Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Nature of Evidence

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

  • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    Not at all, Steve, I just think it's a useful exercise to establish which reports were by different journalists. When I was initially trying to compare reports of the evidence of Charles Cross at the 3rd September hearing a couple of years ago, I ended up "corroborating" evidence from different newspapers only to end up realising that they were actually identical reports! Hence I did an exercise of trying to work out which newspapers carried the same reports and which were unique (and there is a separate thread on this) to avoid others doing the same thing.

    I never did this with the reports from the 1st September, though, and was surprised to discover yesterday that the majority of them were written by the same person!
    David

    I have indeed read the other thread and you will find that when I post part 2 next week that I recommend others to have a look at it. Some may not agree with all of it but it is a good background to the inquest reporting in my opinion.

    Steve

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
      Some may not agree with all of it.
      That's certainly true. In fact, it stirred up more controversy that I could ever have imagined for what I thought was an entirely non-controversial thread.

      Simon Wood in particular seemed to become upset at my conclusions, saying:

      "As it has become patently obvious that you have lost your grasp on reality, I shall leave you to your fantasies."

      Mr Lucky also became rather irate if I recall.

      I never could quite understand why.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
        Hi Herlock

        Before someone jumps all over you there is a typo there the Times is 3.20, not 3.40.

        At a reasonable pace, not excessively fast between 27 and 28 minutes from door to door.

        The argument which will be used against you is that Lechmere may have left earlier than even 3.20. Of course such cannot be disproved and is one of the tactics employed by the Pro Lechmere people.


        Steve
        Hi Steve,

        That's a definate with the 3.40. Thanks for pointing it out. 2 or 3 minutes spare then rather than 10.

        You're right of course that it could be said that he left home earlier but why would he end up back on Bucks Row? It's surely stretching it to posit that he left home earlier, found Nichols elsewhere and took her back to an area that passed every day on his away to work at around the same time! It's more likely by far that he simply found her in that spot.

        Regards

        Herlock
        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-01-2017, 12:43 PM.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
          Yes nothing is perfect and the two are far to close together but at least Paul in on the correct side of the road.

          Steve
          Hi Steve,

          In the newspaper source here on the forum we have this from Paul:

          "The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."

          Did Paul and Lechmere "see a policeman, i.e. meet him together?

          Or did Paul and Lechmere "see a policeman", i.e. spot him from Montague-Street?

          Did Paul walk away after he had seen the PC and the PC had seen "a carman who passed in company with another man..."?

          Is there any source at all for Paul having spoken to Mizen?

          Do you know where Paul worked?

          I canīt ask Fisherman these questions since he systematically ignores me. Good for him, perhaps.

          Cheers, Pierre

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            If he was, then he was a killer with a piss-poor instinct for time management
            Hi Sam,

            As Steve has just pointed out to me it should read 3.20 for The Times and not 3.40! So that only leaves 2 or 3 minutes to find and kill Polly!

            Regards

            Herlock
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            Comment


            • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              That's certainly true. In fact, it stirred up more controversy that I could ever have imagined for what I thought was an entirely non-controversial thread.

              Simon Wood in particular seemed to become upset at my conclusions, saying:

              "As it has become patently obvious that you have lost your grasp on reality, I shall leave you to your fantasies."

              Mr Lucky also became rather irate if I recall.

              I never could quite understand why.
              Hi David

              I just can't think of a reason why Simon Wood could be angry with you

              Regards

              Herlock
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                Hi Steve,

                That's a definate with the 3.40. Thanks for pointing it out. 2 or 3 minutes spare then rather than 10.

                You're right of course that it could be said that he left home earlier but why would he end up back on Bucks Row? It's surely stretching it to posit that he left home earlier, found Nichols elsewhere and took her back to an area that passed every day on his away to work at around the same time! It's more likely by far that he simply found her in that spot.

                Regards

                Herlock
                I tend to agree.

                If he went faster he could do the trip from home to work in 24 or 25. Of course if he was going like a race walker it's under 20 if my memory is right. Not bothering to look it up.

                Anyway that is the argument u will get, and it is impossible to disprove he left earlier than he said.
                The major issue is not the time he leaves of course but the timing of Paul.

                That's another issue of course.


                Steve

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                  Hi Steve,


                  Do you know where Paul worked?



                  Cheers, Pierre
                  Paul worked as a carman for Covent-Garden Market near Hanbury Street in Spitalfields

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
                    Paul worked as a carman for Covent-Garden Market near Hanbury Street in Spitalfields
                    Thanks Patrick.

                    Pierre

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      I just can't think of a reason why Simon Wood could be angry with you
                      That was back in February 2015 though. He book wasn't out then and I'd never said a word about anything he'd ever published. In fact, we were on reasonably good terms at the time he posted that comment, so it was quite baffling.

                      I assumed at the time it was because he'd made a couple of mistakes in the same thread while asking me questions about my schedule of reporters and became angry. In fact, the chain of posts started with him complimenting my schedule (he said "Nice work" and asked if one of the reporters could have been from a press agency).

                      You can see the thread here, starts at #27 and ends with his outburst at #69. Quite amusing looking back at it.

                      http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8492&page=3

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
                        Paul worked as a carman for Covent-Garden Market near Hanbury Street in Spitalfields
                        Corbet's Court, almost at the western end of Hanbury Street, near where it meets Commercial St. Presumably this is where his horse and cart were stabled, as it's roughly 2.5 miles from Covent Garden market.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
                          Hi, Herlock. I agree. Cross is an unlikely killer for many reasons.

                          We're told he was a psychopath because he killed Nichols and if he killed Nichols he was Jack the Ripper and that Jack the Ripper was clearly a psychopath. Of course, we've no evidence he killed Nichols. And there's nothing we know of his life outside of Buck's Row to indicate psychopathy.

                          For instance, men incarcerated for violent crimes have a higher incidence of psychopathy. Likely 20-30% of such men are thought to be psychopaths. Thus, if we had some evidence suggesting that Cross had been violent and/or incarcerated for a violent crime, we'd have a reason to suspect that an increased likelihood of psychopathy might be possible. Alas, we've no records that Cross was ever violent, arrested, incarcerated, etc. On the contrary, the records show he resided, consistently, throughout his life, at addresses that place him outside of any prison.

                          As well, I'm always confused when proponents of "the carman" as Jack the Ripper discuss the time that Cross may or may not have left his home, if he had time to commit the crime, etc. We're to believe he was a psychopath, Jack the Ripper, but he was truthful about the time he left for work on the morning Nichols was killed?

                          Further, are we to believe that Cross - as the Ripper - arose for work each day like any man would, allowing sufficient time to get to work, allowing only a few moments to ensure he'd not be late due to unforeseen circumstances, while planning to commit murder - should the opportunity arise - on his way to work? So, he was a psychopath, Jack the Ripper, but only when his daily schedule allowed him the time?

                          Cross testified at the inquest that he left 22 Doveton Street in Bethnal Green around 3:30am. If one believes him to have been Nichols' killer, isn't it more likely he left home at midnight? 2am? Was his desire to kill such that he could take it or leave it? That is to say, if the opportunity arose to kill a prostitute situated along his route to work, during the thirty minutes or so he allowed for his work commute, then he would happily do so and his bloodlust would be satiated. And if not, well, that's okay, too....there's always tomorrow?

                          This seems hard to believe, based on what we know of the murders. For instance, if we believe in the Double Event then we believe the killer pursued another victim because he'd failed to achieve a satisfactory outcome with Stride due to the arrival of Deimshutz in Dutfield's Yard. Thus, he seeks out another victim, and we get Eddowes in Mitre Square. As well, are we to believe that he left for work earlier, on just that night? It's evident the killer spent far more time with her than he did the other victims. So, if his MO was to kill women he propositioned along his route to work while he made his way to work, during the time allotted for his commute to work, how does Kelly fit? He broke the MO and left earlier for her, on the just the right night. The night he met a woman with her own room. And in having that extra time he was able to fully indulge his fantasies? Lucky day, that! He did all that to poor Mary and still made it to work on time? Or, are we to also believe that he might have cut the carnage in Miller's Court short because he was due at work?

                          Hi Patrick,

                          As Steve has pointed out The Times said 3.20 and not 3.40.

                          I've never been too keen on the idea of someone killing on the way to work though I have to admit that it's not based on evidence. I've asked on here before if there are any precedents? Examples of a killer or killers committing a murder with terrible mutilations on the way to work. Or on the way to anything for that matter. I've always felt that the killer would have 'set aside' a time to kill. I don't mean 3.50 or 4 am of course. I mean a period. A period which allows him to indulge all of his fantasies (whatever they were) and not be thinking that he had to be somewhere else at a certain time. Time pressures that could lead to errors and possible capture.
                          I've encountered arguements that it's somehow ridiculous that CL would have been bothered about getting to work on time or providing for his family. I don't understand this view. CL did provide for his family and even if he was a murderer (and I don't think for a minute that he was) it still wouldn't preclude him from genuinely caring for them. Also, if he was a killer, he would have wanted the status quo, to allow him to continue. It's hard to be a serial killer from the workhouse.

                          Regards

                          Herlock
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                            That was back in February 2015 though. He book wasn't out then and I'd never said a word about anything he'd ever published. In fact, we were on reasonably good terms at the time he posted that comment, so it was quite baffling.

                            I assumed at the time it was because he'd made a couple of mistakes in the same thread while asking me questions about my schedule of reporters and became angry. In fact, the chain of posts started with him complimenting my schedule (he said "Nice work" and asked if one of the reporters could have been from a press agency).

                            You can see the thread here, starts at #27 and ends with his outburst at #69. Quite amusing looking back at it.

                            http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8492&page=3
                            Hi David,

                            Just heading out but I'll have a look at that thread tomorrow. I'm up to around page 430 of Simon's book by the way. Then it's onto your articles by which time a certain book on the Islington Murder should have arrived.

                            Regards

                            Herlock
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                              Hi Steve,

                              In the newspaper source here on the forum we have this from Paul:

                              "The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."

                              Did Paul and Lechmere "see a policeman, i.e. meet him together?

                              Or did Paul and Lechmere "see a policeman", i.e. spot him from Montague-Street?


                              They met him as he came out of old Montague street, where it meets Hanbury and Bakers Row


                              Did Paul walk away after he had seen the PC and the PC had seen "a carman who passed in company with another man..."?

                              No the sources for , Lechmere say they walked down Hanbury street togeather. Mizen also says they both went down Hanbury street.

                              Is there any source at all for Paul having spoken to Mizen?

                              If you discount the Lloyds account, we still have Lechmere's inquest testimony.

                              Do you know where Paul worked?


                              Patrick has given you an answer but I am afraid it is wrong. Sorry Patrick.
                              He worked at corbets court northern side of Hanbury just before junction with commercial street.
                              Some reports did say Covent Garden but the sources say this was his actual place of work or at least where he started work that day.

                              I canīt ask Fisherman these questions since he systematically ignores me. Good for him, perhaps.

                              Cheers, Pierre
                              No problem.


                              Steve
                              Last edited by Elamarna; 08-01-2017, 01:44 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                                That was back in February 2015 though. He book wasn't out then and I'd never said a word about anything he'd ever published. In fact, we were on reasonably good terms at the time he posted that comment, so it was quite baffling.

                                I assumed at the time it was because he'd made a couple of mistakes in the same thread while asking me questions about my schedule of reporters and became angry. In fact, the chain of posts started with him complimenting my schedule (he said "Nice work" and asked if one of the reporters could have been from a press agency).

                                You can see the thread here, starts at #27 and ends with his outburst at #69. Quite amusing looking back at it.

                                http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8492&page=3
                                Hi David,

                                I've just had a look through the thread (without reading every press report though I have to admit.) It was certainly a 'slow burner.' Very amicable to begin with but then they both seemed to take exception to you disagreeing with them (and annoyingly backing those disagreements up with evidence and reason!) whilst admitting that some things were impossible to be 100% sure of. Can't see where you went wrong to be honest.

                                Some people will just pursue a debate for ages. Not me off course

                                Regards

                                Herlock
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X