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

[Abby Normal]

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.

Ahh fish i gotta disagree with you on this one. Bury already is a legit suspect and to me if this happened, there would be no doubt in my mind he was the ripper.
Now if you used someone else, like spooner or one of the many peripheral witnesses then i would totally agree.

[Abby Normal]

Speaking of bury, him living in bow was no impediment for him becoming a legit suspect, even to police at the time, despite there was no evidence he was ever in wc at the time.

[Batman]

Lechmere found Nichols and may have gone to work through Whitechapel at the time of the C5's murders.

Cross lied about his last name but not his first name. His reasoning is his step-father used the name Cross. Lechmere presented himself to the police after Paul's story in the press mentioned him.

End of.

Bury is a murderer. Bury murdered a woman, his wife. He may have mutilated her body. If he found Eddowes then Bury would be a higher ranking suspect... except the police checked him out and cleared him of the murders.

Even Kozminski lied about his name to the authorities.

[Fisherman]

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

I think this is the first time ever Iīve seen you get everything right, John:

Someone from Bethnal Green CAN kill in Whitechapel!
Lechmere WAS a witness!
Lechmere WAS terrible!
Lechmere IS a suspect!

I knew you would get it in the end.

Bury, however, is a total non-starter. He lived in Bow, did he not?

[Fisherman]

Ahh fish i gotta disagree with you on this one. Bury already is a legit suspect and to me if this happened, there would be no doubt in my mind he was the ripper.
Now if you used someone else, like spooner or one of the many peripheral witnesses then i would totally agree.

Sarcasm, Abby. It is called sarcasm. Read again, if you will.

At any rate, you solidify my point, so thanks for that!

[Fisherman]

Lechmere found Nichols and may have gone to work through Whitechapel at the time of the C5's murders.

Cross lied about his last name but not his first name. His reasoning is his step-father used the name Cross. Lechmere presented himself to the police after Paul's story in the press mentioned him.

End of.

Bury is a murderer. Bury murdered a woman, his wife. He may have mutilated her body. If he found Eddowes then Bury would be a higher ranking suspect... except the police checked him out and cleared him of the murders.

Even Kozminski lied about his name to the authorities.

No, Lechmere likely did not find Nichols, he instead in all probability killed her. Him "finding" her is one of the many myths in Ripperology, if you ask me.

The point you need to make is not that he found her, it is that he WAS FOUND with her.

To add, it is not a mere possibility that he may have walked through Spitalfields on his work trek, it is a near certainty. Not only do we know that he did so on the 31:st of August 1888, it also applies that there are no realistic alternatives unless he was into making his morning treks a lot longer than they needed to be.

You say that he lied about his last name, but that is something that can be discussed, since he had a stepfather called Cross and was recorded as Cross himself in 1861. What we CAN say is that we know that he otherwise always used the name Lechmere in authority contacts, while he on this one and only occasion - as far as we know - deviated from that habit. So it is an anomaly, no matter how we look upon things, and if there is one thing murder suspects do not need clinging to themselves, it is anomalies.

The fact that he only presented himself to the police AFTER Pauls interview is not something that speaks a very clear language of innocence, is it? If he had been quicker off the mark, he would look a lot better in my eyes, but no such luck.

Kosminski gave BOTH his real name and his adopted ditto to the court, Lechmere is recorded to have done no such thing.

And the thread is, of course, not about these matters.

[Batman]

No, Lechmere likely did not find Nichols, he instead in all probability killed her. Him "finding" her is one of the many myths in Ripperology, if you ask me. The point you need to make is not that he found her, it is that he WAS FOUND with her.

That's historical revisionism. Paul didn't walk in on a murder with Lechmere mutilating Nichols. He was coming down Buck's Row, one of the first groups of early morning job walkers and describes nothing less than the scene of him meeting another early morning job walker, finding a body and then carrying on to work but first finding a PC along the way to tell him what they had both found.

The inquest did not find that he WAS FOUND with her.

In fact, the inquest pretty much dooms the idea Lechmere is JtR, because it's not just Paul being duped, but the entire inquest also.

To add, it is not a mere possibility that he may have walked through Spitalfields on his work trek, it is a near certainty. Not only do we know that he did so on the 31:st of August 1888, it also applies that there are no realistic alternatives unless he was into making his morning treks a lot longer than they needed to be.

There are several routes from East Whitechapel to the city centre and none of them passes through murder areas. The burden of proof is on you proving that he did.

You say that he lied about his last name, but that is something that can be discussed, since he had a stepfather called Cross and was recorded as Cross himself in 1861. What we CAN say is that we know that he otherwise always used the name Lechmere in authority contacts, while he on this one and only occasion - as far as we know - deviated from that habit. So it is an anomaly, no matter how we look upon things, and if there is one thing murder suspects do not need clinging to themselves, it is anomalies.

He lied about PART of his name. What sort of a liar gives part of their real name?

The fact that he only presented himself to the police AFTER Pauls interview is not something that speaks a very clear language of innocence, is it? If he had been quicker off the mark, he would look a lot better in my eyes, but no such luck.

You have a Lechmere who had no need to hang around and wait for Paul to come to up him and ID him, a Paul who actually was just going to walk right on. Now you have Lechmere running away from an investigation.

Kosminski gave BOTH his real name and his adopted ditto to the court, Lechmere is recorded to have done no such thing.

What do you mean by this? Kozminski told the court he gave the name of Abrahams because Kozminski was hard to pronounce for most people.

[Fisherman]

Batman: That's historical revisionism. Paul didn't walk in on a murder with Lechmere mutilating Nichols. He was coming down Buck's Row, one of the first groups of early morning job walkers and describes nothing less than the scene of him meeting another early morning job walker, finding a body and then carrying on to work but first finding a PC along the way to tell him what they had both found.

No, itīs not historical revisionism. It is a sounder approach than what has been recorded as history, building only on the words of a suspected killer. Once we accept such things as given truths, we.... well, letīs just say that we are naive and stupid.

The inquest did not find that he WAS FOUND with her.

Then again, the inquest of course never investigated that question. There was no need to, since it was established by Lechmere and Paul that the former WAS found with Nichols by the latter.

In fact, the inquest pretty much dooms the idea Lechmere is JtR, because it's not just Paul being duped, but the entire inquest also.

They never took up any position in the question at all, nor were they asked to do so. Theirs was the task to establish the cause of death, not to find the killer. So the only one dooming (or is it dumming?) himself is you.

There are several routes from East Whitechapel to the city centre and none of them passes through murder areas. The burden of proof is on you proving that he did.

Once you pass through Bucks Row - and he did - there is no realistic alternative to my suggestion. "There is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, to which he is tied, geographically and physically", said by James Scobie. If it is good enough for him, I couldnīt care less if it is not for you. He is the expert, you are not.

He lied about PART of his name. What sort of a liar gives part of their real name?

Any accomplished lie is more or less always as close to the truth as possible. It makes it harder to see through. News to you, perhaps?

You have a Lechmere who had no need to hang around and wait for Paul to come to up him and ID him, a Paul who actually was just going to walk right on. Now you have Lechmere running away from an investigation.

No, I have somebody (you) who cannot understand English. What I suggested was that he should have been quicker off the mark to go to the inquest/police in order to look better.
Did you get it this time? I can explain it further if you need.

What do you mean by this? Kozminski told the court he gave the name of Abrahams because Kozminski was hard to pronounce for most people.

Yes, and so which two names did he mention to the court?
Abra...yes?
Abraha... come on!
Abrahams? YES! And?
Kosm... yes, yes!
Kosminsk... you can do it!
Ah, now I know: Abrahams and Kosminski!
Correct! Good lad! And which two names did Lechmere give to the court?
Cro...

Take your time, Batman, take your time.
And of course, it still applies that the matters you discuss are not what the thread is about.

[Sam Flynn]

He lied about PART of his name. What sort of a liar gives part of their real name?

I'm sorry, but he didn't lie. He used a name which he was perfectly entitled to use. Furthermore, there is evidence that suggests that he was using the same name 12 years previously.

[John Wheat]

I think this is the first time ever Iīve seen you get everything right, John:

Someone from Bethnal Green CAN kill in Whitechapel!
Lechmere WAS a witness!
Lechmere WAS terrible!
Lechmere IS a suspect!

I knew you would get it in the end.

Bury, however, is a total non-starter. He lived in Bow, did he not?

Bury is the strongest Ripper suspect there is.

[Fisherman]

Bury is the strongest Ripper suspect there is.

Not if he lived in Bow, he ainīt. He canīt be.

[Fisherman]

I'm sorry, but he didn't lie. He used a name which he was perfectly entitled to use. Furthermore, there is evidence that suggests that he was using the same name 12 years previously.

... in combination with another violent death.

And to be fair, Iīd say that there is evidence that somebody using the name Charles Cross was involved. Whether it was the same man is not established, and you of all people donīt want to be rash, right?

[Batman]

Once you pass through Bucks Row - and he did - there is no realistic alternative to my suggestion. "There is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, to which he is tied, geographically and physically", said by James Scobie. If it is good enough for him, I couldnīt care less if it is not for you. He is the expert, you are not.

No, because there are several routes from East Whitechapel to the city centre and none of them passes through murder areas. The burden of proof is on you proving that he did. It isn't defacto that leaving Buck's row going towards the city centre takes you through the murder sites. What it does is take you through Whitechapel which you are saying is synonymous with going through the murder sites.

I couldn't care less about invoking a defence lawyer for people accused of sex crimes to prove your point for you. He doesn't and neither is he an expert in this field. You don't have to have anything more than a map to see through your claim.

Look at the all the roads not going passed murder sites he can take.

Any accomplished lie is more or less always as close to the truth as possible. It makes it harder to see through. News to you, perhaps?

That's not news. That's just a stupid thing for a criminal do if they want to lie about their identity. It's also stupid to hang around for a witness to ID you instead of going away.

No, I have somebody (you) who cannot understand English. What I suggested was that he should have been quicker off the mark to go to the inquest/police in order to look better.
Did you get it this time? I can explain it further if you need.

Yeah, you will have to explain it, given that you think giving someone your correct Christian name while trying to hide your identity is a bright thing for criminals to do. Then again, you think Lechmere wrapped his hand in an apron piece covered in poo and blood walked back into Whitechapel and up Goulston St., tossing it and decided to do this just for just 10% of his journey home.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think this is the first time ever Iīve seen you get everything right, John:

Someone from Bethnal Green CAN kill in Whitechapel!
Lechmere WAS a witness!
Lechmere WAS terrible!
Lechmere IS a suspect!

I knew you would get it in the end.

Bury, however, is a total non-starter. He lived in Bow, did he not?

Fish, can you really believe this?

Lechmere was obviously from the heart of the murders.

Bury was from Bow, which is hardly on the coast, and so would have had easy access to the murder sites.

But to you, this makes him a non-starter, despite the fact that he actually consorted with prostitutes and was known to be violent. He actually consorted with prostitutes and was known to be violent and a murderer. In fact, he actually consorted with prostitutes and was known to be violent and a murderer and he mutilated a woman.

Yet you dismiss him because he lived slightly further away? Don’t you think that you’re getting carried away with this geographical angle?

Next thing you’ll be saying is that if two men were suspects for Catherine Eddowes murder and one lived 100 yards away from Mite Square and one lived 90 yards away then Mr 90 yards would be the man.

[Fisherman]

Fish, can you really believe this?

Lechmere was obviously from the heart of the murders.

Bury was from Bow, which is hardly on the coast, and so would have had easy access to the murder sites.

But to you, this makes him a non-starter, despite the fact that he actually consorted with prostitutes and was known to be violent. He actually consorted with prostitutes and was known to be violent and a murderer. In fact, he actually consorted with prostitutes and was known to be violent and a murderer and he mutilated a woman.

Yet you dismiss him because he lived slightly further away? Don’t you think that you’re getting carried away with this geographical angle?

Next thing you’ll be saying is that if two men were suspects for Catherine Eddowes murder and one lived 100 yards away from Mite Square and one lived 90 yards away then Mr 90 yards would be the man.

Have you, Herlock, ever heard of the concept of sarcasm? No? Well, then I will explain to you how it works in this post of mine!

I am not of the meaning that Bury could not be the killer because he lived in Bow. I think any such statement would be utter nonsense. However, Gareth (Sam Flynn) has expressed that any person with an address in Whitechapel is automatically as good or better a suspect geographically speaking than Lechmere on account of how he lived in Bethnal Green!
The fact that he was in place in Bucks Row at the time of that murder and that he in all probability walked through Spitalfields on the rest of the murder mornings there does not - or so says Gareth - weigh up that he lived in Bethnal Green! ANY person with an address in Whitechapel will always be as good or better a bid for the killers role, I am told.

It was therefore very much with tongue in cheek that I said that Bury cannot possibly be the Ripper since he lived in Bow. it was an arrow aimed at Gareths reasoning.

Of course you and me and everybody else - but for Gareth - are completely aware that a man from Bow - or Chelsea, Battersea, Bethnal Green or Ulan Bator - can be the killer. And if such a man is actually recorded as having been in place at a murder site at the relevant time, then screw the fact that he did not live in Whitechapel; once he is present at a murder site, he of course becomes a better suspect than people simply residing in Whitechapel.

It is all about making a decision about who is the better suspect in the Ripper case: a man who is recorded as having been present at one of the murder sites at the relevant time and who reasonably passed through the murder area on a daily basis, or any unknown person who resides in Whitechapel.

It would seem that you and I am not deterred by Lechmereīs Bethnal Green address - we acknowledge that people residing there actually can kill in Whitechapel. Similarly, we realize that living in Bow does not mean that we are non-starters either.

In a perfect world, everybody would acknowledge this. But alas, Ripper country is not a perfect world, is it?

I hope you understand my post better now. Look at what the thread is called!