Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

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

  • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
    I`m sorry, Christer. I disagree.
    Seaman is a proven homicidal lunatic who lived at the centre of the murders.
    Proven homicidal lunatics win everytime
    You canīt disagree, Jon. There is no learoom for it. The question at hand is not "Can he have been the Ripper?", a question I have already answered with a "Yes, he could".
    The question at hand is instead this one: Does William Seaman have any proven reason to have visited the murder spots at the relevant hours, or, better still, can it be shown that he WAS in place in one or more of the spots at the relevant hours?

    And when I say that there is not any identified reason at all on his behalf to have been in place at the relevant hours on any occasion, let alone is there any proven presence of his at a murder spot at the relevant hour, you can actually not disagree.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      It is a very common trait, and it is the base for the profiling business that is discussed out here. The reason lies in how the killer has comfort zones where he feels at ease. Such comfort zones need not be around his home only, they can be anywhere that he has been and where he knows the grounds. For example, when Ridgway was nicked, his wife realized that many of the murder spots were places that Gary had taken her to for picnics and such. He scouted the areas first, and killed there afterwards, knowing the grounds.
      Okay, that's a very fair point. However, just based upon present residences, just about everyone in Whitechapel would be around a mile or less away from the C5 murder sites. Now, if you pick an individual at random, and expand the criteria of what constitutes a comfort zone to include, say, previous addresses, relatives' addresses, relatives' previous addresses ( and relatives could include, say, parents, grandparents, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, cousins, etc), places of work, former places of work, work routes, former work routes, favoured drinking establishments, former favoured drinking establishments, doctor's surgeries, former doctor's surgeries, girlfriend's residence, former girlfriend's residence, friends' addresses, former friends' addresses, various schools attended etc, then surely even Jack Random would be found to have a similar association to the various murder sites as Lechmere.
      Last edited by John G; 11-08-2018, 09:26 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
        We simply don't know that Cross had reasons to be anywhere, other than on his journey to work on the 31st August. It's pure supposition that he had any reason to be at the other scenes of crime at the relevant times.

        Apropos Jon's very cogent point about William Seaman: killers don't "need" reasons to be anywhere. But they do have needs, and these can take them anywhere without having recourse to any timetables, fixed routemaps, or conjectured visits to mum.They're all named in the censuses, electoral rolls and other registers. Thousands of them.
        So, as I predicted: Not a single name can be presented, it was all smoke and mirrors. Lechmere remains the only one with viable proven reasons to have visited the murder spots, and we even know that he was found alone close to the body of Nichols in Bucks Row!

        And so now you resort to claiming that the killer did not need to have any reason to be at the murder spots. Thatīs where you have ended up!!

        Of course a murderer does not need to have any link or reason to a murder spot. But how does that detract from the value of actually having such links and having been proven to have been at one of the spots, alone with the victim, at the relevant hour? Can you explain that to me? Do you think that the police works from that assumption? "Letīs not ask the one we found by the corpse why he was there, guys"?
        The people connected to a murder site, the ones who have been present at it or in itīs vicinity are the ones that always are looked upon as the primary murder material. Until they can be cleared, there is no reason to go looking for your everyday bully.

        And have you read up on Ogorzow?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by John G View Post
          just about everyone in Whitechapel would be around a mile or less away from the C5 murder sites. Now, if you pick an individual at random, and expand the criteria of what constitutes a comfort zone to include, say, previous addresses, relatives' addresses, relatives' previous addresses (and relatives could include, say, parents, grandparents, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, cousins, etc), places of work, former places of work, work routes, former work routes, favoured drinking establishments, former favoured drinking establishments, doctor's surgeries, former doctor's surgeries, girlfriend's residence, former girlfriend's residence, friends' addresses, former friends' addresses, various schools attended etc, then surely even Jack Random would be found to have a similar association to the various murder sites as Lechmere.
          Indeed so. (Not that a local, homicidal killer would necessarily have needed any such associations to begin with.)
          Last edited by Sam Flynn; 11-08-2018, 09:36 AM.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            So, as I predicted: Not a single name can be presented, it was all smoke and mirrors. Lechmere remains the only one with viable proven reasons to have visited the murder spots, and we even know that he was found alone close to the body of Nichols in Bucks Row!

            And so now you resort to claiming that the killer did not need to have any reason to be at the murder spots. Thatīs where you have ended up!!

            Of course a murderer does not need to have any link or reason to a murder spot. But how does that detract from the value of actually having such links and having been proven to have been at one of the spots, alone with the victim, at the relevant hour? Can you explain that to me? Do you think that the police works from that assumption? "Letīs not ask the one we found by the corpse why he was there, guys"?
            The people connected to a murder site, the ones who have been present at it or in itīs vicinity are the ones that always are looked upon as the primary murder material. Until they can be cleared, there is no reason to go looking for your everyday bully.

            And have you read up on Ogorzow?
            But apart from Nichols in Buck Row, how many murder sites was Lechmere found at?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              The reason lies in how the killer has comfort zones where he feels at ease. Such comfort zones need not be around his home only, they can be anywhere that he has been and where he knows the grounds.
              Anyone resident in Whitechapel would have known the grounds very well, and would have felt more than comfortable there. And, speaking of comfort, it must have been of enormous comfort for a local killer to know that he could commit the most audacious murder and still get back to safety in a short space of time.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post
                But apart from Nichols in Buck Row, how many murder sites was Lechmere found at?
                Are you telling me that you donīt know, John? Do you have to ask?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  Anyone resident in Whitechapel would have known the grounds very well, and would have felt more than comfortable there. And, speaking of comfort, it must have been of enormous comfort for a local killer to know that he could commit the most audacious murder and still get back to safety in a short space of time.
                  Your man would have to spend around ten minutes on the streets, counting from the extreme victims in terms of distance, Gareth. At least! And more than that if he did not live in the exact epicenter. Ten minutes is an awful long time, it is not "a short space of time" at all. My man would be spending between seven and twenty, twentyfive minutes, depending on the victim.

                  So you see, your whole argument is an illogical one. If you dare walk the streets for ten minutes you will have little problem with twenty.

                  It remains that a man with a proven presence or reason to be present is a much better candidate than anyone without those attributes, regardless if he lived in a hole in the ground under one of the victims. Which would mean that he DID have a link, but you will no doubt get my drift.
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 11-08-2018, 10:00 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    So, as I predicted: Not a single name can be presented
                    I didn't recall you asking for a name. But, now that you mention it, here's a list of all the men, aged between 30 and 55, admitted to Whitechapel Infirmary with some kind of mental illness ("lunacy", "mania" etc) through 1888 to January 1889:

                    Frederick Wallis
                    George Martin
                    John Clark
                    John Lawrence
                    Nathaniel Farrant
                    Solomon de Groot
                    Joseph Vann
                    Richard Price
                    Joseph Milnes
                    Theophilus Beechey
                    Michael Malone
                    Josiah Hines
                    Lorenzo Canavesio
                    Charles Jennings
                    Ephraim Weston
                    David Balcombe
                    John Milnes
                    David Phillips
                    Robert Bull
                    George Rohrig
                    James Dooley
                    Edwin Brand
                    Samuel Taylor
                    Morris Kemp
                    Thomas Parsons
                    Thomas Donoghue
                    Daniel Stock
                    William Baleham
                    Joseph Marcus
                    Powell Tewson
                    William Adam Cullen
                    Robert Henry Miller
                    Alfred Everard
                    Frederick J Davis
                    Herbert Dickens
                    Alfred Spriggs
                    Thomas John Newton
                    Henry Alexander

                    That's 38 in total... and, of course, those are just the "lunatics" who were "caught", so to speak; God knows how many others there were out there undiagnosed. Besides, as we know, we may not be looking for a "lunatic" at all, and the Ripper might have been a little younger than 30. But it's a start.
                    Last edited by Sam Flynn; 11-08-2018, 10:19 AM.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      Are you telling me that you donīt know, John? Do you have to ask?
                      As a wild guess, Christer, is it less than one?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                        I`m sorry, Christer. I disagree.
                        Seaman is a proven homicidal lunatic who lived at the centre of the murders.
                        Proven homicidal lunatics win everytime
                        I seriously doubt the ripper was a homicidal maniac ; )
                        "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


                        • If someone is going to lie about their name, why don't they lie about their name?

                          He gave his first name as Charles.

                          He even brought himself forward after Robert Paul mentioned him to the press.

                          Then Lechmere apparently had a good reason why he called himself Charles Cross. It was his stepfather's surname.

                          Even Kozminski called himself Abrahams.
                          Bona fide canonical and then some.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            Sam Flynn: The "proven" reason(s) to be present - e.g. visiting mum, being 0.6 miles away from a former place of work - are speculative, and even the "work-trek" argument collapses in respect of Chapman if she really was killed at sun-up.

                            [COLOR="DarkRed"]Proven reasons to have been present at a site must always be "speculative". They are not proof that a person was in place, but instead that he had a logical reason to be. The concept is a simple one to understand once you put your mind to it.

                            Therefore the original term "proven reasons" used is incorrect is it not?


                            Steve

                            Comment


                            • Just as an aside, this thread was about my upcoming work on BUCKS ROW.
                              I see little here relating to my work, it was certainly not a Lechmere thread.

                              I resent it being shall we say highjacked.



                              Steve

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                I didn't recall you asking for a name. But, now that you mention it, here's a list of all the men, aged between 30 and 55, admitted to Whitechapel Infirmary with some kind of mental illness ("lunacy", "mania" etc) through 1888 to January 1889:

                                Frederick Wallis
                                George Martin
                                John Clark
                                John Lawrence
                                Nathaniel Farrant
                                Solomon de Groot
                                Joseph Vann
                                Richard Price
                                Joseph Milnes
                                Theophilus Beechey
                                Michael Malone
                                Josiah Hines
                                Lorenzo Canavesio
                                Charles Jennings
                                Ephraim Weston
                                David Balcombe
                                John Milnes
                                David Phillips
                                Robert Bull
                                George Rohrig
                                James Dooley
                                Edwin Brand
                                Samuel Taylor
                                Morris Kemp
                                Thomas Parsons
                                Thomas Donoghue
                                Daniel Stock
                                William Baleham
                                Joseph Marcus
                                Powell Tewson
                                William Adam Cullen
                                Robert Henry Miller
                                Alfred Everard
                                Frederick J Davis
                                Herbert Dickens
                                Alfred Spriggs
                                Thomas John Newton
                                Henry Alexander

                                That's 38 in total... and, of course, those are just the "lunatics" who were "caught", so to speak; God knows how many others there were out there undiagnosed. Besides, as we know, we may not be looking for a "lunatic" at all, and the Ripper might have been a little younger than 30. But it's a start.
                                And for whom of these non-starters does it apply that they were either found at one or all of the murder sites or that they had reason to visit all the sites? Reason not meaning that they lived in Whitechapel but instead that they had some sort of tie to the specific murder spot that went beyond simply living there.

                                Aaaaand THERE goes you argument! Poof!!! There was no substance in it at all, the only connection there ever was between the murder site and these men is that they were at some time admitted to a Whitechapel infirmary. How totally predictable - and pathetic de luxe.

                                You know, after having demolished your so called point like this, it will feel a lot easier to leave the thread so that Steve does not have to suffer any further resentement. Not that he hasnīt joined the discussion himself, but anyway. I aim to please.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X