The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Elamarna]

My Last post here was nearly 200 posts ago.
Unfortunatley there is always a tendency for those on a mission to take over threads, this has gone to look at Eddowes and Mitre Square. Not related in any serious way to the title of the thread


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

And for whom of these non-starters

How do we know they're non-starters? The Ripper could be right there among them, staring us in the face; I doubt it, statistically, but you never know.

does it apply that they were either found at one or all of the murder sites

Cross wasn't "found" at a murder site either, never mind all of them.

or that they had reason to visit all the sites?

These people lived in the middle of Whitechapel, for God's sake!!! They don't need any of us to make up reasons for their being there, because they were there already - and not just them, either, but thousands upon thousands of other local males who weren't maniacs/lunatics.

(Sorry, Steve.)

[Busy Beaver]

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.

This and a number of other threads.

[caz]

But he was only observed at one murder site, and he had a perfectly legitimate reason for being there. Why would a serial killer be concerned with making sure they had an explanation for being present at all of the murder sites? In fact, I would have thought that anyone who happened to be observed at several of the murder sites would be automatically a prime suspect, regardless of what explanation they might give for being in the general area.

Precisely the point I have tried to make on numerous occasions, John, only for Fish to ridicule it.

Maybe I really ought to take up knitting or baking instead, as Fish advised, because I thought serial killers generally try to avoid anything which could connect them with one or more of their victims, either at the time of the crime or as a result of police investigations. They'd surely prefer to avoid being recognised and identified, either in the company of a victim, or near to the scene of crime. I'm not sure I've ever heard of one actually setting out to offend only in locations where they could be expected to be around the time of the offence, but maybe Fish has half a dozen examples up his sleeve? Presumably all caught - and fairly easily - because they had connections with each of their crime scenes which led to their identification.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There is no evidence whatsoever that Cross was at 29 Hanbury Street, Berner Street, Mitre Square or Miller's Court, and it would be much easier for Joe Bloggs to have been at those sites at any time of the morning than it ever would be for Cross.

And the beauty of it from Joe Bloggs's point of view is that he wouldn't have already volunteered his identity as the first man to be seen with the woman butchered in Buck's Row while on his usual route to work! So he'd have been in a far better position to murder again the following weekend in Hanbury St, then again in all those other places, without the risk of anyone saying: "Hang on, this same Joe Bloggs can also be connected in time and place with the Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly murders" - whether Joe Bloggs could be thus connected or not. And Bloggs would have been infinitely better off in practice if he could not.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

At a stage where there is a suspect, profiling has no value at all and no police force will engage any profiler to help out. It is only if the suspect can be exonerated that the police must take a step back and start from the beginning all over again. If the suspect instead matches the criteria, the case for guilt is immensely strengthened and prosecution is likely around the corner.

But Lechmere is not a suspect on the basis of a single murder having been committed on his legitimate route to work. He doesn't even begin to match the 'criteria' geographically, unless you can demonstrate very strongly that he was in the immediate vicinity of other murders as they happened. This wasn't a tiny rural village, Fish. The area was teeming at all hours of day and night with men between the ages of 16 and 60, any of whom could have been unlucky enough to pass within yards of where one woman would shortly be, or had just been attacked in the street, and also to have been within easy walking distance of other similar crimes in that same overcrowded district, without having had anything to do with any of them.

Your 'case for guilt' relies for its very existence on Lechmere having been generous enough to identify himself as just one of those men, which allowed you to take what little is known about him, bulk it out with half-baked speculation and pour the worst possible interpretation all over it, instead of giving him any benefit of the doubt.

I know - or at least I think I know - you would not do this in a real life court situation, if serving on a jury and asked to deliver your verdict on the evidence. You would acquit in a heartbeat on the grounds of reasonable doubt. Why you would treat Lechmere so differently, because this is a cold case and he is history, being long dead, is something you must have rationalised to your own satisfaction. Yes, it's just an old murder mystery, which anyone is entitled to have a crack at, but no, that doesn't mean a case for guilt, seemingly made out of thin air and little else, should be stomached by your cold case jury here. You can force feed it to us all you want, but don't be surprised to see it come up again all over your shoes - carrots, sweetcorn and all.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

That's a bit different from your argument that Lechmere would have had legitimate reasons for being at or near each murder location at the time that it happened. Presumably Ridgway didn't kill anyone on his way to or from one of those scouting outings with the wife, while she averted her eyes. So what would his legitimate reasons have been for going there, or being seen there, around the time a murder was committed? He could hardly have said "I was enjoying a picnic for one - who doesn't?"

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

And the beauty of it from Joe Bloggs's point of view is that he wouldn't have already volunteered his identity as the first man to be seen with the woman butchered in Buck's Row while on his usual route to work! So he'd have been in a far better position to murder again the following weekend in Hanbury St, then again in all those other places, without the risk of anyone saying: "Hang on, this same Joe Bloggs can also be connected in time and place with the Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly murders" - whether Joe Bloggs could be thus connected or not. And Bloggs would have been infinitely better off in practice if he could not.

Lech the Ripper does seem to have made life difficult for himself.

He waits to approach the first witness to arrive instead of chancing his escape.
He accompanies said witness to find a policeman, despite the bloodstains and murder weapon he might still have on his person.
He voluntarily comes forward to attend the murder inquest.
He gives his christian name, home address and place of work to the authorities, thus enabling them to keep tabs on him.
After his close shave in Buck's Row, he continues to commit murders at sites along his work route.

Luckily for Lech, the keystone cops never did their homework and he was allowed to run amok in Whitechapel.

[caz]

Problem: There is no Joe Bloggs we know of. And if we did, he would not even be a person of interest. Living nearby a murder scene is not suspicious in any shape or form.

Assuming the ripper was never suspected at the time, could it not have been precisely because no connections were ever made between him and his victims or crime scenes, and Joe Bloggs the serial killer remained sensibly anonymous, giving away no freebie connections of his own?

There is no 'problem', Fish, if this was indeed the case; it is surely a very likely explanation for the murderer not being identified. But I can see how it would tend to scupper your own efforts to finger one of the relatively tiny number of named individuals involved in some way.

Your problem, as I see it, is that you have yet to establish just one proven connection between Lechmere and a Whitechapel murder, away from Buck's Row, Polly Nichols and one morning in August.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

So if you were a policeman in 1888, Fish, and you stopped and questioned every man you saw in the immediate vicinity and aftermath of a murder, you would have rounded up all those who had legitimate reasons for being there, and treated them as likely suspects, while anyone who could not account for his movements innocently, you would send on his way with a cheery goodnight, because no self-respecting serial killer would ever be that stupid?

Is this what you truly believe? That it's more suspicious if someone has an innocent reason for being near a crime scene than if they don't?

Love,

Caz
X

[Elamarna]

Just a quick update.
As many will know I moved in late summer from London to Glasgow.
And I was expecting the book to be ready this week. However l moved into a 1 bed flat 24th October, at very short notice, and it has taken more time than i expected to set up.

Therefore the book is knocked back by a month, it is a great pity it will not be out for Xmas, but expect it very early in January.


Again sorry for the delay.


Steve

[Fisherman]

So if you were a policeman in 1888, Fish, and you stopped and questioned every man you saw in the immediate vicinity and aftermath of a murder, you would have rounded up all those who had legitimate reasons for being there, and treated them as likely suspects, while anyone who could not account for his movements innocently, you would send on his way with a cheery goodnight, because no self-respecting serial killer would ever be that stupid?

Is this what you truly believe? That it's more suspicious if someone has an innocent reason for being near a crime scene than if they don't?

Love,

Caz
X

Steve has explicitly asked not to have this thread of his hijacked, and so whatever questions, misinterpretations and falsities you have that are not dealing with his book should be presented on another thread/s.

[Elamarna]

Steve has explicitly asked not to have this thread of his hijacked, and so whatever questions, misinterpretations and falsities you have that are not dealing with his book should be presented on another thread/s.

If you mean stay on topic, the Bucks Row project, that is very true. Thank you for reminding people Christer, looking at the posting dates i think Caz may have missed my request, it happens.

However of course questions about the work or the delay are very welcome and are on topic.


Steve

[caz]

Apologies, Steve. I did miss your request, posting my responses to previous posts on this thread before I saw it, by which time it was too late to un-post them, and I reckoned that if anyone wanted to respond to my responses, they would do the necessary transferring of all the related posts to another thread. I had/have no desire to do so myself.

Good luck with the book!

Love,

Caz
X