Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    And that proves...what?
    That one uses the term suspect carefully and not haphazardly. I don't mind Kozminski being classed as a suspect because he was given that official designation it seems. I don't mind Chapman being associated with JtR because the guy was a stone-cold murderer. The same goes for a lot of the suspects and many of them are demonstrably rotten by the nature of their crimes. The fact they are criminals or dangerous is what allows us that leeway.

    However when someone has no evidence of their 'suspect' so much as breaking the law and they just appear to be helping both unfortunates and officers, then to make them into a 'suspect' is a big claim...

    ... and big claims require big evidence to support that.

    What is the big evidence to support Cross warrants such a designation as a suspect?
    Bona fide canonical and then some.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Strange, is it not, that I cannot remember that Crow has ever been mentioned in this type of context. I bet, however, that you remember that Lechmere has...?

      When is the documentary about Alfred the Ripper due? Where are the dissertations? Who are the believers? You and Batman? Or only Batman? Or noone?
      Only the book at the moment ..
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Well, I´d say that since the Ripper murders are clearly connected with the Torso murders, and since the Torso murders started in 1873, Crow must be rather an unlikely killer.
        There is no prima facie reason to suppose that the 1873 Battersea torso was the work of the Whitechapel Ripper of 1888 but, because you believe the contrary, your perception of Crow's candidacy for the Ripper is compromised.

        This is precisely why building theories by combining speculation and subjective opinion is so dangerous.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          Strange, is it not, that I cannot remember that Crow has ever been mentioned in this type of context. I bet, however, that you remember that Lechmere has...?

          When is the documentary about Alfred the Ripper due? Where are the dissertations? Who are the believers? You and Batman? Or only Batman? Or noone?
          That actually makes Crow a better candidate, because Cross was in the public mind for longer when the press stopped linking Smith, Tabram and Nichols, despite investigators mostly linking Tabram with Nichols and a few had Smith in there also. It seems McNaughton based his C5 on Bond's examination of Kelly and meta-analysis of the other murders starting with Nichols because that is all Anderson had provided him with. Meaning witnesses for Tabram would have slipped through easier, if one of them was JtR.
          Bona fide canonical and then some.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Batman View Post
            That one uses the term suspect carefully and not haphazardly. I don't mind Kozminski being classed as a suspect because he was given that official designation it seems. I don't mind Chapman being associated with JtR because the guy was a stone-cold murderer. The same goes for a lot of the suspects and many of them are demonstrably rotten by the nature of their crimes. The fact they are criminals or dangerous is what allows us that leeway.

            However when someone has no evidence of their 'suspect' so much as breaking the law and they just appear to be helping both unfortunates and officers, then to make them into a 'suspect' is a big claim...

            ... and big claims require big evidence to support that.

            What is the big evidence to support Cross warrants such a designation as a suspect?
            When the police had access to Lechmere, the main part of the crimes had not been perpetrated. He had presented himself to the police and he was not what a criminal anthropologist would look for. It is not hard to understand why they did not suspect him.

            We should, though, owing to a combination of circumstances. And we do.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
              Only the book at the moment ..
              Any takers? No?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                There is no prima facie reason to suppose that the 1873 Battersea torso was the work of the Whitechapel Ripper of 1888 but, because you believe the contrary, your perception of Crow's candidacy for the Ripper is compromised.

                This is precisely why building theories by combining speculation and subjective opinion is so dangerous.
                I am on good ground, Gareth. You are the one in the midst of the ocean. I don´t look for things to link the crimes, I acknowledge that they are there.

                You don´t. Eyes closed, hands over ears and chanting Nonononononononononononononononono....

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                  That actually makes Crow a better candidate, because Cross was in the public mind for longer when the press stopped linking Smith, Tabram and Nichols, despite investigators mostly linking Tabram with Nichols and a few had Smith in there also. It seems McNaughton based his C5 on Bond's examination of Kelly and meta-analysis of the other murders starting with Nichols because that is all Anderson had provided him with. Meaning witnesses for Tabram would have slipped through easier, if one of them was JtR.
                  I think a volcano eruption in Iceland, a farting horse in Denmark and a light snowfall in the Rockies would all make Crow "a better candidate". When you start from rock bottom, anything helps.

                  That´s all for now, I´m afraid.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    Any takers? No?

                    Well, it may have a new photo of Mary Kelly in it !!

                    Comment


                    • Big claims require big evidence.
                      Bona fide canonical and then some.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                        Au contraire, Christer !!
                        I believe I raised the same points about Crow a few years ago.
                        So we may be half way there already.
                        I`ll try and locate it.
                        Here`s the link I was talking about, from 2015.
                        https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread...=15793&page=56
                        .
                        It`s only been 3 years, Christer, but I will remind you again in 2025

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                          Only the book at the moment ..
                          LOL! Id buy that!
                          "Is all that we see or seem
                          but a dream within a dream?"

                          -Edgar Allan Poe


                          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                          -Frederick G. Abberline

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            There is no prima facie reason to suppose that the 1873 Battersea torso was the work of the Whitechapel Ripper of 1888 but, because you believe the contrary, your perception of Crow's candidacy for the Ripper is compromised.

                            This is precisely why building theories by combining speculation and subjective opinion is so dangerous.
                            There is obviously no clear connection between two very different sets of crimes, although I am coming round to the possibility that the latter Torso crimes are connected to the earlier 1870 ones.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              P Hantom, killer?
                              Anyone innocent of the crimes is a phantom killer.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                It gets us a very long way, contrary to what you say. The murders could have been perpetrated anywhere, Seven Sisters, Bow, Chelsea, Mile End Old Town... anywhere!
                                And Lechmere could have worked anywhere, to the east, west, south or north.

                                But as it happens the two fields coincide to a tee. And it takes some coinciding, just because the area is a very small one.

                                So much as Mitre Square would have been very close to somebody trekking west from Berner Street, it would not have been close at all to somebody doing a trek up north.
                                There can be no trivializing the remarkable dovetailing between the murder sites and Lechmere´s likely and proven paths.
                                Why on earth would Lechmere be heading off to work in the early hours of the morning having committed a murder? And not only that, but via Mitre Square, hardly the most obvious route.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X