The Nature of Evidence

[Patrick S]

I think it boils dwon to a combination of people having previsously nailed their colours to the mast, either in the shae of other suspects or in the shape of having claimed that the case cannot be solved.
I also think that not being read up comes into it - people are read up to varying extents, but I often see misconceptions that owe to a lack of knowledge of the case.

A third component will be how many people dislike how I argue my case. I can be arrogant and spiteful, just like how other posters may serve up the same thing to me. And some will look away from the facts in favour of having a dig at me for that reason. Its understandable but not case-promoting.

There, you asked - now you can call me arrogant and disrespectful if you wish to.

However, that would also be an example of lacking insights.

I think we're all guilty of being arrogant and disrespectful. And, In my view you've nailed your own colors to the mast.

Count me among those who think the case will never be solved. Even if you have the right man, I can't imagine what evidence could be uncovered that would prove it.

[Fisherman]

This is the last post of yours that I will answer for now.

Again. You pick what fits your desired narrative and either discard or invent circumstance around the rest. And you ignore everything else. Just as Paul must be the dupe, there are out of earshot conversations, scams, Mizen must be the our last honest man, we must believe only Phillips, and consider that Long was either mistaken or lying, Cadosh ditto, and Richardson is either a liar, as well, or half blind. All so you can get the time you want.

I can see how you need to make make me out as a false and foul person. Thatīs your prerogative. But it does not make for a fruitful debate.
I have stated on various occasions that I always look at whether the facts that are found are compatible with Lechmere being the culprit. It make no bones about that, and I find that there is so far not a sibngle thing that ruoles him out. I think you will have ahard time disagreeing with that.
As such, I do not "choose" to believe different things - I look at them, and see if they fit with my theory.
You use this to over and over again say that you "must" accept different matters, but that is - again - wrong. There is nothing that you must do at all. You are free to think what you wish, so the reoccurring allegation is false.

I will offer you part of Wolf Vanderlindens excellent dissertation "Considerable doubt and the death of Annie Chapman", since it mirrors my own thinking.

It's excellent since it mirrors your thinking. Understood.

Thatīs a complete lie, of course. I said that it IS excellent, but I did not say that is it excellent since it mirrors my thinking. There are excellent dissertations that do not mirror my thinking.
And I have seen you commending people who share your thinking, which is not strange - we tend to think that people who agree with us are probably correct. Thatīs no big deal, unless we choose to make it out as if it were. Like you.

"This sentiment is also expressed in Swanson's report. After listing the actions of the police during the investigation, Swanson was forced to admit that "Up to the present the combined result of those inquiries did not supply the police with the slightest clue to the murderer" thus damning Mrs. Long's description of the man she had seen with no praise at all. Swanson continues, "Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6:20 a.m. [sic] and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

4:20AM. Got it. So. Cross should have been working at that time. How'd he work it? Or was Phillips just a "little" wrong on his timing?

None of it. Swanson goes by how Phillips said "at least two hours", and missed out on how he added "probably more". Phillips thought that the murder could have been executed at 4.20, but opted for an earlier time. This you would know if you had been up to date on the evidence.

Just wrong enough to have Chapman killed - as you desire - around the same time as Nichols (3:40AM)?

See the above. And understand the implications: No later than 4.20, but PROBABLY earlier.

This "doubt" apparently soon became the conviction that Mrs. Long's testimony was worthless. By the end of 1888, for example, Inspector Walter Andrews stated "The police are perfectly powerless, no one ever having seen the murderer except the victims."

So that's Long. What of Cadosh and Richardson? How do we make them out as liars, as well?

Swanson had no problem doubting them - he was for believing in Phillips and to do that, you had to eliminate Cadosh and Richardson. Which is all too easy - Cadosh never saw either Chapman nor her killer, and his testiminy (which he was certain was correct om the timings) was at odds with Longs testimony (and she was just as certain about the times). And Richardson could have failed to notice the body in the gloom since the door hid it from sight, plus his testimony was the jojo-type. He was all over the place, and only placed himself at the stairs at a late stage.
The inportant point is that Swanson could see his way through to discarding the triumvirate of Long, Cadosh and Richardson. And he was not a Lechmereian. You need to read Wolfīs dissertation, by the way.

Hereby, I withdraw from our exchange for now, perhaps for a day, perhaps for much longer. Weīll see.

[Patrick S]

This is the last post of yours that I will answer for now.

Again. You pick what fits your desired narrative and either discard or invent circumstance around the rest. And you ignore everything else. Just as Paul must be the dupe, there are out of earshot conversations, scams, Mizen must be the our last honest man, we must believe only Phillips, and consider that Long was either mistaken or lying, Cadosh ditto, and Richardson is either a liar, as well, or half blind. All so you can get the time you want.

I can see how you need to make make me out as a false and foul person. Thatīs your prerogative. But it does not make for a fruitful debate.
I have stated on various occasions that I always look at whether the facts that are found are compatible with Lechmere being the culprit. It make no bones about that, and I find that there is so far not a sibngle thing that ruoles him out. I think you will have ahard time disagreeing with that.
As such, I do not "choose" to believe different things - I look at them, and see if they fit with my theory.
You use this to over and over again say that you "must" accept different matters, but that is - again - wrong. There is nothing that you must do at all. You are free to think what you wish, so the reoccurring allegation is false.

I will offer you part of Wolf Vanderlindens excellent dissertation "Considerable doubt and the death of Annie Chapman", since it mirrors my own thinking.

It's excellent since it mirrors your thinking. Understood.

Thatīs a complete lie, of course. I said that it IS excellent, but I did not say that is it excellent since it mirrors my thinking. There are excellent dissertations that do not mirror my thinking.
And I have seen you commending people who share your thinking, which is not strange - we tend to think that people who agree with us are probably correct. Thatīs no big deal, unless we choose to make it out as if it were. Like you.

"This sentiment is also expressed in Swanson's report. After listing the actions of the police during the investigation, Swanson was forced to admit that "Up to the present the combined result of those inquiries did not supply the police with the slightest clue to the murderer" thus damning Mrs. Long's description of the man she had seen with no praise at all. Swanson continues, "Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6:20 a.m. [sic] and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

4:20AM. Got it. So. Cross should have been working at that time. How'd he work it? Or was Phillips just a "little" wrong on his timing?

None of it. Swanson goes by how Phillips said "at least two hours", and missed out on how he added "probably more". Phillips thought that the murder could have been executed at 4.20, but opted for an earlier time. This you would know if you had been up to date on the evidence.

Just wrong enough to have Chapman killed - as you desire - around the same time as Nichols (3:40AM)?

See the above. And understand the implications: No later than 4.20, but PROBABLY earlier.

This "doubt" apparently soon became the conviction that Mrs. Long's testimony was worthless. By the end of 1888, for example, Inspector Walter Andrews stated "The police are perfectly powerless, no one ever having seen the murderer except the victims."

So that's Long. What of Cadosh and Richardson? How do we make them out as liars, as well?

Swanson had no problem doubting them - he was for believing in Phillips and to do that, you had to eliminate Cadosh and Richardson. Which is all too easy - Cadosh never saw either Chapman nor her killer, and his testiminy (which he was certain was correct om the timings) was at odds with Longs testimony (and she was just as certain about the times). And Richardson could have failed to notice the body in the gloom since the door hid it from sight, plus his testimony was the jojo-type. He was all over the place, and only placed himself at the stairs at a late stage.
The inportant point is that Swanson could see his way through to discarding the triumvirate of Long, Cadosh and Richardson. And he was not a Lechmereian. You need to read Wolfīs dissertation, by the way.

Hereby, I withdraw from our exchange for now, perhaps for a day, perhaps for much longer. Weīll see.

Okay. When you come back you can tell me if you think Bond was right about Mary Kelly's time of death. Or do we opt for Phillips' time there, as well, in that he was right on with Chapman? And you can tell me if Mrs. Long may have been Jack the Ripper, since appears to have given a "false" name, as well.

[Abby Normal]

I asked in an earlier post on this thread, perhaps you missed it. I'll ask again.

Why do you suppose the vast majority of those who study these crimes and participate in discussions like this one are so dismissive of your theory? Why have so few signed up for this thing? Of those posters here I can think of Rainbow and Abby. That's about it (?).

I know you work tirelessly defending your positions and you clearly grow frustrated that many of us find most aspects so difficult to swallow. How do you reconcile all that and still believe that you're right and we're wrong?

hi Patrick
I haven't "signed up" for anything. if you've truly followed my take on lech and my thoughts on other suspects you would know that I keep an open mind on candidates I find possible. for the record, lech isn't even in my top tier of most valid candidates.

But that being said, he is EXACTLY the type of candidate that needs more investigation.

and yes I do find some of his behavior odd and I do see red flags.

and my overall take on all the known ripper candidates, even my favored, is that they are ALL weak suspects, some are just less weak than others.

[John G]

This is the last post of yours that I will answer for now.

Again. You pick what fits your desired narrative and either discard or invent circumstance around the rest. And you ignore everything else. Just as Paul must be the dupe, there are out of earshot conversations, scams, Mizen must be the our last honest man, we must believe only Phillips, and consider that Long was either mistaken or lying, Cadosh ditto, and Richardson is either a liar, as well, or half blind. All so you can get the time you want.

I can see how you need to make make me out as a false and foul person. Thatīs your prerogative. But it does not make for a fruitful debate.
I have stated on various occasions that I always look at whether the facts that are found are compatible with Lechmere being the culprit. It make no bones about that, and I find that there is so far not a sibngle thing that ruoles him out. I think you will have ahard time disagreeing with that.
As such, I do not "choose" to believe different things - I look at them, and see if they fit with my theory.
You use this to over and over again say that you "must" accept different matters, but that is - again - wrong. There is nothing that you must do at all. You are free to think what you wish, so the reoccurring allegation is false.

I will offer you part of Wolf Vanderlindens excellent dissertation "Considerable doubt and the death of Annie Chapman", since it mirrors my own thinking.

It's excellent since it mirrors your thinking. Understood.

Thatīs a complete lie, of course. I said that it IS excellent, but I did not say that is it excellent since it mirrors my thinking. There are excellent dissertations that do not mirror my thinking.
And I have seen you commending people who share your thinking, which is not strange - we tend to think that people who agree with us are probably correct. Thatīs no big deal, unless we choose to make it out as if it were. Like you.

"This sentiment is also expressed in Swanson's report. After listing the actions of the police during the investigation, Swanson was forced to admit that "Up to the present the combined result of those inquiries did not supply the police with the slightest clue to the murderer" thus damning Mrs. Long's description of the man she had seen with no praise at all. Swanson continues, "Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6:20 a.m. [sic] and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

4:20AM. Got it. So. Cross should have been working at that time. How'd he work it? Or was Phillips just a "little" wrong on his timing?

None of it. Swanson goes by how Phillips said "at least two hours", and missed out on how he added "probably more". Phillips thought that the murder could have been executed at 4.20, but opted for an earlier time. This you would know if you had been up to date on the evidence.

Just wrong enough to have Chapman killed - as you desire - around the same time as Nichols (3:40AM)?

See the above. And understand the implications: No later than 4.20, but PROBABLY earlier.

This "doubt" apparently soon became the conviction that Mrs. Long's testimony was worthless. By the end of 1888, for example, Inspector Walter Andrews stated "The police are perfectly powerless, no one ever having seen the murderer except the victims."

So that's Long. What of Cadosh and Richardson? How do we make them out as liars, as well?

Swanson had no problem doubting them - he was for believing in Phillips and to do that, you had to eliminate Cadosh and Richardson. Which is all too easy - Cadosh never saw either Chapman nor her killer, and his testiminy (which he was certain was correct om the timings) was at odds with Longs testimony (and she was just as certain about the times). And Richardson could have failed to notice the body in the gloom since the door hid it from sight, plus his testimony was the jojo-type. He was all over the place, and only placed himself at the stairs at a late stage.
The inportant point is that Swanson could see his way through to discarding the triumvirate of Long, Cadosh and Richardson. And he was not a Lechmereian. You need to read Wolfīs dissertation, by the way.

Hereby, I withdraw from our exchange for now, perhaps for a day, perhaps for much longer. Weīll see.

But if Richardson's testimony was "all over the place" then, based upon your Lechmere approach, that surely makes him more likely to have been the killer himself.

[John G]

This is the last post of yours that I will answer for now.

Again. You pick what fits your desired narrative and either discard or invent circumstance around the rest. And you ignore everything else. Just as Paul must be the dupe, there are out of earshot conversations, scams, Mizen must be the our last honest man, we must believe only Phillips, and consider that Long was either mistaken or lying, Cadosh ditto, and Richardson is either a liar, as well, or half blind. All so you can get the time you want.

I can see how you need to make make me out as a false and foul person. Thatīs your prerogative. But it does not make for a fruitful debate.
I have stated on various occasions that I always look at whether the facts that are found are compatible with Lechmere being the culprit. It make no bones about that, and I find that there is so far not a sibngle thing that ruoles him out. I think you will have ahard time disagreeing with that.
As such, I do not "choose" to believe different things - I look at them, and see if they fit with my theory.
You use this to over and over again say that you "must" accept different matters, but that is - again - wrong. There is nothing that you must do at all. You are free to think what you wish, so the reoccurring allegation is false.

I will offer you part of Wolf Vanderlindens excellent dissertation "Considerable doubt and the death of Annie Chapman", since it mirrors my own thinking.

It's excellent since it mirrors your thinking. Understood.

Thatīs a complete lie, of course. I said that it IS excellent, but I did not say that is it excellent since it mirrors my thinking. There are excellent dissertations that do not mirror my thinking.
And I have seen you commending people who share your thinking, which is not strange - we tend to think that people who agree with us are probably correct. Thatīs no big deal, unless we choose to make it out as if it were. Like you.

"This sentiment is also expressed in Swanson's report. After listing the actions of the police during the investigation, Swanson was forced to admit that "Up to the present the combined result of those inquiries did not supply the police with the slightest clue to the murderer" thus damning Mrs. Long's description of the man she had seen with no praise at all. Swanson continues, "Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6:20 a.m. [sic] and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted."

4:20AM. Got it. So. Cross should have been working at that time. How'd he work it? Or was Phillips just a "little" wrong on his timing?

None of it. Swanson goes by how Phillips said "at least two hours", and missed out on how he added "probably more". Phillips thought that the murder could have been executed at 4.20, but opted for an earlier time. This you would know if you had been up to date on the evidence.

Just wrong enough to have Chapman killed - as you desire - around the same time as Nichols (3:40AM)?

See the above. And understand the implications: No later than 4.20, but PROBABLY earlier.

This "doubt" apparently soon became the conviction that Mrs. Long's testimony was worthless. By the end of 1888, for example, Inspector Walter Andrews stated "The police are perfectly powerless, no one ever having seen the murderer except the victims."

So that's Long. What of Cadosh and Richardson? How do we make them out as liars, as well?

Swanson had no problem doubting them - he was for believing in Phillips and to do that, you had to eliminate Cadosh and Richardson. Which is all too easy - Cadosh never saw either Chapman nor her killer, and his testiminy (which he was certain was correct om the timings) was at odds with Longs testimony (and she was just as certain about the times). And Richardson could have failed to notice the body in the gloom since the door hid it from sight, plus his testimony was the jojo-type. He was all over the place, and only placed himself at the stairs at a late stage.
The inportant point is that Swanson could see his way through to discarding the triumvirate of Long, Cadosh and Richardson. And he was not a Lechmereian. You need to read Wolfīs dissertation, by the way.

Hereby, I withdraw from our exchange for now, perhaps for a day, perhaps for much longer. Weīll see.

Why no later than 4:20?

[Patrick S]

hi Patrick
I haven't "signed up" for anything. if you've truly followed my take on lech and my thoughts on other suspects you would know that I keep an open mind on candidates I find possible. for the record, lech isn't even in my top tier of most valid candidates.

But that being said, he is EXACTLY the type of candidate that needs more investigation.

and yes I do find some of his behavior odd and I do see red flags.

and my overall take on all the known ripper candidates, even my favored, is that they are ALL weak suspects, some are just less weak than others.

I'm aware. I think you're a Hutchinson person?

You caught me being magnanimous. I was being generous toward Christer. We know that Rainbow is positively smitten with "Lechmere". You think he's, at the very least, not ridiculous. So, I threw you in there. I know. I'm a softy. I would have felt like I was rubbing it in if I had just said it was, you know, only Rainbow. So I added you.

I feel much the same as you, I think. No real good candidates.

[Abby Normal]

I'm aware. I think you're a Hutchinson person?

You caught me being magnanimous. I was being generous toward Christer. We know that Rainbow is positively smitten with "Lechmere". You think he's, at the very least, not ridiculous. So, I threw you in there. I know. I'm a softy. I would have felt like I was rubbing it in if I had just said it was, you know, only Rainbow. So I added you.

I feel much the same as you, I think. No real good candidates.

LOL! haha thanks for clarifying. I'm sure fish appreciates it.

yes I got hutch and blotchy 1 and 1a. followed by Chapman, bury, Kelly, and koz. then next level down a whole slew, including lech.

and yes I agree-no real good candidates.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There was some competence for the role of primary comic relief post on JTR, where a rather prominent poster came up with the idea of Lechmere not being a viable candidate for the murderers role - on account of how he would never have risked to loose his job...

Really! And the proprietor of JTR found it an excellent post.

I keep saying that I am convinced that there are a good many serialists out there who managed to stop killing and who were never found.

Maybe theyīre the ones who opted for a carreer at work instead.

I sense that this one is directed at me. Firstly, I don't believe CL is a viable candidate because, apart from finding the body, there's nothing. An empty vessel.

I really can't see why anyone can't accept the fact that CL would not have wanted to lose his job? Fisherman is always going on about how psychopaths can live normal, well-balanced family lives (obviously). Being unemployed in Whitechapel in 1888 is hardly conducive to a decent life! Obviously it wouldn't just be the fact of losing his job that would prevent him being the ripper. All I'm saying is that he would have planned to avoid losing his job. Easy enough to do. No Moriarty-like machinations required. Just don't kill 20 minutes before you're due to clock on! Simples.
I first mentioned CL's work in my first post, I believe, just to illustrate the risks involved with killing on the way to work. Possibly turning up with a bloodstain that he was unaware of; the time constraint; the fact that certain workmates might have known his route to work (from general conversation) and might have thought it suspicious if he didn't mention seeing a body.
I'll say again, if CL was the killer (and he wasn't) he allowed himself 30-40 mins to find a victim, find a spot, kill her, check for blood on his person, possibly clean up and then walk to work from wherever he'd found his victim. How much of that timespan would be taken up with just the journey to work? 30 mins ?(without the benefit of referring to Steve's research). Surely we can see that this is insufficient and would place a killer under unfeasible time pressure?

Regards
Herlock the Naysayer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What did do to get suspended for this long?

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fish has buggered off without even saying hello

Is it something I said?

Herlock the Naysayer

[Pierre]

Abby - So you now agree a "raising of the alarm" would have been premature in that the figure - after Cross had discerned it was a woman and not a tarpaulin, etc. - could very well have been "sleeping, drunk, maybe injured"? Thus, you now agree that his approaching the first person to happen along was appropriate (as opposed to yelling, "Murder!", hammering on doors, all that)?

No need to yell, hammer on doors and so on, he had company.

The two carmen showed each other how to handle the situation.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;422798]

No, you have not read a single post promoting him on that basis only. What you have read - but perhaps not understood - is how I am saying that there are a lot of anomalies attaching to Lechmere,

the name,

Did not deviate from normality. Other people used an alternative name in that situation. There are lots of sources.

Consequence: The Lechmeres did not have their name in the papers.

the Mizen scam,

If Cross/Lechmere saw a policeman in Buckīs Row, he took it back.

the pulled down dress,

The killer would need to do that when a witness came along.

the not hearing the footsteps,

We donīt know that.

the geographical pattern of his walk to work,

Finding the victim closest to his home.

the fact that his mother lived in 1 Mary Ann Street when Stride was killed

And the other finders had relatives living nearby.

a stoneīs throw away etcetera - and that once we have this material speaking against him, it does not help that he was found alone in Bucks Row with a murder victim that was freshly enough killed to allow for him to be the killer.

Or a witness to the killer.

[Fisherman]

But if Richardson's testimony was "all over the place" then, based upon your Lechmere approach, that surely makes him more likely to have been the killer himself.

So he gave a name that was not his registered one to the police?

And he disagreed with a serving PC about what was said on the murder night?

And he had paths that would take him through the killing fields?

And he was found alone with one of the victims, at a remove in time that correlates with the TOD?

Because that is my Lechmere approach.

My Lechmere approach is certainly not that he may have been the killer because his testiminy was all over the place.

[Fisherman]

Why no later than 4:20?

Because that was the absolute minimum of TOD that Phillips allowed for - at least two hours, but probably more. So she would have died no later than 4.20.