The Nature of Evidence

[Abby Normal]

Yes, very pathetic.

Pierre

I'm glad you can admit it about yourself. knowing you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

[Fisherman]

Ah, but I don't think that can stand. We now know that time of death cannot be reliably determined, even using modern methods. This lead Dr Biggs to conclude that such estimates that were made in the course of the Whitechapel cases should be "taken with a pinch of salt." This doesn't imply criticism, as "we just know more now and therefore, can't be so 'certain'" (Marriott, 2013).

It was always an uncertain business, but it was to a large degree based on observations made in many a case. In the Chapman case, itīs either Phillipsī "at least two hours, probably more" or less than an hour, and so I am going with the doc, no qualms. I feel pretty certain, not that it was three hours, but that it was NOT less than one. And that rules out Long and Cadosh.

[Elamarna]

Steve post as an example of misleading how somebody (presumably I?) have said that Neil found Nichols within two minutes after she was left by the carmen.

No I made it clear it was the documentary not you I was talking about.

Maybe I have said such a thing in a generalized manner, but I certainly have also made it clear in many posts that I think that is too short an interval of time.
Why Steve chose not to present those posts, I have no idea, but it remains that the carmen cannot reasonably have made it from the murder spot to the end of Bucks Row in only a minute, and after that, Neil will have entered Bucks Row from Thomas Street, walking at a measured speed, and he will have needed perhaps two minutes or more to make it down to the murder spot.
So there will be a longer period of time.

I agree. I was talking about the documentary and you have made it clear many times you are not responsible for or had any control over the broadcast. There was no need to mention your posts has I was not discussing your view Christer.
Why do you assume he entered from Thomas street, while it may have been Queen Ann street is more likely.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: I sense that this one is directed at me.

Nope. It was directed at Chris George and Howard Brown.

Firstly, I don't believe CL is a viable candidate because, apart from finding the body, there's nothing. An empty vessel.

A vessel full of circumstantial evidence. Having logical paths that seemingly correlate with all the murder sites is not exactly "empty". For example.

I really can't see why anyone can't accept the fact that CL would not have wanted to lose his job?

I can accept that Lechmere did not want to loose his job. So you are wrong. I think he wanted to hang on to it. But I think that Paul Ogorzow wanted to hang in to HIS job too. However, he got caught, and that was that. It is a risk that will always go with serial killing - you may be found out and loose both job and life.
As an aside, I think that the most common job we find amongst the rank of serialists is that of a lorry drivers and chauffeurs. Sutcliffe was one, and then there is a number of so called highway killers, like William Bonin and Randy Kraft, Patrick Kearney...
The task of travelling the network of roads appeals to many serialists. And I would say that the 1888 lorry driver/chauffeur had the title carman.

Fisherman is always going on about how psychopaths can live normal, well-balanced family lives (obviously).

"Going on"? I am always pointing it out. It is not the same as going on.

Being unemployed in Whitechapel in 1888 is hardly conducive to a decent life!

Being unemployed is not equivalent to becoming a serial killer, though...

Obviously it wouldn't just be the fact of losing his job that would prevent him being the ripper.

A serialist normally has an inner urge to kill, at least the ones who produce murder scenes like the Ripper scene. To him or her, having a job is tottaly underprioritized to killing. Working is not an urge.
But it IS a way to make a living and it DOES provide a facade, which is why I think most serialists with a work are anxious to keep their jobs. But it is NOT their top priority.

All I'm saying is that he would have planned to avoid losing his job.

I agree with that. Maybe not that he will have done much planning on the topic, but he would in all probability have wanted to keep his work even if he was the killer.

Easy enough to do. No Moriarty-like machinations required. Just don't kill 20 minutes before you're due to clock on! Simples.

This is where we need to be a bit flexible, Herlock. We need to know the circumstances that were offered up by his work. We need to know to what degree he had opportunities to clean up at work. We need to know when his colleagues arrived and to what extent he associated with them. And so on. He may well have chosen the kind of work he did because it offered excellent opportunities to kill. It is not unheard of.

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.

Yes, there are risks. Bundy, Ridgway, Gacy, Sutcliffe, Ogorzow, Armstrong and all the rest of them were all subjected to these risks to a smaller or lesser degree. It comes with the territory. If Lechmere felt compelled to kill, he may well have identified the trek to work as his best option and acted upon it. It was dark, he passed through crowded areas in a metropolis that offered thousands of potential suspects in a crime-ridden district. As scenarios go, itīs not a half-bad choice.

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?

We have absolutely no idea how much time he allowed himself. He could have left at any time, he coud have given any excuse or not given any excuse at all, his wife may have suspected him or even known about him, there is no certainty on any of these scores.
If we reason that he told his wife that there was a lot of work at the depot and he needed to make an early start every now and then, telling her to sleep in, then just how hard is that to accept?

[Pierre]

pathetic

Yes, very pathetic.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;422853]

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?

1+1 = 2.

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?

1+1 = 2.

[Abby Normal]

Dear Fisherman,

I know why you think you are right.

You saw the name Cross and looked for that name in the archives at the address 22 Doveton Street.

You found Lechmere instead.

When that happened you experienced a heuristic grand moment:

You were convinced that he was a LIAR.

And it was then you said: "That must be him. Jack the Ripper".

To make this wonderful grand moment an eternal moment, you do everything in your power.

Even become what you in that grand heuristic moment thought that Lechmere was:

A liar.

Pierre

pathetic

[John G]

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.

Ah, but I don't think that can stand. We now know that time of death cannot be reliably determined, even using modern methods. This lead Dr Biggs to conclude that such estimates that were made in the course of the Whitechapel cases should be "taken with a pinch of salt." This doesn't imply criticism, as "we just know more now and therefore, can't be so 'certain'" (Marriott, 2013).

[Pierre]

Dear Fisherman,

I know why you think you are right.

You saw the name Cross and looked for that name in the archives at the address 22 Doveton Street.

You found Lechmere instead.

When that happened you experienced a heuristic grand moment:

You were convinced that he was a LIAR.

And it was then you said: "That must be him. Jack the Ripper".

To make this wonderful grand moment an eternal moment, you do everything in your power.

Even become what you in that grand heuristic moment thought that Lechmere was:

A liar.

Pierre

Blessed are those who do not destroy the historical sources for they shall see the past.

Pierre

[Pierre]

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.

Dear Fisherman,

I know why you think you are right.

You saw the name Cross and looked for that name in the archives at the address 22 Doveton Street.

You found Lechmere instead.

When that happened you experienced a heuristic grand moment:

You were convinced that he was a LIAR.

And it was then you said: "That must be him. Jack the Ripper".

To make this wonderful grand moment an eternal moment, you do everything in your power.

Even become what you in that grand heuristic moment thought that Lechmere was:

A liar.

Pierre

[John G]

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.

Well, to clarify, I meant that it would strengthen the case against Richardson who, of course, has been suggested as a candidate.

By the way, as regards Lechmere's employment, is there any evidence as to whether he was reliable in respect of his timekeeping? The reason I ask is that Francis Tyler, who worked for Amelia Richardson, was often late for work-2 hours late on the day of Chapman's murder: http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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