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

[Batman]

There were THOUSANDS of people living there who were as likely or likelier than Lechmere to be the killer. Or so I´m told. And if there was, they would have needed to be on the streets, since they could not kill by remote control.

Convergence from the outskirts to the centre of Whitechapel and onwards to the city centre means it gets busier on the main roads and not so empty.

Or have you come around to realizing that there was basically no people at all on the small streets of Spitalfields at these hours?

Which is it?

There are people nearly always on the streets and you could even go fetch suppers from a chandlery open at even 1 am. Enough for witnesses to a few things regarding the case. They don't have to be packed but you can have a few hundred going about Whitechapel in total at those hours.

However this doesn't help your case because it means an investigator re-visiting the scenes of the crime at the appropriate hours would eventually see the same fella plodding along.

Not worth checking for a big long sharp scary blade?

Your model has him re-visiting the crime scenes of Nichols, Chapman and Kelly at least 5 days per week, at the same hours they were killed.

In any case, I don´t think that I have seen a single report of PC:s searching the dwellers of the East End or read about such measures being taken.

Okay, it's a fair question. I suppose it's out there for any takers. Obviously, we just mean stopped and searched without any reasons given in this context as we have plenty of examples of PCs stopping people with good reason and bringing them to the station to be searched.

[Fisherman]

Fish,
It appears you are not reading it correctly,

Maybe this is because you appear to have interpreted my original post to Gary as being aimed at your good self.

The original comments were not aim exclusively at you, but Lechmere supporters in general, some of whom in my experience on Say Facebook, are not as open minded as yourself, and are fixed on that Lechmere must be the killer.

You gave your reasons for accepting one alternative over another, my comments were intended to accept your personal reasoning, but to question if such applied to other supporters.

If someone says they have done something, one either has to accept it or reject it surely, and just as I accept that you had no control over the Documentary, I accept that you have considered.

I hope that has clarified the posts


Steve

Oh, it does - when I asked you specifically about my considering of the alternatives, you chose to answer in a generalized manner instead.

[Fisherman]

Convergence from the outskirts to the centre of Whitechapel and onwards to the city centre means it gets busier on the main roads and not so empty.



There are people nearly always on the streets and you could even go fetch suppers from a chandlery open at even 1 am. Enough for witnesses to a few things regarding the case. They don't have to be packed but you can have a few hundred going about Whitechapel in total at those hours.

However this doesn't help your case because it means an investigator re-visiting the scenes of the crime at the appropriate hours would eventually see the same fella plodding along.

Not worth checking for a big long sharp scary blade?

Your model has him re-visiting the crime scenes of Nichols, Chapman and Kelly at least 5 days per week, at the same hours they were killed.



Okay, it's a fair question. I suppose it's out there for any takers. Obviously, we just mean stopped and searched without any reasons given in this context as we have plenty of examples of PCs stopping people with good reason and bringing them to the station to be searched.

Nothing changes here. The back streets WERE empty, as witnessed about by the participants of the drama. Completely so. Whether there were people on the larger streets is neither here nor there.

And I did not say that it would not be worth checking the Eastenders for knives, I said that it was probably never done. If it is never done, there is no knowing if it would have been worthwhile doing so.

[Fisherman]

My last post for the evening. Monty claimed that he apologized for stating that I and Edward milked relatives of the Bethnal Green Tube disaster on their money.

If he had done so, I would not have brought it up on this thread.

I checked back, since I had no memory of any apology. And indeed, none was to be found.

The information I have from Edward is in line with this - he remembers no such apology either.

If Monty can produce that apology, it would be nice. Either from back then or now, in which case it will be six years overdue.

If I am wrong, I apologize in advance.

[Sam Flynn]

There were THOUSANDS of people living there who were as likely or likelier than Lechmere to be the killer. Or so I´m told.

That's not what you've been told at all. What you've been told is this:

There were many thousands of men living in Whitechapel, among whom there would have been scores of dodgy characters, and several of these would prove to be much stronger Ripper candidates than Cross if we knew more about them. We can be sure of this on statistical grounds alone.

[Abby Normal]

That's not what you've been told at all. What you've been told is this:

There were many thousands of men living in Whitechapel, among whom there would have been scores of dodgy characters, and several of these would prove to be much stronger Ripper candidates than Cross if we knew more about them. We can be sure of this on statistical grounds alone.

Hi Sam
what would you think-

If you took 20 of your best suspects/persons of interests vs all the joe bloggs-what is your breakdown if you think you would find the ripper in either group?


for example if I were to do it I think there would be about 70% chance we would find the ripper in my top 20 vs 30% cance for all Joe Bloggs.


what would yours be?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam
what would you think-

If you took 20 of your best suspects/persons of interests vs all the joe bloggs-what is your breakdown if you think you would find the ripper in either group?


for example if I were to do it I think there would be about 70% chance we would find the ripper in my top 20 vs 30% cance for all Joe Bloggs.


what would yours be?

Quite the opposite. I'd say that we'd have a 99% chance of the Ripper being in the "Joe Bloggs" group as opposed to 1% in the Top 20.

Given that the Joe Bloggs group outnumbers the Top 20 named suspects to the order of a thousand to one, I've actually been quite generous in giving the latter group a one in hundred chance.

[Abby Normal]

Quite the opposite. I'd say that we'd have a 99% chance of the Ripper being in the "Joe Bloggs" group as opposed to 1% in the Top 20.

Given that the Joe Bloggs group outnumbers the Top 20 named suspects to the order of a thousand to one, I've actually been quite generous in giving the latter group a one in hundred chance.

Hi Sam
wow that really is a disparity-I wasn't expecting that much even from you!LOL

I mean the suspects/persons of interest are that because of a reason-they weren't just randomly snatched out of thin air!

I guess the way I look at it is that so many SKs are on police radar earlier on-- who are caught later, much later, due to modern things like DNA, cell phone and video evidence, that if we didn't have would go scott free.


things they didn't have back then, which leads me to believe that the ripper was probably on there radar at some point.they just didn't have enough info to catch.

[etenguy]

Hi Sam
wow that really is a disparity-I wasn't expecting that much even from you!LOL

I mean the suspects/persons of interest are that because of a reason-they weren't just randomly snatched out of thin air!

I guess the way I look at it is that so many SKs are on police radar earlier on-- who are caught later, much later, due to modern things like DNA, cell phone and video evidence, that if we didn't have would go scott free.


things they didn't have back then, which leads me to believe that the ripper was probably on there radar at some point.they just didn't have enough info to catch.

You make an interesting point, and Peter Sutcliffe comes immediately to mind. I'm not sure if this applies in this particular case, but it well could. Although it may well be the murderer was interviewed but never made the suspect list, cf Peter Sutcliffe who was classified 'not connected' after his first interview about the murders.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam
wow that really is a disparity-I wasn't expecting that much even from you!LOL

I mean the suspects/persons of interest are that because of a reason-they weren't just randomly snatched out of thin air!

There's a bit of randomness involved, in that some of the current named Top 20 suspects were "lucky" enough to get their names down on paper. For example, just imagine how ripperology would have turned out if Macnaghten had selected three different "likely candidate" Rippers out of the police files, instead of the ones he did.

If we knew sufficient about its constituent members, at least as much as we know about the currently-named suspects, I'd say that we'd easily get a more compelling Top 20 out of the Joe Bloggs group.

[harry]

I use the name Cross,because that was the name given,was the name published and understood,and the name given and accepted under oath in a court of law,in 1888.

What is unusual about that? Much as I use the name Bucks Row,even though I coulld use it's present name.We do not know the reason Cross preferred it,and it is useless to speculate why.One thing I do know however,is that there is no evidence it was to hide that persons involvement in murder,or cause present day theorists to label it a lie.

[MrBarnett]

I use the name Cross,because that was the name given,was the name published and understood,and the name given and accepted under oath in a court of law,in 1888.

What is unusual about that? Much as I use the name Bucks Row,even though I coulld use it's present name.We do not know the reason Cross preferred it,and it is useless to speculate why.One thing I do know however,is that there is no evidence it was to hide that persons involvement in murder,or cause present day theorists to label it a lie.

He used it once (possibly twice) compared to 100+ times using Lechmere across the five decades of his adult life spanning the single event of appearing as a witness at an inquest. The man obviously thought of himself as Charles Lechmere. If Buck’s Row had been officially so called between 1849 and 1920, but had been called Black’s Alley in relation to a single event in 1888, would you insist on calling it Black’s Alley?

[MrBarnett]

If we had even one example of him using the name Cross on a census, on a BMD cert, an electoral register, a school register etc etc, then his use of that name alone at Nichols’ inquest, and possibly at another where he ran over and killed a small child, might not seem odd. As it is it’s bloody odd, and if one time in 100+ isn’t ‘unusual’, then I don’t know what is.

[harry]

No one today can claim he(Cross)only used that name on that one instance,and no one today can be expected to prove on what other occassions it was used,but one thing is for certain,he used it and was lawfully entitled to use it, if only that one time,and it does not prove he was a murderer or a liar in doing so.That is the important consideration.

If Bucks Row had been called anything other than Bucks Row,everyone,I presume would have been reffering to it by that other name,so what's the point MrBarnett?

[Batman]

It seems those that argue that he used Cross before in other situations, and is not dubious, is because he gave his first name as Charles. If he was going to hide his name, then why not actually hide his full name?