Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Ah, thanks for that. Maryann Street sounds familiar to me, so I must have seen that on the boards somewhere. Appreciate the pointers to it's location.



    Yes, human creativity is a wonderful thing! The danger, of course, is that we tend to think something we made up is somehow more real than something somebody else made up. Making things up is a great way to form a hypothesis, but hypotheses are a dime a dozen. It's the testing of them, and having the willingness to reject them, that's the hard part.

    Oh, and no, geoprofiling (meaning the spatial analysis of crime locations) does not result in "put a pin in the middle." It's a bit more complicated than that (although, to be fair, not all that much more complicated really). Based upon a few approaches, including methods advocated by Rossmo or Canter, Sion Square doesn't show up as a place of interest. I've posted these a few times in various threads so won't duplicate it again here, but if you're interested I'm sure you'll be able to find them.



    The Pubs closed at 12:30. Not sure if that was a local ordinance or federal law? There's sort of reference to that in the Eddowes case when the PC at the station tells her it's too late for her to get more drink as she was released at 1:00 am, after the pubs had closed. Of course I'm sure there would have been places operating after hours, but one would have to have money and Eddowes did not.

    I'm not sure what time the pubs were allowed to re-open though. Annie Chapman's murder, around 5:25ish, is of course so long after closing time it wouldn't be related to that. Also, there are some who argue for Mary Kelly being murdered that morning after having been to the pub for a morning ale, which would be a strike against that relationship as well. The notion, though, is that JtR may have been drinking at the pubs, and if so, once the pubs close he would have to leave, putting him on the streets where the crimes occurred - this is of course not proven nor suggested as fact, just an observation.

    - Jeff
    I believe they opened again at 05:00. There's a possible sighting of Annie at that time in the Bells (some.reports say the Ten Bells) buying a drink around that time;
    ​​​​​​
    Star 8 Sept
    "Our representative went to the Bell, in Brick-lane, where, as gossip goes, "Dark Annie" was seen with the man supposed to be her murderer. The barmaid said she opened the place at five o'clock, as is customary on a Saturday morning, as Spitalfields Market is in the near vicinity."

    And also Liz Prater waking at 05::30 and heading to the Ten Bells for a drink.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

      -- I have definitely seen a reference somewhere to Spitalfields pubs being allowed lavishly extended opening hours because of the need to cater for the folks who arrived from far away bringing produce to the market at all hours. Yes, really.

      As dear old Douglas Adams might have put it: 'Time was an illusion. Closing Time doubly so'...

      M.
      Hi Mark J D,

      Yah, I can easily imagine local variations in the set opening/closing times, and presume such would be allowed for in one of the Acts regulating the sale of alcohol. Love the Douglas Adams' quote, he has 42 great ones.

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

        I believe they opened again at 05:00. There's a possible sighting of Annie at that time in the Bells (some.reports say the Ten Bells) buying a drink around that time;
        ​​​​​​
        Star 8 Sept
        "Our representative went to the Bell, in Brick-lane, where, as gossip goes, "Dark Annie" was seen with the man supposed to be her murderer. The barmaid said she opened the place at five o'clock, as is customary on a Saturday morning, as Spitalfields Market is in the near vicinity."

        And also Liz Prater waking at 05::30 and heading to the Ten Bells for a drink.
        Hi Joshua,

        That's interesting too. It's always a worry when such bits show up in the newspapers as it's hard to know how reliable those types of stories are. I wouldn't want to build anything that really relied on such information, but it is interesting to see how they may fit in.

        But, regardless of whether or not the sighting of Annie was accurate, clearly there was some provision for local adjustments to be made, which is important to know. Even if the entire story was a reporter's fabrication, for example, they aren't going to fabricate something that clearly would not be allowed (an opening time of 5:00 am, for example). And yes, I agree with your other post that 12:30 makes Spooner's time line more coherent. Whether a misprint, misspeak, or mistake is hard to say of course.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • A bit of info on licensing hours, courtesy of Wickerman.

          https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...963#post718963
          Thems the Vagaries.....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
            A bit of info on licensing hours, courtesy of Wickerman.

            https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...963#post718963
            Ah, good find, thanks for posting the link!

            - Jeff

            Comment




            • Okay, so we have another example of ”This is just as good a suspect as Lechmere”-pushing. This time, the author is R J Palmer, who has found time to promote Alfred Crow as the Ripper (although he has not had enough time to admit that he was not being very truthful as he pointed me out as favoring the ”damaging” view that the killer found Polly Nichols as she was still in Bucks Row after having serviced a pun ter, something that is patently untrue. It would be nice if this could be acknowledged, but apparently R J prioritizes other matters.

              So let’s play along and dismiss the idea that Crow would be in any way comparable to Lechmere in terms if viability as the Ripper, shall we?

              First, I list the points R J has made:

              Alfred Crow found her laying there after coming home from an aggravating shift, and, in a spontaneous fit of rage, went inside, got a knife, and killed her.

              This is how serial-killers behave--compulsive, spontaneous. Think of the rage: "Why should that dirty woman have been allowed to go out drinking and sleeping and whoring while I was out working my arse off in the middle of the night? This is a nice building. She is turning it into a flop house!"

              And the timings of the murders are oddly suggestive of an angry man killing women---not before he went to work...that doesn't make much sense....but after his shift, when he was forced to slog home in the wee hours, filled with resentment. Just like Berkowitz.

              And, as a cabman, Crow knew the East End & environs like 'the back of his hand,"--probably better than any other suspect. He's mobile and he's out at night in the murder zone. He's also in his early twenties--the age when serial killers start, and George Yard is in the very center of the hot spot. Murderers usual kill close to home, at least in the beginning.

              Further, that landing where Martha was found was pitch black. Liz Mahoney deposed that she wouldn't have seen the body, but Crow--in the darkest part of night--has the superhuman eyesight to suddenly spot her? And yet did nothing?

              Clearly, Crow lied to the inquest. He knew she was there because he killed her. How could he have avoided getting blood on his shoes? An hour or two later, Reeves nearly fell in it!

              I find Crow's deposition highly suspicious. He said he "didn't know if the woman was alive or dead." What? He didn't know if she was alive, but didn't think to tell anyone?

              Further, Crow grew up in Ellen Court, Ellen Street---spitting distance from the Stride murder. He may have still visited the neighborhood and drank in its pubs in 1888. He also moved around a lot as a child--another bad sign. He was briefly enrolled in Forest Grove District School. In 1891, he's in Thrawl Street--that's one of the streets Francis Coles visited on the night of her murder, and he's living there. How many coincidences do we want to ignore?

              A note on Ancestry says Crow died in 1892 (unconfirmed--I'm not finding it), which would explain the cessation of his crimes after 1891--unlike the other locals of interest.

              Crow is your man. Solving crimes is easy as long as you're willing to write a novel.

              No one saw him there. He had as much time with Martha as he wanted. Helpful? He's injecting himself into the investigation--common among serial killers. I see Lechmere as far more helpful than Crow--he at least waved down the first pedestrian he could find. Crow steps over a mangled woman and goes off to bed? Total lack of empathy.Besides being alone with Martha's body at 3.30 a.m., and having a job that put him out on the streets of Whitechapel at night, he has an impressive list of addresses.

              1871 - Baker's Row (living with his grandparents--trouble at home?)

              1881- Ellen Court, Ellen Street, St. George in the East, which I think must be on the Pinchin Street end.

              1888- George Yard Dwellings, the scene of the crime.

              1891- Thrawl Street.

              I think he may be in Cardiff in 1901. There's an Albert Crow, born Bethnal Green, listed as a 'wire cage maker' --which was Alfred's father's profession---so it seems like a no-brainer.

              The odd thing, though, is that he goes Steve McCarthy on me in 1911. The Cardiff man moves back to Bethnal Green, but he gives a very specific birthdate, Oct 1870, which doesn't jive with the birth/baptism records of the cab driver, but it's hard not to believe it's not the same man.

              I don't see where he is fundamentally worse than Charles Allen Lechmere as long as we admit we are daydreaming and using the dubious science of criminal profiling.

              We now turn to explaining why Crow IS fundamentally worse than Lechmere, and we begin exposing where R J goes very wrong by looking at the time at which Crow claimed to have seen a person, presumably Tabram, lying in the darkness of the staircase in George Yard Buildings.

              3.30, approximately, was the time when Crow made his observation. Were then take a look at the hour at which the examining medico puts Tabrams death. And that time is given as around 2.30-2.45. The indication is therefore that Tabram had been dead for around an hour or thereabouts as Crow saw her.

              The estimation made by Killeen could of course be out. And Crow could of course have been lying abut the business. All kinds of things CAN be suggested, and that is what R J relies heavily on. The mistake he makes is to believe that mere suggestions can weigh the scales down as much as facts.

              Alfred Crow MAY have been in contact with Martha Tabrams body at the approximate time that she died.

              Charles Lechmere WAS in contact with the body of Polly Nichols at the approximate time she died.

              This is where the two are fundamentally different in terms of suspect viability.

              Alfred Crow can be found in the registers. It was his name, and he used it when contacting the police.

              Charles Lechmere was registered as Charles Lechmere, but he called himself Charles Cross when contacting the police.

              This is another important detail where the two are fundamentally different.

              R J would have us believe that Crow lied to the inquest, not revealing that he knew that Tabram was in place because he had killed her. Well, once R J can PROVE that Crow killed her, he will have an excellent point, but until that happens he has no point at all.

              We know for a fact that Charles Lechmere disagreed with the police over what he had said and done on the murder morning.

              There is no indication at all about Alfred Crow disagreeing with the police over what he said and did on the murder morning.

              The two are therefore fundamentally different in this aspect too.

              Finally, R J lists a number of addresses where Crow lived over the years, pointing to how they all were addresses close or relatively close to Ripper murder sites. What R J seems to forget here is the typical pattern of the Victorian Eastenders. They had a propensity to move many times but never very far. Charles Lechmere is of course another example of this. And living in an area is not the same thing as being a suspect, because that would provide us with thousands and thousands of suspects. Nor does having lived in Bakers Row in 1871 point somebody out as a probable killer in 1888.

              The geography as such is never what makes for an initial suspicion visavi a person. The geography is used not to establish but to confirm suspicion. The reason that we look at the geography in Lechmeres case is because he DID alter his name, which Crow did not. It is because he DID disagree with the police, which Crow did not. It is because he HAS been proven to have been present at a murder site at the approximate time the victim died, which Crow is not proven to have been. It is because he IS proven to have traversed the murder area on workday mornings, which Crow is NOT proven to have done. As a cabman, he is instead likely to have been all over London, with no fixed reoccurring pathway through the murder area.

              There are many more matters where Lechmere looks suspicious, but there is not one single matter where Crow does. That is also why the two are fundamentally different.

              Gary Barnett points out that R J is probably making his claim tongue in cheek. My belief is that his tongue has instead ended up in his eyes, obscuring his view. A split tongue can get in both eyes at the same time.

              Much of my time out here has been spent pointing out why idiotic suggestions like ”Diemschitz is just as good a suspect as Lechmere”, ”Somebody HAS to find a dead body, it is not something that implicates guilt in any way” and ”Lechmere has no record of violence at all whereas Bury HAS!”.

              Charles Lechmere is unique as a suspect. The most common reason that some people dislike him is that they compare him to the other suspects along a template resorted to by the police back in 1888, resorted to because they were not able to identify what I would call a category 1 suspect - somebody who is proven to have been in place at a murder site at the approximate time the murder took place, who has no alibi and who has a lot of anomalies and inconsistencies pointing in his way.

              Once the police gave up on trying to find that kind of a suspect, they had to look for category 2 suspects - people with a history of violence, preferably mentally unstable, and who may - or may not - have been in the general area at the TOD for any one victim.

              Once that hunt was on, the demands had been lowered into a generalistic thinking, hoping that there was somebody who would come reasonably close to the profile that had been accepted.

              Once Lechmere was introduced, we got the opportunity to bring the investigation back to where it should preferably be, but by now, people think that being a violent man trumps having been in place alone with the victim at the approximate time of death, and the ”point” is made that there is no record of violence on Lechmeres behalf.

              If ever an approach represented the old saying about throwing the bay out with the bathwater, then this is it.

              Now, can we PLEASE stop lying about how any person pulled out of the magicians hat is as likely a Ripper as Charles Lechmere? Has the time not come for even the most dogmatic of naysayers to accept that there is nobody who compares with him as a suspect, based on the case evidence? And Bury killing his wife in Scotland is NOT caserelated evidence, for example. Kosminski being a nutcase is NOT caserelated evidence. Levy having inclusions of violence in his CV is NOT caserelated evidence. Feigenbaum being a killer is NOT caserelated evidence.

              But Charles Lechmere being found alone with a murder victim at a time that corresponds with him being the killer IS caserelated evidence.

              If anybody still has problems to see how this works, please do not hesitate to make fools of yourselves. And if you, R J, have a bad conscience for not having admitted that I never said that Nichols MUST have been killed as she was still in Bucks Row after servicing a punter, then get it off your shoulders ASAP. I would not want you to suffer about it.
              Last edited by Fisherman; 08-31-2021, 09:47 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                Hi all,

                Did a bit of searching, and came across this brief history of the opening hours for pubs.

                http://pint-of-history.wales/en/opening-hours.php

                It indicates the "Beer House Act" of 1840 required pubs to close at midnight, though local authorities could require earlier closing times. And, prior to WWI, opening around 6 am was common. (The 1840 act was a change to the Beerhouse Act of 1830, etc).

                This does seem at odds with Joshua's post 931 where the testimony is they go to the pub at 12:20 as it doesn't close until 12:30, as that is 30 minutes past the above indicated required closing time. However, I've seen reference to subsequent acts (The Wine and Beer House Act of 1869, and an amendment to this in 1870) which transferred licensing to local authorities. It may be that these allowed local cities, towns, and regions to also set opening hours but I haven't been able to verify that possibility. Given nobody seems to have batted an eye at the statement the pub closed at half past, then it must have been ok for it to do so.

                - Jeff
                I've read a lot of Acts. The one you are looking for are the 1872 and 1874 Licensing Acts. There were other ways to buy liquor past closing time of 12:00 am on Sunday but not available to people like Stride. Wont be surprising if there were some available on the illegal side for more than the usual price.
                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                M. Pacana

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                  I've read a lot of Acts. The one you are looking for are the 1872 and 1874 Licensing Acts. There were other ways to buy liquor past closing time of 12:00 am on Sunday but not available to people like Stride. Wont be surprising if there were some available on the illegal side for more than the usual price.
                  Thanks Varqm! Acts are not something I know much about, other than they exist somewhere and I'm suppose to abide by them.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    And if you, R J, have a bad conscience for not having admitted that I never said that Nichols MUST have been killed as she was still in Bucks Row after servicing a punter, then get it off your shoulders ASAP. I would not want you to suffer about it.
                    Hi Fish.

                    I don't want to waste too much time on this, because you are coming across as one of those blokes who enjoys vehemently defending both sides of an argument. I was the one who earlier on this thread argued that Nichols had almost certainly picked up her client in Whitechapel Road (the same position Ed Stowe suggests in his latest video) and you gave me considerable push-back. (these quotes are yours, in response):

                    "At 11 PM on the night leading up to the Nichols murder, Polly was seen in Whitechapel Road, likely soliciting. At 2.30, she met Emily Holland on that self same street. Whitechapel Road was always going to have people on it, as witnessed by for example John Neil. And so, when you walk it, people notice you and can testify about it. But nobody testifies about Polly Nichols in Whitechapel Road the minutes before she was found dead. And nobody testifies about Annie Chapmans whereabouts after she left the boarding house.
                    But you think they cannot have found business in the smaller roads, they MUST have been found by their killer in WHitechapel Road or Commercial Street.

                    So yes, I am going there as an obvious possibility, since it is supported by this evidence and since I think the killer would prioritize dark, empty back streets over well lit and populated ones."
                    (Fisherman, post #86)

                    I thought this suggestion was strange. Rather emphatically, you suggested it was as an "obvious possibility" that Nichols was soliciting in this lonely backstreet, far away from foot-traffic, which is why I sought clarification. It was then that you suggested she had serviced another, unknown client, when Lechmere came across her:


                    "I am not saying that Nichols randomly walked the back alleys in search of a client. Donīt you read what I am saying? It helps, you know, if you are to criticise it.

                    I am saying that the deals struck in prostitution hotspots such as Whitechapel Road were subsequently taken care of in the back alleys and dark streets where seclusion was on offer. Once you had engaged in such an affair, you WOULD find yourself in those back alleys and dark streets until you had made your way back to Whitechapel Road. And in the process of making your way back to Whitechapel Road, why would a prostitute not ask passing workmen for business?"


                    So Polly WAS soliciting in Whitechapel Road? Later, in another conversation you wrote:

                    "Regardless, it means that Bucks Row was a place where prostitution took place, at least the business end of it.
                    And that means that prostitutes found themselves in Bucks Row every now and then.
                    So why is it that you cannot accept that these prostitutes may have solicited workmen passing by?
                    And if you cannot for your life embrace that they may have done, what if the punter took the initiative? "Hey lady, how would you like earning a little extra?"
                    Or were the punters also anxious not to disrupt the rule that all prostitution affairs must be initiated in Whitechapel Road...? "
                    (#389)



                    It seems fairly clear, Fish, that you were strongly suggesting that Nichols was in Buck's Row with an unknown man--who was not Lechmere--in what must have been only moments before she was murdered/found murdered. Indeed, when I asked you about this on another thread you feigned disbelief that I would even question this possibility since serial killers are "opportunists" (I think that was the word you used) who would take advantage of the plight Polly found herself in, having been brought to the street by a different man.

                    I merely pointed out that that would have made this other, unknown man a better suspect than Lechmere, because he had no legitimate reason for being in a dark back street with a drunken woman at approximately 3.15-3:40 a.m. whereas Lechmere and Paul did--they were on their way to work.

                    Despite what you say, I am trying to be fair. Are you -- or are you not -- now abandoning this "very real" possibility for Ed Stowe's suggestion--a suggestion you argued against when I made it?

                    Or is it that you want to juggle two possibilities at the same time, so you can't be pinned down?

                    Fair enough, I suppose. We don't know what happened, so we can juggle both possibilities. It is certainly within your rights to have it both ways. Yet, at the end of the day, aren't they equally bad?

                    1. Nichols was accompanied to Buck's Row by an unknown punter (not Lechmere) only minutes before Lechmere (and soon afterwards, Robert Paul) arrived on the scene. I think most jury members would quickly conclude that this unknown man is a better suspect than either Lechmere or Paul, for obvious reasons.

                    2. Lechmere, for reasons unknown, picked up Polly Nichols in Whitechapel Road, and brought her back to the very spot of his daily commute in order to murder her in the same window of time we would expect him to have been there had been simply walking to work.

                    This second suggestion is what I was attempting to question in Post #60--when you decided to give me push-back. Why on earth would a murderer have done that? Why would he have brought the woman back to a spot associated with his daily commute, and where he could be found every morning around that same time?

                    I wasn't the only one wondering about this. For instance, Gary Barnett, Post #61:


                    "But don’t forget, RJ, this is a killer who drew a line on a map between Pinchin Street and Doveton Street to determine where he should dispose of the bloodstained clothing. Ditto the apron piece in Goulston Street. Part of his weirdness was the need to leave clues to his ID. It’s very similar to ‘Pierre’’s killer choosing murder locations containing the letters of his own name."

                    Fair objection, or unfair objection?

                    Have a good day,

                    RP



                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                      Hi Fish.

                      I don't want to waste too much time on this, because you are coming across as one of those blokes who enjoys vehemently defending both sides of an argument. I was the one who earlier on this thread argued that Nichols had almost certainly picked up her client in Whitechapel Road (the same position Ed Stowe suggests in his latest video) and you gave me considerable push-back. (these quotes are yours, in response):

                      "At 11 PM on the night leading up to the Nichols murder, Polly was seen in Whitechapel Road, likely soliciting. At 2.30, she met Emily Holland on that self same street. Whitechapel Road was always going to have people on it, as witnessed by for example John Neil. And so, when you walk it, people notice you and can testify about it. But nobody testifies about Polly Nichols in Whitechapel Road the minutes before she was found dead. And nobody testifies about Annie Chapmans whereabouts after she left the boarding house.
                      But you think they cannot have found business in the smaller roads, they MUST have been found by their killer in WHitechapel Road or Commercial Street.

                      So yes, I am going there as an obvious possibility, since it is supported by this evidence and since I think the killer would prioritize dark, empty back streets over well lit and populated ones."
                      (Fisherman, post #86)

                      I thought this suggestion was strange. Rather emphatically, you suggested it was as an "obvious possibility" that Nichols was soliciting in this lonely backstreet, far away from foot-traffic, which is why I sought clarification. It was then that you suggested she had serviced another, unknown client, when Lechmere came across her:


                      "I am not saying that Nichols randomly walked the back alleys in search of a client. Donīt you read what I am saying? It helps, you know, if you are to criticise it.

                      I am saying that the deals struck in prostitution hotspots such as Whitechapel Road were subsequently taken care of in the back alleys and dark streets where seclusion was on offer. Once you had engaged in such an affair, you WOULD find yourself in those back alleys and dark streets until you had made your way back to Whitechapel Road. And in the process of making your way back to Whitechapel Road, why would a prostitute not ask passing workmen for business?"


                      So Polly WAS soliciting in Whitechapel Road? Later, in another conversation you wrote:

                      "Regardless, it means that Bucks Row was a place where prostitution took place, at least the business end of it.
                      And that means that prostitutes found themselves in Bucks Row every now and then.
                      So why is it that you cannot accept that these prostitutes may have solicited workmen passing by?
                      And if you cannot for your life embrace that they may have done, what if the punter took the initiative? "Hey lady, how would you like earning a little extra?"
                      Or were the punters also anxious not to disrupt the rule that all prostitution affairs must be initiated in Whitechapel Road...? "
                      (#389)



                      It seems fairly clear, Fish, that you were strongly suggesting that Nichols was in Buck's Row with an unknown man--who was not Lechmere--in what must have been only moments before she was murdered/found murdered. Indeed, when I asked you about this on another thread you feigned disbelief that I would even question this possibility since serial killers are "opportunists" (I think that was the word you used) who would take advantage of the plight Polly found herself in, having been brought to the street by a different man.

                      I merely pointed out that that would have made this other, unknown man a better suspect than Lechmere, because he had no legitimate reason for being in a dark back street with a drunken woman at approximately 3.15-3:40 a.m. whereas Lechmere and Paul did--they were on their way to work.

                      Despite what you say, I am trying to be fair. Are you -- or are you not -- now abandoning this "very real" possibility for Ed Stowe's suggestion--a suggestion you argued against when I made it?

                      Or is it that you want to juggle two possibilities at the same time, so you can't be pinned down?

                      This is where I would like to step in. There is no need to do so earlier in this post of yours.

                      Yes, I want to "juggle two possibilitites at the same time", as you charmingly put it. And the reason for that outrage (?) is that I can not possibly tell which one is correct. I made my remark about the possibility of Polly having found trade somewhere else than in Whitechapel Road for the simple reason to you yourself were unable to juggle more than just the one ball - you were emphatic that she must have found her trade in Whitechapel Road, and that is simply not true. As I believe I pointed out earlier to you, I donīt think that a prostitute who had ended up in a back alley while turning a trick would tell somebody asking her favors in that self same back alley that she only picked up punters in the main prostitution street.

                      You may think so, but I assure you that it is not a logical thing to suggest.

                      Am I aware that Whitechapel Road offered more prostitution than Bucks Row did? Yes.

                      Am I aware that this means that statistically, Polly Nichols is more likely to have solicited there than in Bucks Row. You bet I am!

                      Does that convince me, the way you have allowed yourself to be convinced, that Polly MUST have met her killer in Whitechapel Road? No, it does not.

                      Am I going to leave both possibilities open? Yes.

                      Why? Because I would be an idiot not to.

                      I hope this answers your question, R J.


                      Fair enough, I suppose. We don't know what happened, so we can juggle both possibilities. It is certainly within your rights to have it both ways. Yet, at the end of the day, aren't they equally bad?

                      Oh! How generous - I am now officially ALLOWED to have it both ways! Mille grazie, signore!

                      1. Nichols was accompanied to Buck's Row by an unknown punter (not Lechmere) only minutes before Lechmere (and soon afterwards, Robert Paul) arrived on the scene. I think most jury members would quickly conclude that this unknown man is a better suspect than either Lechmere or Paul, for obvious reasons.

                      A medico, however, would NOT make that conclusion, mainly because it would add said minutes to the already strained bleeding time. Moreover, it would not eradicate the many matters on behalf of Lechmere that Scobie said a jury would not like. He is a man who acts in a way that seems suspicious and a jury would not like that, Scobie added. Once a jury heard about these matters, they would not ask themselves whether another punter had brought her into Bucks Row or not. They would be occupied saying "Guilty, your honour".

                      2. Lechmere, for reasons unknown, picked up Polly Nichols in Whitechapel Road, and brought her back to the very spot of his daily commute in order to murder her in the same window of time we would expect him to have been there had been simply walking to work.

                      This second suggestion is what I was attempting to question in Post #60--when you decided to give me push-back. Why on earth would a murderer have done that? Why would he have brought the woman back to a spot associated with his daily commute, and where he could be found every morning around that same time?

                      I wasn't the only one wondering about this. For instance, Gary Barnett, Post #61:


                      "But don’t forget, RJ, this is a killer who drew a line on a map between Pinchin Street and Doveton Street to determine where he should dispose of the bloodstained clothing. Ditto the apron piece in Goulston Street. Part of his weirdness was the need to leave clues to his ID. It’s very similar to ‘Pierre’’s killer choosing murder locations containing the letters of his own name."

                      I cannot exactly remember what I said in response, but I would be surprised if it did not contain information about how many killers utilize an area they regard as their home turf, and feel safe killing in. As a matter of fact, there are intelligent serial killers who kill in their own living rooms and kitchens, daft though it may sound. I also think that although the geography of a crime would have interested the police back then, they were not geographical profilers the way we see in our own time. Neither the police nor the culprit would necessarily have been as keenly aware of these matters as we are today. And we need to weigh in many things, like for example how Lechmere could have known from experience that Bucks Row was always silent and dark, with very few people passing through it, whereas any other street that he did perhaps NOT walk on his morning treks may have been an unwritten story to him. It would be a choice between safety and trying to lead the police wrong, but with a risk.
                      Plus, of course, it may well be that she, not he, chose the spot.


                      Fair objection, or unfair objection?

                      Look at it from the other side: If dumped evidence was never going to tell us anything at all about a killers pathways, why is it that it has always been agreed that the Goulston Street rag has been looked at as an indicator of how the killer doubled back towards his home after Mitre Square? I would say because the logic and statistics favor the idea that somebody who has killed and gutted a woman in a public space and thereafter left that space, is in fact heading towards some sort of bolthole after the strike.
                      A question: What will a dumped, bloody rag, emanating from a murder scene have the police do? Will it have them:

                      A/ doing a door to door in the area where the rag was dropped, or

                      B/ take out a ruler and draw an exact line from the murder site and over the rag, and then talk to all people living in some sort of proximity to where that line passes? Regardless of how such a line would run all around the globe?

                      I have seen one of these methods employed, but I am still waiting to see the other one put into action. My guess is that it will never happen, though.


                      Have a good day,

                      RP


                      Thank you kindly, R J. I notice that you seem unwilling to push the idea that Crow was the Ripper any further?
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 08-31-2021, 04:30 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                        Mate, I've seen those figures -- the 14- to 18-hour shifts -- on here before, way back; and with all due respect to everyone concerned, I can't make myself believe them. Certainly not the 18-hour-day one: a maximum of four or five hours' sleep six nights out of seven simply isn't survivable. Naturally, I did have a look around online at the time; but I never saw anything to back up that horrifying figure.

                        I'm not saying I'm right; just that I'm suspicious -- even though no-one has a lower opinion than I of the Victorian capitalist class and its savage exploitation of both human and animal labour. Even the 14-hour day you cite -- totalling 84 hours across 6 days! -- is 16 hours more than I found shown in the graphs of an academic article I dug out at work.

                        I certainly don't want to fight over this; and I acknowledge that your figures come from a contemporary source. If I ever meet a proper academic expert on the horrors of Victorian wage-slavery, I will of course sit them down for a serious Q&A session...

                        Bests,

                        M.
                        My source is the 29 June, 1891 Standard. It was a meeting between delegates of employees of the London Parcels Delivery Company; Carter, Patterson, and Co.; and Pickfords.

                        According to it "They [carmen] had to work from fourteen to eighteen hours per day with no allowance for overtime, and without any holidays during the year." and "the highest average wage of a single horseman was 22s. weekly , and of double horsemen 24s. per week."

                        Their demands were "a twelve hours day, 6d. per hour overtime, three days' holiday in the year for men of twelve months' service, and the abolition of the Sick and Accident Funds" and "24s. a week for single horseman, and 28s. a week for double horsemen, with overtime."

                        It does mention that unlike the other firms, Pickfords had granted the "three days' holiday in the year for men of twelve months' service" and was paying their most experience employees "24s. a week for single horseman, and 28s. a week for double horsemen', though without overtime.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                          My source is the 29 June, 1891 Standard. It was a meeting between delegates of employees of the London Parcels Delivery Company; Carter, Patterson, and Co.; and Pickfords.

                          According to it "They [carmen] had to work from fourteen to eighteen hours per day with no allowance for overtime, and without any holidays during the year." and "the highest average wage of a single horseman was 22s. weekly , and of double horsemen 24s. per week."

                          Their demands were "a twelve hours day, 6d. per hour overtime, three days' holiday in the year for men of twelve months' service, and the abolition of the Sick and Accident Funds" and "24s. a week for single horseman, and 28s. a week for double horsemen, with overtime."

                          It does mention that unlike the other firms, Pickfords had granted the "three days' holiday in the year for men of twelve months' service" and was paying their most experience employees "24s. a week for single horseman, and 28s. a week for double horsemen', though without overtime.
                          Thanks for this.

                          UP THE WORKERS!

                          M.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                            My source is the 29 June, 1891 Standard. It was a meeting between delegates of employees of the London Parcels Delivery Company; Carter, Patterson, and Co.; and Pickfords.

                            According to it "They [carmen] had to work from fourteen to eighteen hours per day with no allowance for overtime, and without any holidays during the year." and "the highest average wage of a single horseman was 22s. weekly , and of double horsemen 24s. per week."

                            Their demands were "a twelve hours day, 6d. per hour overtime, three days' holiday in the year for men of twelve months' service, and the abolition of the Sick and Accident Funds" and "24s. a week for single horseman, and 28s. a week for double horsemen, with overtime."

                            It does mention that unlike the other firms, Pickfords had granted the "three days' holiday in the year for men of twelve months' service" and was paying their most experience employees "24s. a week for single horseman, and 28s. a week for double horsemen', though without overtime.
                            They're still fighting for this in the US. Damn workshy communists.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              A medico, however, would NOT make that conclusion, mainly because it would add said minutes to the already strained bleeding time. Moreover, it would not eradicate the many matters on behalf of Lechmere that Scobie said a jury would not like. He is a man who acts in a way that seems suspicious and a jury would not like that, Scobie added. Once a jury heard about these matters, they would not ask themselves whether another punter had brought her into Bucks Row or not. They would be occupied saying "Guilty, your honour".
                              If people bled out at the rate you claim, PC Neil is a far better suspect than Charles Lechmere. You asked some vague questions of some medical men, interpreted the response as you wanted, and ignored them saying we don't know how long a body bleeds after death.

                              In the "documentary", Scobie said "The timings really hurt him because she could have been very very recently fatally killed. You can inflict injuries, as I'm sure a pathologist will tell you, with a knife in seconds and the question is, "where were you?" "what were you doing during that time?" Because actually he has never given a proper answer. He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way, behaving in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. A jury would not like that. When the coincidences add up, mount up against a defendant, and they mount up in this case, it becomes one coincidence too many. The fact that there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of which he is linked geographically and physically, you add all those points together, piece it all together and the prosecution have the most probative powerful material the courts use against individual suspects. What we would say is that he has got a prima facie case to answer which means there is a case good enough to put before a jury which suggests that he was the killer."

                              The timing do not hurt Lechmere. Lechmere did not act in a suspicious manner. Lechmere was not physically linked to a "pattern of offending". Lechmere was one of hundreds if not thousands who lived and worked in the area.

                              Just before Jame Scobie is quoted the "documentary" said "He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols.. Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits. Lechmere then lied to the police and gave false details at the inquest. And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area. Wearing blood stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred."

                              "He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols" - This statement is provably false. Robert Paul testified Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road".

                              "Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits." - This statement is based on fudging the times. It starts by using 3:20am, the time Lechmere usually left for work, instead of 3:30am, the time Lechmere testified he left for work. It further fudges the time by assuming a ten minute walk would take 7 minutes or less. It fudges the time a third time by ignoring the time estimates of Lechmere and of all three of the first policemen to arrive in favor of the time estimate of Robert Paul.

                              It also ignores that the Ripper inflicted far worse mutilations in Catherine Eddowes body in only about 10 minutes. If the Ripper had 18 minutes alone with Polly Nichols he could have inflicted all of the actual mutilations and been 10 minutes walk down the street by the time Robert Paul arrived. An 18 minute time gap contradicts the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper, interrupted in his work.

                              "Lechmere then lied to the police..." - Lechmere's testimony contradicted PC Mizen's testimony. If that's proof that Lechmere was the Ripper, then it also proves Robert Paul was the Ripper, since he also contradicted PC Mizzen. This whole phrase is based on "guilty until proven innocent". It assumes that Lechmere was lying while completely ignoring the possibilities of Mizen lying or Mizen misunderstanding what Lechmere said.

                              "...and gave false details at the inquest." - Lechmere gave no provably false details at the Inquest. He did use his stepfather's surname as he had done in 1876 in an accidental death case. It's not unusual for men to use a stepfather's surname. It is unusual for men to use a stepfather's surname part of the time and their father's surname part of the time, but Lechmere had started doing that at over a decade before the first Ripper murder. It does not prove that Lechemere "gave false details at the inquest", let alone that he was the Ripper.

                              "And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area." - this statement is provably false. Charles Lechmere's family moved to the area decades before the Ripper killings began.

                              "Wearing blood stained overalls..." - Carmen wore sack aprons. Nobody present at the time noticed bloodstains on Lechmere. Lechmere worked for Pickford's, not a meat packing plant, so a bloodstained apron would have been an occasional on-the-job hazard for those times he carried meat and it was improperly packed.

                              "...his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred." - this statement is provably false. Lechmere's job placed him at one of the killings around the time that it occurred - Polly Nichols. Martha Tabram was killed near Lechmere's route to work and might have been killed while he was walking to work. Annie Chapman was killed while Lechmere was at work. Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were not killed along Lechmere's route to work and they were not killed on work days.

                              Based on the accuracy of the "documentary" it seems clear that Scobie was fed a mix of false information and opinion masquerading as facts. As the old computer saying goes - GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.




                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                We now turn to explaining why Crow IS fundamentally worse than Lechmere, and we begin exposing where R J goes very wrong by looking at the time at which Crow claimed to have seen a person, presumably Tabram, lying in the darkness of the staircase in George Yard Buildings.

                                3.30, approximately, was the time when Crow made his observation. Were then take a look at the hour at which the examining medico puts Tabrams death. And that time is given as around 2.30-2.45. The indication is therefore that Tabram had been dead for around an hour or thereabouts as Crow saw her.
                                If Tabram was killed around 2.30-2.45am, then we need to add Tabram to the list of victims that Charles Lechmere has an alibi for. In order to kill Tabram, Lechmere would have had to leave for work over an hour early.

                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                The estimation made by Killeen could of course be out. And Crow could of course have been lying abut the business. All kinds of things CAN be suggested, and that is what R J relies heavily on. The mistake he makes is to believe that mere suggestions can weigh the scales down as much as facts.
                                You should really take your own advice here.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X