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

[Fisherman]

One would expect attacks around Bethnal Green. North, South, East and West of it.

Not just en route to work.

Before looking at any other parameters, yes, you would do that, and soundly so.

But then, when you find out that Lechmereīs whole past and present was to be found in a west-south-westernly direction from 22 Doveton Street, you would immediately realize that he would be likely to move in that direction when going to work and when seeking out old friends and stomping grounds.

And after that, when you notice that if he was the killer, then he killed en route to work, the idea of the victims turning up on that particular route or close to it makes all the sense in the world.

Think about it - if Kelly was killed in Mile End instead of in Spitalfields, at a time when we know that he would have been trekking towards the west and Broad Street, just how much sense would THAT make?

You need to lift you snout from the geographical profiling stuff. Lechmere never was about that. He was always about checking HIS particular geography at around 3-4 AM in the mornings.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

Okay ..just keep it simple for thickos like me

Bucks Row - yes - we have proof Lechmere was there

I`m struggling with the others
Is there proof or evidence that Lechmere was near the crime scene at the time in question ?

George Yard -
Hanbury Street -
Berner St -
Dorset St -

[Sam Flynn]

... Mitre Square.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Okay ..just keep it simple for thickos like me

Bucks Row - yes - we have proof Lechmere was there

I`m struggling with the others
Is there proof or evidence that Lechmere was near the crime scene at the time in question ?

George Yard -
Hanbury Street -
Berner St -
Dorset St -

Nobodyīs calling you a thicko, Jon.

We have proof that Lechmere was found standing alone in the street in close proximity to a freshly killed victim. I am told at times that he was not "found" there, but since he very apparently WAS, I donīt let that influence me.

So! Here we are, we have a carman who without a shadow of a doubt was present at one of the murder sites, at a time that is seemingly consistent with when the victim was killed.

That is evidence enough to make him VERY much a person of interest.

Once we have reached that stage, what we must do is to check whether we have any reason to think that he may have passed the other murder sites too.

If we had not known where he lived and where he worked, he could have been headed just about anywhere after Bucks Row, and so we could only have said that if he ordinarily passed through Bucks Row, then he would ordinarily have been not very far from the other murder sites at that stage.

But it just so happens that we DO know where he worked and where he lived, and once we do, his passage through Bucks Row becomes a very logical one: walking to Broad Street from 22 Doveton Street the quickest route will inevitably involve that passage.

So where does that put us? It puts us in a position where we can see that if he kept to the concept of clearing his work trek as quickly as possible, he will have proceeded along one of two routes: Hanbury Street or Old Montague Street. And indeed, on account of his and Pauls testimony, we know that he chose Hanbury Street on the morning of the 31:st. But we also knbow that he would not have added time to the schedule by choosing Old Montague Street instead. If anything, that route is marginally quicker.

So we can say that if he passed through Spitalfields on the other Spitalfields murder days, then he MAY have walked on the exact streets where two of the murders took place (George Yard was the fewest of yards off Old Montague), he MAY have used Dorset Street as a shortcut, and at any rate, he WILL have passed less than three minutes walk away from each of these sites unless he veered off to the north of Hanbury Street or to the south of Old Montague Street - in which case he would use an illogical route, chronologically - it would be longer, quite simply.

And so we can see, just as I say, that he would have had logical reason to pass each and every one of the four Spitalfields murder sites, and indeed we know that he did so in at least one case.

Berner Street and Mitre Square have other ties to him, and I would say that these ties are much more tenuous than the morning trek ties, which are quite clear and logical, timings included. In Berner Street, we would not be able to say WHY he was there, although we could easily see that he would be in surroundings where he was extremely well aquainted. We would also know that his mother and daughter lived there, providing a very logical reason for him to visit on his night off.
Similarly, we would not be able to tell why he was there at the time registered for the Stride murder, but it makes a lot of sense that this murder is an earlier one than the working day strikes; leaving after a visit or after having pubcrawled with friends is arguably more consistent with a 1 AM timing than with a 4 AM one.

So just as you knew already, Lechmere is not tied to any site but the one in Bucks Row. Then again, being tied to that site at a remove in time that is entirely consistent with the suggestion that he was the killer is something that cannot be lightheartedly dismissed. Certainly, Andy Griffiths said, in a modern day investigation nobody else could be prosecuted as long as he was not cleared. Thatīs the weight Griffiths awarded the matter.

The fact that the other Ripper murders did not take place in Bow, in Chelsea, in St Jamesī Park or anywhere else (and the options are innumerable) where Lechmere did NOT do his morning trek, but instead in the exact smallish area where he DID pass through can never be something that should be looked at as a mere triviality. It instead offers a very viable solution to the murder enigma, since it keeps Lechmere firmly in the frame.

[Fisherman]

... Mitre Square.

...post 4.

[Sam Flynn]

We have proof that Lechmere was found standing alone in the street in close proximity to a freshly killed victim. I am told at times that he was not "found" there, but since he very apparently WAS, I donīt let that influence me.

"Found" implies "found out", and you know it. He was "seen" standing in the road, fair enough, but "found" is a loaded word.

Oh, and standing in the road isn't exactly "close proximity", either.

he would have had logical reason to pass each and every one of the four Spitalfields murder sites

Not "would", but "might" - as might any one of thousands of men living in Spitalfields itself. You might ask what logical reasons would such people have for doing so, but they didn't need any reasons, because they were already there.

Actually, what logical reason would he have had to pass through Dorset Street?

...or Mitre Square.

[Batman]

And after that, when you notice that if he was the killer, then he killed en route to work, the idea of the victims turning up on that particular route or close to it makes all the sense in the world.

JtR was witnessed with some of his victims. Yet none of them put together that this was the same person walking that route daily?

Routes to work, even if true, doesn't make someone JtR.

[Sam Flynn]

Routes to work, even if true, doesn't make someone JtR.

Indeed. John Davis was heading off to work when he found Chapman, so presumably his work route (and routine) involved a pre-emptive visit to the outside toilet. Likewise, Dymshitz was returning from work when he found Stride. Watkins discovered Eddowes' body whilst walking his beat, the equivalent of a work-route for an on-duty policeman.

So, at least three other canonical victims were found, purely by chance, by persons embarked on their work-routes. Can't see why the same shouldn't apply to the first.

[Fisherman]

JtR was witnessed with some of his victims. Yet none of them put together that this was the same person walking that route daily?

Routes to work, even if true, doesn't make someone JtR.

Problem 1: How do we know that JtR WAS observed with any of the victims?

Problem 2: If Lawende, Long, Schwartz DID see the real Ripper - would they have been able to travel backwards in time to look at Lechmere? His testimony was offered before these observations were made.

Just how does that work?

[Fisherman]

Indeed. John Davis was heading off to work when he found Chapman, so presumably his work route (and routine) involved a pre-emptive visit to the outside toilet. Likewise, Dymshitz was returning from work when he found. Watkins discovered Eddowes' body whilst walking his beat, the equivalent of a work-route for an on-duty policeman.

So, at least three other canonical victims were found, purely by chance, by persons embarked on their work-routes. Can't see why the same shouldn't apply to the first.

Not "canīt", Gareth. Itīs "wonīt". And, as I have said a thousand times, these men - apart from Davis - are in fact much better suspects than, say, Druitt, Bury and Levy. And that is on account of how they were actually alone with a victim that was (relatively) freshly killed.
However, as you are well aware, there is not a scintilla of evidence pointing to how either man had a logical reason to visit the OTHER sites, and there is evidence that seems to speak against them being the killer.
It also applies that neither man gave the wrong name, neither man disagreed with the police etctera.
Otherwise, you are on the exact right track: anybody who is found alone with a freshly killed victim must be looked upon with a large amount of care.

Itīs tad sad that you brought up Davis, since it so clearly shows us the degree of desperation with which you argue that lost cause of yours. Whoops.

[Batman]

Problem 1: How do we know that JtR WAS observed with any of the victims?

Problem 2: If Lawende, Long, Schwartz DID see the real Ripper - would they have been able to travel backwards in time to look at Lechmere? His testimony was offered before these observations were made.

Just how does that work?

What we have are a few descriptions of a similar looking person from different murder areas via witnesses, such as PCs and civilians. Many of these witnesses are regular beat officers who would have seen him before in your model of 3-4 am. Many civilians also.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: "Found" implies "found out", and you know it. He was "seen" standing in the road, fair enough, but "found" is a loaded word.

No, it is no such thing. And I donīt say "found out", do I? I say "found", and he WAS found. Iīm glad that you roundaboutish admit that now, by saying that it is the implications you fear that have stood in the way of it before.

Oh, and standing in the road isn't exactly "close proximity", either.
Not "would", but "might" - as might any one of thousands of men living in Spitalfields itself. You might ask what logical reasons would such people have for doing so, but they didn't need any reasons, because they were already there.

He was in close proximity, end of. In the case at hand, "close proximity" means "close enough proximity to have killed her and backed of". No other proximity is even remotely interesting in this context.

Actually, what logical reason would he have had to pass through Dorset Street?

Dorset Street offered a short-cut to Broad Street from the Hanbury Street route. I am not the one who found this out, interestingly - it was something Ben - of all people - provided, and he made a clear-cut case for it.
By the way, if you have problems with the over concept of how a killer may look for victims in more than one street, then say so. If you have problems answering my post 4 - which nullifies your claims - then say that too. Otherwise, who knows; if I can "imply" one thing, whoīs to say I canīt imply another, such as how you cannot counter that post in any intelligible way.

[Abby Normal]

what I find interesting is that the night of the double event, which happened much earlier in the evening then the other murders, was on a Sunday, a day lech was not working.

added to that the first murder that night, Stride, was south of the other murders, and close by his mums place. which makes sense on his day off he would be visiting her.

Like it or not-its a narrative that fits for lech geographically and time wise.

[Jon Guy]

We have proof that Lechmere was found standing alone in the street in close proximity to a freshly killed victim. I am told at times that he was not "found" there, but since he very apparently WAS, I donīt let that influence me.

So! Here we are, we have a carman who without a shadow of a doubt was present at one of the murder sites, at a time that is seemingly consistent with when the victim was killed.

Agreed :-)

Once we have reached that stage, what we must do is to check whether we have any reason to think that he may have passed the other murder sites too.

If we had not known where he lived and where he worked, he could have been headed just about anywhere after Bucks Row, and so we could only have said that if he ordinarily passed through Bucks Row, then he would ordinarily have been not very far from the other murder sites at that stage.

But it just so happens that we DO know where he worked and where he lived, and once we do, his passage through Bucks Row becomes a very logical one: walking to Broad Street from 22 Doveton Street the quickest route will inevitably involve that passage.

So where does that put us? It puts us in a position where we can see that if he kept to the concept of clearing his work trek as quickly as possible, he will have proceeded along one of two routes: Hanbury Street or Old Montague Street. And indeed, on account of his and Pauls testimony, we know that he chose Hanbury Street on the morning of the 31:st. But we also knbow that he would not have added time to the schedule by choosing Old Montague Street instead. If anything, that route is marginally quicker.

So we can say that if he passed through Spitalfields on the other Spitalfields murder days, then he MAY have walked on the exact streets where two of the murders took place (George Yard was the fewest of yards off Old Montague), he MAY have used Dorset Street as a shortcut, and at any rate, he WILL have passed less than three minutes walk away from each of these sites unless he veered off to the north of Hanbury Street or to the south of Old Montague Street - in which case he would use an illogical route, chronologically - it would be longer, quite simply.

And so we can see, just as I say, that he would have had logical reason to pass each and every one of the four Spitalfields murder sites, and indeed we know that he did so in at least one case.

Berner Street and Mitre Square have other ties to him, and I would say that these ties are much more tenuous than the morning trek ties, which are quite clear and logical, timings included. In Berner Street, we would not be able to say WHY he was there, although we could easily see that he would be in surroundings where he was extremely well aquainted. We would also know that his mother and daughter lived there, providing a very logical reason for him to visit on his night off.
Similarly, we would not be able to tell why he was there at the time registered for the Stride murder, but it makes a lot of sense that this murder is an earlier one than the working day strikes; leaving after a visit or after having pubcrawled with friends is arguably more consistent with a 1 AM timing than with a 4 AM one.

So just as you knew already, Lechmere is not tied to any site but the one in Bucks Row. Then again, being tied to that site at a remove in time that is entirely consistent with the suggestion that he was the killer is something that cannot be lightheartedly dismissed. Certainly, Andy Griffiths said, in a modern day investigation nobody else could be prosecuted as long as he was not cleared. Thatīs the weight Griffiths awarded the matter.

The fact that the other Ripper murders did not take place in Bow, in Chelsea, in St Jamesī Park or anywhere else (and the options are innumerable) where Lechmere did NOT do his morning trek, but instead in the exact smallish area where he DID pass through can never be something that should be looked at as a mere triviality. It instead offers a very viable solution to the murder enigma, since it keeps Lechmere firmly in the frame.

But these reasons to be at the other crime scenes are just speculation, Christer. I appreciate you have found ties to particular areas, but nothing of any substance.

Was he working Sat 8th Sept ?
Was he working Sat 30th Sept ? If he was, he must have been tired if he was up at 3am, worked a 12hr shift and was wandering around the East End at 2am.

[Fisherman]

What we have are a few descriptions of a similar looking person from different murder areas via witnesses, such as PCs and civilians. Many of these witnesses are regular beat officers who would have seen him before in your model of 3-4 am. Many civilians also.

They would have seen Lechmere in the streets before the Nichols murder? Okay, so what would that mean? That they had seen the carman on his way to work.

I fail to see a jury hanging him for that.

Are you furthermore saying that Lawende, Long and Schwartz also must have seen him during his morning trek? Or that a PC who saw a person down at Berner street must also have noticed the carman passing through Spitalfields in the early mornings? Are you aware that it was very dark in the mornings, by the way?

By way of coincidence, any killer runs the risk that some random person will see and recognize him. But that predisposes that you CAN see him.

Itīs back to the drawing board for you, Iīm afraid.