Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

I'm long past caring what you do with Cross, the fact you feel the need to insert him into every thread only enforces the opinion that its a desperate act, this bolstering of a flawed theory, however that is all it is, an opinion.

Its an observation on the tiresome.

Monty

Ah, but thatīs another sort of criticism altogether. You now claim that itīs a flawed theory, and I would understand if people would not want to see too much of such a thing on the boards.
But then thereīs the trouble of pointing out HOW it is flawed, a task that has had you failing before.
Maybe you now have the evidence to bolster YOUR take - that the theory is flawed? It is one thing to state it, and another one to prove it.

Having you state that it is flawed and not providing the evidence is also tiresome. Very much so.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Iīve actually outlined the Lechmere part on more than one occasion on the thread, Roy.
But hereīs the thing:

When I mention that Lechmere could have been the killer and that he fits the missing rag scenario, it is requested of me to produce evidence.

And so I say that Long IS the evidence.

But when I do so, I get Monty breathing down my neck, saying that I am only trying to push my suspect.

I will try and be respectful with this. What you just said, the admission that Long bolsters your Lechmere arguments, is the problem with all of this. You argue against many logical possibilities because you have it in your head that Lechmere is the killer. What you are doing is exactly the same thing that was done to you a few years ago in the Hutchinson signature thread. No buts about it. You were so upset that some could not see what you saw (and I and Richard and Gareth) that you sort of snapped. You will recall this. Those people were people who constantly pushed Hutchinson as a suspect and this signature information, if accepted, threw a wrench into the works. They were blinded by preconceptions. You are the same as they were. "But this is different." No, it isn't. It is the same thing all the time with suspectology. Instead of letting go and rethinking things, suspectologists become obstinate and go for refutation of new information and often in a ridiculous way. Arguments are refuted one point at a time without looking at the big picture. Why? Because it is easy to do so and by removing each objection, just as a used car salesman does, others should buy the car. Only, you do it for yourselves so that you can still be proud of your car that you cling to, even if the sale falls through.

I'm going to bring Westcott into this argument if I may. Tom was often pushing LeGrand, but he did it in a much better way and didn't discount other possibilities. This made him rework his LeGrand theories, because he accepted new information. I am interested to see, because he has written the book on the earlier East End murders, what new connections he finds for LeGrand, or if he can no longer pull this suspect's viability together. What I do know is that he will be honest about it either way. That's what we need. Honest evaluation of new data and not suspect-driven twaddle.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

The Good Michael:

I will try and be respectful with this.

Thatīs decent enough. But I didnīt expect any less.

What you just said, the admission that Long bolsters your Lechmere arguments, is the problem with all of this.

It is a problem to you if you. It is not to me. At the end of the day, there will always be suspect believers. You realize that, I am sure.
These suspect believers will always look into the details of the case, and see if their man agrees or disagrees with them.
Some will twist things to fit the frame; that goes with the territory, and that IS a problem.
Others will just take a look at whether there is a possible fit, and then they will say if there is. In their cases, the best we can hope for is that they will be equally happy to share when they find the fit is not there.
I try to do this (for example, I recently said that if Lechmere went to Pickfords after the Eddowes strike, then it can seem strange that he did not take a more northern route afterwards, instead opting for Goulston Street, closer to the danger), but in all honesty, nothing has surfaced that puts the Lechmere bid in any serious trouble.

You argue against many logical possibilities because you have it in your head that Lechmere is the killer.

I point to alternative thinking many a time. A good example is the ongoing discussion on the rag. In that case, it has been agreed upon over the years that Long was wrong. And that has been agreed upon in spite of the only evidence existing pointing to another solution.
Even if I did not support Lechmere, I would advice against such thinking. Luckily, there are those who have no suspect, but agree totally with me on this issue.
Yes, I think Lechmere was the Ripper. But that does not mean that I exclude arguments that are against the theory.
I readily acknowledge that Long could have been wrong. I donīt favour the proposition, and I use the only existing evidence to plead my case.

I think that we would have a real problem the moment I argued very odd things against very sensible ones. But I donīt think I have done so. If you disagree, then please exemplify.

What you are doing is exactly the same thing that was done to you a few years ago in the Hutchinson signature thread. No buts about it.

No, it is not. I can readily see why you think that this is so, and I can also see that you wonīt easily buy my counter argument: Lechmere is a much more viable bid for the killers role than Hutchinson can ever be. And I am not looking at two nigh on identical signatures and saying: No, they are not like each other in the slightest.

Once again, if I am making any calls that are way off the map, then please tell me which they are. The criticism against Lechmere has so far produced the guess that he would not have stayed put whan Paul arrived and the suggestion that he may have called himself Cross colloquially. Such things. Do you see any more relevant and damning criticism of the theory, Mike? If so, please tell me what it is.

You were so upset that some could not see what you saw (and I and Richard and Gareth) that you sort of snapped. You will recall this.

Absolutely. I didnīt think all arguments in that debate were sound. And if I am producing unsound agrguments, I wanīt to hear what it is.

Those people were people who constantly pushed Hutchinson as a suspect and this signature information, if accepted, threw a wrench into the works. They were blinded by preconceptions.

You are the same as they were. "But this is different." No, it isn't. It is the same thing all the time with suspectology. Instead of letting go and rethinking things, suspectologists become obstinate and go for refutation of new information and often in a ridiculous way.

Once again, please exemplify!

Arguments are refuted one point at a time without looking at the big picture. Why? Because it is easy to do so and by removing each objection, just as a used car salesman does, others should buy the car. Only, you do it for yourselves so that you can still be proud of your car that you cling to, even if the sale falls through.

That was the same argument for the fourth time, clad in other garments. The answer is the same: Exemplify. Where do I make myself guilty of ridiculous claims? When did I argue something that was illogical and had counterarguments that were logical?

I'm going to bring Westcott into this argument if I may. Tom was often pushing LeGrand, but he did it in a much better way and didn't discount other possibilities. This made him rework his LeGrand theories, because he accepted new information. I am interested to see, because he has written the book on the earlier East End murders, what new connections he finds for LeGrand, or if he can no longer pull this suspect's viability together. What I do know is that he will be honest about it either way. That's what we need. Honest evaluation of new data and not suspect-driven twaddle.

Itīs Wescott, not Westcott. Sounds like waistcoat.
Have you seen the debate about his book on JTR? I reccommend you read it before you are too sure about what "honest evaluation of new data" is.
Maybe Tom is not all white, and maybe I am not all black ...?

You have now spent a very long post pointing me out as somebody who produces suspect-driven twaddle. I take it that was where the respectful attitude of yours came into the picture...?
The problem with this post of yours is that it is rhetorically brilliant, but factually worthless. You accuse and castigate - but you do not produce one single piece of information to support your take on things. Itīs character assasination, and itīs character assasination that generalizes in a manner that - if accepted - forever would put an end to any unproven theory where somebody is named as the possible or even probable Ripper.

Itīs thrashing all future suggestions alongside all those already made: If there is a suspect, itīs a bad thing. Itīs twaddle.

Now, speaking about snapping and becoming upset, Mike: Please produce all the material where I have argued things that are ridiculous/illogical/faulty when it comes to the Lechmere bid. Or at least a little something. Tell me where I need to change my mind since others have a better grasp on things. It would compliment your efforts to be respectful.

Whatever you do, donīt take the easy way out and tell me that it is no use, since I wonīt see (your) reason anyway. You are a man with a mission from now on.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Whatever you do, donīt take the easy way out and tell me that it is no use, since I wonīt see (your) reason anyway. You are a man with a mission from now on.

Let's begin at the beginning. Cross/Lechmere was chosen as a suspect simply because he was the first on the scene of A (meaning '1') victim. Then he went off with a 2nd man, nearly arm and arm, and reported it to the police. That is the end of evidence. Done. Chosen because any number of things can be made up, just as with Hutchinson, and because there is no information, it must be valid? Come on. That is BS. It was BS in 1888 and it is BS now. Lechmere, at times, used his what...stepfather's name, and that opens up a can of worms. Why? This isn't a Lechmere thread, and I may vomit if you try and answer these rhetorical questions. Rhetorical because we all know the answer...agenda. In my last post, I was discussing suspect twaddle in general and not pointing it specifically at You (and Crossmere), but you are in that mess as well. You asked me about what was illogical. It is the epitome of disingenuous behavior to randomly pull a name from the past that no one can refute completely because we didn't exist then, and then to saddled him with crimes with NOTHING to go on. It is EXACTLY...let me say again EXACTLY what pissed you off about Hutchinson. Go back and read through all that nonsense and then tell me I'm wrong. Oh, it's different because Lechmere is more viable? Rubbish. No knowledge does not equal viability.

Done.

Mike

[Monty]

Ah, but thatīs another sort of criticism altogether. You now claim that itīs a flawed theory, and I would understand if people would not want to see too much of such a thing on the boards.
But then thereīs the trouble of pointing out HOW it is flawed, a task that has had you failing before.
Maybe you now have the evidence to bolster YOUR take - that the theory is flawed? It is one thing to state it, and another one to prove it.

Having you state that it is flawed and not providing the evidence is also tiresome. Very much so.

All the best,
Fisherman

Christer,

Two years ago, two long years ago, I went through the Lechmere theory and pointed out the many reasons as to why it is flawed. As did Rob Clack, as did Cris Malone, as did Stewart P Evans, and many, many others. Yes, it is tiresome having to continuously point out said flaws, if you want to see, do a trawl of the boards.

The onus is on YOU to provide convincing damning evidence on Cross, it is YOU who have failed to do that, and this is the reason why YOU bring him into every thread you enter.

Its a desperate act. The theory, if solid, would still be discussed by the community, it isn't, the community is now on to Tom Wescott and his ol' amazing corrupt police and lodging house keepers band.

Cross is yesterdays man, because he has no real substance.

Monty

[caz]

There is one solitary indication it was there, however it cant, and has been, countered.

Sorry Monty, I didn't quite get that. What indicates it was there? And did you mean 'can', rather than 'cant' be countered?

Long is not in the dock at all, who has stated this? I think some are getting rather over excited about the evidence presented upon the mans character and assume its an 'attack' on him.

Its extremely fascinating to see how people hang on to their precious perceptions...

Not my perceptions, though. I have none. I neither know nor care when the apron got there. I'm just bemused by all the strenuous efforts to put the boot into Long's character, mainly it seems by those who want the apron to have been in place by 2.20 and therefore need Long to have missed the bloody thing. You may be an exception here, and just saying it like it is, but usually you are the first one to defend a police officer against possibly unfair accusations of not doing his duty properly. You defend Halse, quite rightly, for not seeing the apron or the writing, which may or may not have been in situ when he passed. Yet it was Long who found both at 2.55, and acted on these developments, despite any reservations about his performance at other times.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

at least Tom and fish et all are coming up with some new ideas, which they back up with concise (although possibly unlikely) arguments. And as long as it isn't total crackpot stuff like Royal conspiracy, maybrick, artist of the month nonsense etc. then this is exactly IMHO the kind of new avenues for more research that ripperology needs.

That being said I do see a tendency for some to do logistical gymnastics and go to ridiculous lengths to refute something with kneejerk reaction they don't agree with-even folks that don't have a favored suspect to push. I mean we even have Cross character now being questioned because he apparently didnt see the graffiti first or at the same time or some nonsense like that.
The man found the only clue in the whole case-talk about picking someone 125 years later and dragging his name in the mud.

and this is a thread about the time gap, which at least Lechmere as a suspect and his bolt hole at pickfords can explain. which is a hell of a lot more than most of air this thread has produced.

[caz]

Good morning Caz,

Because everyone is humoring him. Instead of stating clearly whether they are aware who or what they are arguing against.

I am aware. Thats why when I post on this thread, I use the name Lechmere. And Pickfords. Because this a Lechmere thread. It's a Lechmere thread because Fisherman has far and away the most posts here, and he is posting for a reason. His reason is the apron wasn't there, just as PC Long said, because Lechmere hadn't put it there yet. I know that.

Interminable drawn out arguments like this one while avoiding the elephant in the room - that's called a farce.

Roy

Hi Roy,

There are others contributing to this thread besides Fish, including you and me for starters, so if I can ignore the Lechmere content and focus on the quality of the actual arguments (for, against and neutral) regarding the apron and the time gap (the Lechmere theory be buggered), I don't see why others can't too.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Exactly my point Caz. In order for him to say the apron piece wasn't there at 2:20, we know it's because he looked at that exact spot twice (his first two laps around his route on his first day at that location) yet he still didn't notice the GSG. It was only after looking for blood did he see what others felt would be seen and possibly cause a riot.

Does that really sound reasonable? So observant to look at the apron spot twice yet so unobservant to not notice the GSG which was above the apron?

What? How have you established that the GSG was there at 2.20, even if the apron was not? And if the writing was there for all eyes to see by 2.20, doesn't that make Halse (and every other passer-by for that matter) every bit as blind as Long?

If he's looking at the ground every time he planned on passing the spot, he's going to miss everything not on the ground. If he looked up or at a different spot on the ground other than the exact spot he did before he might find something he missed earlier (like the GSG).

I'm beginning to lose the will to live now... sorry.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

What? How have you established that the GSG was there at 2.20, even if the apron was not? And if the writing was there for all eyes to see by 2.20, doesn't that make Halse (and every other passer-by for that matter) every bit as blind as Long?





I'm beginning to lose the will to live now... sorry.

Love,

Caz
X

your not alone. see my previous post on this.

[Fisherman]

The Good Michael:

Let's begin at the beginning.

Yes, letīs!

Cross/Lechmere was chosen as a suspect simply because he was the first on the scene of A (meaning '1') victim.

No, he is a suspect owing to a large number of details; his being alone with a victim, the name change, the Mizen scam, the routes he walked, the timings of the deeds, the fact that Paul did not hear him in front down Buckīs Row ... lots and lots of things. He was not chosen since he was first on the scene - like everybody says, somebody had to be.

So you are demonstrably wrong on this point.

Then he went off with a 2nd man, nearly arm and arm, and reported it to the police. That is the end of evidence.

No it is not, as I just showed you. Wrong again.

Chosen because any number of things can be made up, just as with Hutchinson, and because there is no information, it must be valid?

Made up? He DID use another name, Mizen tells us he DID mislead him, he DID have a job route that fits the murder series like a glove etcetera. Thereīs nothing made up with that.
After that, one must add conjecture to show WHY he is a suspect, but that goes for any suspect theory. Itīs all about filling in the gaps in a logical manner.
The rag business, for example, is something people dislike, since they want the simple explanation. Lechmere allows for the evidence-based one. One can greet that detail with interest or with accusations of twaddle, and it wonīt make a bit of difference - Lechmer STILL offers a credible, viable and useful explanation.

Lechmere, at times, used his what...stepfather's name, and that opens up a can of worms. Why?

Because people who use aliases are often found in criminal circuits, Mike. But you are wrong to say that the nameswap opened up "the can of worms" - Michael Conner had no idea about that detail when he pointed a finger at Lechmere. Suspicions already adhered to him before, and the nameswap would not exactly clear him, would it?

This isn't a Lechmere thread, and I may vomit if you try and answer these rhetorical questions.

Youīve already vomited, Mike.

Rhetorical because we all know the answer...agenda.

Why would I have an "agenda", Mike? Pray tell me?

Am I after fame or money?

Lechmere fits. He is surrounded by a large number of details that one by one can have benevolent explanations, but taken together, they make for a case of strong suspicion. If realizing this is an "agenda", then I have an agenda. To what end is beyond me, though.

You asked me about what was illogical.

Yes - and I am still much curious!

It is the epitome of disingenuous behavior to randomly pull a name from the past that no one can refute completely because we didn't exist then, and then to saddled him with crimes with NOTHING to go on.

Yes - one should not do such a thing. Luckily, I have heaps of things to go on, so I need not worry about that.

Imagine this scenario, Mike:

Lechmere walks out of the inquest room door, and disappears. A detective sergeant then comes running and says: Hey, that guy Cross, is he still aropund?

Why? his fellow coppers ask.

Because I only just found out that his name is not Cross - he lied to us. His real name is Lechmere.
And I also checked his working route, and you know what? It tallies with the murders of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly(of course, these were not all dead at the occasion of the inquest, I am just presenting a thought-up scenario )
These killings also correspond in time with his routes!
And the other two, Stride and Eddowes - they were killed on his day off, thatīs why they differ timewise - but Stride died close to his motherīs place, and he has lived in them streets many years before.
And Eddowes was killed close to his working space.
And it seems he lied to PC Mizen - which would take him right by our man, weapon and all, without being searched.

And you know what? Itīs the damndest thing, but Paul does not say that he heard him in frong down Buckīs Row, in spite of him being only 30-40 yards ahead?

And there is more - why was the dress pulled down when Paul saw her? Who did that? Why hide the wounds to the stomach? Our boy never does that, does he?

Thereīs even a possible connection to the Pinchin Street business ... Hey gys! Guys? Where did they go?

Iīll tell you where they went - to get an arrest order. That is how they work now, and that is how they worked then. If and when they knew, that is.

It is EXACTLY...let me say again EXACTLY what pissed you off about Hutchinson. Go back and read through all that nonsense and then tell me I'm wrong.

Okay: youīre wrong.

You still have not told me what specific deductions on my behalf it is that are illogical. I never randomly picked Lechmere out of a hat, so that does not count.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty: Christer,

Two years ago, two long years ago, I went through the Lechmere theory and pointed out the many reasons as to why it is flawed. As did Rob Clack, as did Cris Malone, as did Stewart P Evans, and many, many others. Yes, it is tiresome having to continuously point out said flaws, if you want to see, do a trawl of the boards.

I told you then and I tell you now, that not a single thing was produced that diminishes the viability of Lechmere. And itīs quite understandable and predictable that you would not produce anything in your answer but lofty allegations of a viable criticism that was never there.

It was always like that, and like that itīll always be.

The onus is on YOU to provide convincing damning evidence on Cross, it is YOU who have failed to do that, and this is the reason why YOU bring him into every thread you enter.

Itīs very easy to say "I am not convinced". No matter what, one can always say that and cling on. The case presented about Lechmere is far more rich in detail than any other case, and far more convincing to me. If everybody - including those who have invested much in the thesis that no good suspect will ever be revealed - were to agree, it would be much more sensational than my theory...

Its a desperate act. The theory, if solid, would still be discussed by the community, it isn't, the community is now on to Tom Wescott and his ol' amazing corrupt police and lodging house keepers band.

Cross is yesterdays man, because he has no real substance.

No - he is reflex-wise contested because he is perceived as a real threat to some. It would be the same if another very viable contender came along.

But that wonīt happen.

Fisherman

[Monty]

Sorry Monty, I didn't quite get that. What indicates it was there? And did you mean 'can', rather than 'cant' be countered?



Not my perceptions, though. I have none. I neither know nor care when the apron got there. I'm just bemused by all the strenuous efforts to put the boot into Long's character, mainly it seems by those who want the apron to have been in place by 2.20 and therefore need Long to have missed the bloody thing. You may be an exception here, and just saying it like it is, but usually you are the first one to defend a police officer against possibly unfair accusations of not doing his duty properly. You defend Halse, quite rightly, for not seeing the apron or the writing, which may or may not have been in situ when he passed. Yet it was Long who found both at 2.55, and acted on these developments, despite any reservations about his performance at other times.

Love,

Caz
X

I did mean can, Caz. Sorry.

I've looked in to Long, I don't think anyone else has done that, and was merely sharing my finds as a good lil cabal member should.

Just saying as it is also.

Long has a poor record, a record which affected his work to such a degree that he was dismissed. Halse, on the other hand, has an exemplary record.

Which Ripperologist do you prefer, John Pope Delocksley or Rob Clack? The one who hasn't a clue or John Pope? (Joking Rob....joking). Which one do you trust?

Again, the discovery time really doesn't matter.

Monty

[caz]

Greetings everyone!

I wanted to talk about a subject that has been bugging me lately. I want to go over the chronology of the morning of the 30th September 1888, and then pose a rather interesting question. OK, here we go:

1:45am: PC Watkins discovers the mutilated body of Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square, and reports he saw nothing there only 15 minutes before.

2:20am: PC Alfred Long, walking on his beat, goes down Goulston St., reports not seeing anything unusual.

2:50am: Long again goes down Goulston St. and discovers the bloody apron and the message.

So, if we take Long at his word and agree that, at the very least, the apron was NOT there at 2:20am, then that means JTR didn't go down Goulston St. until sometime between 2:20am-2:50am. So, let's compromise and say the apron was left at around 2:35am approximately. That's still a 50 minute gap between when JTR left Mitre Square and the time he went down Goulston St.

My question to everyone is: what do YOU think JTR was doing for that approx. 50 minute duration? Did he go somewhere to clean up? Did he deposit his body parts somewhere where he could pick them up later? Did he remain in the City, or did head back to Whitechapel right away.

It definitely wouldn't have taken 50 minutes to go from one location to the other because Goulston St., is right near the City of London boundary!

Just a timely reminder of what this thread was started for, because as far as I can see, the people doing most of the whingeing and whining have lost the plot. With no evidence that the apron or GSG arrived until after 2.20, we are meant to be speculating on what the killer might have been doing in the interval, in the event that there was one.

Carry on griping, chaps.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Which Ripperologist do you prefer, John Pope Delocksley or Rob Clack? The one who hasn't a clue or John Pope? (Joking Rob....joking). Which one do you trust?

Again, the discovery time really doesn't matter.

Monty

Well yes, Monty, but since the discovery time really doesn't matter to either of us, and graffiti may or may not have been there when Rob Clack and John Pope deLock-up-your-daughters both passed the Happy Days around 2.20 and failed to see any, but Pope saw some there later, I'm not sure it matters that we wouldn't trust the Popester to fart in the right direction. It wouldn't help us time the arrival of that graffiti, even if we wanted to, which we don't.

[I may have got some details muddled there. ]

Love,

Caz
X