Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
    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.

    Comment


    • 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.

      Comment


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

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          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.
          Bona fide canonical and then some.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Batman View Post
              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".
              Last edited by Fisherman; 11-18-2018, 01:23 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                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
                For one, I find Jacob Levy to be a more compelling suspect.
                • Lived in the epicenter of the murders
                • Had a traumatic childhood: witnessed his eldest brother's suicide
                • Had the required butchery skills for the murders (a disputed point but one that is still in Jacob's favour)
                • Was related to Joseph Levy, a witness who purportedly had something to hide
                • Had a brother living in Goulston Street
                • Wife said he wandered the streets at night and had compulsions of a violent nature
                • Life deteriorated around 1886, after he was arrested for theft and almost ruined the family business
                • Died of syphilis (wife was clean, so probably from a whore)


                Ah, but Levy was never placed at one of the murder sites, so he cannot compare to the suspect par excellence that is Lechmere! Funnily enough, we don't need to place Levy there. Few serial killers are ever found at the murder scene, nor do they approach passers-by. It's enough to know that he lived in Whitechapel, had a traumatic childhood, butcher skills, violent thoughts, wandered the streets, and had known ties to a fishy witness and location of the graffito/rag.

                Does it mean I think Levy WAS the ripper and not just one of several mad jews that have come under suspicion (Cohen, Hyams, Kosminski)? I'll leave that up to you to work out, but based on the above I find him to be a much more convincing suspect than the carman.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                  For one, I find Jacob Levy to be a more compelling suspect.
                  • Lived in the epicenter of the murders
                  • Had a traumatic childhood: witnessed his eldest brother's suicide
                  • Had the required butchery skills for the murders (a disputed point but one that is still in Jacob's favour)
                  • Was related to Joseph Levy, a witness who purportedly had something to hide
                  • Had a brother living in Goulston Street
                  • Wife said he wandered the streets at night and had compulsions of a violent nature
                  • Life deteriorated around 1886, after he was arrested for theft and almost ruined the family business
                  • Died of syphilis (wife was clean, so probably from a whore)


                  Ah, but Levy was never placed at one of the murder sites, so he cannot compare to the suspect par excellence that is Lechmere! Funnily enough, we don't need to place Levy there. Few serial killers are ever found at the murder scene, nor do they approach passers-by. It's enough to know that he lived in Whitechapel, had a traumatic childhood, butcher skills, violent thoughts, wandered the streets, and had known ties to a fishy witness and location of the graffito/rag.

                  Does it mean I think Levy WAS the ripper and not just one of several mad jews that have come under suspicion (Cohen, Hyams, Kosminski)? I'll leave that up to you to work out, but based on the above I find him to be a much more convincing suspect than the carman.
                  Hi harry
                  I think levy could be a compelling suspect but theres nothing that ties him to the case-and i dont think its been conclusively shown that he was related to one of the mitre square witnesses.

                  Hes really just one of a long list of crazy jew profile types started with andersons theory , through Fido and carried on through today. We dont even know where he was during the murder series.
                  "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 Harry D View Post
                    For one, I find Jacob Levy to be a more compelling suspect.
                    • Lived in the epicenter of the murders
                    • Had a traumatic childhood: witnessed his eldest brother's suicide
                    • Had the required butchery skills for the murders (a disputed point but one that is still in Jacob's favour)
                    • Was related to Joseph Levy, a witness who purportedly had something to hide
                    • Had a brother living in Goulston Street
                    • Wife said he wandered the streets at night and had compulsions of a violent nature
                    • Life deteriorated around 1886, after he was arrested for theft and almost ruined the family business
                    • Died of syphilis (wife was clean, so probably from a whore)


                    Ah, but Levy was never placed at one of the murder sites, so he cannot compare to the suspect par excellence that is Lechmere! Funnily enough, we don't need to place Levy there. Few serial killers are ever found at the murder scene, nor do they approach passers-by. It's enough to know that he lived in Whitechapel, had a traumatic childhood, butcher skills, violent thoughts, wandered the streets, and had known ties to a fishy witness and location of the graffito/rag.

                    Does it mean I think Levy WAS the ripper and not just one of several mad jews that have come under suspicion (Cohen, Hyams, Kosminski)? I'll leave that up to you to work out, but based on the above I find him to be a much more convincing suspect than the carman.
                    Sorry. There is not a iot of connection to the sites or the victims - just as you wisely point out yourself.

                    Less wisely, you claim that such trivialities are of much less interest than how Levy appeals to you and your idea about what the killer must have been like.

                    Is Levy somebody who there is a prima faciae case against? Ho-hum...?

                    Is he, as Griffiths put it about Lechmere, "completely relevant"? No. Is he relevant at all? No. Is he irrelevant? Yes, until any small smidgeon of evidence appears that points to him having been in place.

                    Sorry, but that is how it works. It is not as if being mad or bad takes you an inch closer to the sites. There is not a thing connecting Levy to the Ripper murders. Not one. If the police had gotten it into their heads that he was a good suspect - and they may well have, since the combination weird and foreign appealed a whole lot to them for no good reason at all - they would have been faced with the task of putting him on or near the spots before any sort of case could be built.

                    Maybe they could have at that remove in time. But we canīt do that today, and so we have nothing on him in terms of caserelated evidence. Myself, I note that he was 16 in 1873, and totally unlikely to have killed the torso victim who died then. And since I think that the killer moved on to kill Kelly fifteen years later, he is ruled out on that score, as far as Iīm concerned. Instead of trying to squeeze him into the Ripper slippers on account of having not adjusted to the rule of normality, I rule him out on account of being too young to have killed in 1873.
                    But thatīs just me.

                    I enjoy reading about Levy, and he fascinates me. But finding a killer is a practical matter, not an ideological one.
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 11-18-2018, 01:46 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      Hi harry
                      I think levy could be a compelling suspect but theres nothing that ties him to the case-
                      What needs to "tie him" to the case? How many serial killers are witnesses? How many serial killers are on modern police radar, let alone in the 19th century?

                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      and i dont think its been conclusively shown that he was related to one of the mitre square witnesses.
                      I'm pretty sure Tracy Ianson's research proved they were related.

                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      We dont even know where he was during the murder series.
                      Middlesex Street.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                        Few serial killers are ever found at the murder scene...
                        But 100 per cent of them is actually there.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          Yes, why would we not take a medically ignorant coronerīs word over an experienced doctorīs?
                          You ignore that Baxter is considering more than one doctor's opinion on the murders and has correctly LINKED them, and then sided with the opinion that Nichols had actually had her throat cut first like Chapman.

                          Baxter was correct.

                          You also ignore Bond, a doctor who was given a meta-analysis, agreed with Baxter.

                          Instead, you want Cross to now be confused over his MO and signature. You bend reality to have Cross slicing a throat that isn't bleeding out when he calls a witness over to see him practically at it.
                          Bona fide canonical and then some.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            Sorry. There is not a iot of connection to the sites or the victims - just as you wisely point out yourself.

                            Less wisely, you claim that such trivialities are of much less interest than how Levy appeals to you and your idea about what the killer must have been like.

                            Is Levy somebody who there is a prima faciae case against? Ho-hum...?

                            Is he, as Griffiths put it about Lechmere, "completely relevant"? No. Is he relevant at all? No. Is he irrelevant? Yes, until any small smidgeon of evidence appears that points to him having been in place.

                            Sorry, but that is how it works. It is not as if being mad or bad takes you an inch closer to the sites. There is not a thing connecting Levy to the Ripper murders. Not one. If the police had gotten it into their heads that he was a good suspect - and they may well have, since the combination weird and foreign appealed a whole lot to them for no good reason at all - they would have been faced with the task of putting him on or near the spots before any sort of case could be built.

                            Maybe they could have at that remove in time. But we canīt do that today, and so we have nothing on him in terms of caserelated evidence. Myself, I note that he was 16 in 1873, and totally unlikely to have killed the torso victim who died then. And since I think that the killer moved on to kill Kelly fifteen years later, he is ruled out on that score, as far as Iīm concerned. Instead of trying to squeeze him into the Ripper slippers on account of having not adjusted to the rule of normality, I rule him out on account of being too young to have killed in 1873.
                            But thatīs just me.

                            I enjoy reading about Levy, and he fascinates me. But finding a killer is a practical matter, not an ideological one.
                            You can keep pulling your expert out of the box, if you like. Frankly, I am not impressed. It's remarkable how documentarians and writers never fail to discover experts who support their theory. We don't even know if Mr Griffiths was briefed on the full facts of the case.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                              What needs to "tie him" to the case?
                              The police and the judicial system need to tie him to the case. They must. It is the most vital of all parameters, not if you have shouted "death to fallen women" in the street.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                                You can keep pulling your expert out of the box, if you like. Frankly, I am not impressed. It's remarkable how documentarians and writers never fail to discover experts who support their theory. We don't even know if Mr Griffiths was briefed on the full facts of the case.
                                And THAT is how long it took before Harry had to resort to the "Griffiths was probably kept in the dark" card!

                                Thankīs Harry! End of the road, finally. All other options emptied out and found insufficient.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X