The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Sam Flynn]

I want your evidence that these men had established reasons to visit the murder sites at the relevant hours.

They were LIVING there, for God's sake. They could easily have nipped out, and got quickly back to safety, whenever they felt the urge.

Besides, you've yet to present ANY evidence that Cross had any reason to actually be AT the site of any murder at the relevant times, apart from Bucks Row, where he had entirely legitimate reasons to be.

[Abby Normal]

Can't see how that would work. We can heap as much scrap iron onto the pile as we like, but that doesn't increase our chances of striking gold.

In contrast, it's a fairly safe bet that there'd be a good few dozen much stronger Ripper candidates among the tens of thousands of other locals who haven't yet been named.

Hi Sam

We can heap as much scrap iron onto the pile as we like, but that doesn't increase our chances of striking gold.

Dosnt this type of reasoning also include your thousands of un-named suspects who have ZERO evidence against them? and even more so?

In contrast, it's a fairly safe bet that there'd be a good few dozen much stronger Ripper candidates among the tens of thousands of other locals who haven't yet been named.

MUCH stronger ripper candidates? how does that work? sorry I dont understand this reasoning at all.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: They were LIVING there, for God's sake.

They could easily have nipped out, and got quickly back to safety, whenever they felt the urge.

So could the dwellers alongside Lake Sammamish. But none of the people you list is recorded to have a reason to pass through Spitalfields in the early morning hours - the way Lechmere is. And none of them is recorded to have had ties to St Georges and/or the Mitre Square area - the way Lechmere is.I´m all for trying to establish the whereabouts of each and every suspect at the relevant hours. But you cannot speak about how I am "making excuses" for why Lechmere could have been in place, only to then cry out "They were LIVIBG there, for God´s sake". It´s hypocracy de luxe.
Lechmere is the best suspect from a geographical angle on account of having these ties. Why is it so hard to live with?

Besides, you've yet to present ANY evidence that Cross had any reason to actually be AT the site of any murder at the relevant times, apart from Bucks Row, where he had entirely legitimate reasons to be.

No, I do not. That has already been done numerous times: Because all the murder sites in Spitalfields were places that Lechmere could have passed by without loosing time on his route to work. Old Montague Street has been clocked by Edward Stow as slightly faster than the Hanbury Street route, so there is your evidence that Lechmere had reason to use it. Similarly, Dorset Street provided a short-cut from the Hanbury Street route to Broad Street, so there is THAT reason.
Accordingly, he would have entirely "legal reasons" to be at all the murder sites in Spitalfields.
Now, if there is nothing more...?

[Fisherman]

MUCH stronger ripper candidates? how does that work? sorry I dont understand this reasoning at all.

It´s the hope of a drowning man - invent a truth and hope it floats.

In my book, it sinks as fast as any stone.

[Batman]

There is not a iot of evidence placing him at or anywhere near any of the murder sites. Of course, once one suspects a person, one must also accept that he would have been at the sites, otherwise he cannot be the killer. In that respect Bury, Levy, Kosminski, Carroll, van Gogh, Sickert, Barnett, Fleming and a whole lot of people must ALL have been at the sites. Simultaneously, even.

Kozminski can be placed closer to Berner St., then Lechmere by way of relatives, as you do for Lechmere, by way of relatives.

But that is something else than what we have in Lechmeres case, where there is absolute proof that he was at one of the sites at the relevant hour (and even found standing alone, in close proximity to the victim), and where he had viable and logical reasons to have visited the rest of the sites too.

According to Swanson, Lewende placed Kozminski in Church-passage, Mitre Square minutes before Eddowes murder.

There would have been numerous streets that were empty, and you can put your hand in a pocket. Far from being submerged in shite, there were spots of faeces on the rag. And beggars can´t be choosers; he reasonably took what he could lay his hands on. Plus, of course, were hou not one of those who argue that it was pitch dark in Mitre Square? Dark enough perhaps, for **** on a rag to stay undetected?

You are suggesting he couldn't find anything at work and so had to use a piece of the woman's apron he had carried with him. That's hard to believe including believing JtR could keep going after the resulting infection.

The whole claim of fecal stained apron bandages is a load of cobblers. Eddowes inventory had plenty of unused pieces of cloth. 12 pieces in fact. She also had another apron part that was mended. JtR deliberately took the apron piece to deliberately draw attention to the graffiti. That's why he cut off the apron piece.

Ah, well that settles it then. I was not aware that you got to make the call about which streets he used.

Actually, you are locking him down to all the murder sites, not me. Also, you have totally failed to explain why he went back to the murder scene and then to Goulston St., when his safest route home is Bethnal Green Road without having to go near Duke St., Mitre Sq., or the Goulston area. This part of your story is inexplicable... and the fact he has his hand bandaged in the victim's own apron piece with poo stains on it.

[caz]

I still don't get this obsession of Fishy's that the ripper would have wanted 'established reasons' to visit his own murder sites at the relevant hours.

How many murder scenes could any identifiable individual afford to have had known associations with before alarm bells would be ringing their little clappers off?

At the Dog & Duck:

"Blimey, Bert. That Charlie Cross fellow had established reasons for turning up like clockwork near the scene and hour of every blinkin' one of them Whitechapel murders. Must be just coincidence though cos his reasons were always totally innocent ones."

"You don't think, Fred, that this explains why those women were killed where and when they were? Because Cross was also a murdering b*stard who saw 'em coming and took advantage like?"

"Blimey, Bert, you're a genius. I never fought of that. What's your poison?"

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Batman:

Kozminski can be placed closer to Berner St., then Lechmere by way of relatives, as you do for Lechmere, by way of relatives.

And Hutchinson can be placed closer to Millers Court. But then, for both men, it all runs dry. Too bad, eh?


According to Swanson, Lewende placed Kozminski in Church-passage, Mitre Square minutes before Eddowes murder.

Isn´t Lawende that man who explicitly stated that he would not be able to recognize the man he saw? Or am I mistaken?

You are suggesting he couldn't find anything at work and so had to use a piece of the woman's apron he had carried with him. That's hard to believe including believing JtR could keep going after the resulting infection.

Why is it hard to believe? Do you think there was bandage lying around in the Broad Street depot? Or that the horses offered medical assistance? If he DID cut himself, he would have arrived in the depot with his hand wrapped in the rag. Why change it? As for infections, the longest gap in the series came after the double event. Maybe he was infected in that period? Who knows?

The whole claim of fecal stained apron bandages is a load of cobblers. Eddowes inventory had plenty of unused pieces of cloth. 12 pieces in fact. She also had another apron part that was mended. JtR deliberately took the apron piece to deliberately draw attention to the graffiti. That's why he cut off the apron piece.

Oh, my - it seems you have no need to discuss the options. Or, to be more precise, that there ARE no options - you have already worked it out, and you know the solution.
Well done, Batman!



Actually, you are locking him down to all the murder sites, not me.

Am I? How? What I recall is my saying that there was logical reason for him to pass all the sites. That is a far cry from locking him down in any respect. So you need to explain what it is you have seen that allows for your interpretation. Be my guest.

Also, you have totally failed to explain why he went back to the murder scene and then to Goulston St., when his safest route home is Bethnal Green Road without having to go near Duke St., Mitre Sq., or the Goulston area. This part of your story is inexplicable... and the fact he has his hand bandaged in the victim's own apron piece with poo stains on it.

It is as inexplicable as we choose to believe. If you find it impossible that he used the rag to stop the bloodflow I suggest may have been there, then fine. We can all see that the idea is slightly dumb, but it´s entirely your choice.
If you want to believe that there were streets the killer would not have used, instead opting for your suggestions, then equally fine. It is arrogant and quite possibly totally wrong, but again, we all have a choice.

[Fisherman]

Caz: I still don't get this obsession of Fishy's that the ripper would have wanted 'established reasons' to visit his own murder sites at the relevant hours.

Yes, it is true that you don´t get things, Caz. For example, I am not saying that he must have had a reason to kill in St Georges. What I am saying is that it was some way away from his lodgings, and he did have very strong ties to the area, so I am pointing out that if anybody (people are so very different) fancies that there must be a reason, then I can provide a few suggestions.
Are we clear on this now? Do we see that the only obsession around is your obsession to attack the Lechmere theory? Good!

How many murder scenes could any identifiable individual afford to have had known associations with before alarm bells would be ringing their little clappers off?

Many. Apparently, Lechmere never was a suspect, and the information was around back then too. But you need to understand a few things about the police and the prevailing preferences in terms of suspect viability to be able to fully process this matter.

At the Dog & Duck:

"Blimey, Bert. That Charlie Cross fellow had established reasons for turning up like clockwork near the scene and hour of every blinkin' one of them Whitechapel murders. Must be just coincidence though cos his reasons were always totally innocent ones."

"You don't think, Fred, that this explains why those women were killed where and when they were? Because Cross was also a murdering b*stard who saw 'em coming and took advantage like?"

"Blimey, Bert, you're a genius. I never fought of that. What's your poison?"

The whole history of ripperology is full of Freds, Caz. You are one of them. Now you can laugh.

[Sam Flynn]

Batman: Kozminski can be placed closer to Berner St., then Lechmere by way of relatives, as you do for Lechmere, by way of relatives.

And Hutchinson can be placed closer to Millers Court. But then, for both men, it all runs dry.

It doesn't "run dry" for Hutchinson and his ilk at all.

Living close to the epicentre of the murders, people in Hutch's position could fan out in any direction, get to a (nearby) murder site and back whenever they chose. What's more, they'd need no reasons/excuses/devices to place them on the (nearby) streets other than to satisfy their murderous impulses.

[Sam Flynn]

MUCH stronger ripper candidates?

Why not?

how does that work?

Statistically. It's a safe bet that the number of potentially strong Ripper candidates out of (say) 20,000 men in rough, crime-ridden Whitechapel would outnumber our notional "Top Ten" named suspects by a considerable margin. If just half of one percent of that 20,000 were either violent, misogynistic, mentally disturbed or some combination of all three, then we're looking at 100 potentially strong Ripper candidates right off the bat.

It´s the hope of a drowning man - invent a truth and hope it floats.

Wrong on all counts. I wish you'd think things through.

[Batman]

Batman:

Also, you have totally failed to explain why he went back to the murder scene and then to Goulston St., when his safest route home is Bethnal Green Road without having to go near Duke St., Mitre Sq., or the Goulston area. This part of your story is inexplicable... and the fact he has his hand bandaged in the victim's own apron piece with poo stains on it.

It is as inexplicable as we choose to believe. If you find it impossible that he used the rag to stop the bloodflow I suggest may have been there, then fine. We can all see that the idea is slightly dumb, but it´s entirely your choice.
If you want to believe that there were streets the killer would not have used, instead opting for your suggestions, then equally fine. It is arrogant and quite possibly totally wrong, but again, we all have a choice.

I don't know why you argue he goes to work after murdering Eddowes at all?

Also, why don't you just didn't argue that he took the apron for the same reason they used in the contemporary? To send them a message in chalk.

[John G]

Okay, according to Google Maps this is the most direct walking route from Mitre Street to Doveton Street.

From Mitre Street you turn left into Aldgate High Street. This leads on to Whitchapel High Street, the first left turning being Goulston Street. Continue down Whitechapel High Street, which eventually becomes Whitechapel Road. Turn left into what is now the A107 (Cambridge Heath Road), then right into Cephas Street. Continue for a short distance then turn first left into Wickford Street and then first right into Doveton Street.

The entire journey amounts to 1.3 miles, which Google Maps estimates can be walked in 27 minutes. However, I may be older than Lechmere was, and I can walk 1.2 miles in 18 minutes, so for someone used to long walks it may have taken a lot less than this, not taking into account a short detour into Goulston Street, of course!

I have to say, what surprises me is how direct this route is. For instance, Aldgate High Street, Whitechapel High Street, and Cambridge Heath Road is effectively one continuous Road. Then all that's left are a couple of short turns into Cephas Street and Wickford Street and he's basically home.

[Fisherman]

It doesn't "run dry" for Hutchinson and his ilk at all.

Living close to the epicentre of the murders, people in Hutch's position could fan out in any direction, get to a (nearby) murder site and back whenever they chose. What's more, they'd need no reasons/excuses/devices to place them on the (nearby) streets other than to satisfy their murderous impulses.

Yes, they - and Queeen Victoria - COULD "fan out" in any direction. All we KNOW, however, is that Hutchinson was present outside Millers Court (although we are uncertain of the date as such). After that, it runs dry, I´m afraid. We have no further confirmation of him moving in the Spitalfields area or in St Georges or up at Mitre Square.

It is in no way illogical to propose that he MAY have been there on occasion or even on a frequent basis. But it remains a fact that we have no records of it, nor any specific reason to believe that he must have been in place at any time.

In that context, he falls woefully short of Lechmere when comparing. The carman had a reason to traverse Spitalfields in the early working day mornings. No such - or other - reason has been identified for Hutchinson. Lechmere had reason to visit his mother/daughter and/or friends in St Georges. No such - or other - reason has been identified for Hutchinson.

You either understand this and realize the difference or you don´t. Aternatively, you do understand it (it is not so very hard at all), but you are so entrenched in your Lechmere theory hatred that you cannot bring yourself to say "Yes, you are right, Lechmere is the suspect who has the most geographical factors going for him".

[Fisherman]

Wrong on all counts. I wish you'd think things through.

Why? It would put you and me on totally contrary sides of the thinking process.

[Fisherman]

Batman: I don't know why you argue he goes to work after murdering Eddowes at all?

I don´t. I am saying that he goes to Broad Street to deposit innards and clean up, not that he commences working. He goes to his place of work, not to work.

Also, why don't you just didn't argue that he took the apron for the same reason they used in the contemporary? To send them a message in chalk.

No. I don´t think the killer wrote that message in the first place. I never did. Maybe you just got that wrong ... too?