So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Fisherman]

Coroner Wynne E. Baxter pointed out that Llewellyn's claim is likely wrong. Bond in his meta-review also corrected him.

So in your model, you need JtR to slice Nichols neck after the mutilations and then reverse that for the others?



So not only do you need examples of serial killers who have decided to hang around a victim waiting for a witness to see them, but you also need a serial killer who reverses his MO and signature, turning his signature into his MO and his MO into his signature!



Diemschitz saw it was a woman, just like Lechmere, when he bent down to see and struck a match.



Well, your MO signature swapping serial killer who hangs about for witnesses to come by is the stuff of total fantasy obviously. It doesn't exist in reality. It's a chimera of your folktales about Lechmere combined with a comedy routine out of Monty Python and a dyslexic serial killer who gets his behaviours muddled up.

"Oh was it neck or stomach I did first, again?" - JtR musing to himself.

Yes, why would we not take a medically ignorant coronerīs word over an experienced doctorīs?

Good thinking there, Batman!

And you add that Diemschitz did see that it was a woman - when he struck a match.

You ARE on a roll.

I write the cheap insults up to a bitterness on your behalf on account of having been put on display, pants down. Some make that choice instead of the wiser option: "Oh, right, so I was wrong".

[Fisherman]

Indeeed. The blood had all but run its course before Cross or Paul got to the body... and Llewellyn was unobservant, incompetent or both.

Or he was competent, as led on by his credentials.

But we canīt have competense and knowledge on his part, can we? Because that would lead straight to...

Canīt have that happening, can we?

Paul - saw no blood.

Neil - saw the pool.

Mizen - saw the pool and how the blood ran into the gutter.

Lechmere - killed Nichols.

[Batman]

Batman: An open carotid artery will bleed out into a pool in seconds. They all would have seen it under experimental conditions, which this isn't, because it was dark.

But the neck was not cut first, according to Llewellyn. So the main bleeding happened in the abdomen, taking the pressure down and killing Nichols. Then the neck was cut, and only gravity guided the blood out of the neck with no underlying pressure. And no large pool was formed, only a small one, containing no more than two glasses of wine, as Llewellyn put it. And Neil said nothing about any blood running into the gutter - but Mizen did.

Coroner Wynne E. Baxter pointed out that Llewellyn's claim is likely wrong. Bond in his meta-review also corrected him.

So in your model, you need JtR to slice Nichols neck after the mutilations and then reverse that for the others?

Connect the dots. Itīs seemingly easy.

So not only do you need examples of serial killers who have decided to hang around a victim waiting for a witness to see them, but you also need a serial killer who reverses his MO and signature, turning his signature into his MO and his MO into his signature!

The two cases would have differed in terms of light. Diemschitz was not even sure what he was looking at, and prodded it with his whip. And he was a lot closer than Lechmere, who could tell he was looking at a woman from some three yards away or so.

Diemschitz saw it was a woman, just like Lechmere, when he bent down to see and struck a match.

I think you should leave it to me to decide what makes a suspect and what doesnīt. Itīs certainly about more than light. You seem to muddle things quite badly when trying your hand on it.

Well, your MO signature swapping serial killer who hangs about for witnesses to come by is the stuff of total fantasy obviously. It doesn't exist in reality. It's a chimera of your folktales about Lechmere combined with a comedy routine out of Monty Python and a dyslexic serial killer who gets his behaviours muddled up.

"Oh was it neck or stomach I did first, again?" - JtR musing to himself.

[Sam Flynn]

Connect the dots. Itīs seemingly easy.

Indeeed. The blood had all but run its course before Cross or Paul got to the body... and Llewellyn was unobservant, incompetent or both.

[Fisherman]

Batman: An open carotid artery will bleed out into a pool in seconds. They all would have seen it under experimental conditions, which this isn't, because it was dark.

But the neck was not cut first, according to Llewellyn. So the main bleeding happened in the abdomen, taking the pressure down and killing Nichols. Then the neck was cut, and only gravity guided the blood out of the neck with no underlying pressure. And no large pool was formed, only a small one, containing no more than two glasses of wine, as Llewellyn put it. And Neil said nothing about any blood running into the gutter - but Mizen did.

Connect the dots. Itīs seemingly easy.

Case in hand, the very fact that Stride was found in the darkness under similar conditions by Louis Diemschutz. He didn't see any blood. According to your model, that makes Louis Diemschutz a suspect and everything points to Louis Diemschutz being the cutter, in other words.

The two cases would have differed in terms of light. Diemschitz was not even sure what he was looking at, and prodded it with his whip. And he was a lot closer than Lechmere, who could tell he was looking at a woman from some three yards away or so.
I think you should leave it to me to decide what makes a suspect and what doesnīt. Itīs certainly about more than light. You seem to muddle things quite badly when trying your hand on it.

[Fisherman]

So in effect, Lech is incriminating himself with that statement hmmm

He is in all probability taking what he would have considered the safe way out by not saying anything at all about any Mr P Hantom. Didnīt see, didnīt hear, didnīt smell.
... missing out on the importance of the blood evidence.

[Batman]

So what it effectively means is that Mr P Hantom must have legged it before Lechmere came into the street, and accordingly, the blood should have started flowing very early on. And so it ought not have bled as Neil saw the body, and less so when Mizen did. Everything points to Lechmere being the cutter, in other words.

An open carotid artery will bleed out into a pool in seconds. They all would have seen it under experimental conditions, which this isn't, because it was dark.

Case in hand, the very fact that Stride was found in the darkness under similar conditions by Louis Diemschutz. He didn't see any blood. According to your model, that makes Louis Diemschutz a suspect and everything points to Louis Diemschutz being the cutter, in other words.

[Darryl Kenyon]

if Lechmere was the killer, then there was no Mr P Hantom up at the body at all, but IF there had been, Lechmere said that he must have heard him.

So in effect, Lech is incriminating himself with that statement hmmm

[Fisherman]

Does this mean that the killer would have twice as long to make his getaway after Lech turned into Bucks Row?

Lechmereīs hearing will not have gone done to half, so that made up killer would have the same amount of time to escape unheard - none. Of course, if Lechmere was the killer, then there was no Mr P Hantom up at the body at all, but IF there had been, Lechmere said that he must have heard him.

So what it effectively means is that Mr P Hantom must have legged it before Lechmere came into the street, and accordingly, the blood should have started flowing very early on. And so it ought not have bled as Neil saw the body, and less so when Mizen did. Everything points to Lechmere being the cutter, in other words.

[Darryl Kenyon]

But he was not into brisk walks - it took him twice the time it should have to reach Bucks Row.

Maybe he stopped to lace up his shoes.

Does this mean that the killer would have twice as long to make his getaway after Lech turned into Bucks Row?

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Again, the suggestion isn't that "anybody can be a suspect", but that, among the many thousands of men who lived in or close to the Ripper "hot zone", there simply MUST have been scores of candidates who would make much, much better suspects than Charles Cross.

Surely you mean "much, much, much, much, MUCH better candidates than Charles Cross"?
And let me correct you - the suggestion WAS that anybody can be a suspect; that was precisely what Harry D suggested.
It is really hard to be a better suspect than Lechmere. You have to be as present or more present than him at a murder site where the victim is freshly killed, you have to tamper with the name issue and you have to disagree with the police in a manner that provides you a chance to pass them by. Plus you have to fit the geography to a tee.
These are no small matters.
You probably think that any man known to have a violent history and living in the area is automatically a better suspect, but let me assure you that no such thing applies. The FACTUAL connection to the crimes is what produces the initial amount of possible perpetrators, not having a violent history. Violent people are second rate people, to whom the police will turn only if they cannot find their man among those with a factual connection.
We canīt even say that on the surface of things, a violent man is more likely to be the perp than Lechmere, since we simply do not know whether HE was a violent man. For all we know, he could have been a bomb on two legs, waiting to go off.

The issue we have is that, censuses (etc) apart, none but a tiny handful of these thousands of men ever got their names into print.

And so some will never be lifted onto the stage as better suspects - people whose existence we cannot verify cannot be suggested as suspects. Only people of flesh and blood can compete! Saying "I have a feeling that there must have been a very vicious man with a great hatred for prostitutes living down Brick Lane way" is not producing a suspect, itīs producing conjecture.

Those we cannot bring on stage with a proven existence, cannot compete for the title. No matter how dangerous and terrible we assure ourselves they would have been.

Itīs illuminating, though, that nobody is suggesting REAL alternative suspects - to try and find some competition for Lechmere, we need to dig into conjecture ground and make people up.

[Sam Flynn]

Now tell me, are we going to see an effort on your behalf? Otherwise, as you will realize, I am going to say that this is on account of how you know that the suggestion that anybody can be a suspect is without value.

Again, the suggestion isn't that "anybody can be a suspect", but that, among the many thousands of men who lived in or close to the Ripper "hot zone", there simply MUST have been scores of candidates who would make much, much better suspects than Charles Cross. The issue we have is that, censuses (etc) apart, none but a tiny handful of these thousands of men ever got their names into print.

[Fisherman]

MJ Trow already stepped up to the plate with his "suspect" Frederick Nicholas Charrington:

https://www.casebook.org/ripper_medi...morley/35.html

Yes, all very interesting, but he has no connection whatsoever to any of the murder spots or victims, and so we can all see that he cannot have any real suspect status.
Of course, this can be done with anybody, but in relation to Lechmere, it becomes useless. The carman is linked definitely to one of the murder site and times, and he is a logical fit to the rest of the Spitalfields victims, plus he has links that can put him close to the two other murder spots too.

And he used a name he was not registered by and otherwise did not use in contacts with authorities plus he was recorded to disagree with the police over what was said on the murder morning. Plus the version that was given by PC Mizen points to Lechmere providing him with a story that was perfectly shaped to take him past the police.

After that, there are all the other matters, like the hidden wounds, the failure of Paul to hear Lechmere in front of himself and so on, all matters tied to one of the actual Ripper murders.

Charrington has nothing at all that links him. And that is quite easy to show. So itīs a pointless exercise to bring him up.

Hasnīt the time long since come to admit this, Harry - that Lechmere is miles ahead of Charrington or any such figure, picked at random?

PS. Itīs interesting to note how Trow points to how anybody could be elevated to suspect status for no reason at all - and then he goes and promotes Robert Mann...?

Now tell me, are we going to see an effort on your behalf? Otherwise, as you will realize, I am going to say that this is on account of how you know that the suggestion that anybody can be a suspect is without value.

[Harry D]

MJ Trow already stepped up to the plate with his "suspect" Frederick Nicholas Charrington:

https://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/35.html

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: What's the 1873 victim got to do with it?

Thatīs for me to know and for you to find out, Gareth. And I was encouraging Harry D to step forward and come good on his suggestion, not you. But anybody who does so, should be aware that a very good case can be made for the 1873 torso belonging to the tally of the man who killed Kelly.

Your opinion that the torso murderer (singular) was responsible for all the torso cases and the Ripper murders is entirely speculative and, if wrong - which it certainly is - it can only lead us to include some unworthy suspects and reject stronger ones. That's bad form, so let's keep the focus on what we know about the Ripper murders alone, shall we?

No, Gareth, we shall not. If you want to do so, then go ahead. I make my own choices, though. The reason we tie the Ripper cases together is the same as why I tie the Torso and the Ripper cases together: inherent similarities of which I have not disclosed all.

Plucking strawman suspects out of the (vanishingly small) group of known individuals connected with the case isn't a particularly useful thing to do, unless your intention is to underline how weak most of your arguments against Cross really are.

Donīt speak of what you do not understand, Gareth. A poster who claims that it is a factual thing that the Ripper and the Torso uterus removal, heart removal and abdominal flap removal was made differently and for different reasons needs to check his own level of veracity before criticizing others. You may feel that you must be right, but the sensible thing to do is to revisit the evidence and see what factual grounds exist for making that call. The answer is an easy one - there are no such grounds. What we have is you wildly exaggerating some elements ("It is a near certainty that the Torso man lived in the west" - as if there was no such things as commuter killers, and foremost dumpers!) and trying to take away from others ("The Torso man took away the abdominal flaps from Jackson because he wanted to facilitate taking out the uterus and the foetus, plus these flaps looked entirely different from those in the Kelly and Chapman cases").
These are free fantasies only, and you will have that pointed out to you whenever you bring them up as factual matters.
ALL we know is that these women had their uteri taken, and they may have had that done to them for the exact same reason, which - given the scarcity of this kind of killer - is the more logical guess.
The same goes for the hearts and the flaps.

Are we agreed on that? That you are making up things, and that the basic facts cannot allow for it? That it is mere speculation and conjecture on your part? Yes?