Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 2 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - by caz 23 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Jon Guy 24 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Batman 28 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by Batman 36 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 39 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (107 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - (24 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (9 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - (7 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Patterns of behavior and Tumblety - (4 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > General Suspect Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1331  
Old 06-14-2018, 01:34 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Weighing the material fairly and with an open mind is always a clever thing to do.
Quite.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1332  
Old 06-14-2018, 02:03 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I am saying that we can´t accept BOTH TOD:s for Kelly. And you know that, so there is no reason to sound surprised. She couldn´t have died twice, once at 2 AM and then again at 6 AM.
At least one of the doctors must be wrong. That goes without saying. And consequentially both can be wrong.


Clearly demonstrating that the TODs are unreliable. You confirm my point.
I am not using the TOD'S to question your statement that the murders occurred within the required hours, i am rejecting the TOD'S .



Pointing that out should not be necessary. In any serious debate, it would never be. Here? Different story.


When you claim the TOD can establish a murder within the required hours of course it needs to be pointed out

You move on to say that if I don´t accept Kellys TOD, I cannot accept Chapmans TOD either.
But you know, I really can.

Not only was there no contesting TOD:s in Chapmans case, it also applies that the time elapsed was much shorter, and so the task of establishing a TOD becomes easier.

Moreover, in Chapmans case, Phillips gave a span, not a decided time. He said that she had been dead at least two hors and probably more.


Phillips based his TOD on RM, extremely unreliable now, more so in 1888 with the lack of medical knowledge they had.
If we cannot accept one TOD as reliable for these reasons, we cannot accept another for the same reasons.

However i accept that you will accept anything which can be used in an attempt to bolster your theory, no matter what failings it has.


In the rational world, that means that there is no real chance for Long and Cadosh to be correct - if they were on the money, I feel quite convinced that Chpman would not have been just about totally cold. And that applies regardless of the uncertainty involved in the establishing of TOD back then.

No in the Rational world, a disputed timing, which requires us to ignore a witness sitting next to where the body was, if Phillips is correct, needs that statement of Richardson to be challenged and explained away factually.
It is very telling that you refer to Long and Cadosh but ignore Richardson.

Again taking subjective statements like "totally cold" as meaningful.
No actual temperatures taken, the assement made by touch!
No assesment made of the effect the wounds would have on body temperature

To suggest that "total cold" has any forensic value demonstrates a lack of actual knowledge or a willingness to not care.


So, you see, I am once again effectively disallowing you to impose upon me how I must reason, and opt for the logical route instead.


If only you would opt for the logical route, rather than the faulty one you do.

That leaves you with having to accept two deaths for Kelly, since you accept Chapmans TOD, and since you say that if we accept one thing in one case we must do so in the next too.

Really, Steve? Kelly died two times?


What are you talking about? i do not accept Chapman's TOD, nor the TOD 's given for Kelly. I have argued the exact opposite.
Post 1297 said clearly i did not accept any of of the TOD's.

The post is utter nonsense



I leave the remark about my insults uncommented on for obvious reasons.

This must be one of the very worst posts i have seen on casebook in a long time, all over the place, ignoring the OP that we cannot place Lechmere in the area of the murders at the time of the murders other than for Nichols.
Is the whole post simply constructed to avoid that issue?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1333  
Old 06-14-2018, 02:10 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,871
Default

I win on a disqualification do I Fisherman.Good,then since you have thrown the towel in,perhaps someone else of the persuasion that Cross killed Nichols will answer the post you duckted out on.
There are not many of them I understand,but any one of them is welcome to front up,and please,should anyone do so,do not start with, he was standing in the road near her body so is connected to her murder.He was connected to finding her body,nothing else.She had already been murdered.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1334  
Old 06-14-2018, 02:19 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Then again, you apparently also came to the conclusion that Kelly died twice and that it is proven that Paul was never out of earshot in Bucks Row.


A blatantly false statement, I fail to see how you arrive at this conclusion, when in post 1297 it's very clear stated that I did not accept any of the TODs.
Such blatant untruths, for the purpose of misleading, simply reflects terribly on you


And you did that all on your own too, analysing the various sources.

I must say I am looking forward to your book by now.
Is that the true purpose of these comments? To attempt to belittle something you have not seen? Obviously the levels of concern must be high.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1335  
Old 06-14-2018, 02:28 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
And still, Steve was able to prove that Paul was never out of earshot - using press accounts only. Astonishing! He used three basically similar accounts and said that since there were not as many accounts contradicting them, they became true. Abra-cadabra!
Again back to front, the truth is that you have not proved that Paul was out of earshot or that there was any oppotunity (possibility)for such to occurr.
I had to prove nothing. The onus was on you to prove such a possability could have happened, you have singularly failed to do such

Its becoming very clear now ever increasing attempts to belittle,

And not very good attempts at that.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1336  
Old 06-14-2018, 04:14 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Hi Caz

Yes indeed it is. Of course the aim of Mizen was to prevent certain public questions being asked about his performance (none of which had any effect on the actual murder) and this he achieved perfectly, to the extent it was not looked at seriously until Lechmere was proposed as a suspect.

Of course i beleive that the combination of Neil's testimony on 1st and the Lloyds article 2nd are the reason for Mizen's story ( and i use that word intentionally) at the inquest on the 3rd.
However i came to this conclusion from anaylisis of the various sources, i didn't come up with the idea and then go looking for the stuff to support it.

Steve
Perfect, Steve.

That's the way to go.

Had Mizen mentioned or reported the encounter at the earliest opportunity, I would have expected the sources to have reflected that fact, or at least to have been consistent with it. I assume you have found nothing to suggest he said a word about it until Paul's account was published?

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1337  
Old 06-14-2018, 04:31 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Yes, many cases are lost. But in those cases too, it applies that the prosecution has made the call that the case is good enough to win, otherwise they would not have gone to court.

I am not saying that a case against Lechmere would have been won. I am saing that Scobie thought that it looked like a case that could have been won, a case good enough to prosecute.

And far from just saying that the case could not be dismissed - which, incidentally, is what people out here are saying in many a case - he actually said that the case suggests that Lechmere was guilty. And he added that a jury would not like the implications.

So I´m afraid that you will have to learn to consort with Scobie. His is an important view. And yes, potentially other barristers may disagree with him. But it will take a barrister disagreeing with him before that is an established fact. And even if it happens, we will still have a situation where legal experts are discussing the bouyancy of a legal case against Lechmere.

I have asked before, but have never gotten an answer: Which other Ripper suspect has that going for him, as a suspect?

The answer is of course: Not a single one.
You mean which other suspect has a Barrister deciding that there might be a case against him after only seeing one side of the debate?

How willing do you think that Mr Scobie might feel about walking into court to prosecute CL clueless about what points the Defence might bring up and throw at him? Answer: he wouldn’t. He would investigate any points/opinions/evidence/interpretations that might point to CL’s innocence.

This is not a criticism of Scobie. He obviously has a well deserved reputation. He was asked to give his opinion on the strength of the prosecution case. He came to the conclusion that ‘on the face of it’ there appeared to be a case for the purpose of the documentary. But this only means ‘from what I’ve read.’

Scobie keeps being used as a prop for the case against CL. Its very difficult to see why the person that does this can’t accept the shortcomings of this approach.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

Last edited by Herlock Sholmes : 06-14-2018 at 04:33 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1338  
Old 06-14-2018, 04:43 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Perfect, Steve.

That's the way to go.

Had Mizen mentioned or reported the encounter at the earliest opportunity, I would have expected the sources to have reflected that fact, or at least to have been consistent with it. I assume you have found nothing to suggest he said a word about it until Paul's account was published?

Love,

Caz
X
Not a word of the story he gave at the inquest, in any source before the inquest.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1339  
Old 06-14-2018, 05:14 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,656
Default

We have to accept that there would have been at least a reasonable chance that the Ripper would have experienced some kind of blood contamination after killing Polly. For the ‘CL was Jack’ side this would have meant that he was there in Buck’s Row at approximately 3.40 still needing to get to work for 4.

We know how poorly lit and dark the streets were at that period, especially backstreets like Buck’s Row and so CL would have found it pretty much impossible to check himself over for blood. In all reasonableness is it likely that CL would have been prepared to walk into work with the risk of being contaminated with blood? Surely not? Fish, I believe (and I’ll stand to be corrected if I’ve mis-remembered here) has suggested that as he might have handled animal carcasses as part of his job his clothes might already have been stained with blood and so not suspicious. Two points there 1) Wouldn’t fresh bloodstains have stood out? and 2) what if he’d gotten blood on his hand, or one hand or on his face or in his hair or beard? A guilty CL would surely have been extremely wary of this risk. Of turning up at work, walking into the light, being amongst workmates, and have it pointed out that he had blood in his hair or on his hands. Am I being reasonable here? I feel that I am.

Therefore it is surely overwhelmingly likely that CL would have wanted to check himself over for incriminating blood contamination and, if required, to have cleaned himself up. And this with 15 or 20 minutes to get to work in The I’ll-lit back streets. He would have needed light to check and clean himself. Is it likely therefore that a guilty CL would have stood under or near to a street lamp to check himself over and then, knowing that there were policeman on patrols, would have proceeded to clear himself down in full view of anyone? As far as the possibility of him having blood on his face or in his beard or on the back part of his jacket can we assume that CL carried a mirror with him

No doubt I’ll be accused of being ignorant or biased or something but can anyone really say that this post is unreasonable. We can’t say that CL was a genius but it’s reasonable to say that he wasn’t a blithering idiot. Would he have left himself in a position where there was a very good chance that he had Polly Nichols blood on him and he had only 15 or 20 minutes to find somewhere to check himself over and clean up that wasn’t under a street lamp in full view of any passerby.

Isnt it far, far more likely that Jack The Ripper would have had somewhere to go after killing? Somewhere he had some privacy to clean up? And certainly not to work?

This has to be a major point, added to the others like why he didn’t escape when he had every chance (i couldn’t be less interested in Andy Griffiths opinion [I’d like to ask however if he was led to believe that CL was somehow ‘ caught in the act’,and that’s why he comes up with this silly notion?]). Major doubts put up against the linguistic and evidential contortions so often on display for the purpose of shoehorning CL into the ripper’s shows.

Its just not working though
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1340  
Old 06-14-2018, 05:18 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,778
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
We have to accept that there would have been at least a reasonable chance that the Ripper would have experienced some kind of blood contamination after killing Polly. For the ‘CL was Jack’ side this would have meant that he was there in Buck’s Row at approximately 3.40 still needing to get to work for 4.

We know how poorly lit and dark the streets were at that period, especially backstreets like Buck’s Row and so CL would have found it pretty much impossible to check himself over for blood. In all reasonableness is it likely that CL would have been prepared to walk into work with the risk of being contaminated with blood? Surely not? Fish, I believe (and I’ll stand to be corrected if I’ve mis-remembered here) has suggested that as he might have handled animal carcasses as part of his job his clothes might already have been stained with blood and so not suspicious. Two points there 1) Would fresh bloodstains have stood out? and 2) what if he’d gotten blood on his hand, or one hand or on his face or in his hair or beard? A guilty CL would surely have been extremely wary of this risk. Of turning up at work, walking into the light, being amongst workmates, and have it pointed out that he had blood in his hair or on his hands. Am I being reasonable here? I feel that I am.

Therefore it is surely overwhelmingly likely that CL would have wanted to check himself over for incriminating blood contamination and, if required, to have cleaned himself up. And this with 15 or 20 minutes to get to work in The I’ll-lit back streets. He would have needed light to check and clean himself. Is it likely therefore that a guilty CL would have stood under or near to a street lamp to check himself over and then, knowing that there were policeman on patrols, would have proceeded to clear himself down in full view of anyone? As far as the possibility of him having blood on his face or in his beard or on the back part of his jacket can we assume that CL carried a mirror with him

No doubt I’ll be accused of being ignorant or biased or something but can anyone really say that this post is unreasonable. We can’t say that CL was a genius but it’s reasonable to say that he wasn’t a blithering idiot. Would he have left himself in a position where there was a very good chance that he had Polly Nichols blood on him and he had only 15 or 20 minutes to find somewhere to check himself over and clean up that wasn’t under a street lamp in full view of any passerby.

Isnt it far, far more likely that Jack The Ripper would have had somewhere to go after killing? Somewhere he had some privacy to clean up? And certainly not to work?

This has to be a major point, added to the others like why he didn’t escape when he had every chance (i couldn’t be less interested in Andy Griffiths opinion [I’d like to ask however if he was led to believe that CL was somehow ‘ caught in the act’,and that’s why he comes up with this silly notion?]). Major doubts put up against the linguistic and evidential contortions so often on display for the purpose of shoehorning CL into the ripper’s shows.

Its just not working though
Hi HS
this has always been my main issue with Lech as a suspect. Killing on his way to work. so many issues with this-like you said-showing up with possible blood, knife, organs??
Plus Post mortem types like to take there goodies somewhere private to be able to enjoy them more.
__________________
"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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.