Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why the Gap?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    It’s not pedantry to dispute your original claim which is what I am doing:

    “I said there is overwhelming evidence that the murderer lived in Spitalfields.”

    Which means that you are putting it close to a fact that the killer lived in Spitalfields. There is no such overwhelming evidence.
    There is zero evidence that he did and zero evidence he didn't. Ergo, nothing to be overwhelmed by.

    Comment


    • #77
      Perhaps he resided in Kent,worked in London and kept a bolt hole in London.
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

        I don't actually understand why the route he took from Mitre Square to Goulston Street matters.

        Now I see your point about a bolt-hole.

        Well, it is my contention that the murderer was a loner and lived alone, because he would not have taken two uteri, a kidney and heart back home otherwise.

        There is quite a collection of serial murderers who took trophies from their victims' home with them and I think they all lived alone - and I think usually they didn't take anything as personal as a heart.

        I can't see the murderer going to visit friends or relatives with Eddowes' kidney and the piece of apron, soiled with blood and faeces.

        Can you?

        Of course the direction matters, if for instance he enters via New Goulston from the west, he may be heading either east or north.
        If however he approaches from say Wentworth, then he's probably heading south.
        And of course that doesn't even touch on the possibility that it was dropped there for a particular reason.

        If I didn't think the killer would go to a friend's or relatives I would not have suggested it.

        Steve

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

          Of course the direction matters, if for instance he enters via New Goulston from the west, he may be heading either east or north.
          If however he approaches from say Wentworth, then he's probably heading south.
          And of course that doesn't even touch on the possibility that it was dropped there for a particular reason.

          If I didn't think the killer would go to a friend's or relatives I would not have suggested it.

          Steve
          I think he left the Square via Mitre Street at about 1.42 a.m. and turned left down Aldgate High Street, thus avoiding Pc Watkins who was not approaching Mitre Street from in front of him.

          The route from there to Goulston Street was straightforward: Aldgate High Street, the beginning of Whitechapel High Street, and then Goulston Street in Spitalfields.

          He was, therefore, travelling in a north easterly direction with his destination Spitalfields.

          For reasons already given, I do not think it is credible that he involved anyone else in his escapades.

          The fact that he was carrying Eddowes' kidney and part of her apron, covered with blood and faeces, should rule that out.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            It’s not pedantry to dispute your original claim which is what I am doing:

            “I said there is overwhelming evidence that the murderer lived in Spitalfields.”

            Which means that you are putting it close to a fact that the killer lived in Spitalfields. There is no such overwhelming evidence.

            My point was that it is being pedantic to expect someone making a case constantly to qualify his every statement by acknowledging that it is not a proven fact.

            In making another point, I said there is 'very strong' evidence or 'the evidence suggests strongly that' (I can't remember my exact words).

            If it will make you happy, I will amend my 'overwhelming evidence' to 'strong evidence'.

            I presented what I consider to be a very strong case that he lived in Spitalfields.

            Your responses included, 'It still doesn’t come close to proving that he lived in Spitalfields though; It’s something that you can’t possibly know'.

            I didn't say that I 'know'!


            Yet your final remark was: 'It’s a fact that being indoors allowed the killer an opportunity to clean up. He couldn’t have cleaned up in the street.'

            As you know, there is an story that the murderer once washed his hands in a washbasin in Dorset Street.
            That doesn't prove he ever did, but it seems there were washbasins in Dorset Street, via which the murderer necessarily left Miller's Court.

            I'm willing to be corrected, but I don't recall that there was a washbasin in Kelly's room.

            If there was not, how could he have cleaned up in her room?


            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

              I think he left the Square via Mitre Street at about 1.42 a.m. and turned left down Aldgate High Street, thus avoiding Pc Watkins who was not approaching Mitre Street from in front of him.

              The route from there to Goulston Street was straightforward: Aldgate High Street, the beginning of Whitechapel High Street, and then Goulston Street in Spitalfields.

              He was, therefore, travelling in a north easterly direction with his destination Spitalfields.

              For reasons already given, I do not think it is credible that he involved anyone else in his escapades.

              The fact that he was carrying Eddowes' kidney and part of her apron, covered with blood and faeces, should rule that out.
              And there in the first line is the problem.

              "I think"

              Others, think differently, there are many possible routes he could take.

              Unfortunately you appear to see your view as the only credible one.


              And giving a pricise absolute time such as 1.42 is I am afraid a mistake so many make.
              How many times does it need to be pointed out that absolute times are totally unrealistic, simply because of the issue of syncronizied time.
              There is a talk on this site from this year's East End Conference which covers this issue of time, and specifically mentions Mitre Square .



              Steve

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                And there in the first line is the problem.

                "I think"

                Others, think differently, there are many possible routes he could take.

                Unfortunately you appear to see your view as the only credible one.


                And giving a pricise absolute time such as 1.42 is I am afraid a mistake so many make.
                How many times does it need to be pointed out that absolute times are totally unrealistic, simply because of the issue of syncronizied time.
                There is a talk on this site from this year's East End Conference which covers this issue of time, and specifically mentions Mitre Square .



                Steve
                I think you have made it clear that what this is about is that you - and some others, some of whom now say they can't be bothered to reply to my comments - think that I've come along and, in expressing my views, have been condescending to you and others here, that I've said that my view is the right one, that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and everything I state is definitely a fact.

                I have been left in no doubt that the nub of the problem is that I state as facts or near-facts things which I cannot know.

                Now, you say 'And there in the first line is the problem.

                "I think"'

                Please make up your mind.

                If there is a problem when I state my case as if it is a fact, and there is a problem when I say that I think something, then I'm always going to present a problem.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

                  I think you have made it clear that what this is about is that you - and some others, some of whom now say they can't be bothered to reply to my comments - think that I've come along and, in expressing my views, have been condescending to you and others here, that I've said that my view is the right one, that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, and everything I state is definitely a fact.

                  I have been left in no doubt that the nub of the problem is that I state as facts or near-facts things which I cannot know.

                  Now, you say 'And there in the first line is the problem.

                  "I think"'

                  Please make up your mind.

                  If there is a problem when I state my case as if it is a fact, and there is a problem when I say that I think something, then I'm always going to present a problem.
                  Totally missing the point.

                  Even when you say "I think", you talk as if only your viewpoint is credible or valid.

                  Maybe it's simply a matter of Style.

                  Steve

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                    Totally missing the point.

                    Even when you say "I think", you talk as if only your viewpoint is credible or valid.

                    Maybe it's simply a matter of Style.

                    Steve
                    'Even when you say "I think", you talk as if only your viewpoint is credible or valid.'

                    That is ridiculous.

                    What you're saying smacks of 'who do you think you are?'

                    To read that much into someone's use of two words, 'I think', cannot be justified.

                    You cannot be serious!

                    If I remember correctly, you are one of the people - I think there is one other so far - who has actually implied that you can't be bothered to reply to my posts.

                    You have alleged that my posts are full of 'factual faults'.

                    Now you say that you object even to the way I express myself when I say two words, 'I think'.

                    Perhaps you don't want new people on this forum who have minds of their own.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

                      'Even when you say "I think", you talk as if only your viewpoint is credible or valid.'

                      That is ridiculous.

                      What you're saying smacks of 'who do you think you are?'

                      To read that much into someone's use of two words, 'I think', cannot be justified.

                      You cannot be serious!

                      If I remember correctly, you are one of the people - I think there is one other so far - who has actually implied that you can't be bothered to reply to my posts.

                      You have alleged that my posts are full of 'factual faults'.

                      Now you say that you object even to the way I express myself when I say two words, 'I think'.

                      Perhaps you don't want new people on this forum who have minds of their own.
                      Still missing the point,
                      it's not that you said "I think".

                      Its that your speculation was presented as the only credible or valid options.

                      Do you really not see that?




                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                        Still missing the point,
                        it's not that you said "I think".

                        Its that your speculation was presented as the only credible or valid options.

                        Do you really not see that?




                        I really do not see that.

                        When I write my comments, I am necessarily expressing my view, just as someone else expresses his view.

                        When you say, as you do, 'Even when you say "I think", you talk as if only your viewpoint is credible or valid'

                        and 'your speculation was presented as the only credible or valid options',

                        those are subjective comments.

                        They are not facts.

                        But you are presenting them as facts.

                        Can you not see that?


                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                          I really do not see that.

                          When I write my comments, I am necessarily expressing my view, just as someone else expresses his view.

                          When you say, as you do, 'Even when you say "I think", you talk as if only your viewpoint is credible or valid'

                          and 'your speculation was presented as the only credible or valid options',

                          those are subjective comments.

                          They are not facts.

                          But you are presenting them as facts.

                          Can you not see that?


                          As I said before maybe is just a question of style

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                            My point was that it is being pedantic to expect someone making a case constantly to qualify his every statement by acknowledging that it is not a proven fact.

                            In making another point, I said there is 'very strong' evidence or 'the evidence suggests strongly that' (I can't remember my exact words).

                            If it will make you happy, I will amend my 'overwhelming evidence' to 'strong evidence'.

                            I presented what I consider to be a very strong case that he lived in Spitalfields.

                            Your responses included, 'It still doesn’t come close to proving that he lived in Spitalfields though; It’s something that you can’t possibly know'.

                            I didn't say that I 'know'!


                            Yet your final remark was: 'It’s a fact that being indoors allowed the killer an opportunity to clean up. He couldn’t have cleaned up in the street.'

                            As you know, there is an story that the murderer once washed his hands in a washbasin in Dorset Street.
                            That doesn't prove he ever did, but it seems there were washbasins in Dorset Street, via which the murderer necessarily left Miller's Court.

                            I'm willing to be corrected, but I don't recall that there was a washbasin in Kelly's room.

                            If there was not, how could he have cleaned up in her room?


                            You’re making this a simple issue of wording but ‘overwhelming evidence’ would tend to mean that the issue was proven beyond reasonable doubt. That suggested required challenging because it’s not true. The three points that you have produced are ‘strong evidence’ in your opinion. In my opinion they aren’t strong at all. I don’t think that we can deduce where the killer lived. For example, he might have lived elsewhere but came to the East End on business occasionally or to visit family or friends.

                            I think that an important point to make is that we can’t know how much blood he’d have got on him or what he was wearing at the time. Perhaps he took off his shirt, killed Kelly, wiped himself with the clothing that was found in the fireplace then put his shirt/coat back on. I’m not saying that was exactly what happened but being indoors certainly would have given him more opportunity to at least check himself over for blood. There was also a teapot of course which might have contained water which he could have poured onto his hands before wiping them on the clothing. Speculation of course but whatever did happen I think that you’d agree that the killer wouldn’t have left that room dripping with blood.
                            Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 10-30-2022, 06:36 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              You’re making this a simple issue of wording but ‘overwhelming evidence’ would tend to mean that the issue was proven beyond reasonable doubt. That suggested required challenging because it’s not true. The three points that you have produced are ‘strong evidence’ in your opinion. In my opinion they aren’t strong at all. I don’t think that we can deduce where the killer lived. For example, he might have lived elsewhere but came to the East End on business occasionally or to visit family or friends.

                              I think that an important point to make is that we can’t know how much blood he’d have got on him or what he was wearing at the time. Perhaps he took off his shirt, killed Kelly, wiped himself with the clothing that was found in the fireplace then put his shirt/coat back on. I’m not saying that was exactly what happened but being indoors certainly would have given him more opportunity to at least check himself over for blood. There was also a teapot of course which might have contained water which he could have poured onto his hands before wiping them on the clothing. Speculation of course but whatever did happen I think that you’d agree that the killer wouldn’t have left that room dripping with blood.


                              I did not use the words 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' 'conclusive evidence,' incontrovertible evidence,' or even 'hard evidence.'

                              Since two of the murders were committed in Spitalfields, and the bloody apron was found there, it's not exactly a provocative suggestion to say that he was living there.

                              I change my mind when I've seen evidence or reasoned argument that convinces me.

                              I changed my mind about the time of death in the Hanbury Street murder after an exchange with a very condescending individual on another forum, after re-examining the evidence.

                              But nothing anyone has said here in response to my three points has seemed to me at all convincing.

                              My first point is that the murderer travelled in a north-easterly direction to Spitalfields when he must have been returning to base.

                              The first objection was that he may have had a bolt hole.
                              I suppose someone else might say that Sir William Gull had a bolt hole, but in any case it is far-fetched to suggest that the murderer went with Eddowes' kidney and her bloodstained faeces-covered apron to a relative or friend's house.

                              Now, when I give his precise route to Spitalfields, you raise the question of timing, and what is actually meant by 1.42 a.m.
                              I think it's obvious that what I meant is that the murderer left the Square about two minutes before he expected Pc Watkins to enter it.
                              I didn't say whether I meant 1:42:00 or 1:42:30.
                              It's just an approximation.
                              I don't see how your raising the question of time has any bearing on the validity of my argument.

                              I mentioned the fact that he would have known (although I'm not sure that word is permitted, so I'll amend it to 'had reason to believe') that Pc Watkins would not be in front of him when he turned into Aldgate High Street.
                              He must have noticed Pc Harvey going down Church Passage at 1:40 (and in case of any misunderstanding, I don't mean necessarily 1:40:59) and this, I suggest, would have put him off leaving via Church Passage.

                              My second point concerns Pc Long's testimony that the apron was not in Goulston Street at about 2.20 a.m., which suggests strongly that the murderer lived nearby.
                              In addition to the bolt-hole, we've heard that Long may have lied that he checked the entrance at 2.20.
                              I'm sorry, but I'm going by the evidence.
                              There is no reason to think that the murderer kept organs in a bolt-hole or that Long pretended to have checked at 2.20.

                              There is earwitness and medical evidence that the murderer left at about 5.45 a.m.
                              It is fanciful to suggest that he then made his way to Dorset (assuming he had played a match there the day before and had another match to play the next day) or Pickfords in Broad Street (with blood from Kelly's heart oozing through his clothes) to report for work, or Bethnal Green to the Lechmere residence, where after greeting his wife and nine children, he would presumably go to the pantry to deposit Kelly's heart.

                              Those are actually ridiculously far-fetched suggestions, but when I suggest that the murderer simply walked a short distance to his room in Spitalfields, all hell breaks loose!

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



                                I did not use the words 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' 'conclusive evidence,' incontrovertible evidence,' or even 'hard evidence.'

                                Since two of the murders were committed in Spitalfields, and the bloody apron was found there, it's not exactly a provocative suggestion to say that he was living there.

                                I change my mind when I've seen evidence or reasoned argument that convinces me.

                                I changed my mind about the time of death in the Hanbury Street murder after an exchange with a very condescending individual on another forum, after re-examining the evidence.

                                But nothing anyone has said here in response to my three points has seemed to me at all convincing.

                                My first point is that the murderer travelled in a north-easterly direction to Spitalfields when he must have been returning to base.

                                The first objection was that he may have had a bolt hole.
                                I suppose someone else might say that Sir William Gull had a bolt hole, but in any case it is far-fetched to suggest that the murderer went with Eddowes' kidney and her bloodstained faeces-covered apron to a relative or friend's house.

                                Now, when I give his precise route to Spitalfields, you raise the question of timing, and what is actually meant by 1.42 a.m.
                                I think it's obvious that what I meant is that the murderer left the Square about two minutes before he expected Pc Watkins to enter it.
                                I didn't say whether I meant 1:42:00 or 1:42:30.
                                It's just an approximation.
                                I don't see how your raising the question of time has any bearing on the validity of my argument.

                                I mentioned the fact that he would have known (although I'm not sure that word is permitted, so I'll amend it to 'had reason to believe') that Pc Watkins would not be in front of him when he turned into Aldgate High Street.
                                He must have noticed Pc Harvey going down Church Passage at 1:40 (and in case of any misunderstanding, I don't mean necessarily 1:40:59) and this, I suggest, would have put him off leaving via Church Passage.

                                My second point concerns Pc Long's testimony that the apron was not in Goulston Street at about 2.20 a.m., which suggests strongly that the murderer lived nearby.
                                In addition to the bolt-hole, we've heard that Long may have lied that he checked the entrance at 2.20.
                                I'm sorry, but I'm going by the evidence.
                                There is no reason to think that the murderer kept organs in a bolt-hole or that Long pretended to have checked at 2.20.

                                There is earwitness and medical evidence that the murderer left at about 5.45 a.m.
                                It is fanciful to suggest that he then made his way to Dorset (assuming he had played a match there the day before and had another match to play the next day) or Pickfords in Broad Street (with blood from Kelly's heart oozing through his clothes) to report for work, or Bethnal Green to the Lechmere residence, where after greeting his wife and nine children, he would presumably go to the pantry to deposit Kelly's heart.

                                Those are actually ridiculously far-fetched suggestions, but when I suggest that the murderer simply walked a short distance to his room in Spitalfields, all hell breaks loose!
                                HI PI
                                Where and what do you think the ripper was doing in the hour or so in between the murder of Eddowes and when the apron was found?
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X