Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection.

[MrBarnett]

What? Suggesting that a local person committed the murders is more complicated than believing that a visitor was responsible? Why didn't that commuter commit similar murders elsewhere, or did he only ever feel like killing when he was in Spitalfields?

Only two of the murders took place in Spitalfields.

[Fisherman]

And the other murders? Levy was well placed for all canonical five of them, and more.

Let's not be ridiculous. Lechmere did not live in Outer Mongolia, he lived in Doveton Street. He had a seven minute trek to the Nichols murder site, and Levy had a twelve minute ditto, approximately. So Lechmere was living CLOSER to that murder spot than Levy. Generally speaking, Levy was closer to the sites, but Lechmere was close too.
And - not to forget - Lechmere´s morning trek took him right past the area where four of the six murders occurred! And yes, the suggestion is that he killed en route to work.

The geographical issue is a non-issue therefore, at least if it is used to try and nullify Lechmere´s candidacy.

[Fisherman]

I'd say that actually living in the area, as opposed to the next district, is pretty important, and there's nothing nebulous about facts.

Lechmere lived closer to the Nichols murder site than Levy and he traversed the area twice a day. At the relevant hours of the killings, it would seem.

That puts him smack, bang in the middle of the frame. There never was and there still isn't any problem with Lechmere´s candidacy when it comes to the geography of the murders. On the contrary, he is a BETTER candidate geographically speaking, than anybody else. And that owes to how we know that his morning trek would take him in close vicinity of the murder sites, and perhaps even straight past them. Plus we know that he has links to St Georges.

No other suspect can match that.

[Fisherman]

This is purely a suspect driven stance. You are fitting evidence to your suspect. You are claiming that site linking (your suspect, who isn't a suspect, but a witness) is more viable than a witness pointing to someone and saying, that's the man I saw. The latter is evidence driven, not suspect driven. Besides we have his name as an official suspect from the principles involved.

Robert House's book develops plenty of connections to sites near important scenes.

The point is that your 'site link' criteria is really just a special one you made up for your POI for this particular comparison.

Yes, Kosminski was living in the are. Yes, Kosminski can be linked to many venues in the area. But no, Kosminski is not practically linked to the murders or murder sites as such, and he is not part of the cast proven to have been involved.

There is nothing suspect driven about saying that.

It IS however suspect driven to claim that Aaron Kosminski is proven to have been identified as the man Robert Anderson spoke of. It IS suspect driven to say that we know that Aaron Kosminski was pointed out as the Ripper. It is suspect driven to claim that we know that Aaron Kosminski is linked to the murders, practically speaking.

Charles Lächere, on the other hand, IS proven to be part of the drama, and he IS proven to have had a working trek that would have taken him close to the murder sites in the Spitalfields area and down at George Yard, he IS proven to have had very close connections to St Georges and he IS proven to have had a working trek that would have taken him close to Mitre Square for many years.

If you think I only point this out because I favor him as the killer, you are perfectly correct. Then again, since I DO favor him as the killer, why would I not point it out? And foremost, how is it "suspect driven" other than in the most legitimate of ways - it points to him as a very viable Ripper?

[Fisherman]

Also, a witness pointing out Kozminski is site linking him in this instance.

It is site linking SOMEONE - if it ever happened. We have no proof that it did and we don't know who it pointed out other than the relatively vague "Kosminski", we don't know who the witness was and the man who serves up this story had for many years denied having had the Ripper pinned down.

So what we are left with is an intriguing story that may or may not be true, we have Aaron Kosminski who may or may not be the person spoken of and we have an aged police chief who may or may not have been on the money.

What we do NOT have is something that links Aaron Kosminski definitively to the case.

Plus, of course, even if we accept that Aaron was the man mentioned, and even if we accept that there was a witness identification, we have absolutely no idea what that witness said about Aaron:

That he saw him tearing the heart out of Kelly?

That he caught him carrying a kidney and a uterus out of Mitre Square?

Or that he met him close to Berner Street on the evening of the Double Event?

And how do we know that this witness was not a fierce enemy of Aarons, deceitfully lying about him?

The whole idea of the so called identification isn't a Swiss cheese full of holes - it is a hole with no cheese at all around it.

Compare that to a proven presence at a murder site. Alone. Close by the victim. Who had been killed at a time consistent with the man at the site being the killer.

Are we chasing shadows or facts, Batman?

[Varqm]

What? Suggesting that a local person committed the murders is more complicated than believing that a visitor was responsible? Why didn't that commuter commit similar murders elsewhere, or did he only ever feel like killing when he was in Spitalfields?

How did you know it was a local? Based on what? Because the police did house to house search? Cox was the only witness who can identify the "man" again in all the C5 inquests and they did not use her,they did not know who to look for.There was no confession or info from a witness/acquaintance,or weapons.And if Lawende was the witness it was dead on arrival because he said "Oh no" and "I doubt it".And as said before I go by Baxter's and Mcdonald's conclusions not the police in the Stride and Kelly case respectively.All the police had was guesses like it was a lunatic for ex..
That's what the dates tell us.It's not easily possible that he was a seller/buyer in Spitalfields Market in a fixed schedule or any other or visitor? What if from Goulston St. he was headed to Bell Lane,to Crispin St. and to the market,which I believe, and not to Flower and Dean for ex,both are possible or even Middlesex.I go by the dates,as said before,the chances he did not find a victim in any other dates than end of the month or 8th is 30-2 or 20-2 (minus days off).

-----

[Fisherman]

absolutely. kosminski is the ONLY suspect that there is any possible direct evidence(and legal evidence at that-eyewitness testimony) against-a possible ID. Three police name him. Nothing rules him out.

Hes a valid suspect.

THERE we have it! He IS a valid suspect on those grounds, but NOT on the grounds of a proven link to the case or a proven presence at or near any f the sites at the relevant hours.
His case rests solely on his naming, and there were those who fervently denied Andersons bid, plus MacNaghten - who followed Anderson, and who SHOULD have been informed on the matter - says "thanks, but no thanks" to "Kosminski".

He used to be the best bid, I don't mind saying that. But he is no longer, not by a far cry.

[Varqm]

Only two of the murders took place in Spitalfields.

It was the/his "base" that counted.

---

[Fisherman]

Tracey Ianson who was already mentioned did quite a compelling list of points for Jacob Levy found here. https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=10323

There is not a single point that links Levy to the case, though. It is speculated that he is a viable suspect, and God knows that Tracy has made a very good job. She has pulled Jacob Levy out of the shadows and credit is due to her for that.

But linked him to the case, she has NOT done. There is not a single thing that puts him on or near any of the scenes. What there is, is a sad fate of a challenged man. And as always, it is impossible to say that he could NOT have been the Ripper - but that is something 99 per cent of the Eastenders have in common.

[Fisherman]

Doesn't anybody read the Rip anymore? Joseph and Jacob were related, etc., etc.


http://www.mangodesign.biz/rip124.pdf

Only goes to show how we are sometimes so preoccupied with our own ideas that we fail to pick up on how important matters surface outside of our own private universes...

Anyway, I noticed how this is said in the beginning:

"As they glance at the couple, Levy remarks “I don’t like going home alone when I see these sorts of characters about.”
The question is: How did he know what sort of characters (note the plural) he was looking at?"

This may also be an example of being too far into a suspect to be able to recognize mundane matters when you see them.

Just how strange is it to see a shabby guy and a prostitute negotiating and say that you don't fancy sharing the streets with that kind of clientele? Really...?

[Sam Flynn]

Only two of the murders took place in Spitalfields.

Indeed, but I was only using it as shorthand. Besides, what sort of commuting killer would deliberately set out to "visit" such obscure places as the vicinity of Mitre Square or Buck's Row?

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed, but I was only using it as shorthand. Besides, what sort of commuting killer would deliberately set out to "visit" such obscure places as the vicinity of Mitre Square or Buck's Row?

The murder sites may have been obscure, but they were all in close proximity to main thorougfares.

So if you were a prostitute touting for business, you would frequent the main thoroughfares, pick up a punter and then walk to an obscure location a short distance away to do your business.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

It was the/his "base" that counted.

---

This is what I was responding to:


Why didn't that commuter commit similar murders elsewhere, or did he only ever feel like killing when he was in Spitalfields?


The author Jerry White, who interviewed many Whitechapel Jews for his Rothschilds Buildings book, speaks of Jewish mothers warning their kids not to cross the Commercial Road into predominantly gentile St George’s. JTR was happy to do so. Does that weigh against his being a Whitechapel Jew, or should such considerations - complexities - be ignored because they get in the the way of a simplistic model?

[MrBarnett]

The murder sites may have been obscure, but they were all in close proximity to main thorougfares.

So if you were a prostitute touting for business, you would frequent the main thoroughfares, pick up a punter and then walk to an obscure location a short distance away to do your business.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Exactly, Trevor.

[Sam Flynn]

The author Jerry White, who interviewed many Whitechapel Jews for his Rothschilds Buildings book, speaks of Jewish mothers warning their kids not to cross the Commercial Road into predominantly gentile St George’s. JTR was happy to do so. Does that weigh against his being a Whitechapel Jew, or should such considerations - complexities - be ignored because they get in the the way of a simplistic model?

It certainly weighs against his being an obedient Jewish child

(Incidentally, I thoroughly recommend Jerry White's fascinating book, and note that it's available cheaply on Kindle. Those who haven't got it already should treat themselves to a copy.)