Lech versus Kos

[Batman]

Absolutely correct, yes. Mind you, if I had only allowed for Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street, I would have a hard time explaining Kelly.

As it stands, though, cutting through Dorset Street from Hanbury Street was a quicker way than keeping to Hanbury throughout.

So yes, it may be that he only passed Nicholsī murder site and that he was always somewhere else when the others were killed. Equally, it applies that he may have been at each and every site as the women were killed, since the overall work trek area allows for it. Or, putting it the way the police tends to do: He fits the bill.

Itīs not exactly rocket science, is it?

So really we can do this for a lot people who lived at one end of Whitechapel and worked at the other, correct?

We can work out routes for them to go through each of the murder sites, correct?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. There is no map. He killed Eddowes, and then he went to the Pickfords depot in a matter of minutes. There he deposited the innards and washed up and dressed his wound in the hand with the half apron before he returned out onto the streets. He then walked eastwards and stopped in the doorway in Goulston Street, before he went home to Doveton Street.

Choose your own exact timings and streets. The general fit is there.

I love the way you casually state that Lechmere strolls into work carrying a bag of entrails and stashes them somewhere secret. He then washes away blood and cleans up his wound without anyone else seeing him and asking questions. Then he leaves for Goulston Street with no one questioning what he was doing at work at that time.

[Sam Flynn]

So why would he decide to kill only in areas that represent ties to Charles Lechmere and the approximate times when Lechmere was around?.

The ties are largely conjectural or arguably coincidental, and the only known timing (singular) that corresponds to Cross being around relates only to his brief moment in the spotlight at Bucks Row.

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: The only one of the murders which definitive takes place in the timeframe of Lechmere walking to work is Nichols.

Sorry, but we actually donīt know that. They may all have fitted the frame quite well.

Sorry, we do, the word is definitive, not possible

Chapman's time of death is something which we have debated many times, and with a good deal of passion on both sides I think.

I prefer icy cold scientific takes to passionate ones, so I go with Phillips, like the police did. Though I will admit that I am not always quite the icy cold scientist myself...

Unfortunatly you are not going with science, Phillips did not use science, he used opinion and touch; not his fault, the knowledge had not at that stage been discovered.

In a nutshell, you accept the TOD suggested by Phillips, based for the main part on his feelings about how the body fealt to his TOUCH, and the degree of Rigor Mortis present.

Basically, yes, although I have little doubt that Phillips checked for other parameters too, such as lividity and overall appearance.

We have no information that he carried out other tests, lividity would be of little help in distingusing between 1 or 2 hours.

I on the other hand point out that FEEL is not a reliable indicator, nor is Rigor. In 1888, there were no doubt regarded as such, but are not seen so today. Rectal temperature being the prefered method.


We have no records taken, or at least recorded and refered to at the inquest, with regards to either any body temperature for Chapman or the ambient temperature in the yard of #29 Hanbury street.

We also have the witness statement of Richardson, which says the body was not present at a time Lechmere should have been long at work.
I exclude Long and Cadosch, their testimony is not required to say the body was not there before Lechmere was due to start work.

For those reason, I cannot accept the TOD as offered by Phillips, it was not based on sound scientific indicators.

You donīt know that, Iīm afraid. They may have been sound enough and spot on; a doctor of Phillipsī magnitude was no quack.

Sorry we do know that, the tests avalible and used in 1888 were not reliable as a means of establishing TOD.

No one is suggesting he was a quack, far from it, for the period he was good, but the knowledge simply did not exist in 1888.

At the end of the day, it matters very little. What is of importance is that it cannot be in any way excluded that Phillips was on the money, just like the police accepted he was.

Sorry it shows that his estimate was simply an educated guess, nothing more,
to say it matter little is quite simple unrealistic

Introducing doubt in the shape of the three witnesses - or any chosen one of them - does not alter that. Even if there were no witnesses, Phillips assessment and itīs inherent value does not change. Anybody could say "he may have been wrong" without Richardsons testimony. And technically, although it is doubtful, it is possible that he was wrong.

I chose 1 simply because the others are not required to show the body was not there when Phillips suggested death had already occurred, the other two witness reinforce the argument.

Of course it's value changes because it s not based on science, using "it fealt cold" is not science. I really wonder why you continue to deny this fact.

Richardson clearly shows that Phillips suggestion is incorrect, it's not an attack on Phillips, he simply lacked the knowledge to make an accurate estimation. it didnt exist in 1888!

But he may also quite well have been right, and that means that the door for accepting my theory is left wide open. I ask for no more, I donīt have to have people accepting Phillipsīverdict.

Yes, it's a theory, however it is not proven, and the TOD for Chapman, cannot be definitively established by Phillips's estimation.

Therefore unless we have other reasons to doubt the testimony of Richardson, we should accept the body was not there at 4.30.

The double event two, do not fit any known time that Lechmere can be placed in the relevant areas.
It is conjecture, not totally unreasonable I grant you, but conjecture none the less.

The difference from your Mr Kosminski in Goulston Street is that we KNOW that Lechmere had his mother in Mary Ann Street together with his daughter. And we KNOW that they were very closely related, as closely related as it gets, to Charles Lechmere. Since there are no comings and goings list kept, that is the most one can hope for as a suspectologist. It is as good as it gets.

It's still conjecture that he is there on that, or any night.
It is the inherent problem for suspectologist research, and why although I favour Kosminski, I leave the suspect arguments to others on the whole.

In the case of Kelly, we again have the issue of reliable TOD, and the range on offer is large, 2am onwards. Indeed modern forensics do not exclude the possibility of a TOD far closer to the discover of the body than many have previously considered.

... nor a 3-4 AM TOD.

Of course,

The possiblie range being so large, it will of course encompass the time that Lechmere would pass, but cannot be used to actually place him there at the required time.

True - but once more, it is as good as it gets. She is victim number four that cannot be in any way ruled out, going on Lechmereīs geographical and chronological indicators.

Not being able to rule something out, does not rule it in Christer

Where do you fit Kosminski in, in this context? How do you place him in George Yard, Bucks Row, Hanbury Street etc? And how do you account for his haing been around at, say, 3-4 AM?
[/COLOR]

Thats the point, I do not need to fit him to such a tight time line, as is imposed by Lechmere's hours of work.
If he is the man spoken of by Cox and Sagar, then night time excusions seem to have been often.

Surely, itīs another case of falling way short?

Not at all, 3-4 is a time you have set, not one confirmed by the medical and witnesss evidence.

The police reprort a person of interest who goes out at night, that may be Kosminski, or it may be someone else, whoever he is, it's clear this is not Charles Lechmere.
The Police suspected this person was connected to the murders.

If we include Tabram, we again have an issue with TOD. neither do we have any evidence that Lechmere actually used the suggested route via Old Montague and Wentworth, conjecture I am afraid, reasoned but still conjecture.

True - but itīs useful and viable conjecture. And it even offers us the chance to drop her if we do not like her for the Ripperīs tally (hello Gareth!). Nichols, Chapman and Kelly are all Hanbury Street route victims.

True

Apart from Nichols, none can be shown to coincide with a time period when we know Lechmere, if working that particular day, should have been in the area.

And none can be excluded!

It is the same Negative arguments, I require possitive arguments to accept a any theory.

They hey may all have been killed at 3-4 AM.

The evidence such as it is says that is probably not the case

Once again, as good as it gets. It is actually astonishing that such a good case can be built against the carman 130 years after the events. It is not ever going to happen again, if you ask me. Not nearly.

The problem is that it is not a GOOD case, it is conjecture on top of conjecture, nothing wrong with that as such, But it proves NOTHING.

Therefore, the proposition that Kosminski needs to be in the area, at the same time that Lechmere treks to work is not only unproven, but not actually required.

He needs to be in the area, he needs to be there at nighttime, he needs to be there at around 3.40 in the Bucks Row case,

To use the negative arguments you use time after time, there is nothing to say Kosminski is not there in Bucks Row at around 3.40.

he needs to be in Berner Street and he needs to be in Mitre Square.

Nothing to exclude the possibility he was.

He needs to have a reason to be in all of the murder site places in the early morning hours, the way Lechmere is by walking through the area.

Actually he doesn't, such will only apply if he is stopped and questioned.
One does not and did not need a reason to be out in London after dark.

The requirements are not that slack at all, Steve.

Sorry they are very slack.

I feel it is you who are failing on this particular issue, the murders cannot be shown to actually occur when Lechmere is in the area.

The proposition that he was is nevertheless a very viable one. And we know that we are spot on in Bucks Row, where he was found alone in the street close by the victim.

He is not very viable, you are either viable or you are not viable.

Lechmere is viable, he lived in the area.
He found the body of Nichols,and gave a name at the inquest that was not that he was baptised with. However it was one he had the legal right to use, and which he may or may not have been know by at work.

NOW we are talking of falling short on Kosminskis behalf.

The very same applies to Kosminski, he lived in the area. had very close connections to one murder site, which even Lechmere cannot match.
In addition he is named by 3 senior officers.
Kosminski, like Lechmere is viable, he does not fall short at all

One section to go, probably not until tomorrow.
This sort of exchange does highlight the differences in our reasoning processes, I find that very interesting.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

You could always take a walk to Doveton Street, which is only seven minutes walk from one of the Ripper murder sites

And nearer to 20+ minutes' walk from all the others. Talk about being selective!

[Fisherman]

So really we can do this for a lot people who lived at one end of Whitechapel and worked at the other, correct?

We can work out routes for them to go through each of the murder sites, correct?

Yes, that is spot on - any man you fond living in one end of Whitechapel and working in the other, and going to work in the early morning hours, is totally compatible to Lechmere in this respect.

If you can also find a link to the Berner Street area for your guy, you have an even better case. And if you can fin another link to Mitre Square, you are flying. If it also applies that your guy would have passed Goulston Street on his way home from the Mitre Square murder, itīs even better. And if he was found alone close by a freshly killed murder victim in the Ripper series, if he disagreed with the police about what he said on the murder night, if he wrote one name on all official papers but gave another name to the police, if he came from a broken home and a few more odds and ends, then you have finally found a man who is equally likely to have been the Ripper as Charles Lechmere.

When you get there, please tell me first.

[Fisherman]

The ties are largely conjectural or arguably coincidental, and the only known timing (singular) that corresponds to Cross being around relates only to his brief moment in the spotlight at Bucks Row.

The ties are perfectly logical and the exact kind of ties that would inerest the police if they know about them. They are very strong in many ways, although there is no certainty other than in the Bucks Row case - where there is absolute certainty.

You are however perfectly welcome to present any other suspect who has as strong ties to the respective murder spots as Lechmere does.

And to explain to me why the Phantom killer chose the areas that we know Lechmere had ties to for his killings. And the approximate same timings as Lechmere used for his working trek. I still await your explanation to that one.

[Fisherman]

Sorry, we do, the word is definitive, not possible



Unfortunatly you are not going with science, Phillips did not use science, he used opinion and touch; not his fault, the knowledge had not at that stage been discovered.




We have no information that he carried out other tests, lividity would be of little help in distingusing between 1 or 2 hours.



Sorry we do know that, the tests avalible and used in 1888 were not reliable as a means of establishing TOD.

No one is suggesting he was a quack, far from it, for the period he was good, but the knowledge simply did not exist in 1888.






I chose 1 simply because the others are not required to show the body was not there when Phillips suggested death had already occurred, the other two witness reinforce the argument.

Of course it's value changes because it s not based on science, using "it fealt cold" is not science. I really wonder why you continue to deny this fact.

Richardson clearly shows that Phillips suggestion is incorrect, it's not an attack on Phillips, he simply lacked the knowledge to make an accurate estimation. it didnt exist in 1888!



Yes, it's a theory, however it is not proven, and the TOD for Chapman, cannot be definitively established by Phillips's estimation.

Therefore unless we have other reasons to doubt the testimony of Richardson, we should accept the body was not there at 4.30.





It's still conjecture that he is there on that, or any night.
It is the inherent problem for suspectologist research, and why although I favour Kosminski, I leave the suspect arguments to others on the whole.



Of course,




Not being able to rule something out, does not rule it in Christer




Thats the point, I do not need to fit him to such a tight time line, as is imposed by Lechmere's hours of work.
If he is the man spoken of by Cox and Sagar, then night time excusions seem to have been often.




Not at all, 3-4 is a time you have set, not one confirmed by the medical and witnesss evidence.

The police reprort a person of interest who goes out at night, that may be Kosminski, or it may be someone else, whoever he is, it's clear this is not Charles Lechmere.
The Police suspected this person was connected to the murders.




True




It is the same Negative arguments, I require possitive arguments to accept a any theory.




The evidence such as it is says that is probably not the case



The problem is that it is not a GOOD case, it is conjecture on top of conjecture, nothing wrong with that as such, But it proves NOTHING.




To use the negative arguments you use time after time, there is nothing to say Kosminski is not there in Bucks Row at around 3.40.



Nothing to exclude the possibility he was.




Actually he doesn't, such will only apply if he is stopped and questioned.
One does not and did not need a reason to be out in London after dark.




Sorry they are very slack.



He is not very viable, you are either viable or you are not viable.

Lechmere is viable, he lived in the area.
He found the body of Nichols,and gave a name at the inquest that was not that he was baptised with. However it was one he had the legal right to use, and which he may or may not have been know by at work.



The very same applies to Kosminski, he lived in the area. had very close connections to one murder site, which even Lechmere cannot match.
In addition he is named by 3 senior officers.
Kosminski, like Lechmere is viable, he does not fall short at all

One section to go, probably not until tomorrow.
This sort of exchange does highlight the differences in our reasoning processes, I find that very interesting.


Steve

You are going to have to wait for my answer, Steve, sorry about that. The post is very long and I have very little time for the moment.

[Batman]

Yes, that is spot on - any man you fond living in one end of Whitechapel and working in the other, and going to work in the early morning hours, is totally compatible to Lechmere in this respect.

If you can also find a link to the Berner Street area for your guy, you have an even better case. And if you can fin another link to Mitre Square, you are flying. If it also applies that your guy would have passed Goulston Street on his way home from the Mitre Square murder, itīs even better. And if he was found alone close by a freshly killed murder victim in the Ripper series, if he disagreed with the police about what he said on the murder night, if he wrote one name on all official papers but gave another name to the police, if he came from a broken home and a few more odds and ends, then you have finally found a man who is equally likely to have been the Ripper as Charles Lechmere.

When you get there, please tell me first.

I would think it quite easy to link a Jewish socialist in Berner Street who also visits the Great Synagogue.

[Busy Beaver]

Fish, What is it that makes Lechmere the killer? What is in his background or psyche that says "I am Jack the Ripper". Oh and being in Bucks Row does not count. All I see in Lech is a married man with 10-12 kids, who would probably be pretty pleased NOT to be going to work on a bank holiday weekend, never mind going out to kill and work.

[Fisherman]

I would think it quite easy to link a Jewish socialist in Berner Street who also visits the Great Synagogue.

At 3-4 AM?

[Batman]

At 3-4 AM?

Not necessarily, just links the two place up for a lot of people I would think. Some observant socialist Jews obviously visited both places, and maybe quite often. Stride was murdered during one of their conventions.

[Fisherman]

Fish, What is it that makes Lechmere the killer? What is in his background or psyche that says "I am Jack the Ripper". Oh and being in Bucks Row does not count. All I see in Lech is a married man with 10-12 kids, who would probably be pretty pleased NOT to be going to work on a bank holiday weekend, never mind going out to kill and work.

And all people who met "the model sailor" John Eric Armstrong saw, was a family man with not a bad intention in the world.
Well, not all people, but most. You get my drift.

All the politicians and governors saw in Ted Bundy was a man set to have success in his life.

All Gary Ridgways wife saw in Gary was what she named "the best man I have ever come across".

All people saw in Joachim Kroll was a funny and harmless little man.

All people saw in Russel Edwards was a born military, a gentleman and a family man. But they never saw him in female underwear, of course.

Keep looking, Beaver. Open eyes, please!

[Batman]

What witness description does Lechmere meet?

[Busy Beaver]

What witness description does Lechmere meet?

Batman, you're with me in the Dog-House