Why the Gap?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You are making assumptions wether you like it or not

It's a fact that I would say that you're assuming I'm making assumptions.

To put it another way: it's a supposition on your part.

[Aethelwulf]

He worked to a plan but during October there was hiccup.

I believe Jack was arrested post the double event and that may have been part reason for the gap.

I also believe Jack conspired with Aman. Perhaps Aman had a bit of a wobble. Who knows...

still at it i see Priesty. you never did give me those crime fiction recommendations

[John Wheat]

It's a fact that I would say that you're assuming I'm making assumptions.

To put it another way: it's a supposition on your part.

Rubbish. Your making assumptions.

[mpriestnall]

still at it i see Priesty. you never did give me those crime fiction recommendations

OK, Wulfy, how about "Where's Wally?"...

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I can't remember hearing of Bury as a suspect before.

I don't know how accurate the drawing of him is but it seems to show him with a beard, and I don't think the murderer had a beard.

Hi PI,

Beards growing aside, Bury is a really interesting candidate and is definitely worth a look. Lucky for us, the hard work has been done here:

http://williambury.org/

[Aethelwulf]

Hi PI,

Beards growing aside, Bury is a really interesting candidate and is definitely worth a look. Lucky for us, the hard work has been done here:

http://williambury.org/

i believe a photo was taken of Bury and Ellen at the races in Wolverhampton in August 1888. As far as I know no copies of the photos have ever been found but a sketch was made and shows Bury with only a mustache. The Dundee papers described bury as having a mustache with straggly beard. The theory is that the beard growing was an attempt to change is appearance.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Rubbish. Your making assumptions.

Here is the 'rubbish' I wrote and the 'assumptions' I made, just in case any other reader thinks what you have written is a reasonable comment:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'What is the overwhelming evidence the murderer lived in Spitalfields?'

The route he took following the second murder on the night of the double murder, when he was obviously returning to base, was to Spitalfields.

The long delay before he actually left the piece of apron in Goulston St means that he must have lived somewhere nearby in Spitalfields.

The fact that the latest time at which he stayed at a murder scene, would have had the most blood on his person, and would have wanted to travel the least distance back to his lodgings, occured in Spitalfields.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


After having committed two murders, he didn't commit a third murder, and police were looking for him for two murders, and he had to return to his lodgings.
That isn't an assumption; that's a fact.

And where did he go?

Southwards? No.

To Whitechapel? No.

Westwards? No.

He went to Spitalfields.

But he did not deposit the apron until 50 minutes after leaving the scene of his last crime, which means he must have gone home and then deposited the piece of apron afterwards.

Now you can say that isn't a fact, but it is the only logical explanation, provided you accept Pc Long's evidence as fact - and there is no reason not to.

Otherwise, you have the murderer wandering the streets for nearly an hour, without making any effort to go back to his lodgings, and somehow not being noticed even though the police are looking for him.

That is not credible.

The eyewitness, earwitness, and medical evidence suggests that he left Miller's Court at about 5.45 a.m.

Spitalfields again, and this time he has spent about two hours cutting up a body.

He must have had blood on him.

Don't tell me that's an assumption.

He needed to get back home quickly; he couldn't take the risk of being noticed with blood on him at about 6 a.m. while walking a long way home.

He must have lived in Spitalfields.

[John Wheat]

Here is the 'rubbish' I wrote and the 'assumptions' I made, just in case any other reader thinks what you have written is a reasonable comment:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'What is the overwhelming evidence the murderer lived in Spitalfields?'

The route he took following the second murder on the night of the double murder, when he was obviously returning to base, was to Spitalfields.

The long delay before he actually left the piece of apron in Goulston St means that he must have lived somewhere nearby in Spitalfields.

The fact that the latest time at which he stayed at a murder scene, would have had the most blood on his person, and would have wanted to travel the least distance back to his lodgings, occured in Spitalfields.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


After having committed two murders, he didn't commit a third murder, and police were looking for him for two murders, and he had to return to his lodgings.
That isn't an assumption; that's a fact.

And where did he go?

Southwards? No.

To Whitechapel? No.

Westwards? No.

He went to Spitalfields.

But he did not deposit the apron until 50 minutes after leaving the scene of his last crime, which means he must have gone home and then deposited the piece of apron afterwards.

Now you can say that isn't a fact, but it is the only logical explanation, provided you accept Pc Long's evidence as fact - and there is no reason not to.

Otherwise, you have the murderer wandering the streets for nearly an hour, without making any effort to go back to his lodgings, and somehow not being noticed even though the police are looking for him.

That is not credible.

The eyewitness, earwitness, and medical evidence suggests that he left Miller's Court at about 5.45 a.m.

Spitalfields again, and this time he has spent about two hours cutting up a body.

He must have had blood on him.

Don't tell me that's an assumption.

He needed to get back home quickly; he couldn't take the risk of being noticed with blood on him at about 6 a.m. while walking a long way home.

He must have lived in Spitalfields.

You are passing assumptions off as facts.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You are passing assumptions off as facts.

You are passing off reasonable and logical deductions, which have been based on evidence, as mere assumptions.

[John Wheat]

You are passing off reasonable and logical deductions, which have been based on evidence, as mere assumptions.

They are deductions to what may have happened. No one alive knows exactly what happened. Therefore they are assumptions.

[Elamarna]

i didn't state assumptions; I made deductions from the evidence!

That is a reasonable deduction to make from the evidence.

Others look at exactly the same evidence as yourself, however, their "deductions" may be totally at odds with yours, or they may agree. Eitherway those deductions are NOT facts, they are suppositions, based on your interpretation of the evidence, but nevertheless still suppositions.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

They are deductions to what may have happened. No one alive knows exactly what happened. Therefore they are assumptions.

I didn't say I know exactly what happened, just as I didn't say I know the identity of the sailor who I have deduced committed the murders.

But you are confusing deductions with assumptions.


An assumption is something taken as being true or factual and used as a starting point for a course of action or reasoning.


A deduction is arrived at through a process of reasoning.

[John Wheat]

I didn't say I know exactly what happened, just as I didn't say I know the identity of the sailor who I have deduced committed the murders.

But you are confusing deductions with assumptions.


An assumption is something taken as being true or factual and used as a starting point for a course of action or reasoning.


A deduction is arrived at through a process of reasoning.

What Steve said. Also stop claiming your suppositions as evidence. They are not.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What Steve said. Also stop claiming your suppositions as evidence. They are not.

I said that what you erroneously call my suppositions are actually deductions made from the evidence.

I have never claimed that my deductions are themselves evidence!

[John Wheat]

I said that what you erroneously call my suppositions are actually deductions made from the evidence.

I have never claimed that my deductions are themselves evidence!

I asked for evidence much earlier in the thread all you've done is given suppositions. Either provide some evidence or keep your rubbish theories to yourself.