The Nature of Evidence

[Patrick S]

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, the Mizen scam, the pulled down dress, the not hearing the footsteps, the geographical pattern of his walk to work, the fact that his mother lived in 1 Mary Ann Street when Stride was killed 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. Once we have the rest, this weighs him down further.

That has not changed a single bit, it was always the same and I have not altered a bit of it. More evidence has come to light over time, and has been incorporated, but there was never a time when I said that finding a freshly killed victim was necessarily nefarious.

Of the things you listed, "the name" is the only thing backed by evidence. And it's the entire reason you've come up with the rest.

The Mizen Scam is an invention. The pulled down dress? Not hearing the footsteps? Honestly. His mother in Mary Ann Street? Is this instead of or in addition to the "fact" that "the murders occurred along his route to work"? We can find entire threads on that....... But is that now dead, as well?
Because, as we've seen, only ONE murder occurred while he was actually ON his route to work. And that's the ONE victim he found. So, you have him branching out now. Killing while visiting mum on the weekend. You even suggested he was pubbing with his buddies back home when he decided to kill Stride. Anyway, it's all noted. While we're on it. Do you still have him killing Chapman while his cart was being unloaded at the market? Or has that been massaged, as well?

[Patrick S]

On the whole, I tend to think those who believe in the carmans guilt as better informed than those who do not, and maybe that is not as surprising or condemnable as you seemingly will have it?

Fair enough. But, a serious question for you. Why do you suspect that so few people - people familiar with the crimes, Ripperolgoists, posters on boards like this one, whatever you'd call us - actually agree with your conclusions?

[John G]

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, the Mizen scam, the pulled down dress, the not hearing the footsteps, the geographical pattern of his walk to work, the fact that his mother lived in 1 Mary Ann Street when Stride was killed 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. Once we have the rest, this weighs him down further.

That has not changed a single bit, it was always the same and I have not altered a bit of it. More evidence has come to light over time, and has been incorporated, but there was never a time when I said that finding a freshly killed victim was necessarily nefarious.

Regarding the point you make about Stride. Whitechapel was absolutely tiny, consisting of only 406 acres, which equates to just 0.63 square miles. Nonetheless, over 70000 people lived within that immensely overcrowded district, anyone of whom must have lived just "a stone's throw away" from at least one murder site. See: http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: On the contrary. I find your take on it entirely laughable.

How gracious of you. Thank you.

I'll ask again, though. What state do you think Cross was in that frightened Paul so? You claim he was intent on bluffing his way out. Did he begin the bluff by rushing Paul in an intimidating way? You told Caz how appalled you were that she'd underestimate this brilliant madman. Was he incapable of composing himself adequately so as not to frighten Paul before he enlisted his help in finding a cop?

If Paul was aware that there had been muggins and brawls in the vicinity, then Lechmere may well have stood out as a representative of that, simple as that.
Then again, my own conviction is that if Lechmere was the killer, then he was a psychopath. And my guess is that the initial reaction of a psychopath that is disturbed while committing a crime is not fear but instead he will be angry with the disturber. That may have lingered in his expression.

It has to be guesswork only, but the fact of the matter is that Lechmere was the ingredient that had Paul feeling nervous and trying to round him.

Paul himself tells us he was on his guard because of WHERE HE WAS. But, you say that's balderdash! Absurd!

When did I use those expressions? Can we be a bit more discerning here? The locality was what offered a background for Pauls misgivings, but Lechmere was the catalyst.

And, again, you reach for some unreasonable, untenable, illogical "conclusion" that's not supported by anything but your desire to point the finger of guilt at one man.

To be frank, Patrick, I am not the one being unreasonable here. You throw accusations around yourself like confetti at this stage. You need to calm down a bit and try to realize that I am doing my utmost to discuss this intelligibly.

I donīt think it matters a iot which impression Paul had of Lechmere, since he admitted to having feas walking through that neighbourhood. He would probably be startled if he met Little Red Ridinghood, and so I do not ascribe any nefarious behaviour at all on Lechmereīs behalf. He was there, Paul would probably rather have wanted him not to be there, thatīs all.

[Patrick S]

Regarding the point you make about Stride. Whitechapel was absolutely tiny, consisting of only 406 acres, which equates to just 0.63 square miles. Nonetheless, over 70000 people lived within that immensely overcrowded district, anyone of whom must have lived just "a stone's throw away" from at least one murder site. See: http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

A great point. One worth making again. If memory serves the murders were committed across an area of one square kilometer. I've made the point many times: Proximity to one means proximity to all.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: On the contrary. I find your take on it entirely laughable.

How gracious of you. Thank you.

I'll ask again, though. What state do you think Cross was in that frightened Paul so? You claim he was intent on bluffing his way out. Did he begin the bluff by rushing Paul in an intimidating way? You told Caz how appalled you were that she'd underestimate this brilliant madman. Was he incapable of composing himself adequately so as not to frighten Paul before he enlisted his help in finding a cop?

If Paul was aware that there had been muggins and brawls in the vicinity, then Lechmere may well have stood out as a representative of that, simple as that.
Then again, my own conviction is that if Lechmere was the killer, then he was a psychopath. And my guess is that the initial reaction of a psychopath that is disturbed while committing a crime is not fear but instead he will be angry with the disturber. That may have lingered in his expression.

It has to be guesswork only, but the fact of the matter is that Lechmere was the ingredient that had Paul feeling nervous and trying to round him.

Paul himself tells us he was on his guard because of WHERE HE WAS. But, you say that's balderdash! Absurd!

When did I use those expressions? Can we be a bit more discerning here? The locality was what offered a background for Pauls misgivings, but Lechmere was the catalyst.

And, again, you reach for some unreasonable, untenable, illogical "conclusion" that's not supported by anything but your desire to point the finger of guilt at one man.

To be frank, Patrick, I am not the one being unreasonable here. You throw accusations around yourself like confetti at this stage. You need to calm down a bit and try to realize that I am doing my utmost to discuss this intelligibly.

I donīt think it matters a iot which impression Paul had of Lechmere, since he admitted to having feas walking through that neighbourhood. He would probably be startled if he met Little Red Ridinghood, and so I do not ascribe any nefarious behaviour at all on Lechmereīs behalf. He was there, Paul would probably rather have wanted him not to be there, thatīs all.

Jesus. All that...and then the last paragraph......and I think we agree. Let's just assume we do.....and move on.

[Fisherman]

Regarding the point you make about Stride. Whitechapel was absolutely tiny, consisting of only 406 acres, which equates to just 0.63 square miles. Nonetheless, over 70000 people lived within that immensely overcrowded district, anyone of whom must have lived just "a stone's throw away" from at least one murder site. See: http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

What you have to look at is the overall picture, John.

-Lechmere had reason to cross the killing fields of Hanbury Street/ Old Montague Street at the approximate hours of four of the killings, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly (Dorset Street was along a short cut from Hanbury Street to Broad Street). Not very men would have walked through Bucks Row and past the killing fields at this time of the morning, by the looks of things.

-Two of the murders, Stride and Eddowes, were NOT committed along the potential working routes of Lechmere, but he nevertheless has ties to BOTH these murder spots. 1 Mary Ann Street is very close by the Berner Street murder site, and Mitre Square would be very close to the road from Berner Street to Broad Street if he used his old working route from James Street.

Neither of these things make him the culprit, but it remains true that the police will categorically search for geographical logic when they look for a serialist.

Most importantly, no matter how tenuous we choose to regard these links, they are nevertheless viable, and not a single other suspect comes anyhwere near to having a similar pattern of movements that agree with all the murder sites.

[Fisherman]

Jesus. All that...and then the last paragraph......and I think we agree. Let's just assume we do.....and move on.

Yes, you see, I HAVE to explain this in detail since you keep saying that I am doing all I can to incriminate Lechmere, regardless of how viable it is. In this case, you claimed that I was only after making him look like a villain, but as you seem to understand now, I am doing nothing of the sort.

[Patrick S]

Yes, you see, I HAVE to explain this in detail since you keep saying that I am doing all I can to incriminate Lechmere, regardless of how viable it is. In this case, you claimed that I was only after making him look like a villain, but as you seem to understand now, I am doing nothing of the sort.

Of course this incorrect. You railed against me for suggesting that Paul was "intimidated" or frightened because of where he was. Only to say the same thing yourself. Either way. I'm glad you came to your senses.

[Fisherman]

A great point. One worth making again. If memory serves the murders were committed across an area of one square kilometer. I've made the point many times: Proximity to one means proximity to all.

It is not that easy, no. Have look at Paul. He lived in Foster Street, and so he beomes viable for the Nichols murder and the Chapman murder. But he had no reason at all to be in George Yard, or to be in Dorset Street, Berner Street and Mitre Square as far as we can tell.

People will have traversed the killing fields of Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street, but from different directions. Not very many will have had a reason to be in both streets at around three or four in the mornings. And once they have been singled out, how many of them will have had some sort of tie to St Georges or Aldgate? The fewest, Iīd submit.

I can assure you that IF one single such man had been identifie, who had reason to be in these spots at the relevant times, we would have heard A LOT abot him, on account of how he would be of great interest to the case. He would equal the interest of Lechmere but for one point - he would NOT have been found alone with one of the victims at the approximate time of that victims death.

[Fisherman]

Of course this incorrect. You railed against me for suggesting that Paul was "intimidated" or frightened because of where he was. Only to say the same thing yourself. Either way. I'm glad you came to your senses.

I never left them. The neighbourhood was a fearful one, and that meant that Paul was on his watch. But what intimidated him was Lechmereīs presence.

I have written this exact same thing a hundred times or more on these boards. If it means that I suddenly come to my senses when I say the same thing to you, you may need to reassess things.

[Fisherman]

Of the things you listed, "the name" is the only thing backed by evidence. And it's the entire reason you've come up with the rest.

The Mizen Scam is an invention. The pulled down dress? Not hearing the footsteps? Honestly. His mother in Mary Ann Street? Is this instead of or in addition to the "fact" that "the murders occurred along his route to work"? We can find entire threads on that....... But is that now dead, as well?
Because, as we've seen, only ONE murder occurred while he was actually ON his route to work. And that's the ONE victim he found. So, you have him branching out now. Killing while visiting mum on the weekend. You even suggested he was pubbing with his buddies back home when he decided to kill Stride. Anyway, it's all noted. While we're on it. Do you still have him killing Chapman while his cart was being unloaded at the market? Or has that been massaged, as well?

If you had read my posts, you would know how I reason. Apparently, you donīt. The fault lies with you, but I donīt think you are able to take that in for a second.

If we can identify the killer of one of the purported Ripper victims, then we have PROBABLY identified the killer of them all, or at least the bulk of them. That was always so, and it hasnīt changed lately.

A geographical pattern that is consistent with the murders was always a very serious matter. That has not changed either.

Nor have my view on Chapman changed a single bit. I think she died at around the same time as Nichols. I concur with Phillips on that score, and I note that Swanson left that opportunity VERY much open too. I donīt think that Long saw the killer and Chapman, I donīt think that Cadosh heard them and i donīt think Richardson sat on the stairs on Chapmans murder morning, but if he DID, he probably missed Chapmans body.

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

"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."

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."

[Patrick S]

If you had read my posts, you would know how I reason. Apparently, you donīt. The fault lies with you, but I donīt think you are able to take that in for a second.

If we can identify the killer of one of the purported Ripper victims, then we have PROBABLY identified the killer of them all, or at least the bulk of them. That was always so, and it hasnīt changed lately.

A geographical pattern that is consistent with the murders was always a very serious matter. That has not changed either.

Nor have my view on Chapman changed a single bit. I think she died at around the same time as Nichols. I concur with Phillips on that score, and I note that Swanson left that opportunity VERY much open too. I donīt think that Long saw the killer and Chapman, I donīt think that Cadosh heard them and i donīt think Richardson sat on the stairs on Chapmans murder morning, but if he DID, he probably missed Chapmans body.

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 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.

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

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?

See above bold.

[Patrick S]

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?

[Fisherman]

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?

I think it boils down to a combination of people having previsously nailed their colours to the mast, either in the shape 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.