Lech versus Kos

[Batman]

Any- or everyone is welcome to present a man who fits the criteria geographically. Anytime, any day. Keep them coming!

The part about my total decline in judgment and falling into the trap of hell (bias) is good reading, but it does not alter what I say - if the killer was NOT Lechmere, then it was instead somebody who killed in the areas where he would have moved or had reason to move, and at the times he would have reason to be there.

Once you find a parallel, we can start looking at who of them was found with a body and who disagreed with the police over what was said on the murder night. I fear, though, that we will never be able to move to that discussion, since I believe you will fail to turn up anybody who matches the criteria.

Journalists visiting all these places to write about something there prior to the Whitechapel murders.

Head detectives visiting all these places because of crime investigation prior to the Whitechapel murders.

Coroners.

Doctors.

Unfortunates themselves.

Not to mention all the 'witnesses' who lied about their connection to the victims. Tabram's inquest has lies. Mary Jane Kelly inquest has lies. The liars are sometimes using aliases.

This is just off the top of my head in a minutes thought.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Fall short?

Yes, fall short.

we will see as we progress,

Indeed!

Lets start with the Apron and Goulston Street.

Yes, letīs!

I see you Favour Lechmere going first to Pickfords, before droping off the apron, is that a correct reading?

No, it is an incorrect reading. I am saying that he EITHER went east from Mitre Square OR from Pickfords. However, the Pickfords suggestion neatly explains the "lost hour". Although he may of course have gone searching for victim number three instead, we canīt tell.

From that I assume that you are sticking with the suggestion that the apron was not present at 2.20? or do you think it could have been.

It COULD have been, but it is very unlikely, given Longs assertion.

If it was there before 2.20 and just missed, it implies the killer went in that direction sooner rather than later, I accept that in that case, it is more or less a direct line from Mitre Square to Doveton Street.

Bravo. Batman didnīt fix that.

Rob House argued, and I am not total convinced, that if The killer went North first, to avoid police and then headed South, Goulston street was on a direct route back towards Berner street, and the supposed home of Kosminski, as i say I am not fully convinced about that argument, but it is not unreasonable.

Not impossible - but it takes a whole lot more of shoehorning.


However if we are summising that the killer, headed to a bolt hole first, the situation is a little different.

lets examine Lechmere, he goes to Pickfords, disposes of the entrails, and heads back towards home.

And cleans up, Steve!

The route suggested is via Wentworth and Old Montague strret, this I will refere to as the southern most route. It is the longest, not by much i agree, route between the two sites, (shortcuts, incorperating Spelman and Handbury are shorter).
In addition, it takes the killer closer to the scene of the the Mitre Square murder than the other routes(either the route we suppose he walked with Paul, or the shortcuts already mentioned), surely he would want to avoid being seen and possible stopped and details taken?

Sounds reasonable - but serial killers who are well into their killing have a propensity to think that they are invincible, and so they are given to taking much larger risks than the average killer.

One final issue i have with this is that to drop the apron(and maybe write the GSG, I remain neutral on that) where it was found, requires a small detour, and the risk of exposure. far better surely to do the deed somewhere along Wentworth/Old Montague? of course the killer may just have enjoyed the risk.

Wait a sec. How do we know that the killer did not start out by for examle Little Devonshire Street, and reached Goulston Street via Little Goulston Street? There are possibilities a plenty.

Kosminski, if heading for a bolt hole, could have visited Issacc Kosminski at #76 Goulston street, this was not the brother of Aaron, but a different Kosminski, a boot and shoemaker, like pizer.
while it seems that he was not a direct relation of Aaron, at least no records surive to imply such, Kosminski was not that common a name, and at the very least it is possible that they originated from the same general area, and could have known each other.

Guesswork, Iīm afraid. Not bad guesswork, but nevertheless guesswork. You could use anyone with a Jewish East European name and say that Kos may have known that anyone. So you fall short here.

agree not as secure as the Bolt Hole we KNOW Lechmere could have used, but still perfectly viable.

As I say, not a dumb suggestion, but one with no anchoring in the case facts. My surname is Holmgren, and it is not a very common one. Three streets away, another Holmgren lives. Do I know him? No. Do I occasionally sleep there? No.
So not very close - and absolutely no cigar, Steve. And why drop the apron in Goulston Street - did he WANT the police to look there?

The largests issue I have against Lechmere droping the Apron, if he first went to a bolt hole, is the choice of route, not the fastest and venturing back into an area he should wish to avoid, carring evidence.

My thoughts are that he may have HAD to carry the rag with himself - I think he may have cut himself and used the rag as a makeshift bandage. And then he dropped it at the first possible occasion, as the bleeding had stopped. Just a suggestion, but it tallies with how Long said that the rag was "covered in blood" although the blood was in one corner only - if you wrap the rag around your hand, and then unwrap it and drop it, the part with the most blood will end up on top.

If a particular reason could be shown for Lechmere to drop the Apron at the spot it was found, it would be far more compelling in my view.

The same goes for any proposed culprit. Where is the logic and how do we prove it?

So, you are doing a good job so far - but you ARE falling short, needing to conjure up an aquaintance in Goulston Street, for example. Looking forward to the rest!

[Fisherman]

Re: Chapman's murder. I happen to put some stock in the evidence given by Cadosch and Richardson, which puts Annie's murder between 5.15 - 5.30am. Wouldn't Lechmere have been late for work if he had dabbled at this time?

Yes, absolutely. But letīs not forget that the police chose to put stock in Phillips instead, who had the murder at 4.30 at the earliest - but PROBABLY EARLIER. Fits like a glove, right?

[Fisherman]

The timing isn't and, as I've pointed out before, we don't know for sure that he was even working on the day in question. What we do know is that the Nichols inquest was still in progress, so whether he'd commit an even more daring murder whilst he was a key witness at that inquest is questionable.

If Phillips was correct - as the police chose to think - the murder fits the overall profile eminently. You must accept that there is another solution than the one you prefer. And the police preferred it!

The idea that he would not dare, must I really comment on that...? I have done so a thousand times and the examples of extremely daring killers are so very many, so please?

[Fisherman]

I also wonder if Lechmere would've murdered on his work route a week later after his close shave in Buck's Row? As you've admitted in the past, Fish, he could not rely on that excuse a second time. Therefore, it seems more believable that Lechmere would've waited until the weekend before striking again.

See my answer to Gareth, Harry!

[Fisherman]

It's rather easy to find men who fit the geographical criteria better than Cross, who lived a little out of the way in relation to the majority of the murders.

Name one and we shall see.

[Fisherman]

Journalists visiting all these places to write about something there prior to the Whitechapel murders.

Head detectives visiting all these places because of crime investigation prior to the Whitechapel murders.

Coroners.

Doctors.

Unfortunates themselves.

Not to mention all the 'witnesses' who lied about their connection to the victims. Tabram's inquest has lies. Mary Jane Kelly inquest has lies. The liars are sometimes using aliases.

This is just off the top of my head in a minutes thought.

I really donīt understand what you are trying to say. Is there a point hidden here?

[Sam Flynn]

Name one and we shall see.

Any one of tens of thousands of men who lived in Spitalfields, as opposed to living a mile away from "Ripper Central" as Cross did.

[Elamarna]

And cleans up, Steve!

That would be important, if he did not still have the Apron on his person, , with it there, if he is stopped and searched the game is probably up.

Wait a sec. How do we know that the killer did not start out by for examle Little Devonshire Street, and reached Goulston Street via Little Goulston Street? There are possibilities a plenty.

Ageed, there are plenty of possibilites.

Do you mean New Goulston Street?

Guesswork, Iīm afraid. Not bad guesswork, but nevertheless guesswork. You could use anyone with a Jewish East European name and say that Kos may have known that anyone. So you fall short here.

Not as short as you seem to suggest.
The point is it is not any Eastern European name, but the very same name, indeed the same as his elder brother.
However I do acknowledge it is suppositition, like much of the case against Lechmere of course, and of course like the suggestion that Lechmere was in that area at all that night.

So not very close - and absolutely no cigar, Steve. And why drop the apron in Goulston Street - did he WANT the police to look there?
[/COLOR]

That is the question I asked below, when I asked for a particular reason to pick that location, not just on a side street, but inside the entrance to a block of flats, where anyone could have walked down or in to?
Do we have one?

My thoughts are that he may have HAD to carry the rag with himself - I think he may have cut himself and used the rag as a makeshift bandage. And then he dropped it at the first possible occasion, as the bleeding had stopped. Just a suggestion, but it tallies with how Long said that the rag was "covered in blood" although the blood was in one corner only - if you wrap the rag around your hand, and then unwrap it and drop it, the part with the most blood will end up on top.

Agreed, and something I also concider, it may explain several things such as no activity in October, or maybe he was just laying low, because the coast was too hot.

So, you are doing a good job so far - but you ARE falling short, needing to conjure up an aquaintance in Goulston Street, for example. Looking forward to the rest!

Again, it's not as short as you may wish to beleive.


Steve

[Harry D]

See my answer to Gareth, Harry!

Thanks, Fish. What seems illogical and outlandish to myself - let alone anyone else - might be perfectly acceptable behaviour for a serial killer with an insatiable/opportunistic bloodlust. After he brazenly bluffed his way out of Buck's Row, this might have emboldened Lechmere to strike again in repeated fashion, rather than putting him off.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, absolutely. But letīs not forget that the police chose to put stock in Phillips instead, who had the murder at 4.30 at the earliest - but PROBABLY EARLIER. Fits like a glove, right?

Even assuming Phillips was right, "probably earlier" does not mean it coincided with Cross en route to work. It leaves things open, but in no way does it fit like a glove.

[Elamarna]

.

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Sounds good -you must also explain why he would do so at the approximate same time as Lechmere trekked to Broad Street, Road...?

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

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.


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.

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.



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.



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.

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.


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.



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.

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.

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.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Any one of tens of thousands of men who lived in Spitalfields, as opposed to living a mile away from "Ripper Central" as Cross did.

No, no - NAME ONE!! And that someone should have a certified reason to traverse the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area at around 3-4 AM, he should have ties to the Berner Street area and the Mitre Square area or at least a reason to be there at the relevant times plus he should live in a spot that makes the Goulston Street rag logically placed.

Name one.

[Elamarna]

Yes, absolutely. But letīs not forget that the police chose to put stock in Phillips instead, who had the murder at 4.30 at the earliest - but PROBABLY EARLIER. Fits like a glove, right?

The Police, like yourself are accepting the TOD of the Doctor, they accepted his proffesional view, they assumed he was basing his view on scientific fact.

However medicine and scince has moved on very far from 1888. what was seen as being correct then is now KNOW to be incorrect.

And the issue here is very large, TOD cannot be reliably based on the indicators that Phillips used in 1888.

In fact to do so, is to actually ignore the scientific knowledge we now have.


steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: That would be important, if he did not still have the Apron on his person, , with it there, if he is stopped and searched the game is probably up.

Only if the ones stopping him were aware of the rag found in Goulston Street and how it was half of an apron. Somebody stopped with a makeshift bandage over a wound would not necessarily be ID:d as the Ripper.


Ageed, there are plenty of possibilites.

Do you mean New Goulston Street?

Indeed I do.

Not as short as you seem to suggest.
The point is it is not any Eastern European name, but the very same name, indeed the same as his elder brother.
However I do acknowledge it is suppositition, like much of the case against Lechmere of course, and of course like the suggestion that Lechmere was in that area at all that night.

I know that Kosminski is not any eastern European name, but I said that if we are to allow for him perhaps having known "your" Kosminski, then we may as well allow for him having known other eastern European Jews; some of their names would be prevalent in the area from where Kos hailed. As for what you call supposition, I believe you mean possibility? We cannot suppose that the two knew each other.

That is the question I asked below, when I asked for a particular reason to pick that location, not just on a side street, but inside the entrance to a block of flats, where anyone could have walked down or in to?
Do we have one?

I donīt know about "we", I can only say that I have none - I accept that it could just as well have ended up on just about any other location along his flight route.

Agreed, and something I also concider, it may explain several things such as no activity in October, or maybe he was just laying low, because the coast was too hot.

Yes, it is a handy explanation that could fill in a few gaps.


Again, it's not as short as you may wish to beleive.

I donīt "wish" for any such thing - I simply predispose that you MUST fall short here, to which degree is another matter. But in the case at hand, since we KNOW that Lechmere worked at the Broad Street depot, and since we donīt know that he knew Mr Kosminski of Goulston Street or had ever even seen him or heard about him, and since there were more than one Kosminski family, Iīd say that you fall pretty short on the matter. But no measuring tape can be applied as such, itīs a matter of staying true to the facts and admitting or contesting them.

Steve[/QUOTE]