The BIG Poll

[FISHY1118]

But that’s not the case Fishy. Richard states a point then, and others, respond giving reasons why this point is untrue then….nothing. He can’t fall back on the “what’s the point of trying to explain” position. It’s a cop-out. The reason that he doesn’t answer is simple…there is no valid answer and he’s fully aware of the fact.

I was merely pointing out my own case experience Herlock.

[FISHY1118]

No he didn’t Fishy. He won’t discuss it.

This is what I posted about the search for Puckeridge:


Major Henry Smith

"After the second crime I sent word to Sir Charles Warren that I had discovered a man very likely to be the man wanted. He certainly had all the qualifications requisite. He had been a medical student; he had been in a lunatic asylum; he spent all his time with women of loose character, whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns, two of these farthings having been found in the pocket of the murdered woman. Sir Charles failed to find him. I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. I sent up two men, and there he was; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt."

[From Constable to Commissioner, p. 147]

——————————————————————

Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office dated 19 September 1888

"A man called Puckeridge was released from an asylum on 4 August. He was educated as a Surgeon - has threatened to rip people up with a long knife. He is being looked for but cannot be found as yet."

[Evans and Skinner, Ultimate Sourcebook, p. 132]

——————————————————————————

On September 24th 1888 Major Henry Smith sent two men to arrest his suspect. He was followed from Cheapside to his lodgings in a Rupert Street coffee house.


The following reports were initialled by Major Smith himself.


25th Sepr. 1888


I beg to report that in company

with D. S. Child, I saw Mr. W. Tolfree, Proprietor

of the Imperial Coffee House, 50 Rupert Street.

in answer to our Enquiry he informed us that

the man Puckridge had been Lodging with

him for the last four weeks, and had slept

every night in the House. he also said Puckridge

was Eccentric in his habits and given to Eccessive

Drinking, and appears to have ample means.


Fredk. Lawley

D. S.

R. Child. D. S.


and


P. C. P. 105 Benham reports that at 3.30. P.M. 24th

Inst, he saw Puckridge at the west End of Cheapside

followed him through Cheapside, Threadneedle Street, Austinfrias

to No 2 Circas Place London Wall, Puckridge remained

there till 6. P.M. when he left followed by Benham

& P. C. P Smith, he went into Lehmans Confectioners

London Wall, then to the Stirling Castle P. H. &

then through Coleman Street into Cheapside

through the Strand to Charing Cross, waited outside

the Post Office Charing Cross, then on to Leicester

Square, Coventry Street, Lockharts Coffee House,

remained there one hour & 30 minutes then came

out & walked up & down Coventry Street

then returned to Lockharts remained there about

ten Minutes then walked up & down Coventry

Street for about half an hour, then went into

a P. H. in Rupert Street, stopped about 10 minutes

then went to the Imperial Coffee House 50 Rupert

Street, opened the Private door with a latch Key

and went in at 9.45. P.M. I watched the Place

till 12.30. A.M. when the Place was [?]Cosed [Closed?], there

is a notice in the Window - Beds to let for Gentlemen.


25th Sepr.

1888


Thomas Benham

P. C 105

————————————————————————

So….Smith’s quote about his suspect - Sir Charles Warren writing to the Home Secretary about the suspect, Puckeridge - then two reports from the actual officers involved in tracking Puckeridge down to RUPERT STREET - and as Smith stated that he had an alibi, there we have it in black and white…his landlord said that Puckeridge had slept at his premises every night for the previous four weeks; exonerating him of the murders of Nichols and Chapman.

So we have it 100% proven that Puckeridge was Smith’s suspect, Richard is fully aware of this information, and yet he just keeps on posting that Smith’s suspect was mathematically certain to have been Thompson.

He did , in a post #24

[Herlock Sholmes]

He did , in a post #24

Of what thread?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was merely pointing out my own case experience Herlock.

Yes, if you don’t wish to respond to specifics then that’s your decision.

[FISHY1118]

Yes, if you don’t wish to respond to specifics then that’s your decision.

The reason why people dont respond was cleary spelt out in ,Caz,s Georges and Myself post . If you dont wish to acknowledge that fact, thats also your decision.

[caz]

Sometimes, it's the way questions are asked, and how soon the same questions are repeated when no response is forthcoming, that can put people off engaging. It may be old-fashioned, but people tend to respond to posters who ask them nicely - whether their stated 'facts' are disputed or their opinions differ wildly - and then wait patiently for any response. Few of us have time to be here on a daily or even weekly basis, and fewer still want to return to find only hostility aimed in their direction during their absence. If someone has been the model of politeness and restraint and gets nothing back from a poster they have questioned, we may all reach our own conclusions, but we may still be wrong. Nobody responds well to robust criticism of a pet theory or strong belief, but why should anyone respond at all when that criticism extends to making repeated demands on their time, to enter or continue a discussion which won't lead anywhere and is likely to become heated and unpleasant for everyone?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

The reason why people dont respond was cleary spelt out in ,Caz,s Georges and Myself post . If you dont wish to acknowledge that fact, thats also your decision.

I know very well why some people won’t respond Fishy. And so does everyone else.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sometimes, it's the way questions are asked, and how soon the same questions are repeated when no response is forthcoming, that can put people off engaging. It may be old-fashioned, but people tend to respond to posters who ask them nicely - whether their stated 'facts' are disputed or their opinions differ wildly - and then wait patiently for any response. Few of us have time to be here on a daily or even weekly basis, and fewer still want to return to find only hostility aimed in their direction during their absence. If someone has been the model of politeness and restraint and gets nothing back from a poster they have questioned, we may all reach our own conclusions, but we may still be wrong. Nobody responds well to robust criticism of a pet theory or strong belief, but why should anyone respond at all when that criticism extends to making repeated demands on their time, to enter or continue a discussion which won't lead anywhere and is likely to become heated and unpleasant for everyone?

Love,

Caz
X

Richard has had enough time to make lengthy post after lengthy post Caz. Responding to my questions/ points (as I’ve always responded to his) would have taken him about a 10th of the time that it took him to write his last half a dozen posts. Surely that’s a ‘politeness’ issue too? Yes, I get exasperated but it’s not much to ask on a discussion forum is it from someone proposing a theory/suspect. A simple answer to a straightforward question. I wasn’t asking for a dissertation from him.

[FISHY1118]

I know very well why some people won’t respond Fishy. And so does everyone else.

Not Everyone , Caz ,George and Myself, dont .

[FISHY1118]

No he didn’t Fishy. He won’t discuss it.

This is what I posted about the search for Puckeridge:


Major Henry Smith

"After the second crime I sent word to Sir Charles Warren that I had discovered a man very likely to be the man wanted. He certainly had all the qualifications requisite. He had been a medical student; he had been in a lunatic asylum; he spent all his time with women of loose character, whom he bilked by giving them polished farthings instead of sovereigns, two of these farthings having been found in the pocket of the murdered woman. Sir Charles failed to find him. I thought he was likely to be in Rupert Street, Haymarket. I sent up two men, and there he was; but, polished farthings and all, he proved an alibi without the shadow of doubt."

[From Constable to Commissioner, p. 147]

——————————————————————

Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office dated 19 September 1888

"A man called Puckeridge was released from an asylum on 4 August. He was educated as a Surgeon - has threatened to rip people up with a long knife. He is being looked for but cannot be found as yet."

[Evans and Skinner, Ultimate Sourcebook, p. 132]

——————————————————————————

On September 24th 1888 Major Henry Smith sent two men to arrest his suspect. He was followed from Cheapside to his lodgings in a Rupert Street coffee house.


The following reports were initialled by Major Smith himself.


25th Sepr. 1888


I beg to report that in company

with D. S. Child, I saw Mr. W. Tolfree, Proprietor

of the Imperial Coffee House, 50 Rupert Street.

in answer to our Enquiry he informed us that

the man Puckridge had been Lodging with

him for the last four weeks, and had slept

every night in the House. he also said Puckridge

was Eccentric in his habits and given to Eccessive

Drinking, and appears to have ample means.


Fredk. Lawley

D. S.

R. Child. D. S.


and


P. C. P. 105 Benham reports that at 3.30. P.M. 24th

Inst, he saw Puckridge at the west End of Cheapside

followed him through Cheapside, Threadneedle Street, Austinfrias

to No 2 Circas Place London Wall, Puckridge remained

there till 6. P.M. when he left followed by Benham

& P. C. P Smith, he went into Lehmans Confectioners

London Wall, then to the Stirling Castle P. H. &

then through Coleman Street into Cheapside

through the Strand to Charing Cross, waited outside

the Post Office Charing Cross, then on to Leicester

Square, Coventry Street, Lockharts Coffee House,

remained there one hour & 30 minutes then came

out & walked up & down Coventry Street

then returned to Lockharts remained there about

ten Minutes then walked up & down Coventry

Street for about half an hour, then went into

a P. H. in Rupert Street, stopped about 10 minutes

then went to the Imperial Coffee House 50 Rupert

Street, opened the Private door with a latch Key

and went in at 9.45. P.M. I watched the Place

till 12.30. A.M. when the Place was [?]Cosed [Closed?], there

is a notice in the Window - Beds to let for Gentlemen.


25th Sepr.

1888


Thomas Benham

P. C 105

————————————————————————

So….Smith’s quote about his suspect - Sir Charles Warren writing to the Home Secretary about the suspect, Puckeridge - then two reports from the actual officers involved in tracking Puckeridge down to RUPERT STREET - and as Smith stated that he had an alibi, there we have it in black and white…his landlord said that Puckeridge had slept at his premises every night for the previous four weeks; exonerating him of the murders of Nichols and Chapman.

So we have it 100% proven that Puckeridge was Smith’s suspect, Richard is fully aware of this information, and yet he just keeps on posting that Smith’s suspect was mathematically certain to have been Thompson.

Ok Herlock , its seems after going back and fourth over this perticular point with further consideration , i will concede that Smiths suspect was Puckeridge not Thompson .

Now i still believe that there remains an enormous amount of detailed documented evidence [evidence being in my opinion that makes me suspect Thompson other than just Smiths 5 points that Richard mentioned so often in his post . Its this evidence that i remain of the opinion he still makes better suspect that either Druitt or Cutbush.

Now bearing that in mind ,Puckeridge [smiths suspect] according to the evidence has an alibi where as Thompson does not, so we cant rule him out .

Im not sure why Richard spent so much time and effort on Smiths points when there was so much else available to argue Thompson case without Smiths imput in regards to Puckeridge. .I will endeavour to ask tho.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok Herlock , its seems after going back and fourth over this perticular point with further consideration , i will concede that Smiths suspect was Puckeridge not Thompson .

Now i still believe that there remains an enormous amount of detailed documented evidence [evidence being in my opinion that makes me suspect Thompson other than just Smiths 5 points that Richard mentioned so often in his post . Its this evidence that i remain of the opinion he still makes better suspect that either Druitt or Cutbush.

Now bearing that in mind ,Puckeridge [smiths suspect] according to the evidence has an alibi where as Thompson does not, so we cant rule him out .

Im not sure why Richard spent so much time and effort on Smiths points when there was so much else available to argue Thompson case without Smiths imput in regards to Puckeridge. .I will endeavour to ask tho.

Thank you for acknowledging this point Fishy.

If you get time you could look into why Richard feels justified in making this claim: “He lived within 100 metres of the 1888 murder sites.”

[Abby Normal]

Ok Herlock , its seems after going back and fourth over this perticular point with further consideration , i will concede that Smiths suspect was Puckeridge not Thompson .

Now i still believe that there remains an enormous amount of detailed documented evidence [evidence being in my opinion that makes me suspect Thompson other than just Smiths 5 points that Richard mentioned so often in his post . Its this evidence that i remain of the opinion he still makes better suspect that either Druitt or Cutbush.

Now bearing that in mind ,Puckeridge [smiths suspect] according to the evidence has an alibi where as Thompson does not, so we cant rule him out .

Im not sure why Richard spent so much time and effort on Smiths points when there was so much else available to argue Thompson case without Smiths imput in regards to Puckeridge. .I will endeavour to ask tho.

nice fishy. good for you! puck and thompson used to be way higher up on my list, but after all this research, debate and analysis they have both dropped alot. i still think both are still valid suspects but they have been relegated to my long shot category.

but cutbush on tje other hand has risen to my valid and very possible category. I think its good to keep an open mind as we learn more about the candidates.

and btw druitt used to be higher on my list until all the stuff about the cricket matches came out.

and i would be remiss if i didnt point out that its nice to see posters concede points instead of staying locked in a personal death struggle lol. good job.

[caz]

Richard has had enough time to make lengthy post after lengthy post Caz. Responding to my questions/ points (as I’ve always responded to his) would have taken him about a 10th of the time that it took him to write his last half a dozen posts. Surely that’s a ‘politeness’ issue too? Yes, I get exasperated but it’s not much to ask on a discussion forum is it from someone proposing a theory/suspect. A simple answer to a straightforward question. I wasn’t asking for a dissertation from him.

Fair enough, Herlock, although I thought you responded to some of Richard's lengthy posts with a terse one-liner about them being more 'nonsense' created by AI. If there has been any direct discussion between the two of you since then I think I must have missed it. I've seen him responding directly to various other posters who have issues with his stated facts and reasoning, so why do you suppose he has not extended the same courtesy to you?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fair enough, Herlock, although I thought you responded to some of Richard's lengthy posts with a terse one-liner about them being more 'nonsense' created by AI. If there has been any direct discussion between the two of you since then I think I must have missed it. I've seen him responding directly to various other posters who have issues with his stated facts and reasoning, so why do you suppose he has not extended the same courtesy to you?

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, i certainly accept that I allowed my sense of irritation to be reflected in my posting style which I should have tried to avoid (although others did point out the AI thing before I mentioned it).

I honestly think that the reason Richard won’t respond is because he doesn’t have answers that stand up, especially to defend his claim that Thompson was staying at the Refuge at the time of the murders. He could have said something like “ In The Merry England article, 1891, Thompson mentioned seeing the men queueing outside the Providence Row Refuge which at least shows that, at some point, he was in Whitechapel. Unfortunately though we have no evidence that he actually stayed there or indeed what year he’d seen the building.” That would have been a fair and factual summary but Richard somehow arrives at Thompson living within a hundred metres of the murders. Presented as a fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

18 voters so far. I was hoping for more but obviously everyone is free to vote or not. I said November 25 as the final day but if no one else is going to vote I’ll give it another week.