The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Elamarna]

Just as an aside, this thread was about my upcoming work on BUCKS ROW.
I see little here relating to my work, it was certainly not a Lechmere thread.

I resent it being shall we say highjacked.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Sam Flynn: The "proven" reason(s) to be present - e.g. visiting mum, being 0.6 miles away from a former place of work - are speculative, and even the "work-trek" argument collapses in respect of Chapman if she really was killed at sun-up.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Proven reasons to have been present at a site must always be "speculative". They are not proof that a person was in place, but instead that he had a logical reason to be. The concept is a simple one to understand once you put your mind to it.

Therefore the original term "proven reasons" used is incorrect is it not?


Steve

[Batman]

If someone is going to lie about their name, why don't they lie about their name?

He gave his first name as Charles.

He even brought himself forward after Robert Paul mentioned him to the press.

Then Lechmere apparently had a good reason why he called himself Charles Cross. It was his stepfather's surname.

Even Kozminski called himself Abrahams.

[Abby Normal]

I`m sorry, Christer. I disagree.
Seaman is a proven homicidal lunatic who lived at the centre of the murders.
Proven homicidal lunatics win everytime

I seriously doubt the ripper was a homicidal maniac ; )

[John G]

Are you telling me that you donīt know, John? Do you have to ask?

As a wild guess, Christer, is it less than one?

[Sam Flynn]

So, as I predicted: Not a single name can be presented

I didn't recall you asking for a name. But, now that you mention it, here's a list of all the men, aged between 30 and 55, admitted to Whitechapel Infirmary with some kind of mental illness ("lunacy", "mania" etc) through 1888 to January 1889:

Frederick Wallis
George Martin
John Clark
John Lawrence
Nathaniel Farrant
Solomon de Groot
Joseph Vann
Richard Price
Joseph Milnes
Theophilus Beechey
Michael Malone
Josiah Hines
Lorenzo Canavesio
Charles Jennings
Ephraim Weston
David Balcombe
John Milnes
David Phillips
Robert Bull
George Rohrig
James Dooley
Edwin Brand
Samuel Taylor
Morris Kemp
Thomas Parsons
Thomas Donoghue
Daniel Stock
William Baleham
Joseph Marcus
Powell Tewson
William Adam Cullen
Robert Henry Miller
Alfred Everard
Frederick J Davis
Herbert Dickens
Alfred Spriggs
Thomas John Newton
Henry Alexander

That's 38 in total... and, of course, those are just the "lunatics" who were "caught", so to speak; God knows how many others there were out there undiagnosed. Besides, as we know, we may not be looking for a "lunatic" at all, and the Ripper might have been a little younger than 30. But it's a start.

[Fisherman]

Anyone resident in Whitechapel would have known the grounds very well, and would have felt more than comfortable there. And, speaking of comfort, it must have been of enormous comfort for a local killer to know that he could commit the most audacious murder and still get back to safety in a short space of time.

Your man would have to spend around ten minutes on the streets, counting from the extreme victims in terms of distance, Gareth. At least! And more than that if he did not live in the exact epicenter. Ten minutes is an awful long time, it is not "a short space of time" at all. My man would be spending between seven and twenty, twentyfive minutes, depending on the victim.

So you see, your whole argument is an illogical one. If you dare walk the streets for ten minutes you will have little problem with twenty.

It remains that a man with a proven presence or reason to be present is a much better candidate than anyone without those attributes, regardless if he lived in a hole in the ground under one of the victims. Which would mean that he DID have a link, but you will no doubt get my drift.

[Fisherman]

But apart from Nichols in Buck Row, how many murder sites was Lechmere found at?

Are you telling me that you donīt know, John? Do you have to ask?

[Sam Flynn]

The reason lies in how the killer has comfort zones where he feels at ease. Such comfort zones need not be around his home only, they can be anywhere that he has been and where he knows the grounds.

Anyone resident in Whitechapel would have known the grounds very well, and would have felt more than comfortable there. And, speaking of comfort, it must have been of enormous comfort for a local killer to know that he could commit the most audacious murder and still get back to safety in a short space of time.

[John G]

So, as I predicted: Not a single name can be presented, it was all smoke and mirrors. Lechmere remains the only one with viable proven reasons to have visited the murder spots, and we even know that he was found alone close to the body of Nichols in Bucks Row!

And so now you resort to claiming that the killer did not need to have any reason to be at the murder spots. Thatīs where you have ended up!!

Of course a murderer does not need to have any link or reason to a murder spot. But how does that detract from the value of actually having such links and having been proven to have been at one of the spots, alone with the victim, at the relevant hour? Can you explain that to me? Do you think that the police works from that assumption? "Letīs not ask the one we found by the corpse why he was there, guys"?
The people connected to a murder site, the ones who have been present at it or in itīs vicinity are the ones that always are looked upon as the primary murder material. Until they can be cleared, there is no reason to go looking for your everyday bully.

And have you read up on Ogorzow?

But apart from Nichols in Buck Row, how many murder sites was Lechmere found at?

[Sam Flynn]

just about everyone in Whitechapel would be around a mile or less away from the C5 murder sites. Now, if you pick an individual at random, and expand the criteria of what constitutes a comfort zone to include, say, previous addresses, relatives' addresses, relatives' previous addresses (and relatives could include, say, parents, grandparents, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, cousins, etc), places of work, former places of work, work routes, former work routes, favoured drinking establishments, former favoured drinking establishments, doctor's surgeries, former doctor's surgeries, girlfriend's residence, former girlfriend's residence, friends' addresses, former friends' addresses, various schools attended etc, then surely even Jack Random would be found to have a similar association to the various murder sites as Lechmere.

Indeed so. (Not that a local, homicidal killer would necessarily have needed any such associations to begin with.)

[Fisherman]

We simply don't know that Cross had reasons to be anywhere, other than on his journey to work on the 31st August. It's pure supposition that he had any reason to be at the other scenes of crime at the relevant times.

Apropos Jon's very cogent point about William Seaman: killers don't "need" reasons to be anywhere. But they do have needs, and these can take them anywhere without having recourse to any timetables, fixed routemaps, or conjectured visits to mum.They're all named in the censuses, electoral rolls and other registers. Thousands of them.

So, as I predicted: Not a single name can be presented, it was all smoke and mirrors. Lechmere remains the only one with viable proven reasons to have visited the murder spots, and we even know that he was found alone close to the body of Nichols in Bucks Row!

And so now you resort to claiming that the killer did not need to have any reason to be at the murder spots. Thatīs where you have ended up!!

Of course a murderer does not need to have any link or reason to a murder spot. But how does that detract from the value of actually having such links and having been proven to have been at one of the spots, alone with the victim, at the relevant hour? Can you explain that to me? Do you think that the police works from that assumption? "Letīs not ask the one we found by the corpse why he was there, guys"?
The people connected to a murder site, the ones who have been present at it or in itīs vicinity are the ones that always are looked upon as the primary murder material. Until they can be cleared, there is no reason to go looking for your everyday bully.

And have you read up on Ogorzow?

[John G]

It is a very common trait, and it is the base for the profiling business that is discussed out here. The reason lies in how the killer has comfort zones where he feels at ease. Such comfort zones need not be around his home only, they can be anywhere that he has been and where he knows the grounds. For example, when Ridgway was nicked, his wife realized that many of the murder spots were places that Gary had taken her to for picnics and such. He scouted the areas first, and killed there afterwards, knowing the grounds.

Okay, that's a very fair point. However, just based upon present residences, just about everyone in Whitechapel would be around a mile or less away from the C5 murder sites. Now, if you pick an individual at random, and expand the criteria of what constitutes a comfort zone to include, say, previous addresses, relatives' addresses, relatives' previous addresses ( and relatives could include, say, parents, grandparents, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, cousins, etc), places of work, former places of work, work routes, former work routes, favoured drinking establishments, former favoured drinking establishments, doctor's surgeries, former doctor's surgeries, girlfriend's residence, former girlfriend's residence, friends' addresses, former friends' addresses, various schools attended etc, then surely even Jack Random would be found to have a similar association to the various murder sites as Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

I`m sorry, Christer. I disagree.
Seaman is a proven homicidal lunatic who lived at the centre of the murders.
Proven homicidal lunatics win everytime

You canīt disagree, Jon. There is no learoom for it. The question at hand is not "Can he have been the Ripper?", a question I have already answered with a "Yes, he could".
The question at hand is instead this one: Does William Seaman have any proven reason to have visited the murder spots at the relevant hours, or, better still, can it be shown that he WAS in place in one or more of the spots at the relevant hours?

And when I say that there is not any identified reason at all on his behalf to have been in place at the relevant hours on any occasion, let alone is there any proven presence of his at a murder spot at the relevant hour, you can actually not disagree.

[Sam Flynn]

Jon Guy: There was no reason for Seaman to be wandering down Berner Street with a hammer on Sept 8th. Why should he need one for Sept 30th?

I havenīt the foggiest, Jon. I am quite certain that he could have had a reason just as he could have had no reason to be there. The crux is that we are discussing who we know of that DID have reasons to be at the different murder spots at the relevant hours

We simply don't know that Cross had reasons to be anywhere, other than on his journey to work on the 31st August. It's pure supposition that he had any reason to be at the other scenes of crime at the relevant times.

Apropos Jon's very cogent point about William Seaman: killers don't "need" reasons to be anywhere. But they do have needs, and these can take them anywhere without having recourse to any timetables, fixed routemaps, or conjectured visits to mum.

, and that discipline has Lechmere outclassing the rest of the - so far almost 100 per cent unnamed - field

They're all named in the censuses, electoral rolls and other registers. Thousands of them.