The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Elamarna]

PaulB,
I ask questions because I believe they need to be asked.I have answered where it is reasonable to answer.
We are faced with testimony of what Long says he(Long)did,and why he did it.We can respond to that.I have.
If opportunity is meaningless in discussing long,then opportunity is meaningless in discussing the killer of Eddowes as having written the graffito,for there is no evidence the killer wrote it either opportunity or not.

Well yes it is meaningless on its own.
Let's apply opportunity to another aspect of the case.

Lechmere had a possible opportunity to killer Nichols, especially if he left home earlier than he claimed. However that alone does not make a case against him, you need more than just a possible opportunity to form a theory.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Well yes it is meaningless on its own.
Let's apply opportunity to another aspect of the case.

Lechmere had a possible opportunity to killer Nichols, especially if he left home earlier than he claimed. However that alone does not make a case against him, you need more than just a possible opportunity to form a theory.


Steve

Just to be clear, I don´t think anybody has ever claimed that the possible opportunity was enough to make a case against Lechmere.

[Sam Flynn]

Well yes it is meaningless on its own.
Let's apply opportunity to another aspect of the case.

Lxxxxxxx had a possible opportunity to killer Nichols, especially if he left home earlier than he claimed. However that alone does not make a case against him, you need more than just a possible opportunity to form a theory.

Don't mention the "L" word, Steve!

Other, less potentially thread-wrecking, examples exist.

[PaulB]

The academic way it would seem is to assess all the facts available even though many contradict each other and are clearly unsafe, and then decide on an explanation that is believed to be the right one.

That is not the right way to do it in the case of the ripper murders.

The academic way “would seem”… So you don’t actually know what the academic way is. It’s just what you think it is.

So, the only evidence you have got for what happened in the past is what the sources tell you, so you gather all those sources together and after closely studying and comparing them, and separating the good from the bad, the reliable from the unreliable, you extract what is the best interpretation of the events that you can. And that’s not the right way to do it.

Okay. That’s what you said before. You were asked why that isn’t the right way to do it with the Ripper murders. Answer the question.

As to your reviews. as stated they are biased without a doubt. You have made it plainly clear over the past years that you have no liking for any of my Ripper research which goes against your research, and if I am correct blows yours firmly out of the water. and therefore gives you every reason to write adverse vindictive reviews, and I have no intention of apologising or retracting anything I have said.

Despite what I believe are deliberate attempts with these adverse reviews to stop people buying the books, it has not succeeded.

Your so-called Ripper research does not go against mine, Trevor, nor does it blow mine out of the water. The fact that you used that sort of language suggests that you know nothing about me or my work. You see, I have no theories, I have nothing you can blow out of the water. Nothing you or anyone else can say makes a difference to me. I have worked alongside lots of people, helping them with their research, and many of them have been kind enough to acknowledge my assistance. When and if new information emerges or new theories are advanced, I easily adapt to them. I’m interested in the truth, not personal theories. And, of course, I don’t expect you to believe any of that. Nobody likes a bad review and it’s only natural that they look around for an excuse, and it’s usually an accusation that the reviewer is biased. That goes with the territory. But my reviews are not intended to stop people from buying your books. I’m not interested in you or in whether you sell your books or not. I’m reviewing for the people who have worked hard to earn the money they buy books and hopefully to help them know what they are buying, because I believe that they should get value for the money they’ve slogged their guts out to get. So, when you tell your readers that they’ve been misled into believing things that aren’t true, and that after having undertaken considerable research you are able to reveal the truth, I think that’s what you should be delivering, not something you’ve lifted from Wikipedia or some other website and which your reader could have accessed for free. And, of course, taking someone else’s words, someone else’s work, and publishing and copyrighting it without acknowledgement under your own name, say a lot about your morals and ethics. More importantly, it also sheds justifiable doubt on your seriousness and sincerity as a researcher and writer and how you should be judged in those capacities, particularly insofar as to whether you are really undertaking “long and lengthy” research to uncover the truth or just waning people to think you are when in fact you are simply lifting your material from other people’s websites. That has a direct bearing on how your Ripper theorising should be judged. Are you to be treated seriously, as if your ideas have merit and are worthy of serious investigation, or, do your books, with their false claims of original research and material lifted from internet sites, suggest that you are just someone out to make a quick buck or two from your books and talks and DVDs? There’s no vindictiveness, just questions arising from your own claims and what your books suggest. None of what I’ve said is untrue.

[Fisherman]

Don't mention the "L" word, Steve!

Other, less potentially thread-wrecking, examples exist.

I don´t think denying the carmans existence or suppressing it makes for a useful approach to the Ripper case, Gareth. Although I am well aquainted with the fact that you disagree.

However, persuading Steve not to mention Lechmere in any shape or form is no guarantee that you will walk free from him - I am here, and I am less inclined to listen to your advice on this point.

On the other site - where posters are seemingly not allowed to say that Lechmere is the probable Ripper - there is a thread about why the Pinchin Street torso was found with the arms still attached. On the thread, Gary Barnett makes the point that the carman had actually lived right across the street from where the torso was dumped, a distance of perhaps ten or fifteen yards away.

Any realistic forum with a true interest in researching the case would recognize this fact as something extremely remarkable - either a completely incredible coincidence or a significant fact.

But out here, Lechmere should preferably not be mentioned at all. That says something about the quality of some of the research and researchers on the site.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is simply no evidence that the two pieces didn't make up a full apron either.

Why would anyone have stated specifically that two pieces made a whole apron? It would have been far more important to have observed if the two pieces did not make a whole, but nobody did.

Surely you can see the significance of this point Trevor? If the two pieces weren't the 'whole' then someone would have mentioned this 'missing' piece?

I'm sorry but you aren't taking an alternative view. You are simply nit-picking.

[PaulB]

PaulB,
I ask questions because I believe they need to be asked.I have answered where it is reasonable to answer.
We are faced with testimony of what Long says he(Long)did,and why he did it.We can respond to that.I have.
If opportunity is meaningless in discussing long,then opportunity is meaningless in discussing the killer of Eddowes as having written the graffito,for there is no evidence the killer wrote it either opportunity or not.

Harry,
You are right to ask questions. There’s no question about that. But it’s whether or not the questions are capable of being answered that creates the problem. In post 2427 you said,“It is Long's evidence and actions, that has to be proven beyond doubt” and I asked how you would propose going about doing that. I pointed out that everyone involved is dead, that the only information we’ve got on which we can form a judgement are the sources we’ve got and that they’ve been compared and assessed and evaluated and all that kind of stuff and there isn’t any suggestion that PC Long was doing anything other than telling the truth. That’s the situation. It’s not like there are avenues left to be explored or anything like that. We’ve got the sources, that’s it. And if the sources don’t prove what PC Long said, do they suggest that what he said wasn’t true? If so what? That’s what I am asking you.

I could direct you to Don Souden ‘The (PC) Long and Short of It’ in The New Independent Review, (2 January 2012)and Bruce Robsinson They All Love Jack, for examples, whre questions are raised about PC Long, or even The Jack the Ripper A to Z, which you have already cited, which gave a considered summation of an examination of the source materials. These sources all show how PC Long’s testimony has been examined and how different people interpret it.

For me, I’m looking at the A to Z entry and trying to decide whether any future edition to draw attention to the argument that PC Long wasn’t telling the truth or could have written the message. The fact that he was there and could have done, isn’t really much of a justification for exploring the possibility.

[Elamarna]

Just to be clear, I don´t think anybody has ever claimed that the possible opportunity was enough to make a case against Lechmere.

Hi Christer,

I agree entirely, I was presenting an alternative to Harry's argument


Steve

[Elamarna]

Don't mention the "L" word, Steve!

Other, less potentially thread-wrecking, examples exist.

Sorry,

But it is the most obvious.


Steve

[Elamarna]

I don´t think denying the carmans existence or suppressing it makes for a useful approach to the Ripper case, Gareth. Although I am well aquainted with the fact that you disagree.

However, persuading Steve not to mention Lechmere in any shape or form is no guarantee that you will walk free from him - I am here, and I am less inclined to listen to your advice on this point.

On the other site - where posters are seemingly not allowed to say that Lechmere is the probable Ripper - there is a thread about why the Pinchin Street torso was found with the arms still attached. On the thread, Gary Barnett makes the point that the carman had actually lived right across the street from where the torso was dumped, a distance of perhaps ten or fifteen yards away.

Any realistic forum with a true interest in researching the case would recognize this fact as something extremely remarkable - either a completely incredible coincidence or a significant fact.

But out here, Lechmere should preferably not be mentioned at all. That says something about the quality of some of the research and researchers on the site.

Yes it's an interesting thread, of course his living there some years before is in the same catalogue as Kosminski having once lived next door to Dutfields yard, intriguing certainly but that's all.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Yes it's an interesting thread, of course his living there some years before is in the same catalogue as Kosminski having once lived next door to Dutfields yard, intriguing certainly but that's all.

Steve

In the same catalogue? I´m not sure of that at all. The thing is, it has as far as I know not been proven that Aaron stayed with Wolf in 38 Berner Street. It is reasonable enough suggestion, that´s all.
It also applies that Kosminski is not tied to any or the murder spots.

So what we have is a mentally challenged man who was not in London at the time of the 1873 torso murder, who has not been tied to any of the murder spots in any way at all, and who may or may not have stayed in 38 Berner Street.
And a carman who was staying in the East End at the time of the 1873 torso murder, who is proven to have been found by a murder victims side and who certainly DID once live right across the road from where another torso victim was found in 1889.

To me, Kosminski shares catalogue with Chapman and Thompson, for example. Nobody shares catalogue with Lechmere.

How significant the Pinchin Street dumping spot/Lechmeres former home is, is open to discussion. Let me just say that any police force worth it´s salt should be VERY interested in this "coincidence" - not least since there are so many other coincidences we need to explain away when it comes to the carman.

One more thing: Stride was found and killed in Dutfields Yard - to reason that this was because Kosminski once lived nearby is to predispose that Kos waited there for a suitable victim. The Pinchin Street torso was dumped on a spot actively chosen by the killer.

I am happy to discuss all of this on another thread to save Gareths nerves. Just choose and I will follow your lead.

[Sam Flynn]

I am happy to discuss all of this on another thread to save Gareths nerves. Just choose and I will follow your lead.

Bless you, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Bless you, Fish.

I aim to please, Gareth. Always.

[Elamarna]

In the same catalogue? Yes, perhaps. The thing is, it has as far as I know not been proven that Aaron stayed with Wolf in 38 Berner Street. It is reasonable enough suggestion, that´s all.
It also applies that Kosminski is not tied to any or the murder spots.

So what we have is a mentally challenged man who was not in London at the time of the 1873 torso murder, who has not been tied to any of the murder spots in any way at all, and who may or may not have stayed in 38 Berner Street.
And a carman who was staying in the East End at the time of the 1873 torso murder, who is proven to have been found by a murder victims side and who certainly DID once live right across the road from where another torso victim was found in 1889.

To me, Kosminski shares catalogue with Chapman and Thompson, for example. Nobody shares catalogue with Lechmere.

How significant the Pinchin Street dumping spot/Lechmeres former home is, is open to discussion. Let me just say that any police force worth it´s salt should be VERY interested in this "coincidence" - not least since there are so many other coincidences we need to explain away when it comes to the carman.

I am happy to discuss all of this on another thread to save Gareths nerves. Just choose and I will follow your lead.

Not this weekend, up to my eyeballs in writing up results and articles.
Another thread at present could be the straw which broke the camels back, I just know with you and me it won't be short.

Maybe next week, will let you know


Steve

[Fisherman]

Not this weekend, up to my eyeballs in writing up results and articles.
Another thread at present could be the straw which broke the camels back, I just know with you and me it won't be short.

Maybe next week, will let you know


Steve

Then before I leave, I will point you to the addition I just made to my former post:

Stride was found and killed in Dutfields Yard - to reason that this was because Kosminski once lived nearby is to predispose that Kos waited there for a suitable victim.
The Pinchin Street torso, on the other hand, was dumped on a spot actively chosen by the killer.

That is a significant difference.