Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Framing Charles

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi rj
    i fail to find the logic in this. everyone now knows that the person who discovers a body, especially a recently killed one, is defacto a suspect/ person of interest until cleared. its detective work 101. whether they had a reason to be there or not.
    Lechmere was at work when Chapman was murdered, so he cannot be the Ripper.

    Lechmere was at work when the Pinchin Street torso was deposited, so he cannot be the Torso Killer, either.

    As you say, it's detective work 101.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

      Lechmere was at work when Chapman was murdered, so he cannot be the Ripper.

      Lechmere was at work when the Pinchin Street torso was deposited, so he cannot be the Torso Killer, either.

      As you say, it's detective work 101.
      how the hell do you know he was at work lol. and besides i was talking about discovering a body
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        We are then faced with how the four Whitechapel murders all took place along his logical working treks. And a statistician concluded in my book that for anybody else than Lechmere to just randomly choose four murder spots along the twentyish streets I suggested as his logical working treks is one in five million.
        The Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly murders all took place as close or closer to Robert Paul's logical routes to work, so there is something very wrong with your calculations.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

          The Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly murders all took place as close or closer to Robert Paul's logical routes to work, so there is something very wrong with your calculations.
          are you suggesting paul for the ripper? well your in good company according to some, including dew, hes very suspicious.

          btw where did paul work?
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

            You have this backwards. Lechmere suggested "they should give her a prop". Paul refused.

            That’s the Telegraph’s version of events, other papers, the Times and the ELO for example, have it the other way round.

            Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly were at least as much on Paul's way to work as they were on Lechmere's way to wok.
            George Yard was not on Paul’s route to work, but it might have been just off Lechmere’s if he’d gone via Old Montague/Wentworth Streets.
            Last edited by MrBarnett; 04-07-2021, 08:59 PM.

            Comment


            • The value of someone like Walter Dew isn't his accuracy for detail. Any undergrad still wet behind the ears knows you're going to need to check contemporary records.

              The value of Dew is he can give insight about the spirit du corps, and perhaps some insight into the how the police--or at least one policeman--who was in H-Division at the time, viewed some of the lunacae in the case evidence.

              There are no bad sources; only bad interpreters.

              I think Stowe did a good job of using Dew to corroborate what looks like the correct answer: there was suspicion against Paul due to his actions in Buck's Row, and his subsequent 'going to ground.' The sources that survive are not great, but I see nothing wrong with his interpretation.

              It beats simply shrugging "Dew! Ha ha ha! That old wind bag!"

              Fido, Evan, and others have used Dew with caution...but also intelligently.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                Doesn’t Dew have Squibby being called Jack the Ripper by a howling mob a couple of weeks before the Dear Boss letter was received?
                I remember a time, many years ago, when people were willing to believe that Dew simply made-up the whole 'Squibby' tale out of the whole cloth. Just complete malarky from one end to the other.

                One of them was Stephen Ryder, who admitted as much when someone printed a contemporary report showing that Squibby was real.

                No; Dew often gets details wrong here and there, but I'm not prepared to call him a liar.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                  The value of someone like Walter Dew isn't his accuracy for detail. Any undergrad still wet behind the ears knows you're going to need to check contemporary records.

                  The value of Dew is he can give insight about the spirit du corps, and perhaps some insight into the how the police--or at least one policeman--who was in H-Division at the time, viewed some of the lunacae in the case evidence.

                  There are no bad sources; only bad interpreters.

                  I think Stowe did a good job of using Dew to corroborate what looks like the correct answer: there was suspicion against Paul due to his actions in Buck's Row, and his subsequent 'going to ground.' The sources that survive are not great, but I see nothing wrong with his interpretation.

                  It beats simply shrugging "Dew! Ha ha ha! That old wind bag!"

                  Fido, Evan, and others have used Dew with caution...but also intelligently.
                  How much of the case evidence do you think he had access to of at the time?

                  About the Smith case, he tells us:

                  “As in every case of murder in this country, however poor and friendless the victim might be, the police made every effort to track down Emma Smith's assailant. Unlikely as well as likely places were searched for clues. Hundreds of people were interrogated, many of them by me personally. Scores of statements were taken. Soldiers from the Tower of London were questioned as to their movements. Ships in the docks were searched and sailors questioned.”

                  “Many of them by me personally” is the key phrase here. Dew’s aim in writing the book was to big himself up.


                  Comment


                  • "everyone now knows that the person who discovers a body, especially a recently killed one, is defacto a suspect/ person of interest until cleared. its detective work 101. whether they had a reason to be there or not."

                    Here's my response, Abby.

                    Why do you want to be stuck in Detective Work 101 your whole life? You never want to move up the ladder to 201, or graduate level 301? After 130 years you're still mucking around with the 'persons of interest' that the police eliminated decades ago?

                    If that's your gig, have at it.

                    I wrote that Lechmere was seen near a dead woman at 3.40 in a darkened street. Yes, that is suspicious. I admitted as much.

                    But that suspicion is worthless, because he had an entirely plausible reason for having been there. His story panned out. He was cleared. This doesn't prove he's innocent, but unless you can show me something better, I'm not wasting time on him.

                    I once saw a Police Superintendent on t.v. screaming at his homicide squad.

                    "Interview. Eliminate. And move the %$# on!"

                    Good advice, in my view.

                    Bundle together Richardson, Cross, Crowe, Reeves, and Diemshitz, squeeze the most vile sins from their bodies, and you make find one of them once walked an unmuzzled dog.

                    Meanwhile, a child molester named Violena falsely accuses Pizer of the crimes, and he's on nobody's radar.

                    Hmmm. I guess my view of what makes a good suspect and what others think makes a good suspect is very different indeed. But I wouldn't have it any other way.

                    Cheers.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                      I remember a time, many years ago, when people were willing to believe that Dew simply made-up the whole 'Squibby' tale out of the whole cloth. Just complete malarky from one end to the other.

                      One of them was Stephen Ryder, who admitted as much when someone printed a contemporary report showing that Squibby was real.

                      No; Dew often gets details wrong here and there, but I'm not prepared to call him a liar.
                      I’m a Squibby fan.




                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                        The value of someone like Walter Dew isn't his accuracy for detail. Any undergrad still wet behind the ears knows you're going to need to check contemporary records.

                        The value of Dew is he can give insight about the spirit du corps, and perhaps some insight into the how the police--or at least one policeman--who was in H-Division at the time, viewed some of the lunacae in the case evidence.

                        There are no bad sources; only bad interpreters.

                        I think Stowe did a good job of using Dew to corroborate what looks like the correct answer: there was suspicion against Paul due to his actions in Buck's Row, and his subsequent 'going to ground.' The sources that survive are not great, but I see nothing wrong with his interpretation.

                        It beats simply shrugging "Dew! Ha ha ha! That old wind bag!"

                        Fido, Evan, and others have used Dew with caution...but also intelligently.
                        hi rj
                        read the last paragraph in the blurb you posted by dew. looks like hes opting that paul didnt come forward, not because he was guilty, but that because there could have been alot of other reasons, including not wanting to get involved.

                        yes, there seems to be a smidgeon of suspicion from dew on paul but this is writing many years after the fact and is tainted by the fact that dew didnt know paul eventually was found.

                        and as you say, comparing with the contemporary sources paul actually does absolutely nothing suspicious whatsoever. actually paul says its lech that hes suspicious of.

                        and yet we have dew also saying its paul who acts suspiciously in bucks row. cmon.


                        I dont throw out everything dew says like you keep saying, ive said many times before i take it with a grain of salt. but on this issue hes clearly jacked it all up pretty bad.

                        and please stop with the weasly backhanded insults rj. your better than that.

                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          How much of the case evidence do you think he had access to of at the time?

                          About the Smith case, he tells us:

                          “As in every case of murder in this country, however poor and friendless the victim might be, the police made every effort to track down Emma Smith's assailant. Unlikely as well as likely places were searched for clues. Hundreds of people were interrogated, many of them by me personally. Scores of statements were taken. Soldiers from the Tower of London were questioned as to their movements. Ships in the docks were searched and sailors questioned.”

                          “Many of them by me personally” is the key phrase here. Dew’s aim in writing the book was to big himself up.

                          Sounds like he's describing the daily grind to me. Plod work. As a DC in a division with numerous brutal murders in a short span, I have no doubt whatsoever that he did indeed interrogate 'many' people. Why wouldn't he have?

                          As for the rest of it, I've said what I planned on saying and will leave it at that.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                            "everyone now knows that the person who discovers a body, especially a recently killed one, is defacto a suspect/ person of interest until cleared. its detective work 101. whether they had a reason to be there or not."

                            Here's my response, Abby.

                            Why do you want to be stuck in Detective Work 101 your whole life? You never want to move up the ladder to 201, or graduate level 301? After 130 years you're still mucking around with the 'persons of interest' that the police eliminated decades ago?

                            If that's your gig, have at it.

                            I wrote that Lechmere was seen near a dead woman at 3.40 in a darkened street. Yes, that is suspicious. I admitted as much.

                            But that suspicion is worthless, because he had an entirely plausible reason for having been there. His story panned out. He was cleared. This doesn't prove he's innocent, but unless you can show me something better, I'm not wasting time on him.

                            I once saw a Police Superintendent on t.v. screaming at his homicide squad.

                            "Interview. Eliminate. And move the %$# on!"

                            Good advice, in my view.

                            Bundle together Richardson, Cross, Crowe, Reeves, and Diemshitz, squeeze the most vile sins from their bodies, and you make find one of them once walked an unmuzzled dog.

                            Meanwhile, a child molester named Violena falsely accuses Pizer of the crimes, and he's on nobody's radar.

                            Hmmm. I guess my view of what makes a good suspect and what others think makes a good suspect is very different indeed. But I wouldn't have it any other way.

                            Cheers.
                            who do you think makes a good suspect then rj? cmon lay it on the line then. paul? violenia? you seem to be hinting at it.

                            and ive said a million times on here there are no good suspects in the ripper case...they are all weak, some just less weaker than others. and until a valid suspect is eliminated i keep an open and thay includes the police suspects too.

                            you know how many times a suspect flew under the radar, and right under cops noses until something else gets them busted?
                            and yes its detective work 101 NOW. then im not so sure. it seems lech wasnt even suspected, let alone cleared. along with alot of other of the "witness suspects".

                            i mean look at richardson. places himself at the scene of the crime around tod with a knife for christ sake, and issues with his story,and no one at the time thought he might need a good looking at? are you kidding me?!? with hindsight its almost incredible. so yes all these types you keep pooh pooing are valid as possible suspects, or persons of interest. there exactly the type that needs looking into.

                            but i admit ive always been very positive and keep an open mind on possible suspects,(unless of course theyre ridiculous on the face of it) and encourage people who do. so yes, guilty as charged on that count.
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              I’m a Squibby fan.



                              me too!! seems the ripper had a positive affect on some one! lol
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • >>(Richardson) no one at the time thought he might need a good looking at?<<

                                I've always understood that he came under a lot of scrutiny at the time.
                                dustymiller
                                aka drstrange

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X