The Nature of Evidence

[Fisherman]

This is a bit PC and, ironically, probably falls within category 1, censorship. By the way, speaking of PC would you prefer to be henceforth addressed as Fisherperson?

No, John, I would not. I prefer to be called Fisherman or Christer. Why do you ask? And why do you prefer this topic to the one you were so very interested in before, the one about killing en route to work?

That, as opposed to this, is a REAL topic of interest and one that should concern everybody. And I took the time to give you a long answer in post 446. Why not debate that instead, and leave this to me and Steve?

Itīs a funny old world, the world of Ripperology. With funny people in it.

[Fisherman]

Should one even bother to reply to such a post?


I have not introduced semantics in any way, shape or form.
You are the one objecting to a particular English word.
To suggest I have and have done so in a sly way says so much about you Christer and your perceptions of others.

There is nothing wrong with the word "tactic" or "tactics".
It is not considered by the vast majority of people to be a derogatory word.

Your list is not a list of definitions of the word, rather it is a list of political actions and has nothing to do with my posting at all.

If admin tell us we may not use certain words that is of course their right and we must comply. We all know that racist and sexual terms are not acceptable. However we really cannot have a situation where individual posters say which words may not be used if those words are not shall we say on the "Naughty List.

The alternative is that we end up with lists of perscribed words which may not be used to certain posters, that is not practical or to me acceptable

I am very much afraid that is all I am prepared to say on this matter. It is not a matter of debate.

Steve

It is considered by me to be a derogatory word. I was hoping that would be enough for you to do the decent thing and abstain from it. Iīm sure that intellectually, you can manage to do so if you have the inclination. Nota bene that I am not telling anybody anything - I am asking.

If not, then that is of course a clear answer too. And one I shall keep in mind.

[John G]

It is quite a feat on your behalf to first introduce semantics in a sly manner, and then pretend that I am the one playing the semantic game.

So let me rephrase myself!

I am very uneasy about the phrase tactics, and I therefore kindly ask you not to use it about my work with the Lechmere theory. Just like you say, there are the two words method and approach that can be used instead, and I would be grateful if you could find it in your heart to do me this favour.

To me, it would feel like an effort on your behalf not to inflame the discussion.

The reason for my feeling uneasy can be seen by looking up how political tactics are described, as per wikipedia:

1 Types

1.1 Censorship
1.2 Compromise
1.3 Discrediting
1.4 Divide and conquer
1.5 Extortion
1.6 Fear mongering
1.7 Heroism
1.8 Kinetic force
1.9 Lying
1.10 Obstructionism
1.10.1 Filibuster
1.11 Passing the buck
1.12 Placating
1.13 Plausible deniability
1.14 Religion-based strategies
1.15 Sabotage
1.16 Smear campaign
1.17 Others

This is a bit PC and, ironically, probably falls within category 1, censorship. By the way, speaking of PC would you prefer to be henceforth addressed as Fisherperson?

[Elamarna]

It is quite a feat on your behalf to first introduce semantics in a sly manner, and then pretend that I am the one playing the semantic game.

So let me rephrase myself!

I am very uneasy about the phrase tactics, and I therefore kindly ask you not to use it about my work with the Lechmere theory. Just like you say, there are the two words method and approach that can be used instead, and I would be grateful if you could find it in your heart to do me this favour.

To me, it would feel like an effort on your behalf not to inflame the discussion.

The reason for my feeling uneasy can be seen by looking up how political tactics are described, as per wikipedia:

1 Types

1.1 Censorship
1.2 Compromise
1.3 Discrediting
1.4 Divide and conquer
1.5 Extortion
1.6 Fear mongering
1.7 Heroism
1.8 Kinetic force
1.9 Lying
1.10 Obstructionism
1.10.1 Filibuster
1.11 Passing the buck
1.12 Placating
1.13 Plausible deniability
1.14 Religion-based strategies
1.15 Sabotage
1.16 Smear campaign
1.17 Others

Should one even bother to reply to such a post?


I have not introduced semantics in any way, shape or form.
You are the one objecting to a particular English word.
To suggest I have and have done so in a sly way says so much about you Christer and your perceptions of others.

There is nothing wrong with the word "tactic" or "tactics".
It is not considered by the vast majority of people to be a derogatory word.

Your list is not a list of definitions of the word, rather it is a list of political actions and has nothing to do with my posting at all.

If admin tell us we may not use certain words that is of course their right and we must comply. We all know that racist and sexual terms are not acceptable. However we really cannot have a situation where individual posters say which words may not be used if those words are not shall we say on the "Naughty List.

The alternative is that we end up with lists of perscribed words which may not be used to certain posters, that is not practical or to me acceptable

I am very much afraid that is all I am prepared to say on this matter. It is not a matter of debate.

Steve

[Fisherman]

So sorry not playing this game of semantics.

Steve

It is quite a feat on your behalf to first introduce semantics in a sly manner, and then pretend that I am the one playing the semantic game.

So let me rephrase myself!

I am very uneasy about the phrase tactics, and I therefore kindly ask you not to use it about my work with the Lechmere theory. Just like you say, there are the two words method and approach that can be used instead, and I would be grateful if you could find it in your heart to do me this favour.

To me, it would feel like an effort on your behalf not to inflame the discussion.

The reason for my feeling uneasy can be seen by looking up how political tactics are described, as per wikipedia:

1 Types

1.1 Censorship
1.2 Compromise
1.3 Discrediting
1.4 Divide and conquer
1.5 Extortion
1.6 Fear mongering
1.7 Heroism
1.8 Kinetic force
1.9 Lying
1.10 Obstructionism
1.10.1 Filibuster
1.11 Passing the buck
1.12 Placating
1.13 Plausible deniability
1.14 Religion-based strategies
1.15 Sabotage
1.16 Smear campaign
1.17 Others

[Elamarna]

"Itīs just tactics".

Ever heard the expression?

So sorry not playing this game of semantics.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

a quick search of the net gives the following meanings:

"an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end."

"a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result."


in the way i used it the aim is to say something is possible(Lechmere leaving earlier than claimed) because it cannot be shown to be untrue (there is no evidence known to exist).

The word is used in many walks of life: business, protest, military as well as sports such as chess, football, cycling and Cricket.

Indeed I use a tactic of not posting my full views on Bucks Row , until I have gathered what I consider to be the fullest information possible, there is no attempt to deceive.

There is nothing to suggest that Tactic means what you suggest above. its just your unfortunate take on it.


Tactic is a legitimate word to use in the context of the post and I am most sorry but I will not be told what non-offensive words may or may not be used.

We see again the resort to semantics, another tactic? or just a misunderstanding of the language, lets opt for the later.


Steve

"Itīs just tactics".

Ever heard the expression?

[Fisherman]

Henry Flower: Fish, that's SUCH a classic example of purely circular reasoning I'm genuinely surprised you're letting yourself post it.

I disagree, actually - although I can see what point you are trying to make. In many respects, it resembles the psychopathy parameter: if Lechmere was the killer, then he will have been a psychopath. Some call that circuar reasoning too, but it is instead a posited prerequisite: For the theory to work, Lechmere must have been a psychopath.

The same applies here. I am not saying that Lechmere must have been the killer since he had no blood on him. I am saying that he arguably could not have blood in him if he was the killer, because that would have gotten him caught. It is therefore a case of either
A/ Lechmere being able to get rid of whatever obvious blood he had on bis person, or
B/ him being innocent.

There is nothing circular about that. Compare to a case where the victim has her feet painted red. It then applies that the killer must have had access to red colour. If he did not have such access, then he was not the killer. The red colour becomes a prerequisite for an identification of the suspect as the probable/possible killer, just like how it becomes a prerequisite for Lechmere to have been the probable/possible killer that he was able to get rid of the blood.

Or else he arguably did go to work after arguably not killing anyone that night.

Exactly so - either or.

When you say 'shielding himself', are you suggesting that he had some cloak of invisibility?

I was actually much more thinking like gloves or something such.

Did Paul note that the other carman was carrying a change of clothes with him?

I suspect many men carried a bag with lunch to work.

And now you're suggesting he earned enough as a carman that he had a little pied-a-terre where he changed into his work clothes after his murders? This, from a guy who coined the phrase 'phantom killer' about the idea that anyone other than Lechmere may have killed Nichols?

I am actually exploring the possibilities for him having been able to arrive at work unbloodied or to wash up there, since the theory hinges to a degree on this. To that purpose, the possibility of a place to change clothes cannot be excluded. It need not be a castle or a bungalow, though, it could just as well be a place where he tended to lodgings in the absense of the lodger, who could have gone away for some time or gone to hospital or something such. There are many possibilities for him to have had that kind of access to a bolthole that cost nothing at all.
As for the carmanīs wages, I think there is a possibility that Lechmere had access to more money than that. He was able to open a shop, he clad his kids nicely, and so there may have been money to be used. On the other site, Gary Barnett has presented the fact that Lechmereīs grandfather, Thomas Roulson, left a substantial sum when he died, for example.
This, however, can only be speculated about. What I am doing is - as I said - to explore in which ways Lechmere can have handled problems with blood on his person.
And I stand by the expression phantom killer, by the way...

Easier to imagine that the killer slunk quickly back to his room via the shortest possible route through nearly deserted streets, blood unnoticed, than that he cheerfully turned up to work ten minutes later.

Itīs actually always easier to imagine that people are not serial killers, on the whole.
Some nevertheless are. And some of them are quite resourceful people.

I don't imagine Peter Sutcliffe ever turned up to his truck depot covered in blood. He killed when he had plenty of time, not when he was on his way to work and was expected not to be late.

Lechmere may have afforded himself plenty of time. And he may not have turned up to his depot covered in blood. Watch out, or you will make yourself guilty of circular reasoning...

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;423827]

The points you make about Lechmere wanting to maintain a status quo are excellent, and I agree all over.

I have also pointed out that there are many examples of serialists who have been good providers and caring family men.

Methodology, Fisherman. You should study some methodology.

1. You can not generalize to serial killers from family providers.

Being a good provider and caring family man is not an indication for being a serial killer or any other type of criminal.

One cannot work from the assumption that they will be evil in all contacts with other people - if they were, they would be easily caught.

2. "Being evil" has no correlation with your Lechmere. "The evil ones" were evil but there is no indication that Lechmere was "evil".

And also the problem of deduction. The "evil ones" were very seldom serialists.

You ask for examples of other killers, killing in the line of work, so to speak. I would point to some of the so called highway killers, some of whom were truck drivers and used their travelling to procure victims.

And I think Gacy had his victims work for him. But this is deduction from known cases in our time. And any deduction from the type of "serialists killing in the line of work" is impossible, since it can not establish a connection between Lechmere and serialists. The ONLY connection you get is that people have been in the line of work. Lechmere was. But not therefore in the line of being a serial killer.

I believe many serialists are opportunistic and will make use of whatever comes their way. In that respect, I believe that if a serialist is offered a job that involves the opportunities to kill, he will gladly accept that job.

Was the real motive in the past of Lechmere working for the sake of killing?

You go from "a serialist" who is "offered a job" to a carman who has a job in 1888 (and before and after, you have constructed a long time period).

In Lechmereīs case, he was at work on daytime and at home on nighttime. That makes for poor hunting grounds timewise.

What he would have been looking for if he was a serialist, would have been time on his own, preferably during hours when he stood a good chance of killing undetected.

Now you have specified and attached a motive to a dead man for whom there are no sources indicating what you say here.

What do you mean? Do you mean that we shall think that Lechmere was a killer for decades since he worked normal working hours?

In that respect, the one and only opportunity that offers itself up is his trek to work. Some competition can be offered by when he was on his delivery rounds, but in that case, his employers would know where he went and what time he could be expected to return back.

So actually, if I was to vote for the likeliest period of time of killing, I would cast my vote on his trek to work.

It is like painting a horse yellow and calling it a chicken.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

If I may, Iīd request you to stick with approach or method. Tactic is another matter entirely to me, where an honest approach (!) can succumb to a will to deceive.

Fisherman,

a quick search of the net gives the following meanings:

"an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end."

"a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result."


in the way i used it the aim is to say something is possible(Lechmere leaving earlier than claimed) because it cannot be shown to be untrue (there is no evidence known to exist).

The word is used in many walks of life: business, protest, military as well as sports such as chess, football, cycling and Cricket.

Indeed I use a tactic of not posting my full views on Bucks Row , until I have gathered what I consider to be the fullest information possible, there is no attempt to deceive.

There is nothing to suggest that Tactic means what you suggest above. its just your unfortunate take on it.


Tactic is a legitimate word to use in the context of the post and I am most sorry but I will not be told what non-offensive words may or may not be used.

We see again the resort to semantics, another tactic? or just a misunderstanding of the language, lets opt for the later.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Not at all Fish, it was one of the points I started this thread on.
Here I say tactics, one could use method. It the approach used of x cannot be disproved rather than x is proven. Such an approach while never establishing points as historical facts, is very effective at leaving the possibility open.
Hence why I said to Herlock it is impossible to disprove Lechmere did not leave home earlier than 3.20
It is certainly not about if the poster believes in something or not.

I did talk about it in post#1.


Steve

If I may, Iīd request you to stick with approach or method. Tactic is another matter entirely to me, where an honest approach (!) can succumb to a will to deceive.

[Henry Flower]

That all lies in what happened afterwards, though - and we canīt tell how that worked out.

As I said in another post about much the same matter, I completely agree that if he had very little time, and if he was soaked in blood, and if his work had him arriving at a place where co-workers shared facilities with hem, then it would not onky be perilous in the extreme to kill in the fashion he did, it would make certain he got caught.

But was this what happened? Well, obviously not if he was the killer.

Fish, that's SUCH a classic example of purely circular reasoning I'm genuinely surprised you're letting yourself post it.

He seems to have been able to go about his business, no questions asked no suspicion entertained. And that must have had itīs reasons.

I can think of one.

But that becomes of less importance when we look at the Chapman and Kelly cases - there, he must have gotten blood on his person to at least a discernable degree (the same goes for the Eddowes case, but he arguably did not go to work after that strike, so itīs a different matter).

Or else he arguably did go to work after arguably not killing anyone that night.

I am therefore working from the assumption that he took precautions to hide the blood, either by shielding himself, wearing clothing he changed, having a bolthole on his way to work or by having the means to arrive unseen at his work, and being able to wash up/change there.

When you say 'shielding himself', are you suggesting that he had some cloak of invisibility? Did Paul note that the other carman was carrying a change of clothes with him? And now you're suggesting he earned enough as a carman that he had a little pied-a-terre where he changed into his work clothes after his murders? This, from a guy who coined the phrase 'phantom killer' about the idea that anyone other than Lechmere may have killed Nichols?

If this applies, it is problem solved. And as long as it cannot be in any way ruled out, the Lechmere bid stands.

That's some fairly relaxed standards there. I think 'stands' is generous. 'Totters'?

As an aside, letīs remember that whoever it was that was the killer, that somebody will in all probability have walked away from the Chapman site with blood on his person - so THAT risk was taken, regardless of all of the rest of the matter. Somebody DID walk the East End streets with fresh blood in him- or herself, distacing him- or herself from Hanbury Street that September morning.

Apparently, that could be done without anybody noticing you.

Easier to imagine that the killer slunk quickly back to his room via the shortest possible route through nearly deserted streets, blood unnoticed, than that he cheerfully turned up to work ten minutes later.

As for examples of other people killing on their way to work, it is not the correct question to ask, I think.

Go figure!

The better question is whether serialist will grasp whatever opportunities they come across, regardless if this means a risk or not.
I pointed out earlier that lorry drivers have sometimes evolved into so called highway killers (there are a number of them, like for example William Bonin), and these men seem to have taken advantage of their work as lorry drivers, insomuch as it presented them with a very useful means to pick up victims and kill them, after which they could dispose of the bodies anywhere their work took them. In many a way, it is the perfect cover for a serialist to have a work that gives you a private space inside the lorry and that gives you the chance to troll for victims plus it provides you with endless dumping opportunities. One victim in Idaho, the next in Oregon - who is to make the connection, if there is no signature?

Of course, the equivalent of todays lorry driver back in 1888 was the carman...

I don't imagine Peter Sutcliffe ever turned up to his truck depot covered in blood. He killed when he had plenty of time, not when he was on his way to work and was expected not to be late.

Finally, as for examples of serialists who killed on their way to work, I would say that every serialist case involves something that sets it aside from the rest. They are all unique in one way or another, and the same will go for the Ripper murders. Not finding examples of the exact same modus operandi is not the same as having made it less credible. Paul Ogorzow (hope I got the name right) killed eight women in the trains where he worked during WWII (normally on the same short stretch, even), and Iīll be damned if I can find another train worker who used the opportunities this gives you to kill. Sounds kind of risky to me.

Fair point.

[Elamarna]

To a degree, yes. But we must accept that if Charles Lechmere was the killer, then he lied about what was said between him and Mizen, he lied about Paul having spoken to the PC, he lied about his real name, he lied about having stepped out into the street just before Paul arrived etcetera.

I am therefore thinking he may have lied about his time of departure too. I would warn against accepting it as gospel.

And of course if he was a liar is dependent on him being the killer. If not there are no lies other than his name, which is not a lie in itself, but could be a form of deception then again it may not be.

It seems clear to me that at any rate, he was in Bucks Row later than he shuld have been, and that in itself puts a question mark behind the timings he gave.

Yes he says he left later than normal which may put him a some minutes behind his normal time, however it appears he had approx 40 minutes to normally get to work and at a mad push it could be done in less than 20 (highly unlikely I agree) which may mean he was there not much later than normal a few minutes at most.
The real issue is surely the timing of Paul. Which basically comes down to do we accept Paul's timing or do we accept the 3 policeofficers timings.
That however is another long debate.

Steve

[Elamarna]

"Tactics", Steve? Are you reasoning that I do not believe in what I am saying? Because if I do, then you are definitely not dealing with any tactics.
Can you elaborate?

Not at all Fish, it was one of the points I started this thread on.
Here I say tactics, one could use method. It the approach used of x cannot be disproved rather than x is proven. Such an approach while never establishing points as historical facts, is very effective at leaving the possibility open.
Hence why I said to Herlock it is impossible to disprove Lechmere did not leave home earlier than 3.20
It is certainly not about if the poster believes in something or not.

I did talk about it in post#1.


Steve

[Fisherman]

I just looked up Bonin again, and it seems he used a van for his murders, so I am mistaking him for another highway killer, but the name escapes me for the moment.

However, this documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLcFfGuFPPQ

should go to make my point.

It seems there are at least twentyfive former truckers doing time in American prisons for serial murder... and there are around fivehundred cases of murders along the American highways. Most of the twohundred suspects in these cases are long-haul truckers.

So there are many examples of men using their working conditions as the perfect opportunity to kill. I find this immensely interesting. How about you, John?