The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Harry D]

Are you saying that it is axiomatic that a killer not caught in the act must flee?

It all depends on the level of risk involved. Like I said, Lechmere wasn't to know if his clothes carried bloodstains, and presumably he still had the murder weapon on him. For all he knew, it was a policeman coming down Buck's Row. It beggars belief that he would actually wait for this person instead of calming walking away and disappearing into the shadows.

As for faulty, tautological reasoning, you may have misunderstood the latter expression. Regardless of that, there is no fault in suggesting a perfectly possible development even if it is not the statistically most viable one. Statistics really donīt enter the issue, to be frank, since the individual circumstances are what govern things.

In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.

A trap that most suspect-based theorists fall into, ergo Lechmere was guilty therefore he acted innocent.

[Fisherman]

Batman: There is a conflict between 'comfort zone' and 'murdering along the way to work'. Comfort zones aren't supposed to identify the murderer. They just identify where the murderer prefers striking.

According to me, his one reoccurring opportunity to strike was along is work trek. There is no "conflict" in that at all. It is perfectly logical.

In this instance, it's mostly dark spots in public places/the very places unfortunates take their clients. Your comfort zones end up identifying your offender (if there is any evidence he walked by any other murder scene other than one).

No. I identify him for other reasons; it is no crime to walk through Whitechapel, not now and not then. It is not until he is already a suspect that I check the geography. and whaddayaknow...?

You call the geographic profile poppycock, but yourself are trying to forward your own geographic profile, which as far as I can tell, doesn't have precedence, unlike Rossmo and I am trying to find precedence, for you, for serial murders along a route to work. I can't even find Lorry drivers who did this. I have Taxi drivers and other drivers, but they aren't on fixed routes.

What I call poppycock is any belief that geographical profiles must be correct. In this case, the geographical profile for Lechmere as a killer would be way off the murder sites if we only look at his residence. But I donīt do that. I am saying that he killed en route to work. If that does not work with your profiling, it is certainly a sad thing, but not very much tied to the reality I propose.
Myself, I donīt need any profiling of the geography - I have a suspect who walked the exact area where four women were murdered. Why would I engage in profiling? That is for those who have not yet identified the killer.

The double event is explained by a failed attempt. Looking at other offenders who have done the same, or tried it, and we find they failed the first attempt and immediately went to find another. It wasn't planned. They simply switched to a backup plan (another place they planned killing in).

Oh! We agree!! But I donīt think that there are any other offenders that have done the same - there are only related offenses, not identical ones. And I donīt place too much faith in statistics. The Ripper was a statistical anomaly in himself in many ways.

The inquest would also include investigators and PCs on the beat and journalists. So if he is walking the route, none of the witnesses who saw JtR recall this is the man they see out walking these routes at this time before? Not even the bobbies on the beat who are tuned into this? Especially after Chapman?

Possibly, yes. You are welcome to disprove it. Plus he ha already effectively told the police about his morning trek. They would know he had a logical reason to be there. But I think what happened was that he fell into obscurity quickly enough, and other ideas an leads ruled the day.

I think the reason why there are no comparative models for killing along the way to work is that it identifies them.

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Itīs either badly worded or I am not fit to see your point.

This, of course, is all based on the idea that he actually did walk those routes to and from work, of which we have only evidence for one, the rest are guessed that he did.

He passed through Bucks Row on the 31st. There are no other viable routes to use. After Bucks Row, the only viable area is inbetween Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street. Any suggestions to the contrary lack a basis in credibility. But you are welcome to suggest an alternative route!

[Fisherman]

Now I will leave you "He would not"- sayers to yourselves. Once you evolve into "He could not", you will have a point.

But we all know that wonīt happen, right?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish, Does this mean you think that Jack was almost caught in the act with Liz? Because you did say in post 178, replying to me that you thought Jack was long gone when Diemschultz arrived.

Last post to you before I go: There were a full 15 minutes inbetween Schwartzī sighting and Diemschutzīarrival. That allows for many scenarios.

Bye now.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: It all depends on the level of risk involved.

Yes, exactly - and the INTERPRETATION of the risk level as carried out by the perpetrator, Harry! You are forgetting that.
The crucial matter is that it depends. That is all that counts.


In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.

One learns something new every day! Over here, tautology is the concept of repeating yourself in different manners. So sorry about that - you obviously were making another point than the one I thought you were. A wrongful one, of course, since I am not using the concept at all. I know full well that there are always alternative innocent explanations. I can come up with thousands of them myself.


Now, Harry, youīre on your own with all of your misgivings. Just remember that in spite of how very, very, very certain you are about how you must be right ... you can actually be wrong.

[Batman]

Oh! We agree!! But I donīt think that there are any other offenders that have done the same - there are only related offenses, not identical ones. And I donīt place too much faith in statistics. The Ripper was a statistical anomaly in himself in many ways.

Statistics are used in DNA profiling and JtR is far from a statistical anomaly. JtR is a classic disorganized lust murderer operating in a classic radial pattern, with lots of examples of serial killers who did the same thing. We got examples for this. A lot of them.

You can select any pathway from point A (his home) to point B (his work) through any streets in Whitechapel. The only one you are restricted to is the one we have evidence for. His Buck's row discovery. Other than that, you are free to take any route in the maze one wishes and none of them have to go close by any murder site other than Nichols.

[John G]

Broad Street. Up at Liverpool Street Station. The Eddowes slaying took place in City territory.

Yes, that's what I thought. But Liverpool Street Station is only 0.6 miles from Mitre Square, via Bishopsgate and Leadenhall, or about a 10 minute walk. See: http://www.londontown.com/TransportI...quare_1cc.html If you scroll downwards on the map Liverpool Street Station comes quickly into view in the north-west area.

Old Broad Street is also 0.6 miles from Mitre Square, again via Leadenhall Street.

[etenguy]

Ouch, Gareth. For a man who claims that I am asserting too much, you really should not claim that hos routine only took him past two of the sites. Letīs be honest and admit that we donīt know that at all, shall we? And while we are at it, letīs also admit that you have no idea about who he had to "report to" - if anyone - just as you donīt know how much time there would have been between the slayings and the arrival time at Pickfords, other than in the Bucks Row case, where Jason Payne-James said that he did not think that there was any reason to suppose that the killer would have any visible blood on his person at all.
Letīs be frank and honest and not add inclusions like these ones on you behalf. Letīs be fair this time.

Mr Fisherman - In my view, Lechmere as a suspect cannot be excluded. However, there is reason to believe that the murderer is not murdering on his way to or from his place of work. That is that all the murders took place at weekends. That isn't to say Lechmere did not work at weekends, but he also worked on week days. The weekend killing suggests someone choosing to murder at a time convenient for them, which is probably not on days they are working that morning. If Lechmere was the murderer, we would need to explain why he would constrain himself this way, since one day would be as convenient as any other if he was walking that way to work anyway.

[Harry D]

One learns something new every day! Over here, tautology is the concept of repeating yourself in different manners. So sorry about that - you obviously were making another point than the one I thought you were. A wrongful one, of course, since I am not using the concept at all. I know full well that there are always alternative innocent explanations. I can come up with thousands of them myself.

No worries. Good to be on the same wavelength.

When I say it's a tautology I mean in the respect that Lechmere approached the first passer-by, notified a policeman, attended the inquest, volunteered his christian name, home address and workplace are all logical inferences of his innocence. You would argue that he ACTED innocent because he was trying to get away with murder. No one can win against this sort of circular reasoning.

Now, Harry, youīre on your own with all of your misgivings. Just remember that in spite of how very, very, very certain you are about how you must be right ... you can actually be wrong.

I wouldn't say that I'm "very, very, very certain" but yes I am unconvinced of Lechmere's guilt.

[Fisherman]

Statistics are used in DNA profiling and JtR is far from a statistical anomaly. JtR is a classic disorganized lust murderer operating in a classic radial pattern, with lots of examples of serial killers who did the same thing. We got examples for this. A lot of them.

You can select any pathway from point A (his home) to point B (his work) through any streets in Whitechapel. The only one you are restricted to is the one we have evidence for. His Buck's row discovery. Other than that, you are free to take any route in the maze one wishes and none of them have to go close by any murder site other than Nichols.

"None of them have to go close by any murder..."?
Letīs get this straight.
The area encompassed by the Bucks Row inlet to Whitechapel in the east, by Hanbury Street in the north, by Old Monague Street in the south and by Bishopsgate in the west, is the area where four of the victims discussed fell prey, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly.

It seems that you are going to ask for me to provide proof that Charles Lechmere was on the murder spots at the relevant hours before you consider his candidacy as a suspect cab be considered strengthened by the geographical implications...?

Hereīs the thing. What does the police ask when looking for a killer who murders in a restricted area?
Do they ask "We want to know who was present in Bucks Row on the 31 of August, in Hanbury Street on..." or do they ask "We want to know who was present or had reason to be present in the area"?
Correct, they ask about the area as such.

If there was proof that Lechmere was in all of the four streets where women were murdered at the times when they were murdered, we would not have any reason to discuss the case no more. That would have sealed the deal effectively.

As it stands, we can "only" say that Lechmere had reason to be in this smallish area on each and every occasion a woman was murdered there.
As suspects go, that is not half bad. It is bloody brilliant.

If we take the dummy approach and ask about the exact streets, then we can say that he is tied to Bucks Row and Hanbury Street, since we KNOW that he used this route and these exact streets on the 31st of August. That means that he is actually tied in this very demanding manner to 50 per cent of the sites.
If we want to muddle it up, we can say that there is no certainty that he ALWAYS used the same route, but if you do, you will simply agree with me.

If we go with MacNaghten and rule Tabram out - which many out here do - opting for the C5 only, then he is tied to two thirds of the actual murder streets! 66,6 per cent!

But you are saying that there is no need to accept that he was anywhere even near the spots, but for Bucks Row.

Are you aware that if you walk down from the murder spot in Hanbury Street to Old Montague Street, it will take you all of two or three minutes?
This is something you speak of as "not even close", but I can guarantee you that any police force worth itīs salt would have a VERY different view of it. They would say "Wow, this Lechmere guy was actually never far from any of the sites if he walked to work on these mornings".

Charles Lechmere is the only one of the suspects who has these geographical implications, and he couples them with very useful ties to the two other murder sites too. That means that from this angle only, the geographical one, he is by far and away the best suspect there has ever been in the hunt for the Ripper. That is an undisputable fact.

[Fisherman]

No worries. Good to be on the same wavelength.

When I say it's a tautology I mean in the respect that Lechmere approached the first passer-by, notified a policeman, attended the inquest, volunteered his christian name, home address and workplace are all logical inferences of his innocence. You would argue that he ACTED innocent because he was trying to get away with murder. No one can win against this sort of circular reasoning.



I wouldn't say that I'm "very, very, very certain" but yes I am unconvinced of Lechmere's guilt.

You speak of circular reasoning, stating that I use Lechmereīs innocent behavior as a pointer to guilt.
That is not a very nice thing to do when I have just agreed that the things you point to do not implicate guilt at all.
I posted a long list of things that are NOT looking innocent (like disagreeing with the police), and I extremely clearly said that THESE were the matters that made me suspect him, not the innocently coloured stuff you pointed to. Calling a passer-by to help and searching out a PC can NEVER be a suspicious thing. It CAN be part of a guilty pattern, but in itself it is totally innocent.

I then pointed out that a man who has been arrested for something he does not want to own up to, will naturally try to supply the police with innocent reasons for his being in place at a crime scene. I am 100 per cent certain that you will realize this too. Putting it differently, I am suggesting that criminals lie to save their behinds. Can we agree on that?

Now, please donīt use this fact to claim that I am saying that the parts of Lechmereīs behavior that look innocent MUST BE sinister instead! Once more, it is a lot of OTHER things that look guilty, and if they are guilty, then and only then can we conclude that he may have done what I say very many criminals do: lied.

It is not as if we can accept that once a person says "I did not do that", that seals the deal of his innocence! To do that would be to think and act as circular as it gets, right?

So please, letīs not argue the way you do here. Letīs look at the different options without denying either that people can tell the truth or that they can lie.

[Fisherman]

Mr Fisherman - In my view, Lechmere as a suspect cannot be excluded. However, there is reason to believe that the murderer is not murdering on his way to or from his place of work. That is that all the murders took place at weekends. That isn't to say Lechmere did not work at weekends, but he also worked on week days. The weekend killing suggests someone choosing to murder at a time convenient for them, which is probably not on days they are working that morning. If Lechmere was the murderer, we would need to explain why he would constrain himself this way, since one day would be as convenient as any other if he was walking that way to work anyway.

All of the murders but for the Stride and Eddowes murders occurred on work day mornings, Iīm afraid. And those two murders fell on markedly different times, possibly implicating that the killer may have been out pubcrawling or perhaps visiting friends beforehand.
The ordinary manīs working week was Monday-Saturday.

[Fisherman]

Yes, that's what I thought. But Liverpool Street Station is only 0.6 miles from Mitre Square, via Bishopsgate and Leadenhall, or about a 10 minute walk. See: http://www.londontown.com/TransportI...quare_1cc.html If you scroll downwards on the map Liverpool Street Station comes quickly into view in the north-west area.

Old Broad Street is also 0.6 miles from Mitre Square, again via Leadenhall Street.

And so it falls neatly into what could be called Lechmeres comfort zone if he was the killer. Is that what you are saying?

[Sam Flynn]

And so it falls neatly into what could be called Lechmeres comfort zone

Not between the hours of 1 and 2 on a non-working day, it doesn't. Ah, but I see that he might "neatly" have been pub crawling or visiting friends, presumably carrying a deadly sharp knife on his person. How convenient!

[John G]

And so it falls neatly into what could be called Lechmeres comfort zone if he was the killer. Is that what you are saying?

Yes, I don't think it can be ruled out, particularly as Broad Street is actually in the City of London. For instance, he may have worked with colleagues who lived close by, and therefore could have regularly gone to one of the City of London pubs for a drink after work.

I'm not suggesting, of course, that he would have been finishing work at the time of Eddowes murder, but if this was an area that he was familiar with then it could well be within his "comfort zone."

Here's another map that shows the proximity of Broad Street to Mitre Street (Mitre Street is to the right): https://getoutside.ordnancesurvey.co...city-of-london