What happened to Lechmere......

[Pierre]

Hi there Pierre,
Regardless of who may be right or wrong about Lechmere, I must point out a couple of elements you refer to that need to be examined more closely.

The first one is the high risk/chance approach yo uses in a response to Fisherman:

It seems to me that a risk/chance analysis would not be the appropriate method to use in this case. Risk analysis involves the probability of seeing a given scenario hapenning and a value for the consequences of it happening. There's no risk nor consequences involved in this case, only a probability of seing a scenario occur.

Yes, I know, we would like a probability analysis but this canīt be done to one single unit. We need a sample. So therefore, as I said, I use this very simple scale were the conceptual definition "risk/chance" is no dichotomous variable, just my conceptualization for the idea ("call it a risk or chance") of him being Jack the Ripper.

A statistical model close to the Maximum likelihood estimation method or the Monte Carlo method would be more reliable. Agree. See above.

I believe you simply wanted to make a point by using the expression risk/chance but statistical hypothesis analysis is mich more complex than that. Well, the point is that this is no dichotomous variable, it is a conceptual definition which has two dimensions: For poor Lechmere there is a risk: being accused after his lifetime of being Jack the Ripper although probably innocent versus for Fisherman there is a chance: having found the real Jack the Ripper.

Secondly when you say 'What I am trying to tell you is that you don't take the historical "Jack the Ripper" first and then try to find out who was Jack the Ripper', isn't totaly true in the case of acheological forensic or historical research.

For example, when Howard Carter began his Carnarvon's Egyptian excavations, he wasn't looking for Tutankhamun's tomb. But as the excavations went on, he figured King Tut might be in the area he was working on and began telling evryone he was looking for him.

Good example. And I started reading a book by Sugden and was not looking for "Jack the Ripper" but when I was reading I got an idea and started digging.

in other words, it works both ways.

But you can be more or less deductive or inductive. And I have certainly been inductive.

A. You're looking for something specificaly and apply validation methods on what you actualy find prooving your point.
B. You find something and propose hypotheses using validation methods bringing you to a 'true find' conclusion.

Respectfully
Hercule Poirot

Kind regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

A great post.

To Fisherman

Yes it was a great post.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

(yes, you called him "arrogant". And even if he did not want to understand your preparedness to change your mind about things, calling people things here always gets us off topic.)

Anyway, I have seen your documentary and find it entertaining.

But I am clearly uninformed since I donīt know much about the view of Scobie and Griffiths on the hypothesis of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

I found this in a newspaper:

"Dr Andy Griffiths, former head of Sussex Police’s murder squad, said: “There is no doubt that to an investigator, Cross is of tremendous interest.”

James Scobie QC confirmed the evidence would have been enough to take the case to court. He added: “He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like.

“When the coincidences mount up against a defendant it becomes one coincidence too many.”"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/535...ked-the-Ripper

Fisherman, you write here:

"These two men are very able judges of all matters criminal, and they were both very positive to the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper."

Where/are they? Because all I see them say in this article (very unreliable data, only one article) is that

1.Lechmere is of tremendous interest to an investigator
2. Lechmere seems to be acting in a suspicious way
3. ...when the coincidences mount up... (Here he is not particularly mentioning Lechmere or specific coincidences.)

But you say they were both very positive to the idea that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

I can not see this in the article, but perhaps you have other sources you could recommend?

Kind regards, Pierre

Iīll do what I often do - I will point to one thing only, and that point will have to tell the story.
You say that Scobie does not particularly mention Lechmere. But what Scobie said was "when the coincidences mount up - AND THEY DO IN HIS CASE - it becomes one coincidence too many.

Thereīs your answer.

[John Wheat]

Ah, Pierre - there are many ways to destroy a discussion! You may be aware of that, I believe?

As such, I am not calling John "things". I wrote that he was wrong, as per the "either Ripper or copycat" thing. Apparently, that is your own take too?

I wrote that he was arrogant - that was because he does not accept it when I tell him that I am always prepared to change my mind if the evidence suggests that I need to. No, he replied, I donīt think that you are willing or able to do that. Which is an arrogant thing to say.

I then wrote that he was uniformed - not only is it apparent that he has not seen the docu on Lechmere, he has not read up on Scobie and Griffiths. These two men are very able judges of all matters criminal, and they were both very positive to the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper. Not having read up about them equals being uniformed.

To you, that is calling people names and destroying the thread. To me, it is necessary criticism. The truth sometimes hurt. My assumption is that you may wish to warm to that thought yourself.

Then again, I am the arrogant kind, as I said.

To Fisherman

Yes Fisherman you are calling me things. Could you tell me why Bury isn't either the Ripper or a copycat killer? I'm not impressed by you bringing up Scobie and Griffiths what are there actual credentials other than being two of a handful of people who agree with you about Lechmere? Why would I want to watch the doc on Lechmere? When the evidence against him is weak? Besides I was under the impression that you considered yourself the authority on Lechmere and I've read enough of your guff on Lechmere.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

OK. If you search the British Newspaper Archive, using the words "murder" and "mutilation" from 1877-1887 you get 3.376 articles. You could always start looking at these articles.

And if you search the Old Baileysīs for the same period you get 163 murder cases. If you search by using killings and all subcategories you get 505 cases.

But letīs say you think that Bury was the Jack the Ripper.

Is there any evidence for that?

Is there anything connecting him to the murders?

I can understand the attractiveness of a hypothesis saying Bury was Jack the Ripper just because he lived in Whitechapel and just because he strangled and mutilated his wife. But reality does not present itself so easily. You have to examine Buryīs crime in relation to other crimes. Why?

Because it is very probable that it is a coincidence that Jack the Ripper and Bury was in Whitechapel at the same time. And it is also probably a coincidence that we can observe similarities in the method of killing and mutilating.

And then I also have to point out the importance of examining the crimes of Jack the Ripper in relation to the same data.

Is there evidence for a "Jack the Ripper"?

Is there anything connecting a "Jack the Ripper" to the murders?

I have to say yes, there is. But not "being in Whitechapel" or "murder and mutilate prostitutes". That is not evidence for a "Jack the Ripper".

It is difficult, isnīt it? First we have to prove a Jack the Ripper, then, if we manage to do that, we have to prove that Mr X is this Jack the Ripper.

But I have not been working that way. I happened to find data sources pointing to one person having done the murders which you happen to call the "Ripper-murders" in London. And he happened to be known as Jack the Ripper. And that is the name that he also created for himself. What a coincidence!

Kind regards, Pierre

To Pierre

1877-1887 is not 1889. Bury didn't live in Whitechapel in 1888. Could you explain how Bury isn't either the Ripper or a copycat killer?

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: To Fisherman

Yes Fisherman you are calling me things.

These are public boards. Once you enter it you subject yourself to the possibility that you may get criticised if you are wrong or uninformed. You were.

As for the arrogance, you failed to accept when I said that I adjust to the evidence. Flatly disallowing what I said to be true is very arrogant.

End of that story.

Could you tell me why Bury isn't either the Ripper or a copycat killer?

Because if he did not emulate the Ripper murders and was not the Ripper, your premise falls. There is no such thing as a coincidental copycat killing.

I'm not impressed by you bringing up Scobie and Griffiths what are there actual credentials other than being two of a handful of people who agree with you about Lechmere?

One is a renowned barrister with heaps of experience from a number of highranking cases. The other is a former murder squad leader with a 97 per cent clearing rate, and an academic specialist of criminology, specialized on miscarriages of justice. If that does not impress you, I can only speculate that you easily trump them...?

Why would I want to watch the doc on Lechmere?

Because it could earn you the right not to be called uninformed, if nothing else.

When the evidence against him is weak?

Okay: Uninformed.

Besides I was under the impression that you considered yourself the authority on Lechmere and I've read enough of your guff on Lechmere.

And still you come back for more and more and more and more and more ...? How odd.

When you stop frothing around the mouth, you are welcome to tell me where I have claimed to be the authority on Lechmere.

[Hercule Poirot]

Kind regards, Pierre

You're welcome Pierre,
I think we share a commun interest in the need to have a rigorous approach and agree inductive reasoning is the better way to handle such a case. Bouncing from inductive to deductive often happens but inductive reasoning must remain the basis. Einstein actually did it a few times but always came back to mathematical inductive conclusions.

This may seem funny to you and many others, but I am not looking for the real Ripper. I enjoy reading the various propositions made by others and examen their approach and methods, interpretations, etc. Hence, my contribution is stricly at that level.

My main purpose as a member is learning as much as I can about the case and period to better use the collective knowledege basis in the fiction novel I've almost completed. I chose one suspect not because I believed he did it but simply because he offered the most interesting profil I needed in my plot. Everything has to be at least plausible which is less demanding than what non-fiction authors have to go through.
Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[John Wheat]

John Wheat: To Fisherman

Yes Fisherman you are calling me things.

These are public boards. Once you enter it you subject yourself to the possibility that you may get criticised if you are wrong or uninformed. You were.

As for the arrogance, you failed to accept when I said that I adjust to the evidence. Flatly disallowing what I said to be true is very arrogant.

End of that story.

Could you tell me why Bury isn't either the Ripper or a copycat killer?

Because if he did not emulate the Ripper murders and was not the Ripper, your premise falls. There is no such thing as a coincidental copycat killing.

I'm not impressed by you bringing up Scobie and Griffiths what are there actual credentials other than being two of a handful of people who agree with you about Lechmere?

One is a renowned barrister with heaps of experience from a number of highranking cases. The other is a former murder squad leader with a 97 per cent clearing rate, and an academic specialist of criminology, specialized on miscarriages of justice. If that does not impress you, I can only speculate that you easily trump them...?

Why would I want to watch the doc on Lechmere?

Because it could earn you the right not to be called uninformed, if nothing else.

When the evidence against him is weak?

Okay: Uninformed.

Besides I was under the impression that you considered yourself the authority on Lechmere and I've read enough of your guff on Lechmere.

And still you come back for more and more and more and more and more ...? How odd.

When you stop frothing around the mouth, you are welcome to tell me where I have claimed to be the authority on Lechmere.

To Fisherman

But Bury is either a copycat or the Ripper. I don't accept the premise that Bury didn't write the chalkings and considering the similarity between his wife's murder and some of the Ripper murders ergo Bury is either the Ripper or a copycat killer.

I am aware you have never claimed to be an authority on Lechmere. However my besides comment was I suppose a back handed compliment. Considering the amount of posts you have made on Lechmere and the amount I have read I wouldn't expect the doc on Lechmere to contain much about Lechmere that was new and I hadn't already heard about. Therefore how much of the doc would be worth watching? Perhaps you could answer that? Is it worth my while watching the doc on Lechmere next time its on TV? I don't watch whole programmes over the net.

Cheers John

[drstrange169]

Hello Fish,


Re: "Twisting"

Since i believe your "geographical puzzle: is "twisted" or scewed or biased, if you like, yes I was trying to be relevant.

The only exclusive "geographical " elements in Xmere's tale we have, is the evidence that he walked past two murder sites, both those elements were known to police at the time we are currently discussing.

As for the rest? It moves into the standard, "I have a suspect look at the coincidences I've found" guesswork.

This is an area I'm hoping to expand on this notion shortly in more detail, but other threads have just alerted me to a whole bunch of reading that I want to prioritise.

[Barnaby]

One thing that we know happened to Lechmere was that he was encountered near a very recently attacked Ripper victim, who may or may not have been still alive.

I know that "someone has to find the body." But in NONE of the other Whitechapel murders (canonical or otherwise) was a civilian encountered by another next to a body, recently killed or otherwise. Either a PC found the body or the person who did went off for help. One could argue that Lechmere truly was soliciting help, and he just had the misfortune of coming across a victim killed moments earlier, but the acoustic/timing argument Fish presents in multiple other threads casts doubt on this. He must have spent a few minutes there, or Paul would have heard him. People do hear footsteps, as evidenced by the circumstances surrounding the Coles murder. That Paul was surprised by Lechmere suggests the latter was creeping around, at best.

I bring this up simply because I think many are underestimating how unique it is in this series of murders for someone to be found next to an arguably bleeding-to-death victim.

[Rosella]

We don't know though whether Lechmere was wearing hobnail boots, which would be heard on cobbles/road or not. If he was just wearing leather soled boots he wouldn't necessarily be heard, would he? Perhaps Paul was wearing hobnails that echoed.

I can't see that Lechmere was 'sneaking around'. In almost complete darkness he spotted what he at first thought was something like tarpaulin. Again, in almost complete darkness he recognise that it was a prone female. She could have flopped down there from the effects of drink, a fit, starvation for all he (or Paul) knew. He got Paul to have a look at her then they both went off to find a policeman, together. He didn't act suspiciously or try to run off.

Incidentally, when Bowyer looked through Kelly's window and saw her body (and his sighting was in broad daylight) he didn't go immediately scooting off to fetch the police, either. Instead he went to get his boss, who then sent him for the police. Mary was obviously mutilated as well, a fact that wasn't immediately obvious at Bucks Row until Polly was partly undressed at the mortuary.

[Barnaby]

Hi Rosella,

In a number of the cases the person finding the body didn't go immediately in search of the police; the person would first find another or others before doing so. This would be consistent with what Lechmere was trying to do, if he were innocent, although again it must be noted that his "going off in search of others" consisted of taking but a few steps away from a woman either very recently dead or bleeding to death as Paul approached.

[drstrange169]

Hello Rosella,

Two women were within feet of the body at the time and neither claimed to have heard loud footsteps, or any footsteps for that matter.

It is therefore unlikely Xmere and Paul had metal soled shoes on. Since both men were carmen and spent large parts of their day sitting, hob nails boots would not have had the necessity in their jobs as other professions had for the metal shod shoes. Chances are the story of boots "ringing out like hammers" is just another ploy to make Xmere sound guilty.

Yet again, the known facts suggest Xmere's innocence, the speculation suggests guilt. Which is right may never be known.

[drstrange169]

Hello Barnaby,

Don't fall for the propaganda. Xmere and Paul were the exception from all the other cases and accordingly can't be compared.

Xmere and Paul were the only discoverers of victims NOT to know their victim was dead.

Had they seen the stomach wounds would they have acted differently?

Certainly all the other discoverers had an urgency/horror that these two men did not.

There is a MASSIVE motive for different behaviour.

[Barnaby]

I agree, the circumstances surrounding the discovery of Nichols was the exception. That is the point I was trying to make. The attitude that "someone had to find the body" seems prematurely dismissive given the uniqueness of the situation.