Tweet
So, a new thread, dedicated to the question whether Lechmere is the best suspect we know of so far, from a geographical point of view. It sorts under Lechmere, so that there needs to be no talk of hijacking and resentment. Let´s hope it keeps everybody happy!
To start off, I will comment on the last post of Gareth Williams on the former thread:
Fisherman:
And for whom of these non-starters...
Sam Flynn:
How do we know they're non-starters? The Ripper could be right there among them, staring us in the face; I doubt it, statistically, but you never know.
Here we have a classic example of not only moving the goalposts, but instead building a new goal. I of course never said that the men commented on could not be the Ripper. Nor was it ever the issue here. The issue was - and remains, believe me - whether any of the men was recorded as having been present on any of the murder sites or if they were recorded as having had reason to be so. And in that category, they are all 100 per cent non-starters.
Once we keep to the subject, we will get this correct, once we disrespect that simple rule, we won´t. Once we aim to disrespect the rule, we are not fit to plead.
Fisherman:
Does it apply that they were either found at one or all of the murder sites? Or that they had reason to visit all the sites?
Sam Flynn:
These people lived in the middle of Whitechapel, for God's sake!!! They don't need any of us to make up reasons for their being there, because they were there already - and not just them, either, but thousands upon thousands of other local males who weren't maniacs/lunatics.
Here, Gareth returns to his "for God´s sake" routine, employed before in this errand.
Let´s be totally frank:
Of course, these men would not need any reason at all to be on the murder sites. I agree with that 100 per cent - but it has not a iot to do with the question asked.
Of course, these men could - each and every one of them - be the Ripper. I agree with that too - but the same applies, it has nothing at all to do with the question asked.
The question asked was whether they were recorded to have been present at any or all of the sites or whether they were recorded to have a reason to be there at the relevant removes in time.
What Gareth is desperately trying to do is to nullify the importance of this factor. I, on the other hand, am doing the same thing as the police always does in a murder investigation: I ask about who were present at the murder sites and/or had reason to be at the sites at the relevant hours. And I do that because it is the most important question of all to establish when trying to catch the killer - before we can put a person on the spot or prove that this person had a likely reason to be on the spot, we cannot convict anybody of a crime committed on that spot.
So far from spreading the idea that it does not matter whether a person/suspect was at one or more of the murder sites or had a recorded reason to be there, we must instead accept that of all the factors in a murder hunt, this is the perhaps most crucial one of them all.
If we pick one of Gareths suspects (let´s say it was a woman, and let´s call her Miss Leading), we must be acutely aware that before any charges can be brought against her in the Ripper errand, we MUST show that she had opportunity to kill at the sites and times recorded.
Conclusion: When we look for the Ripper, any suspect or suggested suspect that cannot be shown to have been at the spots or have had reason to be so is automatically a less good suspect than any other person who CAN be shown to have been at the spots or have had reason to be so, all other parameters unconsidered.
In Ripperology, there is an ongoing hunt for this information. Anybody who has a suspect will prioritize it. That is why we heard all those hoorays when Kosminski was (tenuously) tied to Providence Street, that is why Bury´s suggested visits to a Whitechapel pub is so much discussed and why those who opt for him are not happy about the pub owner not owning up to it, that is why Francis Thompson´s staying close to Dorset Street for a period of time is the holy Graal for him as a suspect - and conversely, that is why Sickert´s journey to Dieppe is such a sour apple for the Cornwellians.
This has never been a matter that has been up for discussion. Never. It goes without saying. It is a cornerstone of any justice system and the foremost tool for the police investigations.
Robert Black could laugh at the police until they checked his petrol receipts, potentially putting him in place on the abduction sites. Mind you, the receipts did not prove as such that he abducted the girls - but they DID prove beyond doubt that he was there.
And guess what? That was enough to send him down for life. It was considered proof beyond doubt.
That is how strong this kind of evidence is.
Now Gareth is fighting a battle in order to deny that it is in any way important evidence at all, claiming that it does not mean that Charles Lechmere is any better a suspect than anyone who lived in Whitechapel. On the contrary, he is a WORSE suspect. Not because he was not there, because we KNOW that he was. But because his home address was some minutes away! So that makes him an unlikely killer!
Yeah - just like how anybody living in the villages where Robert Black abducted young girls were MORE likely than Black to be the perpetrator, because he did not actually live there.
"For God´s sake", Gareth? Really? God is supposed to stand on the side of the judicial system. He is not supposed to go along with the kind of antics you are engaging in right now. Surely, he has better things to do?
To start off, I will comment on the last post of Gareth Williams on the former thread:
Fisherman:
And for whom of these non-starters...
Sam Flynn:
How do we know they're non-starters? The Ripper could be right there among them, staring us in the face; I doubt it, statistically, but you never know.
Here we have a classic example of not only moving the goalposts, but instead building a new goal. I of course never said that the men commented on could not be the Ripper. Nor was it ever the issue here. The issue was - and remains, believe me - whether any of the men was recorded as having been present on any of the murder sites or if they were recorded as having had reason to be so. And in that category, they are all 100 per cent non-starters.
Once we keep to the subject, we will get this correct, once we disrespect that simple rule, we won´t. Once we aim to disrespect the rule, we are not fit to plead.
Fisherman:
Does it apply that they were either found at one or all of the murder sites? Or that they had reason to visit all the sites?
Sam Flynn:
These people lived in the middle of Whitechapel, for God's sake!!! They don't need any of us to make up reasons for their being there, because they were there already - and not just them, either, but thousands upon thousands of other local males who weren't maniacs/lunatics.
Here, Gareth returns to his "for God´s sake" routine, employed before in this errand.
Let´s be totally frank:
Of course, these men would not need any reason at all to be on the murder sites. I agree with that 100 per cent - but it has not a iot to do with the question asked.
Of course, these men could - each and every one of them - be the Ripper. I agree with that too - but the same applies, it has nothing at all to do with the question asked.
The question asked was whether they were recorded to have been present at any or all of the sites or whether they were recorded to have a reason to be there at the relevant removes in time.
What Gareth is desperately trying to do is to nullify the importance of this factor. I, on the other hand, am doing the same thing as the police always does in a murder investigation: I ask about who were present at the murder sites and/or had reason to be at the sites at the relevant hours. And I do that because it is the most important question of all to establish when trying to catch the killer - before we can put a person on the spot or prove that this person had a likely reason to be on the spot, we cannot convict anybody of a crime committed on that spot.
So far from spreading the idea that it does not matter whether a person/suspect was at one or more of the murder sites or had a recorded reason to be there, we must instead accept that of all the factors in a murder hunt, this is the perhaps most crucial one of them all.
If we pick one of Gareths suspects (let´s say it was a woman, and let´s call her Miss Leading), we must be acutely aware that before any charges can be brought against her in the Ripper errand, we MUST show that she had opportunity to kill at the sites and times recorded.
Conclusion: When we look for the Ripper, any suspect or suggested suspect that cannot be shown to have been at the spots or have had reason to be so is automatically a less good suspect than any other person who CAN be shown to have been at the spots or have had reason to be so, all other parameters unconsidered.
In Ripperology, there is an ongoing hunt for this information. Anybody who has a suspect will prioritize it. That is why we heard all those hoorays when Kosminski was (tenuously) tied to Providence Street, that is why Bury´s suggested visits to a Whitechapel pub is so much discussed and why those who opt for him are not happy about the pub owner not owning up to it, that is why Francis Thompson´s staying close to Dorset Street for a period of time is the holy Graal for him as a suspect - and conversely, that is why Sickert´s journey to Dieppe is such a sour apple for the Cornwellians.
This has never been a matter that has been up for discussion. Never. It goes without saying. It is a cornerstone of any justice system and the foremost tool for the police investigations.
Robert Black could laugh at the police until they checked his petrol receipts, potentially putting him in place on the abduction sites. Mind you, the receipts did not prove as such that he abducted the girls - but they DID prove beyond doubt that he was there.
And guess what? That was enough to send him down for life. It was considered proof beyond doubt.
That is how strong this kind of evidence is.
Now Gareth is fighting a battle in order to deny that it is in any way important evidence at all, claiming that it does not mean that Charles Lechmere is any better a suspect than anyone who lived in Whitechapel. On the contrary, he is a WORSE suspect. Not because he was not there, because we KNOW that he was. But because his home address was some minutes away! So that makes him an unlikely killer!
Yeah - just like how anybody living in the villages where Robert Black abducted young girls were MORE likely than Black to be the perpetrator, because he did not actually live there.
"For God´s sake", Gareth? Really? God is supposed to stand on the side of the judicial system. He is not supposed to go along with the kind of antics you are engaging in right now. Surely, he has better things to do?
Comment