The locations

[Phil H]

There will be relevance of the sites only if "Jack" is proved to be ONE man.

Since we cannot be certain of the numbers of murders, or which belong to "Jack" it is difficult to analyse the locations.

If Kosminski is demonstrated to be "Jack" then Berner's St/Dutfield's Yard has meaning. If Stride is considered to have been murdered by another hand, it has not, and the cluster of sites to the north of Whitechapel High St gains significance.

If MJK is ever ruled out, then all "Jacks" killings were outdoors.

I honestly believe he struck where the women took him, which means the locations have no relevance.

BUT, though I do not believe there to be any credible evidence to sustain the case, I will concede that if Lechmere were the killer of some of the women, then his route to work would be the link.

Phil

[Fisherman]

There will be relevance of the sites only if "Jack" is proved to be ONE man.

Since we cannot be certain of the numbers of murders, or which belong to "Jack" it is difficult to analyse the locations.

If Kosminski is demonstrated to be "Jack" then Berner's St/Dutfield's Yard has meaning. If Stride is considered to have been murdered by another hand, it has not, and the cluster of sites to the north of Whitechapel High St gains significance.

If MJK is ever ruled out, then all "Jacks" killings were outdoors.

I honestly believe he struck where the women took him, which means the locations have no relevance.

BUT, though I do not believe there to be any credible evidence to sustain the case, I will concede that if Lechmere were the killer of some of the women, then his route to work would be the link.

Phil

Wow, Phil - thanks for that. Basically, that is what I am saying too. I do not, however, opt for "some of the women", since that is not necessary - they can all be accounted for in Lechmere´s case, in a viable way. We of course cannot know where he was when each victim died - but we CAN make a good case for why he would have been close by in each and every case. So yes, the Lechmere routes offer a potential link.

And, if I may add it - it´s NOT rocket science ...!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

I am not arguing the case for Lechmere, Fisherman. as i said, i find it unsustainable.

My point was that such a conjecture could provide a causal link between the locations. It does not, however, add anything to the already wholly circumstantial arguments for Lechmere/Cross.

It is entirely proper to make the point that deductions about the locations are entirely dependent on how many victims are attributed to "Jack". That I did.

And no, Fisherman - you are correct. the Lechmere theory is not rocket science. It has NO scientific method bethind it at all. It has no basis except a number of hypotheses strung together based on an assumption - nothing more - that someone found close to a body. COULD be the killer. Everyhting else about the Cross/Lechmere argument is supposititious.

Phil

[Monty]

With respect, Monty, this thread is about the locations. It is therefore not SPECIFICALLY a Lechmere thread, but unless you think otherwise, I would suggest that his relation to the murder locations is as viable to discuss as anybody elses.
I fully understand that you dislike Lechmere being mentioned - you leave us in no doubt about that! - but I think you need to focus a little more on the aims of the different threads before you habitually recommend Lechmere to be banned from the discussion.

The best,
Fisherman

Christer,

You wanna point out where I state Cross should not be discussed on this thread?

I think you need to pay attention to what is posted instead of getting defensive because your evidencies is shown to be flimsy.

Phil,

"If Kosminski is demonstrated to be "Jack" then Berner's St/Dutfield's Yard has meaning"

How?

Monty

[Phil H]

The fairly recent article that showed that the Kosminski family had once lived in the adjoining street and that there is, thus, a good chance that Aaron was familiar with the area.

In that case, Dutfield's yard might simultaneously aid the case against Kosminski as "Jack" and also link the Stride murder to the series.

Not that I am arguing for either or both, or suggesting the deductive process is that simple.

Phil

[Monty]

Thought as much Phil, just wanted to clarify.

So where does that leave Eddowes?

Kills Stride, heads noreast, kills Eddowes, heads back to the scene of his original killing which by now is crawling with Police.

Doesn't work for me. Unless Eddowes wasn't murdered by Kosminski.....then that rules out Lewande as a seaside home witness.

Monty

[lynn cates]

peregrinating ripper

Hello Neil.

"So where does that leave Eddowes?

Kills Stride, heads noreast, kills Eddowes, heads back to the scene of his original killing which by now is crawling with Police.

Doesn't work for me."

Nor me.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

The "double event" never worked for me.

A frenzied "Jack" desperately seeking another victim, rushing north. Not the way I see the man working at all.

Personally, I don't think "Jack" ever went south of Whitechapel High St to murder. And no one said he still lived near Dutfield's yard in September 1888. Indeed, I never suggested Kosminski killed Stride - only that the recent article (Rip 128?) might be useful in two regards - more circumstantial evidence of AK, and to suggest Stride might be a JTR killing. No more.

If Eddowes was a "Jack" victim, then I think he picked her up between her release and Mitre Square, exactly as he did the others.

On Lawende, see Scott Nelson's excellent article on David Cohen in the new Ripperologist. It opens the possibility of new Jewish witnesses, other than Lawende, and looks anew at Joseph Hyam Levy and others.

[Fisherman]

Christer,

You wanna point out where I state Cross should not be discussed on this thread?

I think you need to pay attention to what is posted instead of getting defensive because your evidencies is shown to be flimsy.

Monty

This is tiresome, Monty.

You know just as well as I do that you stated that this is not a Lechmere thread.
Fair enough, that is not the same as saying that Lechmere should not be discussed here.
But it comes kind of close. And was kind of uncalled for.

If you are of the meaning that Lechmere - as well as any other suspect - belongs to the discussion, then why say that it is not a Lechmere thread in the first place?

See, Monty, you can´t eat your cake and keep it at the same time.

Now that we´ve established that, can we make use of the boards in a more productive manner ...? Stay away from the cheap shots and such? Please?

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

frenzy

Hello Phil.

"A frenzied "Jack" desperately seeking another victim, rushing north."

And, when he gets to Mitre sq, he just happens to know Watkins's beat intimately and that he is walking it in reverse that night. Odd kind of frenzy.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

the Lechmere theory is not rocket science. It has NO scientific method bethind it at all.
Phil

Oh, alright. So digging up the address of his mother on Cable Street is, ehrm, unscientific.
But digging up Kosminski´s tenuous relation to Berner Street is science, I take it?

Good, Phil. Then we know where we stand!

Now, if you excuse me, I´ll go and be unscientific ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Thought as much Phil, just wanted to clarify.

So where does that leave Eddowes?

Kills Stride, heads noreast, kills Eddowes, heads back to the scene of his original killing which by now is crawling with Police.

Doesn't work for me. Unless Eddowes wasn't murdered by Kosminski.....then that rules out Lewande as a seaside home witness.

Monty

How about kills Stride, heads northwest, kills Eddowes, goes on to Pickfords to let things cool off and clean up, then heads back via Goulston Street, leaving the apron there at a remove in time that explains why PC Long did not see the apron there at the earlier passage?

But that is of course simply conjecture. Very unscientific, I´m sure.

Never mind.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

By the way, Monty, when it comes to Lawende as the Seaside home witness, there is a much better reason to rule him out.

I know that this is not a Lawende thread, but here goes anyway:

The Met took the witness to the Seaside home. Ask Stewart Evans and he´ll say it happened in 1891. Ask Rob House, and he will suggest July 1890.

In February of 1891, Frances Coles was killed, on Met territory. Subsequently, Lawende was brought in to try and identify Thomas Sadler as the man from Church Passage.

So we have an identification that was a moral success, according to Anderson, at the approximate same time. If it was Lawende who was the witness, then he pointed his finger at a 25-year old Jew and said "It was him".

And still, we are to believe that the same police force thought it credible that he would point out a 50 year old British sailor...?

How could he do that, if he had already made it clear that a 25-year old Jew was who he saw in Church passage? Why would the Met even try it, since there could have been no chance of making it work?

So either the identification was a complete failure if the witness was Lawende (goodbye Aaron Kosminski!) or the witness was NOT Lawende.

I say the Lechmere scenario with the cooling down period at Pickford´s as the heat was on, allows for a simpler and better picture, including an answer to the mysterious lack of that apron on round number one by PC Long.

What do you say?

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Oh, alright. So digging up the address of his mother on Cable Street is, ehrm, unscientific.
But digging up Kosminski´s tenuous relation to Berner Street is science, I take it?

The difference is that Kosminski was a contemporary suspect; Lechmere was not (at least so far as surviving records indicate). It is the Lechmere theory AS A WHOLE that I regard as unscientific, not a single piece of good research. Please don't twist my words.

But that is of course simply conjecture. Very unscientific, I´m sure.

Absolutely right. For once I agree with you.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Oh, alright. So digging up the address of his mother on Cable Street is, ehrm, unscientific.
But digging up Kosminski´s tenuous relation to Berner Street is science, I take it?

The difference is that Kosminski was a contemporary suspect; Lechmere was not (at least so far as surviving records indicate). It is the Lechmere theory AS A WHOLE that I regard as unscientific, not a single piece of good research. Please don't twist my words.

But that is of course simply conjecture. Very unscientific, I´m sure.

Absolutely right. For once I agree with you.

Phil

Ah, Phil, but you spoke of "no scientific method at all" being behind the Lechmere theory.
I realize now, however, that it is not a question of methodology - since no matter how we do our work, it will be unscientific anyhow. Not because of how it´s done, but because it attaches to a man who was not a contemporary suspect.

Thank you very much for clarifying this, Phil. It goes a long way to show what you are talking about and how you make your calls!

I could of course inject a smiley here, to respond to yours. But the one I need is not around, I´m afraid.

All the best,
Fisherman