Why the Gap?

[mpriestnall]

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

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[John Wheat]

I'm not making assumptions.

You are making assumptions wether you like it or not

[mpriestnall]

And I keep going on about the mindset of the killer. Did it run like clockwork or was it triggered by unforeseen circumstances?

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...

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You are making assumptions though. What you are talking about are not facts.

I'm not making assumptions.

[John Wheat]

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

I didn't assume that the route he took was to Spitalfields; the evidence is that that is the route he took.
I didn't assume that the apron was left after a long delay; the evidence is in the testimony of the police officer who found it.
I didn't assume that the latest he stayed at a murder scene was at a place in Spitalfields; it is a fact, based on eyewitness evidence, earwitness evidence and medical evidence.


'We don't know whether the apron was left by Jack'

We do! The missing piece fitted the piece that remained on the victim's body.

'We don't even know if Stride was a Ripper victim.'

I think all we can do is make reasonable deductions based on the evidence.

I'm not sure that it's productive to have philosophical discussions about what constitutes a fact and what constitutes knowing something.

The view taken by the police at the time, and by most researchers ever since, is that the murderer intended to commit one murder in Whitechapel but, having been disturbed before he could carry out any mutilations, he moved to the City of London, where he achieved his goal, before returning to his lodgings.

That is a reasonable deduction to make from the evidence.

I don't think anyone has ever said that we know that Stride's murder was part of the series, but that is what the evidence points to.

We can't know that Tabram's murder was not part of the series, but we can say that that is what the evidence points to.

You are making assumptions though. What you are talking about are not facts.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That's not evidence though. It's assumptions. We don't know wether the apron was left by Jack. We don't know what route Jack took after the double murder. We don't even know if Stride was a Ripper victim. Even if Jack was staying in Spitalfields and that's a big if, we don't know wether this was for one night or wether he had a bolt hole in Spitalfields and lived somewhere else.

Cheers John

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

I didn't assume that the route he took was to Spitalfields; the evidence is that that is the route he took.
I didn't assume that the apron was left after a long delay; the evidence is in the testimony of the police officer who found it.
I didn't assume that the latest he stayed at a murder scene was at a place in Spitalfields; it is a fact, based on eyewitness evidence, earwitness evidence and medical evidence.


'We don't know whether the apron was left by Jack'

We do! The missing piece fitted the piece that remained on the victim's body.

'We don't even know if Stride was a Ripper victim.'

I think all we can do is make reasonable deductions based on the evidence.

I'm not sure that it's productive to have philosophical discussions about what constitutes a fact and what constitutes knowing something.

The view taken by the police at the time, and by most researchers ever since, is that the murderer intended to commit one murder in Whitechapel but, having been disturbed before he could carry out any mutilations, he moved to the City of London, where he achieved his goal, before returning to his lodgings.

That is a reasonable deduction to make from the evidence.

I don't think anyone has ever said that we know that Stride's murder was part of the series, but that is what the evidence points to.

We can't know that Tabram's murder was not part of the series, but we can say that that is what the evidence points to.

[John Wheat]

'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.

That's not evidence though. It's assumptions. We don't know wether the apron was left by Jack. We don't know what route Jack took after the double murder. We don't even know if Stride was a Ripper victim. Even if Jack was staying in Spitalfields and that's a big if, we don't know wether this was for one night or wether he had a bolt hole in Spitalfields and lived somewhere else.

Cheers John

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I disagree with what your saying regards Bury. Bury reportedly didn't have a beard at one point. Bury owned a horse and cart and reportedly traveled to Whitechapel. What is the overwhelming evidence the murderer lived in Spitalfields?

Cheers John

'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.

[John Wheat]

I think I posted several comments on Lechmere when I joined yesterday.

He is very 'popular' now, but then so was the Duke of Clarence at one time.

There is proof that the Duke of Clarence had alibis for all five murders.

I believe Lechmere had five alibis too, even in the case of the first murder, since there is evidence that the murder took place about 5 minutes before he found the body (and also in the case of Martha Tabram, whom he has also accused of killing).

Thank you for the tip.

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.

It seems that Bury was living with his wife at the time that the murders took place.

I think the evidence strongly suggests that the murderer lived alone.

It seems that Bury lived in Bow at the time that the murders took place.

I believe there is overwhelming evidence that the murderer lived in Spitalfields.

I disagree with what your saying regards Bury. Bury reportedly didn't have a beard at one point. Bury owned a horse and cart and reportedly traveled to Whitechapel. What is the overwhelming evidence the murderer lived in Spitalfields?

Cheers John

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What about the Lechmere theory
Seriously I disagree though. There is strong circumstantial evidence that William Henry Bury was the Ripper.

I think I posted several comments on Lechmere when I joined yesterday.

He is very 'popular' now, but then so was the Duke of Clarence at one time.

There is proof that the Duke of Clarence had alibis for all five murders.

I believe Lechmere had five alibis too, even in the case of the first murder, since there is evidence that the murder took place about 5 minutes before he found the body (and also in the case of Martha Tabram, whom he has also accused of killing).

Thank you for the tip.

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.

It seems that Bury was living with his wife at the time that the murders took place.

I think the evidence strongly suggests that the murderer lived alone.

It seems that Bury lived in Bow at the time that the murders took place.

I believe there is overwhelming evidence that the murderer lived in Spitalfields.

[John Wheat]

it is a hypothesis based on evidence.

I don't think anyone has ever come up with anything stronger than that.

What about the Lechmere theory
Seriously I disagree though. There is strong circumstantial evidence that William Henry Bury was the Ripper.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes supposition.

it is a hypothesis based on evidence.

I don't think anyone has ever come up with anything stronger than that.