Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

    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?
    Last edited by Fisherman; 11-09-2018, 12:00 AM.

  • #2
    Not often one sees a thread starting in such a personal fashion. I'm impressed!
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      Not often one sees a thread starting in such a personal fashion. I'm impressed!
      All credit to you, Gareth - normally, a thread like this does not have to be created. It is only when somebody throws all logic and empirical knowledge overboard and cries "For God´s sake, I am correct in doing so!" that the need arises.

      Once you admit the importance of having been present at a murder site or having had reason to do so at the relevant hours, this thread will not be necessary any longer - as indeed it should never have been in the first place.

      Comment


      • #4
        A few remarks to show where I am coming from:

        If we have a murder in London, and if we choose two men as suspects, one living in Equatorial Guinea and one in Britain, it is obvious that the former has a clear drawback as a suspect. If you are not even in the country, you are an unlikely killer there.

        So far, so good - and this is the basic principle that Gareth is rooting for, unless I am misunderstanding him.

        If we move on, and theorize about a murder committed in London, where the suspects chosen is a Londoner and a Glaswegian, it´s much the same - living in Glasgow will make you a worse suspect. But not as weak a suspect as the guy from Equatorial Guinea!

        Next: If the murder we are looking at is committed in Battersea and the suspects we deal with live in Chelsea and Bow, resepctively, then the Bow man IS further afield than the Chelsea suspect. But by now, the borders are getting a lot more blurred: The Bow man may certainly be the killer, because he is not vary far away. The Chelsea man is however closer, and has a slight edge.

        And so we arrive at the last example: What if somebody is killed in Whitechapel and the suspects come from Bethnal Green and Whitechapel itself?
        Well, let´s begin by realizing that depending on WHERE in Bethnal Green and Whitechapel the suspects live, the Bethnal Green man may actually have lived closer to the murder site of the two. So here, the model of "furthest away, unlikeliest killer" has lost traction almost totally.

        Now, all of this works from totally basic angle: We have added no other information than the places of residence for our suspects and the rough place of the murders.

        Now, let´s add one more parameter. Let´s say that we don´t know where the Whitechapel man were on the murder day. We only know where he lived, but not where he actually was - he could have been in Croydon for all we know.

        Let´s say that the same goes for the man from Bethnal Green, the Glaswegian, the Londoner and the Brit from the examples - we have no idea where they were at the time of the murder.

        But let´s assume that the guy from Equatorial Guinea was actually found at the murder site, alone with the victim, claiming to have only just arrived there and noticed the body when another man surfaced.

        Given these parameters, surely it is almost a certainty that the man from Equatorial Guinea could not possibly be as good a suspect as the other men, who we know all had home addresses closer to the murder spot than he did?

        There is somebody suggesting that this holds true. I am saying the contrary: once a person is tied to a murder spot or can be shown to have had a reason to be at that spot at the relevant hour to have been the killer, then that person is a better suspect than anybody with a home address close to the murder spot and no evidence at all pointing to being involved in the murder or having been close to the spot of the deed.
        Last edited by Fisherman; 11-09-2018, 01:31 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          All credit to you, Gareth - normally, a thread like this does not have to be created. It is only when somebody throws all logic and empirical knowledge overboard
          I am being logical and empirical.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            I am being logical and empirical.
            No. You are being wrong and persisting that you are right. Once you try a logical and empirical answer to post 4 above, you will see why. It should be interesting enough.
            Last edited by Fisherman; 11-09-2018, 01:33 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Considering the Ripper murders were quite cold and almost calculating, if some one is going to murder in the fashion that the Ripper did, it is probably likely that the suspect is close to home. If all the victims were found lying in the street, the man from Equatorial Guinea could be responsible, but he is more unlikely to go to a dark place, or into closes and behind houses he does not know- a street with lighting would be safer for him. So since Annie was killed behind homes in a back close, Elizabeth was killed up a dark alley and Mary Jane was killed indoors, the Person responsible for these murders had no fear of where they were going to kill- as long as they were not caught and they knew the area. So I still think we are looking for someone local who is very familiar and feels safe in Whitechaple.
              Last edited by Busy Beaver; 11-09-2018, 02:17 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
                Considering the Ripper murders were quite cold and almost calculating, if some one is going to murder in the fashion that the Ripper did, it is probably likely that the suspect is close to home. If all the victims were found lying in the street, the man from Equatorial Guinea could be responsible, but he is more unlikely to go to a dark place, or into closes and behind houses he does not know- a street with lighting would be safer for him. So since Annie was killed behind homes in a back close, Elizabeth was killed up a dark alley and Mary Jane was killed indoors, the Person responsible for these murders had no fear of where they were going to kill- as long as they were not caught and they knew the area. So I still think we are looking for someone local who is very familiar and feels safe in Whitechaple.
                The one thing to keep in mind is the example I provided: If the man from Equatorial Guinea is found alone at the murder site with the freshly killed victim, then how can he NOT be a better suspect than anyone with a home address in the vicinity of the murder, but whose whereabouts at the time of the murder are totally unknown?

                That, and that only, is the question asked, so let´s not muddle things here.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If the police were doing their job correctly, then the man responsible for the murder would be arrested and charged no matter where he came from. Ok no DNA and CCTV back in 1888, but certainly in today's techno world. So I would say that in 1888 the Police were satisfied that those found at the body were just on their way to work and that was that. Perhaps the police did keep notes and if something came up again regarding those tow witnesses, then the police would have more to go on.
                  Last edited by Busy Beaver; 11-09-2018, 02:41 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
                    If the police were doing their job correctly, then the man responsible for the murder would be arrested and charged no matter where he came from. Ok no DNA and CCTV back in 1888, but certainly in today's techno world. So I would say that in 1888 the Police were satisfied that those found at the body were just on their way to work and that was that. Perhaps the police did keep notes and if something came up again regarding those tow witnesses, then the police would have more to go on.
                    That´s another answer to a question nobody has asked. Why is it so hard to answer the one that WAS asked: If the man from Equatorial Guinea is found alone at the murder site with the freshly killed victim, then how can he NOT be a better suspect than anyone with a home address in the vicinity of the murder, but whose whereabouts at the time of the murder are totally unknown?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      The one thing to keep in mind is the example I provided: If the man from Equatorial Guinea is found alone at the murder site with the freshly killed victim, then how can he NOT be a better suspect than anyone with a home address in the vicinity of the murder, but whose whereabouts at the time of the murder are totally unknown?
                      Cross's whereabouts are totally unknown for all the other murders.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                        Cross's whereabouts are totally unknown for all the other murders.
                        But NOT for the Bucks Row murder! He was effectively there at the exact time of the murder, and his working route will have been traversing the Spitalfields area inbetween Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street. It is the only logical option unless he was intent on adding a lot of time to his trek.
                        Similarly, it is logical to suggest that he did this trek Monday-Saturday, the way working people ordinarily did.

                        Accordingly, he is tied to the Bucks Row murder site and his logical routes and timings are in line with the rest of the Spitalfields murders too.

                        And that puts him waaaayyyyyyyyy ahead of any random resident of Whitechapel where we can NOT tell where he or she was at the relevant hours, or show any logical reason to have passed by George Yard, 29 Hanbury Street and Dorset Street at the relevant hours, the way we can do for Lechmere.

                        Can you tell me, Gareth: Why are we even discussing such a self-evident matter?

                        PS. After having read post 4, who would you say is the most likely killer in that example? You forgot to comment on that, somehow...
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 11-09-2018, 04:24 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          . 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.
                          This is arrant nonsense.

                          1. If, for example, Lechmere can be shown to have walked along Berner Street for some reason at some time near to the murders and yet some other suspect can only be shown to have walked along the adjacent street this would not make Lechmere a better suspect. It would have no effect at all on any judgment.

                          2. Are we to believe that serial killers only murder on spots that hold significance to them, leaving a convenient clue for investigators?

                          3. If we talk of Lechmere having ‘reasons’ to be near to the murder sites would this have helped his cause if stopped for questioning at 3am? “Just on the way to Pat my mum a friendly visit officer.”

                          4. All that can be said is that Lechmere was a local and so would fit the ‘local knowledge’ criteria for being the killer - as far as I know no one has ever denied this obvious fact.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Herlock Sholmes: This is arrant nonsense.

                            No, it is not. It is denying the obvious fact that having been placed at a murder site at the relevant hours points more to guilt than having yur residence nearby that is nonsense, and I can easily prove my point.

                            1. If, for example, Lechmere can be shown to have walked along Berner Street for some reason at some time near to the murders and yet some other suspect can only be shown to have walked along the adjacent street this would not make Lechmere a better suspect. It would have no effect at all on any judgment.

                            That is wrong, of course. The person placed in the actual murder street will always be a likelier bid than anyone walking adjacent streets. The further away from a murder spot you are, the less likely you are to be the culprit, and that holds true regardless of the distances involved.
                            Of course, in your example BOTH men can be the killer, no qualms. But stating that distance is not relevant is committing intellectual suicide.

                            2. Are we to believe that serial killers only murder on spots that hold significance to them, leaving a convenient clue for investigators?

                            I don´t really care what you believe, but I can assure you that nobody has ever suggested such a thing, making the question totally redundant. What I say is that serial killers will often kill in comfort zones, and since there never was a comfort zone that could not in retrospect be tied to the perpetrator, we can easily see that killers do offer up clues to their geography.

                            3. If we talk of Lechmere having ‘reasons’ to be near to the murder sites would this have helped his cause if stopped for questioning at 3am? “Just on the way to Pat my mum a friendly visit officer.”

                            Yes, it would definitively have helped him in that sense. Any person who cannot explain his presence close to a crime site is automatically in a worse situation than any person who can provide such a reason. In the case you propose, rest assured that the police would check out if the information added up. They would check if his mother DID live nearby, and if he had said that she was expecting him, they would try and confirm that too. Frankly, it is kind of baffling if you cannot see how such a basic matter works.

                            4. All that can be said is that Lechmere was a local and so would fit the ‘local knowledge’ criteria for being the killer - as far as I know no one has ever denied this obvious fact.

                            All that can be said about a man found alone at a freshly killed victims´ side is that he was a local?

                            I see.

                            You don´t. Or is that another one of those insults I repeatedly subject you to? If so, that was not my meaning. I am simply calling things by their correct names, no insult intended.
                            Last edited by Fisherman; 11-09-2018, 04:40 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              One would expect attacks around Bethnal Green. North, South, East and West of it.

                              Not just en route to work.
                              Bona fide canonical and then some.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X