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

[Fisherman]

Ridiculous. There's every reason to entertain doubts.

Gareth, whether it is ridiculous or not is something we must decide for ourselves. I am not saying that anybody must agree with me. If you read I bit more carefully, you will see that I am saying that I myself do not entertain any serious doubts. If you wish to doubt it, then go ahead and do so, but please allow me to hold whatever opinion I find the most likely one.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
Very interesting list of achievements,one wonders why he doesn't for instance,come onto this or other sites and teach,He did say though,didn't he,that the case against Cross,as it stands,would not succeed in a guilty verdict at trial?If he gave reasons why,I missed it.

Many very distinguished and knowledgeable academics would do anything not to end up out here, Harry. One wonders why that would be...?
Griffiths did not say anything at all about whether a court case against Lechmere would stand up, as far as I can remember. It was Scobie who commented on that part.

One thing you are wrong though,is experience in investigating all types of crime.He would not have have had the legal power to do so.Let me just quote one,crimes under the Customs and Excise Act.He or you can put me right if I am wrong.

Maybe he is not a customs expert, that is entirely possible. Whether that is pertinent to our interests is another matter.

96 per cent success rate.Well being that 90 per cent of solved crime is by confession of the offender,that leaves 6 per cent success by other means.Ho w much of that 6 per cent is by intelligent and dogged police work,one can only guess,and then there is the 4 per cent failure.What happened there?Perhaps those went down to undependable subordinates.

Wow. I mean...wow. I was not aware that it nags you like this, Harry. You need to take some time off, get a rest. The man had a 96 per cent clearing rate and that is a number most murder squads do not reach. Some are very far off that mark.
Personally, I think it is something that we should salute him for, but if you think that it is something that allows us to ridicule him, then go right ahead. Itīs your choice and nobody elses.

Not exactly a Sherlock Holmes is he?

Sherlock Holmes never existed, to be frank - he was something Arthur Conan Doyle created as a larger than life fantasy figure. Griffiths will have spent his career under somewhat different circumstances; less clubs for redhaired people, more sordid crime, less gigantic dogs raised by murderous enthomologists, more guns, bats and knives if you take my meaning. Itīs fiction versus the real world.

In that real world, Andy Griffiths has owned himself a reputation as a man well versed in crime and murder. And once we want somebody knowledgeable to comment on the Whitechapel murders, I would personally say that we cannot find many people better suited to do it than Andy Griffiths.

Iīm sure heīs got shortcomings too, just like you and I have. I, for example, have a lacking patience with people at times, and you have an unsavoury talent for smearing and belittling very qualified professionals of the criminal field.

Oh, and did I tell you that I wonīt be part of this kind of discussion fortwith?

[Batman]

The biggest issue I have here, is not really with the Lechmere presentation, even though it has some glaring issues, but the double-standards and special pleading being used here.

For example, a few weeks back, Fisherman battled tooth and nail against the idea that Chapman as a poisoner could have been Jack the Ripper. Fisherman, went hell for leather asking for examples of serial killers turned poisoners. When he got examples, he changed the goal post to mutilators who were also poisoners. When he got examples, he changed the goal post to started with mutilation and turned to poison in the end. Then he disputed how they were poisoned when H.H.Holmes seemed to be causing his difficulties.

His conclusion was that there were no examples, not enough examples or bad examples and therefore Chapman is the wrong candidate.

Remember that, Fisherman?

Here, on this thread, I asked for one example of a serial killer who hung around his victim waiting for a witness to show up so he could show it to them and Fisherman then proceeds to explain why examples are not needed.

I can basically take all of Fisherman's criticisms levelled at Chapman as a candidate and use them right back on himself.

So I started with examples, and he has none.

By his own standards with Chapman, he should be rejecting his own 'suspect'.

[Darryl Kenyon]

What do you want me to say? "Couldnīt have been him, then"? I think the very fewest would deny that Nichols and Chapman were killed by the same man, and so somebody did it in an eight-day period.

If Lechmere had been under suspicion, he would take a risk regardless of when he committed the next murder. These were deeds that did not leave the police in any doubt about a common originator, so no matter if he kille on September 8 or in February next year, if he was under suspicion for murder one, he would be revisited for number two. If he was not under suspicion, then there was never any problem.

Serial killers, not least the opportunistic type, kill when they want to kill, not when they think the police has cooled off. If you add psychopathy to that, you will find that such a man could not care much less about risktaking.

If you find it an impossibility for this kind of killer to strike twice within a week on account of how he should be wary of the police high alert, then maybe you should consider that he struck twice in a DAY the next time.

Fish you are misrepresenting me. I know the killer struck twice in a week and twice on the same night. What i am saying is i very much doubt Lech would kill victim number 2 so quickly after victim 1 after he had been seen with the dead body and spoke to a policeman shortly after. If Jack was anyone else bar Lech he would have no such qualms, as i said no witnesses, nothing.

Frankly your comment - "If Lechmere had been under suspicion, he would take a risk regardless of when he committed the next murder", Is silly. Were was his risk after Mary then? He wasn't incarcerated or anything. And if you say he was perhaps suspected by someone after Mary's killing, well didn't you just say he would carry on taking risks. So again, why didn't he after Kelly? You also say, "These were deeds that did not leave the police in any doubt about a common originator, so no matter if he kille on September 8 or in February next year, if he was under suspicion for murder one, he would be revisited for number two. If he was not under suspicion, then there was never any problem." The point is he wouldn't know if he was under suspicion or not after Polly's murder, That is the whole point.

[Fisherman]

The biggest issue I have here, is not really with the Lechmere presentation, even though it has some glaring issues, but the double-standards and special pleading being used here.

For example, a few weeks back, Fisherman battled tooth and nail against the idea that Chapman as a poisoner could have been Jack the Ripper. Fisherman, went hell for leather asking for examples of serial killers turned poisoners. When he got examples, he changed the goal post to mutilators who were also poisoners. When he got examples, he changed the goal post to started with mutilation and turned to poison in the end. Then he disputed how they were poisoned when H.H.Holmes seemed to be causing his difficulties.

His conclusion was that there were no examples, not enough examples or bad examples and therefore Chapman is the wrong candidate.

Remember that, Fisherman?

Here, on this thread, I asked for one example of a serial killer who hung around his victim waiting for a witness to show up so he could show it to them and Fisherman then proceeds to explain why examples are not needed.

I can basically take all of Fisherman's criticisms levelled at Chapman as a candidate and use them right back on himself.

So I started with examples, and he has none.

By his own standards with Chapman, he should be rejecting his own 'suspect'.

Yes, I remember it quite well. And I stand by it - I would want to see examples of it before I believe it.
I also stand by what I always say in matters like these - they are not impossible as such, they are only different shades of unlikely. When it comes to Chapman, I find it unlikely in the extreme.

Staying put at a crime scene is something we already have examples of, provided by Gary and Abby, who both have witnessed such events. You didnīt think this enough, but came up with the idea that specifically serial killers would not do such a thing. There would be some line of demarcation between other crimes and serial killings in this respect.

I told you that I would not spend any time looking for examples, and for a very simple reason - we already know that it is a rare thing to stay put on crime scenes, and finding one or two examples would not change that one bit. Plus it would mean a very demanding task to go through all the cases of serial killings existing.

We know that serial killers and other murderers have at times approached the police and feigned a will to help out. That in itself tells us that such a person is ready and willing to bluff. To me, that is quite enough to tell me that there would be nothing truly remarkable about it happening at the murder scene, not least if the circumstances surrounding it offered up such a possibility as a way to escape responsibility.

Turning a poison killer after having been an eviscerator is something quite different, and it will not be governed by a need to take swift decisions, led on by how the circumstances at a murder scene are altered.

So much for double standards, Batman. Itīs back to the drawing board again... Come to think of it, why leave that drawing board in the first place?

[Fisherman]

Fish you are misrepresenting me. I know the killer struck twice in a week and twice on the same night. What i am saying is i very much doubt Lech would kill victim number 2 so quickly after victim 1 after he had been seen with the dead body and spoke to a policeman shortly after. If Jack was anyone else bar Lech he would have no such qualms, as i said no witnesses, nothing.

Frankly your comment - "If Lechmere had been under suspicion, he would take a risk regardless of when he committed the next murder", Is silly. Were was his risk after Mary then? He wasn't incarcerated or anything. And if you say he was perhaps suspected by someone after Mary's killing, well didn't you just say he would carry on taking risks. So again, why didn't he after Kelly? You also say, "These were deeds that did not leave the police in any doubt about a common originator, so no matter if he kille on September 8 or in February next year, if he was under suspicion for murder one, he would be revisited for number two. If he was not under suspicion, then there was never any problem." The point is he wouldn't know if he was under suspicion or not after Polly's murder, That is the whole point.

I think he killed after Kelly, Darryl. And I know your stance, and I am not misrepresenting you.

Your whole point is that he could not have known if he was under suspicion.

My whole point is that psychopaths always work from the assumption that they are too clever to ever get under suspicion, and even if they end up as suspects, they believe that they will be able to talk their way out of it.

The whole problem with the "He would have run" argument and the "He would never dare to do that" argument, is that you are not researching the Ripper - you are researching Darryl Kenyon, and concluding that you would NEVER...! No, Sir - way too risky!

These people are not like you and me. Sutcliffe was interviewed NINE times. That should have put him off, right? But did it? No. And why? Because he worked from the assumption that he would not get caught. Or he did not even care, as long as he was free to kill. Experience told him he could go on. If they speak to you nine times and if they canīt nail you, then why stop?
Ridgway was suspected and kept killing.
Gacy was suspected and kept killing.
Bundy got caught and escaped from prison. Did he go to South America and stay calm? Or did he go to Florida and kill a whole bunch of women, leaving his teeth marks on the buttock of one victim?
That is what these guys do. There is no tomorrow for them, there is only here and now when they kill.

Hereīs a question for you, Darryl - would you merrily spend an hour or two in a locked room with Carl Panzram, if he was under suspicion of murder? On account of how you could feel safe in that case?

I know I wouldnīt.

[Harry D]

Harry, are you deliberately ignoring the fact that Lechmere had only recently moved away from STGITE, where he had lived close by his mother all his adult life, to Doveton Street when the murders started? (I don’t have my notes to hand, but his children moved to their new school in early/mid 1888 I think? Fish?)

His route to work was therefore a new one and unlike his previous route took him through the heart of Spitalfields.

Why did he move, I wonder? Even though he had a growing family (7/8 kids?) he moved to a smaller house, 4 rooms compared to 6, and possibly as a consequence had to leave one of his children behind with his mother. It doesn’t appear he was upwardly mobile. It may not have been a particularly welcome move.

It seems to me there are potential triggers in all this: moving away from the influence of his mother; a possible unwelcome downsizing of his home and the leaving behind of his eldest daughter; finding himself in a new environment on his route to work and experiencing feelings of anonymity; coming into contact with a greater concentration of homeless women and being solicited by them.

The ‘coincidence’ of the timing of his move and the start of the murders doesn’t hurt the Lechmere theory in the slightest.

You could take the random circumstances from anyone's life and construct a suspect out of them. Ripperology thrives on it.

[MrBarnett]

You could take the random circumstances from anyone's life and construct a suspect out of them. Ripperology thrives on it.

The trigger for my post was that an uninformed poster wrote this:

However, we are supposed to believe that for the umpteenth time he passed that route to work, he decided to pickup a prozzie and murder her in cold blood.


As for your statement above, I doubt you could make a suspect out of anyone, but I bet JTR's back story is an interesting one. Lechmere has an interesting story, whether he was the ripper or not.

[Batman]

Yes, I remember it quite well. And I stand by it - I would want to see examples of it before I believe it.
I also stand by what I always say in matters like these - they are not impossible as such, they are only different shades of unlikely. When it comes to Chapman, I find it unlikely in the extreme.

The highlight is mine. No examples, before you believe it. Yet you are trying to sell us something you have no examples of. Namely a serial killer hanging around a victim waiting for a witness to appear so they can show it to them.

Staying put at a crime scene is something we already have examples of, provided by Gary and Abby, who both have witnessed such events. You didnīt think this enough, but came up with the idea that specifically serial killers would not do such a thing. There would be some line of demarcation between other crimes and serial killings in this respect.

The argument was never that people won't do this. We know they do it. Netflix The Staircase pretty much solidifies it. What we asked for is an example of a serial killer hanging around a victim waiting for a witness to appear so they can show it to them.

I told you that I would not spend any time looking for examples, and for a very simple reason - we already know that it is a rare thing to stay put on crime scenes, and finding one or two examples would not change that one bit. Plus it would mean a very demanding task to go through all the cases of serial killings existing.

Finding evidence to support a claim is what people do. However here you are clearly clashing again with your position of examples before you believe it.

We know that serial killers and other murderers have at times approached the police and feigned a will to help out. That in itself tells us that such a person is ready and willing to bluff.

Completely different. We know they do this. Even the Zodiac wrote letters taunting police. BTK reached out also. Netflix The Staircase. Again, we know all this stuff. It isn't the question we are asking.

To me, that is quite enough to tell me that there would be nothing truly remarkable about it happening at the murder scene, not least if the circumstances surrounding it offered up such a possibility as a way to escape responsibility.

They are extremely different things. Snooker tables and food stalls.

Turning a poison killer after having been an eviscerator is something quite different, and it will not be governed by a need to take swift decisions, led on by how the circumstances at a murder scene are altered.

Special pleading as predicted. What's good for Chapman isn't good enough for Lechmere.

So much for double standards, Batman. Itīs back to the drawing board again... Come to think of it, why leave that drawing board in the first place?

On my drawing board are several words for you to read "You can't have your cake and not eat it".

[Fisherman]

The trigger for my post was that an uninformed poster write this:

However, we are supposed to believe that for the umpteenth time he passed that route to work, he decided to pickup a prozzie and murder her in cold blood.


As for your statement above, I doubt you could make a suspect out of anyone, but I bet JTR's back story is an interesting one. Lechmere has an interesting story, whether he was the ripper or not.

Come on, Gary, be charitable! Hand hoim a person from the era and place and letīs see how good a suspect he can make of him or her.

How about Joseph Lawende?

Are you up for it, Harry?

[MrBarnett]

Duplicate post

[Fisherman]

The highlight is mine. No examples, before you believe it. Yet you are trying to sell us something you have no examples of. Namely a serial killer hanging around a victim waiting for a witness to appear so they can show it to them.



The argument was never that people won't do this. We know they do it. Netflix The Staircase pretty much solidifies it. What we asked for is an example of a serial killer hanging around a victim waiting for a witness to appear so they can show it to them.



Finding evidence to support a claim is what people do. However here you are clearly clashing again with your position of examples before you believe it.



Completely different. We know they do this. Even the Zodiac wrote letters taunting police. BTK reached out also. Netflix The Staircase. Again, we know all this stuff. It isn't the question we are asking.



They are extremely different things. Snooker tables and food stalls.



Special pleading as predicted. What's good for Chapman isn't good enough for Lechmere.



On my drawing board are several words for you to read "You can't have your cake and not eat it".

How tiresome. Every case deserves a pleading relating to itīs circumstances.

As I said before, almost all killers will run if they have the opportunity.

That is the generalized picture.

In Lechmereīs case, Griffiths said he would NEVER have run. So the specific circumstances provided a background that made Griffiths opt for a ten out of ten staying put suggestion.

And Chapman is a ninehundred and ninety nine out of a thousand "no" when it comes to the viability of an eviscerator turning poisoner.

Thatīs as special pleading as you will ever get, in both cases. But with different outcome.

If you feel hard done by, then by all means have a cleansing good cry. But donīt claim that I cannot defend my stance.

Discussion over. Iīm off for today.

[Batman]

Your reply is self-refuting and contradictory.

How tiresome. Every case deserves a pleading relating to itīs circumstances.

So here, because you can't show examples for Lechmere (despite demanding examples for Chapman in order to accept an argument) you claim all cases need special pleading.

Do you know what special pleading is?

It's a fallacy.

As I said before, almost all killers will run if they have the opportunity.

That is the generalized picture.

Let's be clear why you know this. Examples of it happening is why you know this. That is the 'generalized picture'. Examples.

In Lechmereīs case, Griffiths said he would NEVER have run. So the specific circumstances provided a background that made Griffiths opt for a ten out of ten staying put suggestion.

You are welcome to believe this but I would prefer to reference investigators who have actually caught serial killers.

And Chapman is a ninehundred and ninety nine out of a thousand "no" when it comes to the viability of an eviscerator turning poisoner.

Yet here you go again, and but even apparently 'special pleading' for Chapman (you actually mean ignoring H.H.Holmes) means 99.9% not a viable suspect. It's simply bare-faced hypocrisy to present us a cake and not eat any yourself. If you reject any 'special pleading' around Chapman, then reject it for Lechmere also.

Thatīs as special pleading as you will ever get, in both cases. But with different outcome.

If you feel hard done by, then by all means have a cleansing good cry. But donīt claim that I cannot defend my stance.

Discussion over. Iīm off for today.

You can't defend a conflicting, hypocritical, double-standards cake at all. You are all over the place on this one.

If you are off then fine, but I am going to be discussing this with whoever brings it up or replies to it.

[Harry D]

The trigger for my post was that an uninformed poster wrote this:

However, we are supposed to believe that for the umpteenth time he passed that route to work, he decided to pickup a prozzie and murder her in cold blood.

Two years, two months... it doesn't really matter exactly how many times Lechmere made that trek. In all probability, his route to work coincided with the murder, as it did for numerous other witnesses, and didn't cause it. We have still to be presented with substantial evidence that implicates Lechmere. It's the usual half-truths and speculations that are bread and butter of suspect-based theory.

As for your statement above, I doubt you could make a suspect out of anyone, but I bet JTR's back story is an interesting one. Lechmere has an interesting story, whether he was the ripper or not.

I'm sure there are many east end characters with interesting biographies that have gone untold simply because they weren't drawn into the ripper case.

[MrBarnett]

Two years, two months... it doesn't really matter exactly how many times Lechmere made that trek. In all probability, his route to work coincided with the murder, as it did for numerous other witnesses, and didn't cause it. We have still to be presented with substantial evidence that implicates Lechmere. It's the usual half-truths and speculations that are bread and butter of suspect-based theory.



I'm sure there are many east end characters with interesting biographies that have gone untold simply because they weren't drawn into the ripper case.

So why did you choose to emphasise that he had used the route umpteen times? I think that qualifies as a half-truth. Have I posted any half-truths?

Surely speculation is a valid element of the investigative process. Without it, Ripperology wouldn't exist.

According to you, 'anyone' could be turned into a suspect. Perhaps you should take up Fish's challenge.

This might be useful:


"I put these lists together some time ago. They are derived from the electoral registers, so they obviously aren't a complete record of all the residents of George Yard Buildings, but they may be of interest.


George Yard Buildings
Electoral Registers

1888

36, Richard Brown
1, John Bryan
19, John Casey
27, William Chapman
13, William Garbutt
24, Joseph Gladman
33, Robert Hall
18, Thomas Hark
28, John Harris
5, George Harrison
45, John Hayes
14, Francis Hewitt
9, Francis Fisher Hewitt
29, Francis Hewitt jun
29, George Howell
22, Charles Humphries
15, John Johnson
32, Daniel Killinbeck
42, William Lacey
47, Patrick McNeil
46, Thomas Madden
24, Thomas Melville
40, John Reeves
16, Henry Ritson
25, James Sheelan
41, William Shore
43, William Sillitoe
25, James Speelan
2, William Steele
21, Henry Tempest
33, Richard Thall
7, William Winstan
31, William Winter


1889

29, John Baker
4, George Barber
36, Richard Brown
19, John Casey
12, Henry Cooper
35, George Crow
33, Robert Hall
6, Francis Hewitt
9, Francis Hewitt
29, Frank Hewitt Jnr
28, Thomas Hughes
21, William Humphreys
14, George Humphreys
26, Richard Kenrich
32, David Killinbeck
48, William Lacey
46, Thomas Madden
47 & 48, Joseph Marney
24, Matthew Melville
29, John Mitten
37, John Reeves
27, Edward Rice
16, Henry Ritson
2, William Steele
1, Walter Tempest
45, John Watkins
7, William Winstan
31, William Winter

E & O E "