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

[Batman]

The reason I brought up Crow was to illustrate a comparative model to Cross. In the end, Crow is just another casual witness to JtR's crimes and if investigators are to be given a smidgen of our benefit of the doubt that they have set of brains, then they would have checked the claim Crow made that this particular spot is too dark to see details with someone lying there.

If not journalists looking to poke holes in a story.

[MrBarnett]

...or perhaps a likelier answer is that the murder overlapped with the route of a random carman. Sorry, two random carmen.



Is pettifogging the usual practice for Lechmere apologia?



I'm willing to bet any number of those fellas had troubled upbringings, absent parents, diagnosed/undiagnosed mental problems, etc. We know this already from the small pool of suspects/witnesses etc. available to us.

Pettifogging? You chose to use a word that totally misrepresented the known facts, presumably in order to bolster your argument - the very thing you accuse theorists of doing. More ‘pot-calling-kettle-black-challenging’ than ‘pettifogging’ I’d say. And I’m neither a Lechmere apologist nor a Lechmere denier.

I’m sensing you’re not going to take up the challenge.

At first glance Crow looks promising. Living in GYB in 1888; claiming to have passed a body on the landing; a connection to St George’s; an occupation that may have given him and intimate knowledge of the East End streets...

[Harry D]

If we include Tabram in the tally, then it isn't even two months and it's quite conceivable that it took him a while to get his bearings and perfect his route.

...or perhaps a likelier answer is that the murder overlapped with the route of a random carman. Sorry, two random carmen.

In your dictionary, is umpteen defined as any indefinite number, from 1 to infinity? That's not how I use it or have seen it used by others. I've always thought it meant an extremely large indefinite number. In this case, you applied it to a number between 1 and 45 (approx).

Is pettifogging the usual practice for Lechmere apologia?

Yes, there have been numerous suspects put forward, but they're a drop in the ocean compared to the number of adult males who would have had easy access to the East End in 1888. You claim that any of them could be made into a suspect, and presumably by that you mean one who would stand comparison with Lechmere.

I'm willing to bet any number of those fellas had troubled upbringings, absent parents, diagnosed/undiagnosed mental problems, etc. We know this already from the small pool of suspects/witnesses etc. available to us.

[Abby Normal]

So why did you choose to emphasise that he had used the route umpteen times? I think that qualifies as a half-truth. Have I posted any half-truths?

Surely speculation is a valid element of the investigative process. Without it, Ripperology wouldn't exist.

According to you, 'anyone' could be turned into a suspect. Perhaps you should take up Fish's challenge.

This might be useful:


"I put these lists together some time ago. They are derived from the electoral registers, so they obviously aren't a complete record of all the residents of George Yard Buildings, but they may be of interest.


George Yard Buildings
Electoral Registers

1888

36, Richard Brown
1, John Bryan
19, John Casey
27, William Chapman
13, William Garbutt
24, Joseph Gladman
33, Robert Hall
18, Thomas Hark
28, John Harris
5, George Harrison
45, John Hayes
14, Francis Hewitt
9, Francis Fisher Hewitt
29, Francis Hewitt jun
29, George Howell
22, Charles Humphries
15, John Johnson
32, Daniel Killinbeck
42, William Lacey
47, Patrick McNeil
46, Thomas Madden
24, Thomas Melville
40, John Reeves
16, Henry Ritson
25, James Sheelan
41, William Shore
43, William Sillitoe
25, James Speelan
2, William Steele
21, Henry Tempest
33, Richard Thall
7, William Winstan
31, William Winter


1889

29, John Baker
4, George Barber
36, Richard Brown
19, John Casey
12, Henry Cooper
35, George Crow
33, Robert Hall
6, Francis Hewitt
9, Francis Hewitt
29, Frank Hewitt Jnr
28, Thomas Hughes
21, William Humphreys
14, George Humphreys
26, Richard Kenrich
32, David Killinbeck
48, William Lacey
46, Thomas Madden
47 & 48, Joseph Marney
24, Matthew Melville
29, John Mitten
37, John Reeves
27, Edward Rice
16, Henry Ritson
2, William Steele
1, Walter Tempest
45, John Watkins
7, William Winstan
31, William Winter

E & O E "

harry if I were you id start with crow. lol

[MrBarnett]

"Umpteen" is an indefinite number. I didn't know how many times Lechmere took that route but it had to be regularly. It wasn't his first day, week or month.



Speculation can be easily manipulated into "fact". That's the problem.



It's been done already, MrB:

https://www.casebook.org/suspects

If we include Tabram in the tally, then it isn't even two months and it's quite conceivable that it took him a while to get his bearings and perfect his route.

In your dictionary, is umpteen defined as any indefinite number, from 1 to infinity? That's not how I use it or have seen it used by others. I've always thought it meant an extremely large indefinite number. In this case, you applied it to a number between 1 and 45 (approx).

Yes, there have been numerous suspects put forward, but they're a drop in the ocean compared to the number of adult males who would have had easy access to the East End in 1888. You claim that any of them could be made into a suspect, and presumably by that you mean one who would stand comparison with Lechmere.

Why not have a go, then? Stick a pin in the GYB list or Gareth's list of infirmary loonies and turn him into JTR. Or continue with Crow.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done. If you pick the right person, it might be an interesting exercise. I'd be more than happy to help, and perhaps contrary to appeances I'm not a confirmed Lechmerian, so I would do my utmost to support your chosen suspect's candidacy.

[Harry D]

So why did you choose to emphasise that he had used the route umpteen times? I think that qualifies as a half-truth. Have I posted any half-truths?

"Umpteen" is an indefinite number. I didn't know how many times Lechmere took that route but it had to be regularly. It wasn't his first day, week or month.

Surely speculation is a valid element of the investigative process. Without it, Ripperology wouldn't exist.

Speculation can be easily manipulated into "fact". That's the problem.

According to you, 'anyone' could be turned into a suspect. Perhaps you should take up Fish's challenge.

It's been done already, MrB:

https://www.casebook.org/suspects

[MrBarnett]

Two years, two months... it doesn't really matter exactly how many times Lechmere made that trek. In all probability, his route to work coincided with the murder, as it did for numerous other witnesses, and didn't cause it. We have still to be presented with substantial evidence that implicates Lechmere. It's the usual half-truths and speculations that are bread and butter of suspect-based theory.



I'm sure there are many east end characters with interesting biographies that have gone untold simply because they weren't drawn into the ripper case.

So why did you choose to emphasise that he had used the route umpteen times? I think that qualifies as a half-truth. Have I posted any half-truths?

Surely speculation is a valid element of the investigative process. Without it, Ripperology wouldn't exist.

According to you, 'anyone' could be turned into a suspect. Perhaps you should take up Fish's challenge.

This might be useful:


"I put these lists together some time ago. They are derived from the electoral registers, so they obviously aren't a complete record of all the residents of George Yard Buildings, but they may be of interest.


George Yard Buildings
Electoral Registers

1888

36, Richard Brown
1, John Bryan
19, John Casey
27, William Chapman
13, William Garbutt
24, Joseph Gladman
33, Robert Hall
18, Thomas Hark
28, John Harris
5, George Harrison
45, John Hayes
14, Francis Hewitt
9, Francis Fisher Hewitt
29, Francis Hewitt jun
29, George Howell
22, Charles Humphries
15, John Johnson
32, Daniel Killinbeck
42, William Lacey
47, Patrick McNeil
46, Thomas Madden
24, Thomas Melville
40, John Reeves
16, Henry Ritson
25, James Sheelan
41, William Shore
43, William Sillitoe
25, James Speelan
2, William Steele
21, Henry Tempest
33, Richard Thall
7, William Winstan
31, William Winter


1889

29, John Baker
4, George Barber
36, Richard Brown
19, John Casey
12, Henry Cooper
35, George Crow
33, Robert Hall
6, Francis Hewitt
9, Francis Hewitt
29, Frank Hewitt Jnr
28, Thomas Hughes
21, William Humphreys
14, George Humphreys
26, Richard Kenrich
32, David Killinbeck
48, William Lacey
46, Thomas Madden
47 & 48, Joseph Marney
24, Matthew Melville
29, John Mitten
37, John Reeves
27, Edward Rice
16, Henry Ritson
2, William Steele
1, Walter Tempest
45, John Watkins
7, William Winstan
31, William Winter

E & O E "

[Harry D]

The trigger for my post was that an uninformed poster wrote this:

However, we are supposed to believe that for the umpteenth time he passed that route to work, he decided to pickup a prozzie and murder her in cold blood.

Two years, two months... it doesn't really matter exactly how many times Lechmere made that trek. In all probability, his route to work coincided with the murder, as it did for numerous other witnesses, and didn't cause it. We have still to be presented with substantial evidence that implicates Lechmere. It's the usual half-truths and speculations that are bread and butter of suspect-based theory.

As for your statement above, I doubt you could make a suspect out of anyone, but I bet JTR's back story is an interesting one. Lechmere has an interesting story, whether he was the ripper or not.

I'm sure there are many east end characters with interesting biographies that have gone untold simply because they weren't drawn into the ripper case.

[Batman]

Your reply is self-refuting and contradictory.

How tiresome. Every case deserves a pleading relating to it´s circumstances.

So here, because you can't show examples for Lechmere (despite demanding examples for Chapman in order to accept an argument) you claim all cases need special pleading.

Do you know what special pleading is?

It's a fallacy.

As I said before, almost all killers will run if they have the opportunity.

That is the generalized picture.

Let's be clear why you know this. Examples of it happening is why you know this. That is the 'generalized picture'. Examples.

In Lechmere´s case, Griffiths said he would NEVER have run. So the specific circumstances provided a background that made Griffiths opt for a ten out of ten staying put suggestion.

You are welcome to believe this but I would prefer to reference investigators who have actually caught serial killers.

And Chapman is a ninehundred and ninety nine out of a thousand "no" when it comes to the viability of an eviscerator turning poisoner.

Yet here you go again, and but even apparently 'special pleading' for Chapman (you actually mean ignoring H.H.Holmes) means 99.9% not a viable suspect. It's simply bare-faced hypocrisy to present us a cake and not eat any yourself. If you reject any 'special pleading' around Chapman, then reject it for Lechmere also.

That´s as special pleading as you will ever get, in both cases. But with different outcome.

If you feel hard done by, then by all means have a cleansing good cry. But don´t claim that I cannot defend my stance.

Discussion over. I´m off for today.

You can't defend a conflicting, hypocritical, double-standards cake at all. You are all over the place on this one.

If you are off then fine, but I am going to be discussing this with whoever brings it up or replies to it.

[Fisherman]

The highlight is mine. No examples, before you believe it. Yet you are trying to sell us something you have no examples of. Namely a serial killer hanging around a victim waiting for a witness to appear so they can show it to them.



The argument was never that people won't do this. We know they do it. Netflix The Staircase pretty much solidifies it. What we asked for is an example of a serial killer hanging around a victim waiting for a witness to appear so they can show it to them.



Finding evidence to support a claim is what people do. However here you are clearly clashing again with your position of examples before you believe it.



Completely different. We know they do this. Even the Zodiac wrote letters taunting police. BTK reached out also. Netflix The Staircase. Again, we know all this stuff. It isn't the question we are asking.



They are extremely different things. Snooker tables and food stalls.



Special pleading as predicted. What's good for Chapman isn't good enough for Lechmere.



On my drawing board are several words for you to read "You can't have your cake and not eat it".

How tiresome. Every case deserves a pleading relating to it´s circumstances.

As I said before, almost all killers will run if they have the opportunity.

That is the generalized picture.

In Lechmere´s case, Griffiths said he would NEVER have run. So the specific circumstances provided a background that made Griffiths opt for a ten out of ten staying put suggestion.

And Chapman is a ninehundred and ninety nine out of a thousand "no" when it comes to the viability of an eviscerator turning poisoner.

That´s as special pleading as you will ever get, in both cases. But with different outcome.

If you feel hard done by, then by all means have a cleansing good cry. But don´t claim that I cannot defend my stance.

Discussion over. I´m off for today.

[MrBarnett]

Duplicate post

[Fisherman]

The trigger for my post was that an uninformed poster write this:

However, we are supposed to believe that for the umpteenth time he passed that route to work, he decided to pickup a prozzie and murder her in cold blood.


As for your statement above, I doubt you could make a suspect out of anyone, but I bet JTR's back story is an interesting one. Lechmere has an interesting story, whether he was the ripper or not.

Come on, Gary, be charitable! Hand hoim a person from the era and place and let´s see how good a suspect he can make of him or her.

How about Joseph Lawende?

Are you up for it, Harry?

[Batman]

Yes, I remember it quite well. And I stand by it - I would want to see examples of it before I believe it.
I also stand by what I always say in matters like these - they are not impossible as such, they are only different shades of unlikely. When it comes to Chapman, I find it unlikely in the extreme.

The highlight is mine. No examples, before you believe it. Yet you are trying to sell us something you have no examples of. Namely a serial killer hanging around a victim waiting for a witness to appear so they can show it to them.

Staying put at a crime scene is something we already have examples of, provided by Gary and Abby, who both have witnessed such events. You didn´t think this enough, but came up with the idea that specifically serial killers would not do such a thing. There would be some line of demarcation between other crimes and serial killings in this respect.

The argument was never that people won't do this. We know they do it. Netflix The Staircase pretty much solidifies it. What we asked for is an example of a serial killer hanging around a victim waiting for a witness to appear so they can show it to them.

I told you that I would not spend any time looking for examples, and for a very simple reason - we already know that it is a rare thing to stay put on crime scenes, and finding one or two examples would not change that one bit. Plus it would mean a very demanding task to go through all the cases of serial killings existing.

Finding evidence to support a claim is what people do. However here you are clearly clashing again with your position of examples before you believe it.

We know that serial killers and other murderers have at times approached the police and feigned a will to help out. That in itself tells us that such a person is ready and willing to bluff.

Completely different. We know they do this. Even the Zodiac wrote letters taunting police. BTK reached out also. Netflix The Staircase. Again, we know all this stuff. It isn't the question we are asking.

To me, that is quite enough to tell me that there would be nothing truly remarkable about it happening at the murder scene, not least if the circumstances surrounding it offered up such a possibility as a way to escape responsibility.

They are extremely different things. Snooker tables and food stalls.

Turning a poison killer after having been an eviscerator is something quite different, and it will not be governed by a need to take swift decisions, led on by how the circumstances at a murder scene are altered.

Special pleading as predicted. What's good for Chapman isn't good enough for Lechmere.

So much for double standards, Batman. It´s back to the drawing board again... Come to think of it, why leave that drawing board in the first place?

On my drawing board are several words for you to read "You can't have your cake and not eat it".

[MrBarnett]

You could take the random circumstances from anyone's life and construct a suspect out of them. Ripperology thrives on it.

The trigger for my post was that an uninformed poster wrote this:

However, we are supposed to believe that for the umpteenth time he passed that route to work, he decided to pickup a prozzie and murder her in cold blood.


As for your statement above, I doubt you could make a suspect out of anyone, but I bet JTR's back story is an interesting one. Lechmere has an interesting story, whether he was the ripper or not.

[Harry D]

Harry, are you deliberately ignoring the fact that Lechmere had only recently moved away from STGITE, where he had lived close by his mother all his adult life, to Doveton Street when the murders started? (I don’t have my notes to hand, but his children moved to their new school in early/mid 1888 I think? Fish?)

His route to work was therefore a new one and unlike his previous route took him through the heart of Spitalfields.

Why did he move, I wonder? Even though he had a growing family (7/8 kids?) he moved to a smaller house, 4 rooms compared to 6, and possibly as a consequence had to leave one of his children behind with his mother. It doesn’t appear he was upwardly mobile. It may not have been a particularly welcome move.

It seems to me there are potential triggers in all this: moving away from the influence of his mother; a possible unwelcome downsizing of his home and the leaving behind of his eldest daughter; finding himself in a new environment on his route to work and experiencing feelings of anonymity; coming into contact with a greater concentration of homeless women and being solicited by them.

The ‘coincidence’ of the timing of his move and the start of the murders doesn’t hurt the Lechmere theory in the slightest.

You could take the random circumstances from anyone's life and construct a suspect out of them. Ripperology thrives on it.