Tweet
Bridewell:
He went to work regularly. Innocent activity.
Yes, absolutely. And if I am correct, he also found himself regularly with a dead body.
If we donīt work from that, but instead focus just on Nichols, the same applies - he was alone with a dead body.
You are an ex-copper. You know that suspicion always must attach to people found alone by dead bodies, up til the point they are cleared. Unless, that is, the police sifting the information in question is gullible enough to be fooled.
This would be the working route of any man who lived in Bethnal Green and worked in Spitalfields.
No, it would not, actually. Very far from it. They are TWO routes, and therefore it applies that only the ones working inbetween the outlets into Bishopsgate are of interest. Plus we should not interest ourselves in "any man" living in Bethnal Green ad working in Spitalfields in the first place - we should ONLY look at the ones starting work at around 4 in the morning.
You are not alone in your efforts to fill the area with dozens, hundreds, thousands of men, Colin. And you are not alone in being wrong, given the true context.
The Times newspaper got his name as George Cross and that of his fellow witness as Robert Baul. We don't actually know what name he gave, only that The Times got both his names and Robert Paul's surname wrong.
That point is only interesting if we may speculate that the papers misheard Lechmer for Cross. And really ...!
Or inattentive Pc recalls conversation incorrectly.
And forgets that one man only came up to and spoke to him? No. Not a reasonable chance.
Speculation.
No. He said he would hear anything stirring at Browns, but he could not hear Paul until the latter stood on his toes - assumedly.
Speculation again.
To some extent - but speculation bolstered by the evidence.
This is a reference to the Stride murder, yes? the one you were convinced was not by the same hand until you learned that Lechmere's mother lived nearby?
How utterly sad! No, Colin, you need to read up on the threads. Folklore has it that "I was convinced" that Stride was not the Rippers. The true story is that I said that I thought she was probably not the Rippers. I was never convinced either way, but since the bulk of the posters said that she could not have been anything else than a Ripper victim, I told them in no uncertain terms that this was not true.
Details! Context! Read up before passing judgment.
And yes, when I saw that she fit perfectly into the Lechmere paths, I said that she may well have been the Rippers after all. Today, I think she WAS - but just like back then, I am not saying that I am absolutely certain. I canīt be that, see? But since I am much inclined (not fully convinced...) that Lechmere was the killer, the combined evidence speaks for Stride belonging to the tally.
A piece of advice - do not be afraid to change your mind when the evidence calls for it. Otherwise, you will end up cheering for the Hutchinson team. I will sneer at the Lechmere theory tomorrow - if the evidence requires it. But I would not be ashamed of having entertained the theory as long as it was the best one - by far.
It still is. And thatīs why I still champion it.
Mother who lived in heavily populated area, along with lots of other people's mothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends. You could stretch this to relevance if there was evidence that Lechmere had visited his mother on the evening in question - but you can't.
Yes, I could stretch that relevance if I had such proof. But it is quite enough that we know that Lechmere had reason to visit all the murder sites to conclude that the suspicion is more added to than detracted from.
Donīt mistake me for a raving idiot, Colin. I know the implications, I know what it takes to prove a case - and I know when suspicion must be added or detracted.
Not just one man, Fish, quite a few and, as you acknowledged in your Ripperologist article, all of what you claim is sinister is capable of perfectly innocent explanation.
Mmmm - but in this case I was specifically targetting you, Colin. It WAS you who wrote the "Man does this, man does that" post, was it not?
And I am glad that you noticed that I am capable to see what the evidence amounts to, taken in selective doses. I am sad, however, that you apparently think that it would somehow trip me to admit it.
You obviously think so and are perfectly entitled to do so.
Thatīs as sound an answer I could have hoped for.
All the best,
Fisherman
He went to work regularly. Innocent activity.
Yes, absolutely. And if I am correct, he also found himself regularly with a dead body.
If we donīt work from that, but instead focus just on Nichols, the same applies - he was alone with a dead body.
You are an ex-copper. You know that suspicion always must attach to people found alone by dead bodies, up til the point they are cleared. Unless, that is, the police sifting the information in question is gullible enough to be fooled.
This would be the working route of any man who lived in Bethnal Green and worked in Spitalfields.
No, it would not, actually. Very far from it. They are TWO routes, and therefore it applies that only the ones working inbetween the outlets into Bishopsgate are of interest. Plus we should not interest ourselves in "any man" living in Bethnal Green ad working in Spitalfields in the first place - we should ONLY look at the ones starting work at around 4 in the morning.
You are not alone in your efforts to fill the area with dozens, hundreds, thousands of men, Colin. And you are not alone in being wrong, given the true context.
The Times newspaper got his name as George Cross and that of his fellow witness as Robert Baul. We don't actually know what name he gave, only that The Times got both his names and Robert Paul's surname wrong.
That point is only interesting if we may speculate that the papers misheard Lechmer for Cross. And really ...!
Or inattentive Pc recalls conversation incorrectly.
And forgets that one man only came up to and spoke to him? No. Not a reasonable chance.
Speculation.
No. He said he would hear anything stirring at Browns, but he could not hear Paul until the latter stood on his toes - assumedly.
Speculation again.
To some extent - but speculation bolstered by the evidence.
This is a reference to the Stride murder, yes? the one you were convinced was not by the same hand until you learned that Lechmere's mother lived nearby?
How utterly sad! No, Colin, you need to read up on the threads. Folklore has it that "I was convinced" that Stride was not the Rippers. The true story is that I said that I thought she was probably not the Rippers. I was never convinced either way, but since the bulk of the posters said that she could not have been anything else than a Ripper victim, I told them in no uncertain terms that this was not true.
Details! Context! Read up before passing judgment.
And yes, when I saw that she fit perfectly into the Lechmere paths, I said that she may well have been the Rippers after all. Today, I think she WAS - but just like back then, I am not saying that I am absolutely certain. I canīt be that, see? But since I am much inclined (not fully convinced...) that Lechmere was the killer, the combined evidence speaks for Stride belonging to the tally.
A piece of advice - do not be afraid to change your mind when the evidence calls for it. Otherwise, you will end up cheering for the Hutchinson team. I will sneer at the Lechmere theory tomorrow - if the evidence requires it. But I would not be ashamed of having entertained the theory as long as it was the best one - by far.
It still is. And thatīs why I still champion it.
Mother who lived in heavily populated area, along with lots of other people's mothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends. You could stretch this to relevance if there was evidence that Lechmere had visited his mother on the evening in question - but you can't.
Yes, I could stretch that relevance if I had such proof. But it is quite enough that we know that Lechmere had reason to visit all the murder sites to conclude that the suspicion is more added to than detracted from.
Donīt mistake me for a raving idiot, Colin. I know the implications, I know what it takes to prove a case - and I know when suspicion must be added or detracted.
Not just one man, Fish, quite a few and, as you acknowledged in your Ripperologist article, all of what you claim is sinister is capable of perfectly innocent explanation.
Mmmm - but in this case I was specifically targetting you, Colin. It WAS you who wrote the "Man does this, man does that" post, was it not?
And I am glad that you noticed that I am capable to see what the evidence amounts to, taken in selective doses. I am sad, however, that you apparently think that it would somehow trip me to admit it.
You obviously think so and are perfectly entitled to do so.
Thatīs as sound an answer I could have hoped for.
All the best,
Fisherman
Comment