The Nature of Evidence

[John G]

So he gave a name that was not his registered one to the police?

And he disagreed with a serving PC about what was said on the murder night?

And he had paths that would take him through the killing fields?

And he was found alone with one of the victims, at a remove in time that correlates with the TOD?

Because that is my Lechmere approach.

My Lechmere approach is certainly not that he may have been the killer because his testiminy was all over the place.

Well, to clarify, I meant that it would strengthen the case against Richardson who, of course, has been suggested as a candidate.

By the way, as regards Lechmere's employment, is there any evidence as to whether he was reliable in respect of his timekeeping? The reason I ask is that Francis Tyler, who worked for Amelia Richardson, was often late for work-2 hours late on the day of Chapman's murder: http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

[Pierre]

I think it boils down to a combination of people having previsously nailed their colours to the mast, either in the shape of other suspects or in the shape of having claimed that the case cannot be solved.
I also think that not being read up comes into it - people are read up to varying extents, but I often see misconceptions that owe to a lack of knowledge of the case.

A third component will be how many people dislike how I argue my case. I can be arrogant and spiteful, just like how other posters may serve up the same thing to me. And some will look away from the facts in favour of having a dig at me for that reason. Its understandable but not case-promoting.

There, you asked - now you can call me arrogant and disrespectful if you wish to.

However, that would also be an example of lacking insights.

Dear Fisherman,

I know why you think you are right.

You saw the name Cross and looked for that name in the archives at the address 22 Doveton Street.

You found Lechmere instead.

When that happened you experienced a heuristic grand moment:

You were convinced that he was a LIAR.

And it was then you said: "That must be him. Jack the Ripper".

To make this wonderful grand moment an eternal moment, you do everything in your power.

Even become what you in that grand heuristic moment thought that Lechmere was:

A liar.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Dear Fisherman,

I know why you think you are right.

You saw the name Cross and looked for that name in the archives at the address 22 Doveton Street.

You found Lechmere instead.

When that happened you experienced a heuristic grand moment:

You were convinced that he was a LIAR.

And it was then you said: "That must be him. Jack the Ripper".

To make this wonderful grand moment an eternal moment, you do everything in your power.

Even become what you in that grand heuristic moment thought that Lechmere was:

A liar.

Pierre

Blessed are those who do not destroy the historical sources for they shall see the past.

Pierre

[John G]

Because that was the absolute minimum of TOD that Phillips allowed for - at least two hours, but probably more. So she would have died no later than 4.20.

Ah, but I don't think that can stand. We now know that time of death cannot be reliably determined, even using modern methods. This lead Dr Biggs to conclude that such estimates that were made in the course of the Whitechapel cases should be "taken with a pinch of salt." This doesn't imply criticism, as "we just know more now and therefore, can't be so 'certain'" (Marriott, 2013).

[Abby Normal]

Dear Fisherman,

I know why you think you are right.

You saw the name Cross and looked for that name in the archives at the address 22 Doveton Street.

You found Lechmere instead.

When that happened you experienced a heuristic grand moment:

You were convinced that he was a LIAR.

And it was then you said: "That must be him. Jack the Ripper".

To make this wonderful grand moment an eternal moment, you do everything in your power.

Even become what you in that grand heuristic moment thought that Lechmere was:

A liar.

Pierre

pathetic

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;422853]

So he gave a name that was not his registered one to the police?

And he disagreed with a serving PC about what was said on the murder night?

1+1 = 2.

And he had paths that would take him through the killing fields?

And he was found alone with one of the victims, at a remove in time that correlates with the TOD?

1+1 = 2.

[Pierre]

pathetic

Yes, very pathetic.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: I sense that this one is directed at me.

Nope. It was directed at Chris George and Howard Brown.

Firstly, I don't believe CL is a viable candidate because, apart from finding the body, there's nothing. An empty vessel.

A vessel full of circumstantial evidence. Having logical paths that seemingly correlate with all the murder sites is not exactly "empty". For example.

I really can't see why anyone can't accept the fact that CL would not have wanted to lose his job?

I can accept that Lechmere did not want to loose his job. So you are wrong. I think he wanted to hang on to it. But I think that Paul Ogorzow wanted to hang in to HIS job too. However, he got caught, and that was that. It is a risk that will always go with serial killing - you may be found out and loose both job and life.
As an aside, I think that the most common job we find amongst the rank of serialists is that of a lorry drivers and chauffeurs. Sutcliffe was one, and then there is a number of so called highway killers, like William Bonin and Randy Kraft, Patrick Kearney...
The task of travelling the network of roads appeals to many serialists. And I would say that the 1888 lorry driver/chauffeur had the title carman.

Fisherman is always going on about how psychopaths can live normal, well-balanced family lives (obviously).

"Going on"? I am always pointing it out. It is not the same as going on.

Being unemployed in Whitechapel in 1888 is hardly conducive to a decent life!

Being unemployed is not equivalent to becoming a serial killer, though...

Obviously it wouldn't just be the fact of losing his job that would prevent him being the ripper.

A serialist normally has an inner urge to kill, at least the ones who produce murder scenes like the Ripper scene. To him or her, having a job is tottaly underprioritized to killing. Working is not an urge.
But it IS a way to make a living and it DOES provide a facade, which is why I think most serialists with a work are anxious to keep their jobs. But it is NOT their top priority.

All I'm saying is that he would have planned to avoid losing his job.

I agree with that. Maybe not that he will have done much planning on the topic, but he would in all probability have wanted to keep his work even if he was the killer.

Easy enough to do. No Moriarty-like machinations required. Just don't kill 20 minutes before you're due to clock on! Simples.

This is where we need to be a bit flexible, Herlock. We need to know the circumstances that were offered up by his work. We need to know to what degree he had opportunities to clean up at work. We need to know when his colleagues arrived and to what extent he associated with them. And so on. He may well have chosen the kind of work he did because it offered excellent opportunities to kill. It is not unheard of.

I first mentioned CL's work in my first post, I believe, just to illustrate the risks involved with killing on the way to work. Possibly turning up with a bloodstain that he was unaware of; the time constraint; the fact that certain workmates might have known his route to work (from general conversation) and might have thought it suspicious if he didn't mention seeing a body.

Yes, there are risks. Bundy, Ridgway, Gacy, Sutcliffe, Ogorzow, Armstrong and all the rest of them were all subjected to these risks to a smaller or lesser degree. It comes with the territory. If Lechmere felt compelled to kill, he may well have identified the trek to work as his best option and acted upon it. It was dark, he passed through crowded areas in a metropolis that offered thousands of potential suspects in a crime-ridden district. As scenarios go, itīs not a half-bad choice.

I'll say again, if CL was the killer (and he wasn't) he allowed himself 30-40 mins to find a victim, find a spot, kill her, check for blood on his person, possibly clean up and then walk to work from wherever he'd found his victim. How much of that timespan would be taken up with just the journey to work? 30 mins ?(without the benefit of referring to Steve's research). Surely we can see that this is insufficient and would place a killer under unfeasible time pressure?

We have absolutely no idea how much time he allowed himself. He could have left at any time, he coud have given any excuse or not given any excuse at all, his wife may have suspected him or even known about him, there is no certainty on any of these scores.
If we reason that he told his wife that there was a lot of work at the depot and he needed to make an early start every now and then, telling her to sleep in, then just how hard is that to accept?

[Elamarna]

Steve post as an example of misleading how somebody (presumably I?) have said that Neil found Nichols within two minutes after she was left by the carmen.

No I made it clear it was the documentary not you I was talking about.

Maybe I have said such a thing in a generalized manner, but I certainly have also made it clear in many posts that I think that is too short an interval of time.
Why Steve chose not to present those posts, I have no idea, but it remains that the carmen cannot reasonably have made it from the murder spot to the end of Bucks Row in only a minute, and after that, Neil will have entered Bucks Row from Thomas Street, walking at a measured speed, and he will have needed perhaps two minutes or more to make it down to the murder spot.
So there will be a longer period of time.

I agree. I was talking about the documentary and you have made it clear many times you are not responsible for or had any control over the broadcast. There was no need to mention your posts has I was not discussing your view Christer.
Why do you assume he entered from Thomas street, while it may have been Queen Ann street is more likely.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Ah, but I don't think that can stand. We now know that time of death cannot be reliably determined, even using modern methods. This lead Dr Biggs to conclude that such estimates that were made in the course of the Whitechapel cases should be "taken with a pinch of salt." This doesn't imply criticism, as "we just know more now and therefore, can't be so 'certain'" (Marriott, 2013).

It was always an uncertain business, but it was to a large degree based on observations made in many a case. In the Chapman case, itīs either Phillipsī "at least two hours, probably more" or less than an hour, and so I am going with the doc, no qualms. I feel pretty certain, not that it was three hours, but that it was NOT less than one. And that rules out Long and Cadosh.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, very pathetic.

Pierre

I'm glad you can admit it about yourself. knowing you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

[Fisherman]

Fish has buggered off without even saying hello

Is it something I said?

Herlock the Naysayer

I told Patrick that I had finished with him for now - but I left some time open to answer the rest of you.

Before I "buggered off", that is.

[Fisherman]

No I made it clear it was the documentary not you I was talking about.



I agree. I was talking about the documentary and you have made it clear many times you are not responsible for or had any control over the broadcast. There was no need to mention your posts has I was not discussing your view Christer.
Why do you assume he entered from Thomas street, while it may have been Queen Ann street is more likely.


Steve

Itīs in a report or article. I have not the inclination to look for it now, though.
It is mirrored in Casebooks article on Neil:

PC Neil discovered the body of Mary Ann Nichols whilst on beat duty at approximately 3.45am, 31st August 1888. He had walked from Thomas Street into Buck's Row and was heading eastwards towards Brady Street. Hearing PC John Thain walking along Brady Street, he summoned him with his lamp and later, he was joined by PC Jonas Mizen who had been alerted to the discovery of Nichols' body by the carmen Charles Cross and Robert Paul. It is likely that Neil missed Cross and Paul by minutes and testified that he saw nobody about. The furthest he had been from the murder spot all night was Baker's Row.

Ah, here it is:

The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, when he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done traversing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was discovered to be lying in a pool of blood.

(Evening News, 31 August)

Thanks for clarifying about the two minute matter.

[Fisherman]

So, now I think that everybody has had their answers, and I am off.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;422779]

Cazī point about how Lechmereīs innocence is proven by how he would never have made up the story about the tarpaulin is the comic relief of the thread so far. The mere suggestion is VERY odd, to say the least.

To begin with, the scenario with Lechmere as the killer involves him concocting a complicated and intelligent lie about an extra PC, and he does that on his feet, no problems at all.

In your model. He does that on his feet in your model. In present tense!

So I donīt think we should underestimate him on this point.

No one I think "underestimates" Charles Lechmere, in present tense.

He is DEAD.

Moreover, when he went to thenpolice he had had a lot of time to ponder what to tell them, if he was the killer.

Aha, gotcha! "If"!

And he would be very aware of what Paul had said in his paper interview - that he had seen Lechmere standing where the body was. Standing, not helping.

Oh, here come the Wouldhaves again...creeping along...And who you gonna call?

Reasonably, he would realize that this was a question tht may well surface: Why were you just standing there, why did you not help the woman?

The last hope: "Reason"! However together with the Would(haves)...

Letīs reason theoretically that he saw that it was a woman on the pavement from the outset, that there never was any idea on his behalf that it was a tarpaulin.

Yes, letīs!

Would he in such a case walk out into the street, and then stop short in the middle of it, doing nothing? Not very likely, is it?

Ouch. Both the Would(haves) and now also the Likely(hood)...Validity is failing.

So he would have needed an explanation for why he stopped and stood still, and I beleive that this is where the tarpaulin story becomes useful.

Here they come again...the Wouldhaves.

To claim that he would not have been able to make it up, to try and lead on that it guarantees innocence, and not least to use this very weak idea as a reason to once again say that it is a shame that we are allowed to portray Lechmere as the killer, is nothing short of appalling.

A variation, great! The Wouldnothaves...

Cheers, Pierre