Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Consciousness of Guilt: Buck's Row

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
    Balderdash! Initially, I tried tact. I tried praising the work you'd put in. I paid the requisite homage to your keen insight and dogged work ethic. I tried being gentle, saying that I was unconvinced, but perhaps with more evidence I could be. Then came the barrage of posts - from you - stating that you'd no wish to waste time trying to educate those too dim and lacking in knowledge (of the case) to be educated, those condescending, taunting, infuriating posts that you know full well are designed to denigrate anyone not cheering your "theory". I was then compelled - regrettably - to call your "theory" what it is: unreasonable, untenable, unbelievable, against any application of common sense, and ultimately laughable (especially when one considers the incomparable "Mizen Scam").

    And now you won't even respond to me. No more phone calls. Birthday cards. Valentines. Frankly, it hurt. Badly.
    Sorry to hear about your problem with Fisherman. He does not communicate with me either. I asked him some scientific questions and he stopped communicating. He did so because he wasn´t able to answer my questions.

    Regards, Pierre

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Okay, then we are working from the presumtion that I am to blame whereas you have no part in it at all. Would that be correct?
      If it was just me you may have a point, I know that I'm not the most tactful bloke on earth, but it seems to be anyone with the hide to disagree with you.
      G U T

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by GUT View Post
        If it was just me you may have a point, I know that I'm not the most tactful bloke on earth, but it seems to be anyone with the hide to disagree with you.
        I have to disagree slightly on that. Fisherman's been nothing but nice and direct with me. I appreciate the honest answers he provides even if we disagree on some points.

        It's my opinion of course, but I think there are a lot of anti-lechmere or undecided Lechmere who are trying their damnedest to change Fisherman's mind and that's not necessary. He may very well be absolutely correct and if he believes so then so be it.

        Some posters like Trevor will just post to get under your skin or try to make you look like a complete moron because you may not be schooled in JTR, all the while postulating some idiotic theory that your intestines will spring forth out of your body about 5 feet like a bed spring in an old mattress.

        I give Fish alot of credit. He put himself out there in a documentary that supports a somewhat un-popular theory among ripperologists. Is the documentary and theory perfect? No but you have to admit it brought JTR somewhat back from the tombs. And the theory is generally well accepted by the layman which has brought new opinions to the case.

        Keep in mind he could be right. I don't know if he is but he could be.

        Columbo

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Pierre View Post
          Sorry to hear about your problem with Fisherman. He does not communicate with me either. I asked him some scientific questions and he stopped communicating. He did so because he wasn´t able to answer my questions.

          Regards, Pierre
          Or possibly he read through your posts and deduced correctly that you are a charlatan and a hypocrite?

          What you accuse him of doing - avoiding the questions he can't answer, and laying low when his errors or idiocies are pointed out to him, describes your own modus operandi to the letter.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by GUT View Post
            If it was just me you may have a point, I know that I'm not the most tactful bloke on earth, but it seems to be anyone with the hide to disagree with you.
            I agree Gut.

            Cheers John

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by GUT View Post
              If it was just me you may have a point, I know that I'm not the most tactful bloke on earth, but it seems to be anyone with the hide to disagree with you.
              Of course you are not the most tactful bloke on earth - that will be me.

              No, seriously, I don´t think either of us will fill those shoes. My take on things is that we are both responsible for what we say and do, and that neither of us will be totally unguilty - or the reverse.

              What I can say from experience is that as long as you do not promote a suspect out here, you are treated better than after tht has happened. I knew that before I got convinced that Lechmere is the probable Ripper, so I was not surprised by it. But I am not the kind of guy who turns the other cheek, and so there will be the occasional brawl. It is what it is - but it is not a case of me always being to blame, as far as I can tell.
              Share and share alike, Gut!

              Comment


              • #22
                Following on from Patrick's excellent post how would Lechmere know how Pc Mizen would have reacted ? For all he knew he could have followed him and Paul back to Polly Ann , found it suspicious that he was with the body when Paul arrived, [ he could even have had some experience of a murder scene and realized that Polly was not long dead ] and checked his clothing, maybe even attempted to apprehend him.
                He could explain the blood on his hands by saying he was feeling for a pulse, perhaps even her heart but what about the knife ? And if he had wiped the knife wouldn't there be a bloodstained handkerchief for instance.
                Also how was lechmere not to know that someone, say looking out of a window, [weren't there people living nearby] had not observed him talking to Polly just before the murder ?
                Jack took chances, but that many ?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Darryl Kenyon: Following on from Patrick's excellent post how would Lechmere know how Pc Mizen would have reacted ? For all he knew he could have followed him and Paul back to Polly Ann , found it suspicious that he was with the body when Paul arrived, [ he could even have had some experience of a murder scene and realized that Polly was not long dead ] and checked his clothing, maybe even attempted to apprehend him.

                  Indeed he SHOULD have detained Lechmere and Paul if he had been informed that the carmen were the finders and that Lechmere had been alone with the body. And he SHOULD have taken their names and addresses, no doubt about it - it was possibly a case of murder, and you do NOT let people go in such a case!
                  But what if he was NOT informed about all of this? What if Mizen told the truth, and he was told that the carmen were sent by a fellow PC who had the situation in hand?
                  What then? How does that change the game? Could it explain why the names were NOT taken, why the carmen were NOT detained? Is it even the by far most plausible explanation?

                  He could explain the blood on his hands...

                  What blood on his hands? How do you know it was there? Jason Payne-James tells us that he need not have had any blood at all on his person.

                  ...by saying he was feeling for a pulse, perhaps even her heart but what about the knife ?

                  If he examined Nichols to get an alibi, one must accept that he may have nourished the hope to be able to rid himself of the weapon if needed.

                  And if he had wiped the knife wouldn't there be a bloodstained handkerchief for instance.

                  Yes, but did he? And if he did, then he took the handkerchief along with him.

                  Also how was lechmere not to know that someone, say looking out of a window, [weren't there people living nearby] had not observed him talking to Polly just before the murder ?

                  He could not possibly know that. The same applies for each and every murder. Very apparently, that did NOT stop the killer. Are we to deduce that it would stop Lechmere, but not the killer - that this proves that they were probably different men?

                  Jack took chances, but that many ?

                  Yes, absolutely. If there is something we can be sure of, then that is that this killer was not afraid of taking risks. In "The Definitive Story", a much acclaimed documentary made by genuine Ripperologists of great reputation and fame (but nevertheless screws up the Nichols murder beyond recognition, brrrr), a psychologist says that there is good reason to believe that the killer did not care all that much about whether he was caught or not. That could well be true.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                    Following on from Patrick's excellent post how would Lechmere know how Pc Mizen would have reacted ? For all he knew he could have followed him and Paul back to Polly Ann , found it suspicious that he was with the body when Paul arrived, [ he could even have had some experience of a murder scene and realized that Polly was not long dead ] and checked his clothing, maybe even attempted to apprehend him.
                    He could explain the blood on his hands by saying he was feeling for a pulse, perhaps even her heart but what about the knife ? And if he had wiped the knife wouldn't there be a bloodstained handkerchief for instance.
                    Also how was lechmere not to know that someone, say looking out of a window, [weren't there people living nearby] had not observed him talking to Polly just before the murder ?
                    Jack took chances, but that many ?
                    Hi Darryl,

                    yep, Fisherman's right. Jack took alot of chances.

                    Columbo

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      In an exchange about the Chapman murder, I read up on the Lancet of the 29 of September and found this:

                      "The similarity between the injuries inflicted in the case and those upon the woman Nicholls, whose body was found in Buck's-row a few days before, gave from the the first the idea that they were the work of the same hand. But in the Buck's-row case the mutilation did not extend so far, and there was no portion of the body missing. Again, this is explained by those who think the possession of the uterus was the sole motive, by assuming that the miscreant had not time to complete his design in the Buck's-row case, and it was given in evidence that only a quarter of an hour before the discovery of the body the row had been traversed by others."

                      So it seems that there was evidence of somebody traversing Bucks Row at around 3.30. Does anybody know who it refers to? I can only think of the two working men reported by Thain as having passed down Brady Street shortly before he was called upon by Neil.
                      It seems to narrow down the time window in which the killer worked at any rate, if correct.
                      As an aside, it is interesting to see how on the 29:th, it was believed by many that the uterus alone was the target of the killer. Logical enough, of course, but there were lessons to be learnt...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        In an exchange about the Chapman murder, I read up on the Lancet of the 29 of September and found this:

                        "The similarity between the injuries inflicted in the case and those upon the woman Nicholls, whose body was found in Buck's-row a few days before, gave from the the first the idea that they were the work of the same hand. But in the Buck's-row case the mutilation did not extend so far, and there was no portion of the body missing. Again, this is explained by those who think the possession of the uterus was the sole motive, by assuming that the miscreant had not time to complete his design in the Buck's-row case, and it was given in evidence that only a quarter of an hour before the discovery of the body the row had been traversed by others."

                        So it seems that there was evidence of somebody traversing Bucks Row at around 3.30. Does anybody know who it refers to? I can only think of the two working men reported by Thain as having passed down Brady Street shortly before he was called upon by Neil.
                        It seems to narrow down the time window in which the killer worked at any rate, if correct.
                        As an aside, it is interesting to see how on the 29:th, it was believed by many that the uterus alone was the target of the killer. Logical enough, of course, but there were lessons to be learnt...
                        Hi Fish,

                        seemed to have missed thread first time round apart from one post on Pierre.

                        Anyway, that inf is useful, i had already found it by the way, I have No doubt at all the murder cut occurred within at most 3-4 minutes of Paul's arrival.

                        Steve

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                          Anyway, that inf is useful, i had already found it by the way, I have No doubt at all the murder cut occurred within at most 3-4 minutes of Paul's arrival.
                          Steve
                          I came back to say what a hypocrite you really are. You have the cheek and the audacity to pass comment on the results of my research as being nothing more than self opinions, and here you are doing the very self same thing.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                            Hi Fish,

                            seemed to have missed thread first time round apart from one post on Pierre.

                            Anyway, that inf is useful, i had already found it by the way, I have No doubt at all the murder cut occurred within at most 3-4 minutes of Paul's arrival.

                            Steve
                            ...and probably closer than so in time.

                            Okay, Steve, if I can ask: where do you stand on the question of whether the neck or the abdomen was cut first?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              I came back to say what a hypocrite you really are. You have the cheek and the audacity to pass comment on the results of my research as being nothing more than self opinions, and here you are doing the very self same thing.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              You have no idea on what information Steve bases his thinking, and accordingly no reason to criticize it. He has been very clear about how he set out to contact knowledgeable/professional people in the errand, and until we know how he went about his business, we have no right to criticize or applaud him.

                              Go away, Trevor.
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 12-28-2016, 08:17 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                In an exchange about the Chapman murder, I read up on the Lancet of the 29 of September and found this:

                                "...it was given in evidence that only a quarter of an hour before the discovery of the body the row had been traversed by others."

                                So it seems that there was evidence of somebody traversing Bucks Row at around 3.30. Does anybody know who it refers to? I can only think of the two working men reported by Thain as having passed down Brady Street
                                PC Neil stated that he had passed the spot "not more than half an hour" before the body was found [The Times, 3rd September 1888] and I seem to recall that Sgt Kirby had passed down Bucks Row between sometime between 3:15 and 3:40 (frustratingly, I can't find the reference). Thain himself, of course, confirmed that he passed the corner of Bucks Row every half hour on his beat.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X