It was Lechmere.

[GUT]

Lechmere refused to touch her, ... weird...., he was curious to stop and look at her and stop another man and go to her, but then refused to help her or to touch her..

Paul was a normal man, Lechmere wasn't.


Rainbow°

But he stopped to look at a Tarp.

[Rainbow]

But he stopped to look at a Tarp.

Did he say to Paul come and look, there is a Tarp over there, or a Woman ?!

Rainbow°

[GUT]

Did he say to Paul come and look, there is a Tarp over there, or a Woman ?!

Rainbow°

Did he say when he first saw it he thought it was a tarp? But after checking it said to Oaul, There's a woman over there.

Once again the whole story paints a radically different picture then when you cherry pick.

[Pierre]

Did he say when he first saw it he thought it was a tarp? But after checking it said to Oaul, There's a woman over there.

Once again the whole story paints a radically different picture then when you cherry pick.

Hi GUT,

And the problem with the cherry picking in the case is that there are so very few cherries to pick. So people pick anything they see, out of pure desperation, or just for fun.

I have been thinking a lot about the collections of serious sources relevant to the case of the Whitechapel murders. It would be interesting to discuss what sort of sources we can expect to find and what the possible limits and uses are.

Cheers, Pierre

[Rainbow]

Did he say when he first saw it he thought it was a tarp? But after checking it said to Oaul, There's a woman over there.

Once again the whole story paints a radically different picture then when you cherry pick.

Little silly games, when you can't defeat the result, attack the method...

Rainbow°

[Elamarna]

Lechmere had been trapped like a mouse in a tube.


Rainbow°

Sorry the story about beat taking only 12 minutes is wrong.

The actual beat was published in the Echo, 21st September 1888—.

It took approximately 30 minutes to walk. Neil confirms this in his testimony at the inquest.

The story you quote mentions walking at a brisk pace, which the police did not, the pace they walked at was set, in addition the route given in that article is incorrect.

You may not like those facts, but please do not just repeat the same back to me as if it proves something,, if you wish to contest the route provide evidence to back your argument, if you wish to contest the time taken provide evidence to back that up.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Lechmere refused to touch her, ... weird...., he was curious to stop and look at her and stop another man and go to her, but then refused to help her or to touch her..

Paul was a normal man, Lechmere wasn't.


Rainbow°

Rainbow

Yesterday you claimed repeatedly that Lechmere prevented Paul from touching Nichols, do you now accept that was not the case?


Steve

[GUT]

Little silly games, when you can't defeat the result, attack the method...

Rainbow°

But when the method is wrong so must the result.

[Rainbow]

But when the method is wrong so must the result.

First, analysing the inquest is not wrong, whatever you say about that or you will say..

Second, if you studied algebra and logic , you will know that:

Right method leads to Right result
Wrong method may lead to right result

but right method doesn't lead to wrong result


Rainbow°

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

And the problem with the cherry picking in the case is that there are so very few cherries to pick. So people pick anything they see, out of pure desperation, or just for fun.

I have been thinking a lot about the collections of serious sources relevant to the case of the Whitechapel murders. It would be interesting to discuss what sort of sources we can expect to find and what the possible limits and uses are.

Cheers, Pierre

Currently few reliable sources, now should the file turn up...

Unfortunately we are largely limited to news reports and read four on the same issue and undoubtedly you will find differences between them.

[Pierre]

Little silly games, when you can't defeat the result, attack the method...

Rainbow°

Hi Rainbow,

and the result of course is the direct consequence of the method.

The method of a journalist in this case is (oversimplified):

Here I, the journalist, see some old newspaper articles:

They tell me that a carman called Cross found a woman on a street on his way to work.

My journalistic interpretation: I prefer to say that all the newspaper articles are wrong.

They tell me the carman said he did not talk to a police constable about having seen another policeman at the murder site, although the PC he had talked to said that he did.

My journalistic interpretation: I prefer to say that Cross was a liar and a murderer.

The carman says in the articles that he talked to and interacted with another man called Paul, who also was on his way to work.

My journalistic interpretation: I prefer to say that Cross was a liar and a murderer and a psychopath.

I find other sources where Cross is called Lechmere. I find a source showing me that Cross was the name of his stepfather. Lechmere was the name of his father.

My journalistic interpretation: I prefer to say that he is a serial killer. I ignore the historical fact that he used the name of his own stepfather.

The same method used by an historian (oversimplified):

Here I, the historian, see some old newspaper articles:

They tell me that a carman called Cross found a woman on a street on his way to work.

My historical interpretation: I prefer to say that the newspaper articles can be interpreted as a carman called Cross having found a woman on his way to work. As the articles say, he lived close by and used this street on his way to work.

They tell me the carman said he did not talk to a police constable about having seen another policeman at the murder site.

My historical interpretation: Here we have a discrepancy in the sources. Perhaps it is due to Lechmere not wanting to have the name of his own family in the papers.

The carman says in the articles that he talked to and interacted with another man called Paul, who also was on his way to work.

My historical interpretation: This is corroborated by Paul in the sources.

I find other sources where he is called Lechmere. I find a source showing med that Cross was the name of his stepfather. Lechmere was the name of his father.

My historical interpretation: I understand that he was using both his names, as did many others.

As we can see, the result of course is the direct consequence of the method. In this case a simple interpretation gives the results in two different directions.

Many people have been interested in revealing who the so called Jack the Ripper was. The interest usually rules the perspective and thereby the result of the methods.

Cheers, Pierre

[Rainbow]

Pierre,

This will not work here, you can't draw a clear limits between what press said at the time and what is history,

It is about giving the informations, you like to give more value to the goverment's documents only, and you are right, in this case, the inquest had reach us through newspaper, how much of truth there are, we can discuss that forever, but let me remind you, even police's documents that survived, contains a lot of errors... discussing that is endless..

The man has been found by the women, she was still bleeding, no one had seen a soul around till he was found by Paul, he gave a different name, and refuse to touch the woman .. thats what I found, you don't need to accept it, and I don't want to convince you...

All of those right minded people that talked about a teacher who comitted suicide, or a sailor or a painter or a mad jew or a poet, just didn't convince me..

And your history Pierre, was silent about those crimes, he left us to a world of fantasy, I don't like your history Pierre, it is disgusting...


Rainbow°

[Robert]

All of those right minded people that talked about a teacher who comitted suicide, or a sailor or a painter or a mad jew or a poet, just didn't convince me..

What, not even the mad Jew? Post #17 :

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=397735#post397735

But then, five days later, Post #132 :

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=398380#post398380

Transformation!

[Rainbow]

That was comic... they made anyone attack his sister or a wife to be Jack the Ripper


Rainbow°

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

This will not work here, you can't draw a clear limits between what press said at the time and what is history,

It is about giving the informations, you like to give more value to the goverment's documents only, and you are right, in this case, the inquest had reach us through newspaper, how much of truth there are, we can discuss that forever, but let me remind you, even police's documents that survived, contains a lot of errors... discussing that is endless..

The man has been found by the women, she was still bleeding, no one had seen a soul around till he was found by Paul, he gave a different name, and refuse to touch the woman .. thats what I found, you don't need to accept it, and I don't want to convince you...

All of those right minded people that talked about a teacher who comitted suicide, or a sailor or a painter or a mad jew or a poet, just didn't convince me..

And your history Pierre, was silent about those crimes, he left us to a world of fantasy, I don't like your history Pierre, it is disgusting...


Rainbow°

Actually and I rarely say this, in this case Pierre's response is correct..

My dear Rainbow all you are doing is repeating the same phrases over and over again, such as there was not a soul about, this is contrary to the sworn testimony of PC Thain.

You again keep saying "still bleeding" as if the very words convict on their own.

Look at the science. All you need is on this forum or in publically available text books.
Look at the witness reports in particular the times that witness arrive after each other, see if those reports match what is claimed by the blood flow hypothesis, and finally and most importantly explain how that hypothesis works to pinpoint a TIME OF ATTACK.


You may find it rewarding.


Steve