John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don't want to fall out with you either.

There's no evidence either way about whether she ate after 1:50. However, It doesn't seem unlikely to me. She could have taken part of her meal with her, she could have already stored some food in her clothing, she could have been given some food by her killer.

If she had been given a meal by her murderer - such as the fish and chips some have suggested he gave Kelly - then would you not expect something more substantial in the post-mortem report?

[Abby Normal]

This doesn't address the point put in front of you.

Experience tells us that it is unusual for a serial killer to commit a murder outdoors in daylight, and when the community is active nearby.

It is entirely valid to employ statistics, providing the statistics are accurate and the premise reflects the statistics. This is widely accepted.

In order to refute my argument, you need to demonstrate that the statistics or the premise is false.

You did briefly attempt to do that with your list of serial killers, but that was very quickly refuted because in no way did it counter the statistics mentioned. As I said to you, for every serial killer you can find murdering in those circumstances, there are an awful lot more murdering in the dark, behind four walls or in a secluded area such as the woods.

You are incorrect also when you state: 'we can use group statistics when we have no other information'.

Firstly, we do have other information in that the evidence we have at our disposal tells us that the other murders in this series were committed when it was dark or behind four walls or both.

Secondly, as I said to you, it is an entirely valid argument to employ statistics providing the statistics are accurate and the premise follows from the statistics.

Thirdly, your 'other information' is subject to your bias and your thought process. As I said to you in the last post, your theorising and subjectivity does not compete with empirical data.

Finally, I have no idea where you're going with your 'serial killers who mutilated in public places'. Your point isn't well explained, at least to me anyway, and in no way refutes my point. You're free to add some more details to what you're attempting to say here.

except we have three independent witnesses that says that your wrong, and a serial killer with a history of killing in risky settings.
your about as wrong as you can be.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I can take criticism, but are you sure it is me you are talking about?
All I recently said to you about Jews was "Andersons Bull$*t".

I meant that as I was responding to FM's # 6541, in reply to you, in which he wrote:


The reason being, serial killers very rarely do that. You can theorise until the cows come home but that is the reality of the situation. And, human experience counts for far more than a few people on a message board attempting to conjure up the unlikely.


... and that I was agreeing with him, it did not mean that I was directing my remarks at you.

And that amounts to a binary answer.

[A P Tomlinson]

If she had been given a meal by her murderer - such as the fish and chips some have suggested he gave Kelly - then would you not expect something more substantial in the post-mortem report?

Well... yes. Of course.
Well done you!

But as you pointed out, "some" people "suggest" that he might have done that with a completely different victim.
So that has exactly how much bearing on Chapman?

Has anyone suggested he did that?

You need to be careful... FM is on "Straw Man" patrol!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, but baked potatoes were sold on hot-food carts up Whitechapel High Street through the night.

She had bought beer and potatoes, could not afford the price of a bed, and was looking to earn some money quickly in order to accumulate eightpence.

It is very unlikely that she would have bought anything more in the meantime.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have no idea - should I know?

It was a rhetorical question.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That's the first I've heard of either of those points. What are the sources for Lawende not coming forward and later being sequestered in a hotel for his own protection?

I have read before that he was treated royally by the police, which suggests that my alleged obsession with a sailor suspect has considerable merit.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

"And on the first blush of it the fact is borne out by the police having taken exclusive care of Mr. Joseph Levander, to a certain extent having sequestrated him and having imposed a pledge on him of secrecy. They are paying all his expenses, and one if not two detectives are taking him about."
Evening News, 9 Oct. 1888.

That is the report I meant in my last post.

[Wickerman]

It also kind of throws the grafitto out as a "clue" in his opinion. If they considered that the killer had effectively signed his work... surely that would fall under the heading of "...clue being supplied by the criminal..."

It kind of looks that way doesn't it. I don't remember anyone pointing that out before.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Long sees a man and a woman and she says (after viewing the dead body) that it is Chapman. She says that they were standing outside no 29. She says it was 5.30. Now I think it is reasonable to suggest that Long saw a man and a woman. I think it is also reasonable to suggest that they were outside no 29

If Long sees the couple at 5.30am outside no 29 where is Cadosch leaving the premises. Now some of you will be very precise and say there is a 2 minute gap (Cadosch time he says he left and Long time when she saw the couple.

I do not think Long said they were in front of number 29.

[Wickerman]

For every example of that happening, we could provide at least a hundred of serial killers who either killed in the dark, or behind four walls or in a secluded area such as the woods.

It isn't a numbers game though, we're dealing with the psychotic killer who to some degree is unpredictable.
We only need to accept what is reasonably possible, because much of what these type of killers do is unique.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

An example, found originally by Debra Arif, of a Jewish person insulting another Jewish person by calling him Lipski.

Please provide an example of a Jewish person shouting 'Lipski!' as a person of pronouncedly Jewish appearance passed by.

Please provide an example of a Polish Jew attacking a prostitute in Whitechapel and shouting 'Lipski!' as a person of pronouncedly Jewish appearance passed by.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ad Ignorantiam fallacy.

This argument offers lack of evidence as if it were evidence to the contrary.

This fallacy attempts to shift the burden of proof away from the person making the claim, that person being you.

Back to the unlikely being presented as if it were more likely than the likely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If she had been given a meal by her murderer - such as the fish and chips some have suggested he gave Kelly - then would you not expect something more substantial in the post-mortem report?

So if she’d eaten something that no one has suggested that she’d eaten then we would have expected to have read of it in Phillips report?

Likewise if she’d eaten a seven course meal. And if she’d eaten a Lamb Vindaloo the smell would have been present.

But if she’d eaten a crust of bread….

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It isn't a numbers game though, we're dealing with the psychotic killer who to some degree is unpredictable.
We only need to accept what is reasonably possible, because much of what these type of killers do is unique.

Another case of the unlikely being more likely than the likely?