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (13 posts)
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - (4 posts)
Rippercast: Questions for Michael Hawley - Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety - (2 posts)
Rippercast: One on one with Stephen Senise - (1 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (1 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 > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #101  
Old 07-11-2016, 02:29 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I'm saying it's a reasonable point in light of the rest of what I posted in #91, as well as in #83, which you are evidently unable to contradict, thus confirming the reasonableness of what I wrote.
It is a lot less reasonable option than the one I am suggesting. End of.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 07-11-2016, 02:30 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
My point is really that you are aware that there is a cogent counter argument that Mizen saw the blood later than you are suggesting. Yet you continue to say that Mizen "established" the time as if it is a confirmed and uncontroversial fact.
It is not much of a cogent argument. It is an outside possibility with a very small viability. End of.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 07-11-2016, 02:34 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
You running away from a discussion is no more than I've come to expect from you Fisherman.
My problem is not a wish to run - it is the fact that I too often engage in worthless quibbling instead of leaving the discussion.

I know you and your methods quite well. I suspect you think I am correct on many things, and if I was to ask you who you think is the best suspect identified so far, you would most likely say Lechmere.

But you are too engulfed by your wish to look smart to work in a fruitful manner from your knowledge. That is why leg it whenever you surface. Not because I have no answers, but because I dislike your approach.

There, I did it again, engaged in worthless quibbling. But now I´m out!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 07-11-2016, 03:23 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,913
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
It is not much of a cogent argument. It is an outside possibility with a very small viability. End of.
I don't agree with your summary of what was a long and definitely inconclusive debate but even by your assessment it means that nothing is "established".
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 07-11-2016, 03:24 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,913
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I know you and your methods quite well. I suspect you think I am correct on many things, and if I was to ask you who you think is the best suspect identified so far, you would most likely say Lechmere.
That is most certainly not true.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 07-11-2016, 03:30 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,913
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
It is a lot less reasonable option than the one I am suggesting. End of.
What I have noted is that you consistently say on this forum that Dr Llwellyn arrived in Bucks Row at about 4:10am - and I'm sure you've sucked me into repeating this myself - but when one looks at the evidence it becomes apparent that there is no evidential support for such a claim.

But you repeat it, I suggest, because it enables you to say that if Nichols was murdered half an hour earlier then she was murdered at 3:40 which is roughly when you believe Lechmere must have arrived in Bucks Row.

It is, however, at least equally plausible that the doctor arrived in Bucks Row at about 4:00am. There is certainly nothing unreasonable in that suggestion and I fail to see how it is more or less reasonable than your wholly speculative opinion that it was at 4:10am.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 07-11-2016, 04:38 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

David Orsam: What I have noted is that you consistently say on this forum that Dr Llwellyn arrived in Bucks Row at about 4:10am - and I'm sure you've sucked me into repeating this myself - but when one looks at the evidence it becomes apparent that there is no evidential support for such a claim.

Okay, your last answer from me for today, David, since you are hellbent on it. I "consistently say" that Llewellyn would have arrived in Bucks Row at about 4.10 because I believe that is as close an approximation as we can make, not because it is in the written evidence.
You, on the other hand, make the assumption that Llewellyn meant that he arrived in Bucks Row at around four o clock, instead of being alerted to the errand as such at around four o clock, having to get dressed and to collect his stuff before taking of in company with Thain.

Here´s the Daily News from the 3:rd, reporting from the inquest:

Dr. Llewellyn, 152 Whitechapel road, deposed that on Friday morning about four o'clock he was called up by a policeman with whom he went to Buck's row.


So, as you can read for yourself, "about four o´ clock" was the time when Llewellyn was awakened by Thain knocking on his door, and not the remove in time when he arrived at the murder site.
You are therefore making a suggestion that does not dovetail with the known facts, as established at the inquest.

But you repeat it, I suggest, because it enables you to say that if Nichols was murdered half an hour earlier then she was murdered at 3:40 which is roughly when you believe Lechmere must have arrived in Bucks Row.

[b]Yes, and a charming suggestion it is - you are suggesting that I am fitting the facts to dovetail with my theory. Nice.
I have no idea when Lechmere arrived in Bucks Row, it may have been anywhere between 3.15 and 3.45. There is not any record of what took place between these hours, unless we want to think that Robert Paul was wrong on the timings, and that he was there at 3.40. However, if he was, then it would be odd that Thain did not arrive at Llewellyns place until around 4 o clock. If anything, the timings make more sense if we add some little time instead of detracting it.
I do believe that Nichols´s neck was cut at around 3.40-3.45. And I do believe that Llewellyn would have arrived at the site at around 4.10. It is not something I lie about or try to make up, regardless of what you see fit to imply.

It is, however, at least equally plausible that the doctor arrived in Bucks Row at about 4:00am. There is certainly nothing unreasonable in that suggestion and I fail to see how it is more or less reasonable than your wholly speculative opinion that it was at 4:10am.

It is interesting that you should speak of my opinion as wholly speculative - as if your own opinion was not . The Daily News tells us quite clearly that Llewellyn was called up by Thain at around 4 AM. "Called up" means called up from bed. Once Llewellyn woke, he had to get dressed (and he would not have used a pair of jeans and a t-shirt, but instead a victorian suit with lots of buttons, taking some time to get into). After that he would have to collect his bag, quite possibly checking it for contents, before he set off together with Thain to the murder spot.
The distance from Llewellyns practice would be covered in two or three minutes, add to this the time it took for the doctor to get out of bed, get dressed and ready.

If you look at Blackwell, he was alerted to the nearby murder site in Berner Street a hundred yards away or so at 1.10 and arrived at 1.16:
"On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman. My assistant, Mr. Johnston, went back with the constable, and I followed immediately I was dressed."


I find an estimation of around ten minutes for Llewellyns trek to Bucks Row very reasonable.

You find it a potentially deceitful misleading on my behalf.

My, how different we are, David. And my what different aims we have with our respective work.

Now that this has been established, I really cannot be bothered to answer your unfortunate posts any more today.

Last edited by Fisherman : 07-11-2016 at 04:51 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 07-11-2016, 04:58 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,913
Default

Fisherman, if I had a pound coin for every time you told me you were not going to reply to me any more but then continued to reply I'd be quite a rich man. Well I'd certainly have a few pound coins at least!

Leaving aside that the Daily News report could well be nothing more than the reporter's own interpretation of the Q&A sequence that I set out earlier, what it says is entirely consistent with what I have been saying.

For the key difference in the Daily News report, as opposed to say the report in the Times, is that Llwellyn is recorded as saying that he was called up "at about four o'clock' whereas other papers have it as "at four o'clock". That being so, it is consistent with the doctor saying in his 31 August statement that he was called to Bucks Row at "about five minutes to four". As you know, in my previous choronology of events, I have suggested that Thain might have knocked at his door at 3:52 which is consistent with what was reported in the Daily News.

So we simply come to the issue of how long it took the doctor to take to get dressed of which we have no evidence and about which I am suggesting the espousal of pure speculation on your part, talking about buttons etc. For all we know it could have taken him 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes or half an hour. So why plump for 4:10 as his time of arrival? Perhaps it was 4:20 right? But then what becomes of your "half an hour"? Because time of death clearly wasn't 3:50am.

So I think you are adjusting to 4:10 to make sense of the doctor's evidence. But if you make that adjustment why can someone else not adjust to 4:00am or even 4:05 am which would then put time of death - according to the doctor - at 3:35?

And perhaps at 3:35 Lechmere was just leaving his house.

My point, Fisherman, is that we add nothing to the case against (or for) Lechmere by fixing on points such as this "half an hour" of Dr Llwewllyn which, given what we know, or rather don't know about the timings that morning, is so vague as to be meaningless.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 07-11-2016, 06:26 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

David Orsam: Fisherman, if I had a pound coin for every time you told me you were not going to reply to me any more but then continued to reply I'd be quite a rich man. Well I'd certainly have a few pound coins at least!

You know, you have quite an eccentric approach to these matters.

First you say "You are running, you scoundrel!"

Then, when I answer, you say "You promised not to answer, you scoundrel!"

It is a very odd approach, and one may easily get the idea that you are more after trying to paint me out as confused than to have any real discussion.

Leaving aside that the Daily News report could well be nothing more than the reporter's own interpretation of the Q&A sequence that I set out earlier, what it says is entirely consistent with what I have been saying.

No, it is not. It states very clearly that Llewellyn was waken up at around four in the morning by Thain. Any other "interpretation" is a distortion of the facts.

For the key difference in the Daily News report, as opposed to say the report in the Times, is that Llwellyn is recorded as saying that he was called up "at about four o'clock' whereas other papers have it as "at four o'clock". That being so, it is consistent with the doctor saying in his 31 August statement that he was called to Bucks Row at "about five minutes to four". As you know, in my previous choronology of events, I have suggested that Thain might have knocked at his door at 3:52 which is consistent with what was reported in the Daily News.

But less so with the other timings, of course. But why care about that?

So we simply come to the issue of how long it took the doctor to take to get dressed of which we have no evidence and about which I am suggesting the espousal of pure speculation on your part, talking about buttons etc. For all we know it could have taken him 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes or half an hour. So why plump for 4:10 as his time of arrival? Perhaps it was 4:20 right? But then what becomes of your "half an hour"? Because time of death clearly wasn't 3:50am.

Oh dear, David. You ARE itching, are you not?

Say that Thain knocked on Llewellyns door at 3.52. Say that the doc was a dressing whizz kid, and got that sorted double quick, arriving in Bucks Row at 3.57.

Llewellyn did effectively NOT say that Nichols died half an hour before he saw her. He said that she had been dead for no more than half an hour. Meaning that she died within that half hour before he arrived.
If he arrived at 4.10, then Nichols according to Llewellyn died between 3.40 and 3.45, since those five minutes are the only ones unaccounted for in the evidence. And that puts Lechmere in the frame.
If he arrived at 3.57, then Llewellyn would have her dead somewhere between 3.27 and 3.45, since we would get that unaccounted gap of time. And that puts Lechmere in the frame.

In the latter case, we are faced with the problem that Nichols would have bled from the neck wound for 18 minutes before Neil found her, if she was cut at 3.27. And Jason Payne-James tells us that 3-5 minutes are likelier than 7 minutes. What he would say about 18 minutes is anybody´s guess.


So I think you are adjusting to 4:10 to make sense of the doctor's evidence. But if you make that adjustment why can someone else not adjust to 4:00am or even 4:05 am which would then put time of death - according to the doctor - at 3:35?

Adjust away, David - and try to make it fit the blood evidence. It is really, really hard, I can tell you that much.

And perhaps at 3:35 Lechmere was just leaving his house.

Or maybe at 2.29?

My point, Fisherman, is that we add nothing to the case against (or for) Lechmere by fixing on points such as this "half an hour" of Dr Llwewllyn which, given what we know, or rather don't know about the timings that morning, is so vague as to be meaningless.

It is not meaningless at all. It fits the overall puzzle very nicely, and so it becomes another detail pointing in the carmans direction. And timelines can be built with at least some accuracy. Like it or not.

Now, David, have I been nice to you since I did not run away, or have I been a naughty boy since I said I did not wish to discuss with you any more - and still did so? I find it increasingly hard to keep track of. Any which way, I really mean it when I say that I do not feel like discussing any further with you.
If you can bring yourself to realize that this is on account of how I think you are not a very qualitative debater, instead of any fear for you, I would be most grateful.

Last edited by Fisherman : 07-11-2016 at 06:47 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 07-11-2016, 06:58 AM
Columbo Columbo is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 646
Default

I think we should remember we're not here to prove Lechmere/Cross guilty or innocent. None of us here know that at all. A decent case from Edward and Fisherman has been made but as Fisherman pointed it out it's not provable.

We also don't know with any certainty if the times discussed are correct and those who claim to know these are correct are fooling themselves. At this late stage any times put forth by any of the contemporary sources are estimates and guesses at best. Not once that I've seen in the discussions did Dr. soandso say he knew the time because this clock struck at this time etc. same goes for the PC's, although I would give their estimates a little more weight as they did the same beat over and over.

As for the newspapers, that's really an individual choice and I still think alot of them got their inquest info from a news agency, hence the near identical reporting. So if the agency got it wrong, then guess who else got it wrong?

My opinion only, and as the great poet said "opinions are like a**holes, we've all got them and most of them stink"

Columbo
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 02:44 AM.


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