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

  • Fisherman,in reply to your post 572.
    Nothing about Griffiths nags me.It was not me but you that introduced his name and accomplishments.You do not like my reply,then simply do not use his name.It's as simple as that.As for smearing anyones reputation,I am way behind you in that department.You quote a profile of a person that includes innacuraces,then be prepared for a correction.We are asked too many times here to accept the words of persons not posting.If those persons no not like the responses,then let them take offense at the introducer,or better still,come on the boards and explain themselves.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      I thought Bond’s opinion was that the killer didn’t even possess the technical knowledge of a horse slaughterer or a butcher.
      Actually, you are right. He even ruled out a horse slaughterer, butcher or anyone with any anatomical experience at all.
      Bona fide canonical and then some.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
        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.
        Thanks Gary,

        Not to say they are suspects or even the same people, but, in your 1889 census the names George Barber and Frank Hewitt Jr are interesting. The ‘Reverand’ George Veck of Cleveland Street Scandal fame went by the alias of George Barber. His 17 year old lover was Frank Hewitt who also used the alias of George Barber. It was Hewitt that introduced Henry Newlove to the house on Cleveland Street. Maybe this is the connection I’ve been looking for to link Conway Jr as a recruiter to the house also? Looks like a nice a avenue to pursue.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
          Thanks Gary,

          Not to say they are suspects or even the same people, but, in your 1889 census the names George Barber and Frank Hewitt Jr are interesting. The ‘Reverand’ George Veck of Cleveland Street Scandal fame went by the alias of George Barber. His 17 year old lover was Frank Hewitt who also used the alias of George Barber. It was Hewitt that introduced Henry Newlove to the house on Cleveland Street. Maybe this is the connection I’ve been looking for to link Conway Jr as a recruiter to the house also? Looks like a nice a avenue to pursue.
          Glad to have been of assistance, Jerry.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

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

            It's been done already, MrB:

            https://www.casebook.org/suspects
            Come on now, Harry, don´t be shy - you´ve been handed a very useful candidate to turn into a suspect. Lawende was born in 1847, so he covers the 1873 victim, he was known to frequent the murder area, he lived in Dalston, two or three miles north of the killing fields and he was involved in another murder case as a witness back in 1876, so he is linked to at least two murders, and he was in the habit of dining in Great Alie Street in the seventies, a habit he may have carried into the eighties too.

            Surely that makes a good ground for creating as good a suspect as Lechmere? If you put your mind to it? You can even turn speculation into fact, if you wish, but of course, you will run the risk of being revealed for it.

            And hey, Lawende was a foreigner of Polish extraction. Didn´t Mrs Long say that her man was around 40 (Lawende was 41) and gave a foreign impression?

            Maybe it´s time to come good on your suggestion?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              Come on now, Harry, don´t be shy - you´ve been handed a very useful candidate to turn into a suspect. Lawende was born in 1847, so he covers the 1873 victim
              What's the 1873 victim got to do with it? 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?
              he was known to frequent the murder area, he lived in Dalston, two or three miles north of the killing fields and he was involved in another murder case as a witness back in 1876, so he is linked to at least two murders, and he was in the habit of dining in Great Alie Street in the seventies, a habit he may have carried into the eighties too.

              Surely that makes a good ground for creating as good a suspect as Lechmere? If you put your mind to it? You can even turn speculation into fact, if you wish, but of course, you will run the risk of being revealed for it.

              And hey, Lawende was a foreigner of Polish extraction. Didn´t Mrs Long say that her man was around 40 (Lawende was 41) and gave a foreign impression?

              Maybe it´s time to come good on your suggestion?
              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.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


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

                That´s 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.

                Don´t 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?
                Last edited by Fisherman; 11-18-2018, 04:57 AM.

                Comment


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

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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                    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 it´s a pointless exercise to bring him up.

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

                    PS. It´s 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.
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 11-18-2018, 09:09 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      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.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • 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 can´t 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, it´s 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.

                        It´s 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.
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 11-18-2018, 10:31 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          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?
                          Last edited by Darryl Kenyon; 11-18-2018, 11:02 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                            Does this mean that the killer would have twice as long to make his getaway after Lech turned into Bucks Row?
                            Lechmere´s 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.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                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.
                                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X