It was Lechmere.

[Rainbow]

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


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]

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°

[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

[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.

[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]

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

Rainbow°

But when the method is wrong so must the result.

[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

[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

[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°

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Congratulations.

You are the first person that I've ever heard of who feels that evidence is not needed!

Why are you incapable of reading was is being said and ACTUALLY responding to it rather than going on about 'coincidences' and 'phantom killers.'

If you had taken the time to read the research, which has been pointed out to you, about the name for example you wouldn't keep making the same errors. There is a huge amount of ACTUAL WRITTEN PROOF that people often used other names and it was often, as in Lechmere's case, because they took the name of their step father (Mr Cross) after their real father (Mr Lechmere) had died. He even used the name Cross on a census!
He didn't give a FALSE name. He gave the name that he used. But just to add to this. If he'd given a name like Fred Smith and then tried to hide away from the police then that WOULD have been suspicious. But he didn't. He gave the name that he used and, this is the clincher by the way, he gave his REAL address.

NO ATTEMPT TO HIDE
NOTHING SUSPICIOUS
NO MYSTERY

Now, any reasonable person would say.......oh ok, so there's no point in going on about the name thing then.

But you still will I bet. In desperation!

By the way, I'll waste my breath again by saying read the detailed research done on timings. THERE WAS EASILY ENOUGH TIME FOR SOMEONE TO KILL NICHOLLS BEFORE CROSS FOUND HER. EASILY.

And finally, please, please, please stop going on about coincidences. It's completely meaningless (and very annoying)

Herlock