Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lech versus Kos

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    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.
    And I adore how you presuppose that every carman in London would have greeted him at the gates of Pickfords as he arrived there.
    Charles Lechmere had worked for Pickfords - and quite likely the Broad Street depot - for two decades. It is anything but unreasonable that he could have had access to keys and spaces where he was alone. It is not proven, but it is at least AS proven as your idea of a thousand man committee greeting him and asking him why he was there.

    Comment


    • Steve!

      Since I said I would answer your last post yesterday, I am doing so now. However, I will not take it point by point, since I have no wish to create a 560 page opus...

      There are many matters where I think you misunderstand what I am saying, and you reply accordingly. But I will not be part of quibbling away over them, since that has happened too many times in the past.

      I have isolated a few quotes that I will comment on, and that is going to be that. If you feel hard done by for your effort, or if you have any wish to have me answering some of the points you made and that I leave unanswered, then say so. In the past, many a poster who made innumerable points have exclaimed "Fish cannot answer that!" or "So you didnīt dare to answer that", so Iīm kind of hoping that you wonīt resort to that tactic.

      Here are my quotes:

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

      Problem: Richardson does not even show that Phillips was incorrect if he told the truth - and we cannot know that he did. In another thread, I posted sketches of how the body could actually have been hidden from sight to Richardson even if it was there, something that R J Palmer was kind enough to confirm after having made a small experiment of his own. Plus, of course, the fact that Richardson is on record as having claimed different things on different occasions when it comes to where he was, is an "other reason" to be very doubtful about his testimony. Ergo, we must NOT accept that the body was not there at 4.30. And I remain totally unconvinced that Phillips could have made the kind of mistake that is suggested - not that he could not be wrong about the TOD to a degree, but he could reasonably not be wrong on it to the kind of degree that is suggested!

      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.


      To treat a total lack of information as a treasure trove of possibilities is not something that will bring Kosminski on par with Lechmere in terms of viability as a suspect. It would be to say that any person that is in any way connected to a crime scene is a less likely candidate to be the killer than one who is not. That is not how proper investigation work is carried out.
      Likewise, we know quite well that Lechmere would have had an isolated reason to pass the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street murder sites in the early mornings. Pointing out that Kosminski is a better bid since he may have had ANY reason to be there at ANY time does not float my boat. Sorry, but there you are.

      The problem with the Cox and Sagar material is of course that your sentence about their activities starts with an "If".

      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.


      MY "negative argument" is that since we KNOW that Lechmere trekked to work via Bucks Row and the area inbetween Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street in the early morning hours, that means that he fits the bill, broadly speaking, for all the murder sites, not only the one we know he was at. Much as we canīt tell for sure that he did his trek on every murder morning, logic dictates that this is the likely thing.

      YOUR "negative argument" is that even though we DONT know that Kosminski was in the area on the murder nights, we cannot exclude the possibility that he was.


      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.

      No, "the very same" does not apply to Kosminski other than in the weakest of meanings - they both COULD have killed the Ripper victims. As in "it canīt be proven that they did not". But that distinction is a worthless and blurring one. The two are in fact not the very same at all, with Lechmere having been confirmed as having ties to the murder areas, all of them, and having a reason to pass by or visit them, all of them, and being up and about in the early morning hours. Plus he was found alone in Bucks Row, standing near the body of Polly Nichols.
      Kosminski is not even confirmed to have been in London on the murder days, he had no reason to traverse the murder areas in the early morning hours and he was not found at any of the sites, let alone standing in solitude close by a freshly killed victim.

      He DOES fall woefully short of Lechmere once we look at the details. The one instance where he has the upper hand is that somebody named Kosminski was named as a suspect in Swansons copy of Andersons autobiography, but no sooner did Anderson leave his office than his follower on the post named ANOTHER man as HIS prime suspect. While OTHER police bigwigs disagreed with both men.

      That, however, ensured that a man named Kosminski has been inextricably linked to the Ripper saga, and he will remain there. But Aaron Kosminski does not play the role of an investigationwise strong card, since no investigation has turned up any connection to the case at all on his behalf.

      One man was there, the other may have been. One man had reason to walk the killing fields, the other may have had. One man had reason to be a nocturnal guest in the area, the other may have had. One man has been tied to one of the murder sites in person, meaning that it is a proven thing that he was at the site at the approximate time the victim was killed, the other may have been at all or any of the murder sites at all or any of the times when the victims were killed. Just like Mr Muffin of Heneage Street, old Tom Twicklethumb of Norwhich and Diddles the cat may have been. Supposedly making them as viable as Lechmere and "the very same" as him?


      Kosminski, like Lechmere is viable, he does not fall short at all.

      In just about every respect, he actually does. That does not mean he is not viable, but it does mean that there is really nothing at all to connect him to the crimes but for Andersons scribblings.
      Last edited by Fisherman; 10-22-2018, 11:07 PM.

      Comment


      • Connected to the murders and connected to the murder sites have two different meanings.Cross can be connected to a murder site on one occasion,he cannot be connected to the murder that took place there.The evidence,such as it is,cannot connect anyone,by name, to a ripper murder.Not my conclusion,but that of the police officers who investigated the crimes.

        Forget the heading of Lech versus Kos,this is just another ploy by Fisherman to
        focus on Cross.There is no value in pitting one person against another as the two most likely candidate,as neither,by evidence,can be placed with a victim at the time of death.If one wants to argue that geographicaly there is circumstancial evidence which favours Cross over Kosminski,and over all others,then the onus is on that person,and that would entail proving that no one,except Cross,of all the persons residing in the district,had this advantage.

        How did Fisherman's phantom ripper escape from the crime scenes.He used the Ghost Train.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by harry View Post
          Connected to the murders and connected to the murder sites have two different meanings.Cross can be connected to a murder site on one occasion,he cannot be connected to the murder that took place there.The evidence,such as it is,cannot connect anyone,by name, to a ripper murder.Not my conclusion,but that of the police officers who investigated the crimes.

          Forget the heading of Lech versus Kos,this is just another ploy by Fisherman to
          focus on Cross.There is no value in pitting one person against another as the two most likely candidate,as neither,by evidence,can be placed with a victim at the time of death.If one wants to argue that geographicaly there is circumstancial evidence which favours Cross over Kosminski,and over all others,then the onus is on that person,and that would entail proving that no one,except Cross,of all the persons residing in the district,had this advantage.

          How did Fisherman's phantom ripper escape from the crime scenes.He used the Ghost Train.
          Yes, that will be it, Harry - he used the ghost train. Because that is what phantoms do.

          Thanks for helping out with feeding my cravings for posts on Lechmere, by the way.
          Last edited by Fisherman; 10-23-2018, 02:38 AM.

          Comment


          • But where did the killer encounter his victims? At the very spot where he slew them, or on larger thoroughfares where it is more likely a prostitute would ply her trade?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
              But where did the killer encounter his victims? At the very spot where he slew them, or on larger thoroughfares where it is more likely a prostitute would ply her trade?
              When it comes to the four slain in the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area, it seems that Tabram and Chapman can have been picked up in large thoroughfares, Old Montague and Hanbury, respectively. Although it of course applies that the man picking up Tabram in the pub CAN have been her killer.

              Kelly was known to parade Commercial Street or Whitechapel Road - but may have been sought out in her home. Personally, I tend to favour that she met her killer on the streets, for the simple reason that we know that it belonged to the standard MO of the Ripper.

              Nichols? Quite possibly Whitechapel Road, but I always felt that ruling Bucks Row out entirely could be a grave mistake. It would not be the likeliest of places to solicit on, but if she had had another punter doing the business with her there, the killer may have arrived as that punter had left, Nichols perhaps lingering behind on account of her drunkenness.

              The other two seem easier, Stride in Berner Street and Eddowes up at Dukes Passage. Of course, she may have gone there with her punter after having been picked up at the nearby "Prostitutes Church".

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                When it comes to the four slain in the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area, it seems that Tabram and Chapman can have been picked up in large thoroughfares, Old Montague and Hanbury, respectively. Although it of course applies that the man picking up Tabram in the pub CAN have been her killer.

                Kelly was known to parade Commercial Street or Whitechapel Road - but may have been sought out in her home. Personally, I tend to favour that she met her killer on the streets, for the simple reason that we know that it belonged to the standard MO of the Ripper.

                Nichols? Quite possibly Whitechapel Road, but I always felt that ruling Bucks Row out entirely could be a grave mistake. It would not be the likeliest of places to solicit on, but if she had had another punter doing the business with her there, the killer may have arrived as that punter had left, Nichols perhaps lingering behind on account of her drunkenness.

                The other two seem easier, Stride in Berner Street and Eddowes up at Dukes Passage. Of course, she may have gone there with her punter after having been picked up at the nearby "Prostitutes Church".
                But both Chapman and Tabram could have been picked up in Commercial Street?


                Fish, what's your view on Pearly Poll's story?

                Comment


                • Alice Kinsey was stabbed in the throat. Her other injuries were cuts/scratches.

                  Edit: Wrong thread.
                  Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-23-2018, 03:35 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                    But both Chapman and Tabram could have been picked up in Commercial Street?


                    Fish, what's your view on Pearly Poll's story?
                    That she had more to tell than she offered, basically. She seems not to have been too overjoyed by being approached by the police. I donīt think, however, that she knew the identity of the killer.
                    That being said, I have not immersed myself into the Connelly waters the way you have done the last few years!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                      Alice Kinsey was stabbed in the throat. Her other injuries were cuts/scratches.
                      Involving a cut/scratch to the genitals?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Involving a cut/scratch to the genitals?
                        Yes, a shallow cut across the mons veneris.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          Steve!

                          Since I said I would answer your last post yesterday, I am doing so now. However, I will not take it point by point, since I have no wish to create a 560 page opus...

                          There are many matters where I think you misunderstand what I am saying, and you reply accordingly. But I will not be part of quibbling away over them, since that has happened too many times in the past.

                          I have isolated a few quotes that I will comment on, and that is going to be that. If you feel hard done by for your effort, or if you have any wish to have me answering some of the points you made and that I leave unanswered, then say so. In the past, many a poster who made innumerable points have exclaimed "Fish cannot answer that!" or "So you didnīt dare to answer that", so Iīm kind of hoping that you wonīt resort to that tactic.

                          Here are my quotes:

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

                          Problem: Richardson does not even show that Phillips was incorrect if he told the truth - and we cannot know that he did. In another thread, I posted sketches of how the body could actually have been hidden from sight to Richardson even if it was there, something that R J Palmer was kind enough to confirm after having made a small experiment of his own. Plus, of course, the fact that Richardson is on record as having claimed different things on different occasions when it comes to where he was, is an "other reason" to be very doubtful about his testimony. Ergo, we must NOT accept that the body was not there at 4.30. And I remain totally unconvinced that Phillips could have made the kind of mistake that is suggested - not that he could not be wrong about the TOD to a degree, but he could reasonably not be wrong on it to the kind of degree that is suggested!

                          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.


                          To treat a total lack of information as a treasure trove of possibilities is not something that will bring Kosminski on par with Lechmere in terms of viability as a suspect. It would be to say that any person that is in any way connected to a crime scene is a less likely candidate to be the killer than one who is not. That is not how proper investigation work is carried out.
                          Likewise, we know quite well that Lechmere would have had an isolated reason to pass the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street murder sites in the early mornings. Pointing out that Kosminski is a better bid since he may have had ANY reason to be there at ANY time does not float my boat. Sorry, but there you are.

                          The problem with the Cox and Sagar material is of course that your sentence about their activities starts with an "If".

                          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.


                          MY "negative argument" is that since we KNOW that Lechmere trekked to work via Bucks Row and the area inbetween Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street in the early morning hours, that means that he fits the bill, broadly speaking, for all the murder sites, not only the one we know he was at. Much as we canīt tell for sure that he did his trek on every murder morning, logic dictates that this is the likely thing.

                          YOUR "negative argument" is that even though we DONT know that Kosminski was in the area on the murder nights, we cannot exclude the possibility that he was.


                          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.

                          No, "the very same" does not apply to Kosminski other than in the weakest of meanings - they both COULD have killed the Ripper victims. As in "it canīt be proven that they did not". But that distinction is a worthless and blurring one. The two are in fact not the very same at all, with Lechmere having been confirmed as having ties to the murder areas, all of them, and having a reason to pass by or visit them, all of them, and being up and about in the early morning hours. Plus he was found alone in Bucks Row, standing near the body of Polly Nichols.
                          Kosminski is not even confirmed to have been in London on the murder days, he had no reason to traverse the murder areas in the early morning hours and he was not found at any of the sites, let alone standing in solitude close by a freshly killed victim.

                          He DOES fall woefully short of Lechmere once we look at the details. The one instance where he has the upper hand is that somebody named Kosminski was named as a suspect in Swansons copy of Andersons autobiography, but no sooner did Anderson leave his office than his follower on the post named ANOTHER man as HIS prime suspect. While OTHER police bigwigs disagreed with both men.

                          That, however, ensured that a man named Kosminski has been inextricably linked to the Ripper saga, and he will remain there. But Aaron Kosminski does not play the role of an investigationwise strong card, since no investigation has turned up any connection to the case at all on his behalf.

                          One man was there, the other may have been. One man had reason to walk the killing fields, the other may have had. One man had reason to be a nocturnal guest in the area, the other may have had. One man has been tied to one of the murder sites in person, meaning that it is a proven thing that he was at the site at the approximate time the victim was killed, the other may have been at all or any of the murder sites at all or any of the times when the victims were killed. Just like Mr Muffin of Heneage Street, old Tom Twicklethumb of Norwhich and Diddles the cat may have been. Supposedly making them as viable as Lechmere and "the very same" as him?


                          Kosminski, like Lechmere is viable, he does not fall short at all.

                          In just about every respect, he actually does. That does not mean he is not viable, but it does mean that there is really nothing at all to connect him to the crimes but for Andersons scribblings.
                          Thank you for the reply, needless to say i disagree with most of your views.

                          However I am in the process of moving into a new flat, plus finishing book, so it may be tomorrow before I give the propper and deserved response.


                          Steve

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X