Bucks Row Project

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=Elamarna;412093

Hi Steve,

just a simple question about something you write here:



Doesn´t one or both of the carmen state in some article(s) that they were running late for work? Maybe I´m wrong.

But if they did, it would be problematic for the assumptions here.

Cheers, Pierre

Good question.

While Lechmere said he left later than normal, Paul did say he was running late.

However it seems clear from the distances involved and the possible speeds from over 3mph up, that both could have arrived at work by if not before their start time of 4am.

It could be that although due to start at 4 either man would normally arrive ahead of their respective start time and thus if leaving later than normal it would be right to say they were running late.

If one were to assume that Paul ment he was actually late for work then his start time must have been before 4am.

It is a point however to consider and I will look at it in detail later.
Thank you for raising the issue.


Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;412093

Hi Steve,

just a simple question about something you write here:

From this information it seems reasonable to suggest that there was no need to really hurry for either man, and both could have reached their goals by walking at a moderate pace, no need to be rushing.

After looking at both the distances and times for the 3 above tables, I feel comfortable with a speed for Paul and Lechmere that morning of 102.5-105 ypm or just over 3.5 miles per hour.

Doesn´t one or both of the carmen state in some article(s) that they were running late for work? Maybe I´m wrong.

But if they did, it would be problematic for the assumptions here.

Cheers, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;412669]

I don´t know if I can do that - I never look his way, and so I can´t tell ...

Good for you. Wish I could do that, but it's hard not to. You now kind of like the saying it's hard not to look at a car accident! lol!

And by the way only Pierre could jack up the posts so that responses/ quotes all look like they're coming from someone else!!! Another weird Pierre quirk.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;412667]

Actually no as pierres questions are ones that he thinks he obviously has answers to for his suspect and thinks fish does not. So not only is he turning it into yet another anti lech rant he's egotistically has inserted his own suspect into the discussion, one who he refuses to name.

He may not even realize that he's doing it but I can see right through him.

I don´t know if I can do that - I never look his way, and so I can´t tell ...

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;412632]

Actually, I've avoided the Lechmere controversy so far, but (for a real change Pierre) I think you are right on target with your list of pertinent questions.

Congradulations!

Jeff

Actually no as pierres questions are ones that he thinks he obviously has answers to for his suspect and thinks fish does not. So not only is he turning it into yet another anti lech rant he's egotistically has inserted his own suspect into the discussion, one who he refuses to name.

He may not even realize that he's doing it but I can see right through him.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;412656]

Thanks Pierre

I hope to have part two up in 1 to 2 weeks. Lots of source info to look at in that bit.

Steve

I remember when you called writing and reading in the forum "entertainment". Well, entertainment has certainly become moore advanced and interesting since then.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;412655]

Steve,

no problem, I will not discuss the issue about Mr L further in this thread.

Best wishes, Pierre

Thanks Pierre

I hope to have part two up in 1 to 2 weeks. Lots of source info to look at in that bit.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;412641]

Pierre

While I do appreciate your I put please don't turn this thread into a lechmere is or is not one.

There are plenty of threads you could post on or even start a new one. Note I am not insisting or telling merely asking a fellow poster.

The first two parts of the Bucks Row project are ment to be stand alone threads basically presenting data with the hope that data will be discussed.

I accept that when I reach part 3 this will become such a thread, but until then please can I respectfully ask you to restrain your enthusiasm.

As a matter of interest I agree with much of Jeff's last post about your actually questions.

I do hope you understand my request, and I was grateful that you started a new thread on blood oozing, rather than distract from this one.

All the best

Steve

Steve,

no problem, I will not discuss the issue about Mr L further in this thread.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;412632]

Actually, I've avoided the Lechmere controversy so far, but (for a real change Pierre) I think you are right on target with your list of pertinent questions.

Congradulations!

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

yes. If someone claims to have a valid and reliable research hypothesis that a person in the past was Jack the Ripper, there is a need for such a set of sources and explanations. Otherwise, there will not be any power in that research.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;412632]

Actually, I've avoided the Lechmere controversy so far, but (for a real change Pierre) I think you are right on target with your list of pertinent questions.

Congradulations!

Jeff

Pierre

While I do appreciate your I put please don't turn this thread into a lechmere is or is not one.

There are plenty of threads you could post on or even start a new one. Note I am not insisting or telling merely asking a fellow poster.

The first two parts of the Bucks Row project are ment to be stand alone threads basically presenting data with the hope that data will be discussed.

I accept that when I reach part 3 this will become such a thread, but until then please can I respectfully ask you to restrain your enthusiasm.

As a matter of interest I agree with much of Jeff's last post about your actually questions.


I do hope you understand my request, and I was grateful that you started a new thread on blood oozing, rather than distract from this one.


All the best


Steve

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;412593]

Hi Fisherman,

I do not think that Charles Lechmere is a good suspect. I think he is not a suspect at all.

For Lechmere being a so called suspect, or rather an historical person with many indications for having been Jack the Ripper, there must be many pieces of evidence.

You need a motive and you need evidence for it. There must be functional explanations as well as motive explanations. They must be congruent through time, and they must show us why he started and stopped and started and stopped again. And there must be evidence from all the murder cases.

Can you explain why the killer started killing?
Can you explain why he had a motive and how that motive worked?
Can you explain what details in all of the murder cases are connected to him?
Can you explain the choice of the murder sites?
Can you explain the choice of victims?
Can you explain the signature?
Can you explain the GSG?
Can you explain why witnesses saw what they saw?
Can you explain the dates for the murders?
Can you explain why he stopped with Kelly and started again with McKenzie?
Can you explain why he stopped again with the Pinchin Street case?
Can you show us a confession?
Can you show us a false alibi?
Can you tell us if Stride was his victim?
If so, can you tell us why she was not mutilated?
Can you give evidence for all those points for your so called suspect Charles Lechmere?

Regards, Pierre

Actually, I've avoided the Lechmere controversy so far, but (for a real change Pierre) I think you are right on target with your list of pertinent questions.

Congradulations!

Jeff

[GUT]

This thread, so far, is about the possibilities of what happened in Bucks Row, not suspects.
Anti-virus Alert! Thread hijacker.

But we don't have and Crossmere threads.

[Varqm]

This thread, so far, is about the possibilities of what happened in Bucks Row, not suspects.
Anti-virus Alert! Thread hijacker.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;412054]

I humbly predict that Charles Lechmere will be as good a suspect after Steves efforts a he was before them.

Hi Fisherman,

I do not think that Charles Lechmere is a good suspect. I think he is not a suspect at all.

For Lechmere being a so called suspect, or rather an historical person with many indications for having been Jack the Ripper, there must be many pieces of evidence.

You need a motive and you need evidence for it. There must be functional explanations as well as motive explanations. They must be congruent through time, and they must show us why he started and stopped and started and stopped again. And there must be evidence from all the murder cases.

Can you explain why the killer started killing?
Can you explain why he had a motive and how that motive worked?
Can you explain what details in all of the murder cases are connected to him?
Can you explain the choice of the murder sites?
Can you explain the choice of victims?
Can you explain the signature?
Can you explain the GSG?
Can you explain why witnesses saw what they saw?
Can you explain the dates for the murders?
Can you explain why he stopped with Kelly and started again with McKenzie?
Can you explain why he stopped again with the Pinchin Street case?
Can you show us a confession?
Can you show us a false alibi?
Can you tell us if Stride was his victim?
If so, can you tell us why she was not mutilated?
Can you give evidence for all those points for your so called suspect Charles Lechmere?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Welcome back Pierre,

Actually, if Lechmere was headed for work, I'd imagine he did such things as shaving or breakfasting (not so sure about the early morning drinking). It was the roused doctor that I wondered about regarding how he quickly got out to examine the corpse.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

but you did wonder about Lechmere too, since you wrote:

"this might delay them leaving their homes (Lechmere, the Doctor)".

Pierre