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

[Fisherman]

Six times? I make it once for certain, and two at a stretch.

Then you cannot count. All six strikes have ties to his logical routes.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: I`m sorry, it`s only speculation tying CL to the other murder sites.

Me, I am happy that speculation is viable and logic and couples with a certainty that he WAS present at one of the sites. Alone with the victim. Thatīs weighty evidence, more so practically speaking than we have for any other man.


Completely alone ?
No, Robert Paul was watching him.
Diemschutz, Davis, and Watkins were all completely alone with the victim who is freshly killed and still bleeding.

He was completely alone with the victim outside Brownīs for an undefined amount of time. The only estimate we have comes from a murder suspect. That he was not alone in London or the East End is another matter.

Well, if we knew CL`s route to work, and IF the murders occurred along this route, as opposed to the scattering of crime scenes that we have. Spitalfields, St George in The East, Tower Hamlets and the City

We do know his route to work, roughly. Through Spitalfields, never far from the sites. And quite possibly at the relevant hours. Again, that is evidence that is unrivaled and very weighty.

[Sam Flynn]

Then you cannot count.

I don't know where the "six strikes" come from, for a start. Or are you speculatively adding other victims with tenuous links to bolster your already-weak case?

All six strikes have ties to his logical routes.

The "ties" you refer to are ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE. We can place Cross nowhere else, factually or logically, apart from Bucks Row and possibly - possibly - Hanbury Street... but only if we accept the earlier TOD and we know that Cross worked that day (and what his hours were, come to that).

[Harry D]

Didn't Robert Paul's work route also take him past two of the murder sites (Buck's Row & Hanbury Street)?

[Sam Flynn]

Didn't Robert Paul's work route also take him past two of the murder sites (Buck's Row & Hanbury Street)?

Yup. Although, in Paul's - and Cross's - defence, a locally-based Ripper wouldn't "need" to adhere to a work route or timetable in order to find and kill a victim in Whitechapel... because he was in Whitechapel already, 24/7/365. Or 366, given that it was a leap-year.

[Fisherman]

Charles Cross found the body of Polly Nichols. He couldn't be "found with the body" because he found the body.

If he didn't find the body, who did? The answer is nobody besides Charles Cross. Nada, Zilch, Nyet, Nej

Paddy

So if you find a body, you cannot subsequently be found with the body? How extremely odd.

I actually did not know that this was how it worked, so thanks for revealing it.

Letīs see here, a person goes into a forest, and in there he finds a dea body of a child that he picks up and carries. He then looses his way, and starts wandering around in circles, carrying the body in his arms. A large search party heads into the woods to try and find him - but they canīt.

Why? Because he has found a body, and once you have found a body, you cannot be found yourself.

Genius. Absolutely genius.

[Fisherman]

Abby, what`s Fish got on you ? ;-)

What has bad judgment got on you, Jon?

[Fisherman]

A person is not a "Suspect" if simply found with the body, he is a Person of Interest by virtue of the timing of his being at that location and his proximity to a recently murdered person, and surely someone whose statement needs to be taken.

Like Cross's was, the surname Lechmere adopted.

You seem to believe that access is the be all and end all in terms of naming someone as a Suspect, using those parameters anyone within walking distance of the site is a "Suspect".

Forget about motives. Forget about evidence.

Fisherman, your pursuit of having this persona named a genuine Suspect in all the Ripper assumed murders, as well as the Torsos murders is solely dependent on a premise that is false. And doomed to fail due to the wide variety of murder styles, weapons and techniques used in all these individual murders.

Lechmere is found on these boards in the suspect department. Guess why? Because he was found by the body of Nichols? No, becasue there are a number of matters that are in phase with him being the killer.
Him "finding" Nichols is not something that a priori makes him a suspect. It is only when you look at the other parameters, like disagreeing with the police about what was said, for example, the matter of him having been found by the body becomes of increased interest.
Once such "merits" are on your list, it does not help that you have been seen alone by a victims side at the remove in time she was killed.

[Fisherman]

You have constructed a scenario in which you invite us to confirm that Lechmere must be the better suspect since he found the murdered body soon after the murder.

Nope, that is a misunderstanding on your behalf. The whole thread is not about how finding a body makes you a suspect, it is about how I say that Lechmere is the best suspect GEOGRAPHICALLY speaking, since he was not only found by victimīs side at the approximate time when she was killed, but he has also a proven reason to pass through Spitalfields every morning at the relevant hours, a proven reason to visit the Berner Street area and ties to the Mitre Square area.

Please stick with what I am actually saying instead of inventing alternative truths!

[Fisherman]

I don't know where the "six strikes" come from, for a start. Or are you speculatively adding other victims with tenuous links to bolster your already-weak case?The "ties" you refer to are ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE. We can place Cross nowhere else, factually or logically, apart from Bucks Row and possibly - possibly - Hanbury Street... but only if we accept the earlier TOD and we know that Cross worked that day (and what his hours were, come to that).

All the victims of Jack the Ripper are speculations, Gareth. Didnīt you know that? In that respect, we are all welcome to work from any perspective we find the more likely one. I count Tabram into the tally, I "speculate" that she was killed by the same man as the so called C5, whereas you speculate that there WAS a C5.

Donīt try and get smart if you do not have the disposition to pull it off.

And donīt keep repeating that we canīt place Lechmere on more than one site, nobody is saying anything else! What is said is that a logical and viable case can be made for how he will have passed through Spitalfields en route to work on the murder mornings.

Please let that sink in, so that you donīt have to wast more space out here telling us what we already know.

[Michael W Richards]

Lechmere is found on these boards in the suspect department. Guess why? Because he was found by the body of Nichols? No, becasue there are a number of matters that are in phase with him being the killer.
Him "finding" Nichols is not something that a priori makes him a suspect. It is only when you look at the other parameters, like disagreeing with the police about what was said, for example, the matter of him having been found by the body becomes of increased interest.
Once such "merits" are on your list, it does not help that you have been seen alone by a victims side at the remove in time she was killed.

I don't object to your pursuit of Cross as Suspect in the Nichol's case at all Fish, its the only one where one has something one might speculate about.

Notice the frequently re-appearing "one"...

[Fisherman]

Didn't Robert Paul's work route also take him past two of the murder sites (Buck's Row & Hanbury Street)?

Yes, it did. And much as that makes him a better suspect than any Whitechapel dweller of whom we know no more than that he had his address in the area, it leaves him a much less viable bid than Lechmere, strictly geographically speaking (once we add the rest, the disagreement with the police and so on, he falls even further behind, of course), the reason being that he would not go as far west as Dorset Street on his working route while Lechmere would, he would not fall down to Old Montague Street while Lechmere could do that and still have the same distance to walk, he has no proven connection to St Georges and connections to the area up at Mitre Square that we know of, the way Lechmere does.

[Fisherman]

I don't object to your pursuit of Cross as Suspect in the Nichol's case at all Fish, its the only one where one has something one might speculate about.

Notice the frequently re-appearing "one"...

You speculate that there were multiple killers.

If you are at liberty to do that, when we all can see the similarities inbetween the Ripper deeds, then how am I not at liberty to speculate about how a man whose work trek traversed Spitalfields may have killed there?

There is speculation and then there is speculation.

[Fisherman]

Since an effort seems to be made to throw the thread into the ordinary nonsense bog, head first, I will return to the true aim of it and provide an example:

Having been found alone close by one of the victims in Sptialfields, at a remove in time that is consistent with being the killer, plus having a working trek that will take you no longer away from the other three Spitalfields murder sites than a three minute walk is - or so says Gareth - not as good a geographical indication of possible guilt as it is to have an address in Spitalfields, all other parameters left to the side.

It is enough that you have a residence in Whitechapel to make you a better suspect than Lechmere. On account of him having his residence in adjoining Bethnal Green, he must be a less viable suspect, geographically speaking. Or so I am told.

Letīs assume that tomorrow brings sensational news. Letīs assume that a record surfaces that shows us that PC Watkins was NOT the finder of Kate Eddowes. Instead, a long forgotten record shows us that a man by the name of William Henry Bury had passed through the square inbetween Watkinsī visits there, and he had found the body of Eddowes. He was all alone when doing so, but a few seconds after, a flower seller came into the square and found Bury there. Or so Bury says, at least; the flower seller only knows that she found him there, not how long he had been in place.

Does anybody seriously entertain the idea that such a thing would NOT catapult Bury sky high up the suspect rankings?

Yes, there is actually such a poster out there, who would say that it is of no consequence at all, since that would only connect Bury to ONE of the sites and prove that he was in place there, and such a thing counts for nothing. And Bury would not be a better suspect geographically than any man who had a home address in Whitechapel. In fact he would be a worse one, depending on how he had his lodgings some distance to the East.

And we would all listen to him and say "Yes, you are correct, we should not hold any grudge against Bury on account of this - it is only if he had lived in Whitechapel that he would become a truly worthy suspect."

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the standards on offer out here.

While I do something useful, you can spend some time chewing on that. Not Gareth, though, because he will at long last be preparing an answer to post 4 on this thread.

[John Wheat]

I could believe that someone from Bethnal Green could kill in Whitechapel. But also Lechmere was a witness and is a terrible suspect.