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:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Batman 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (28 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (13 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (3 posts)
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - (2 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 > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-08-2018, 11:55 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

So, a new thread, dedicated to the question whether Lechmere is the best suspect we know of so far, from a geographical point of view. It sorts under Lechmere, so that there needs to be no talk of hijacking and resentment. Letīs hope it keeps everybody happy!

To start off, I will comment on the last post of Gareth Williams on the former thread:

Fisherman:

And for whom of these non-starters...

Sam Flynn:

How do we know they're non-starters? The Ripper could be right there among them, staring us in the face; I doubt it, statistically, but you never know.


Here we have a classic example of not only moving the goalposts, but instead building a new goal. I of course never said that the men commented on could not be the Ripper. Nor was it ever the issue here. The issue was - and remains, believe me - whether any of the men was recorded as having been present on any of the murder sites or if they were recorded as having had reason to be so. And in that category, they are all 100 per cent non-starters.
Once we keep to the subject, we will get this correct, once we disrespect that simple rule, we wonīt. Once we aim to disrespect the rule, we are not fit to plead.

Fisherman:

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?



Sam Flynn:
These people lived in the middle of Whitechapel, for God's sake!!! They don't need any of us to make up reasons for their being there, because they were there already - and not just them, either, but thousands upon thousands of other local males who weren't maniacs/lunatics.


Here, Gareth returns to his "for Godīs sake" routine, employed before in this errand.

Letīs be totally frank:
Of course, these men would not need any reason at all to be on the murder sites. I agree with that 100 per cent - but it has not a iot to do with the question asked.
Of course, these men could - each and every one of them - be the Ripper. I agree with that too - but the same applies, it has nothing at all to do with the question asked.

The question asked was whether they were recorded to have been present at any or all of the sites or whether they were recorded to have a reason to be there at the relevant removes in time.

What Gareth is desperately trying to do is to nullify the importance of this factor. I, on the other hand, am doing the same thing as the police always does in a murder investigation: I ask about who were present at the murder sites and/or had reason to be at the sites at the relevant hours. And I do that because it is the most important question of all to establish when trying to catch the killer - before we can put a person on the spot or prove that this person had a likely reason to be on the spot, we cannot convict anybody of a crime committed on that spot.

So far from spreading the idea that it does not matter whether a person/suspect was at one or more of the murder sites or had a recorded reason to be there, we must instead accept that of all the factors in a murder hunt, this is the perhaps most crucial one of them all.

If we pick one of Gareths suspects (letīs say it was a woman, and letīs call her Miss Leading), we must be acutely aware that before any charges can be brought against her in the Ripper errand, we MUST show that she had opportunity to kill at the sites and times recorded.

Conclusion: When we look for the Ripper, any suspect or suggested suspect that cannot be shown to have been at the spots or have had reason to be so is automatically a less good suspect than any other person who CAN be shown to have been at the spots or have had reason to be so, all other parameters unconsidered.

In Ripperology, there is an ongoing hunt for this information. Anybody who has a suspect will prioritize it. That is why we heard all those hoorays when Kosminski was (tenuously) tied to Providence Street, that is why Buryīs suggested visits to a Whitechapel pub is so much discussed and why those who opt for him are not happy about the pub owner not owning up to it, that is why Francis Thompsonīs staying close to Dorset Street for a period of time is the holy Graal for him as a suspect - and conversely, that is why Sickertīs journey to Dieppe is such a sour apple for the Cornwellians.

This has never been a matter that has been up for discussion. Never. It goes without saying. It is a cornerstone of any justice system and the foremost tool for the police investigations.
Robert Black could laugh at the police until they checked his petrol receipts, potentially putting him in place on the abduction sites. Mind you, the receipts did not prove as such that he abducted the girls - but they DID prove beyond doubt that he was there.
And guess what? That was enough to send him down for life. It was considered proof beyond doubt.

That is how strong this kind of evidence is.

Now Gareth is fighting a battle in order to deny that it is in any way important evidence at all, claiming that it does not mean that Charles Lechmere is any better a suspect than anyone who lived in Whitechapel. On the contrary, he is a WORSE suspect. Not because he was not there, because we KNOW that he was. But because his home address was some minutes away! So that makes him an unlikely killer!
Yeah - just like how anybody living in the villages where Robert Black abducted young girls were MORE likely than Black to be the perpetrator, because he did not actually live there.

"For Godīs sake", Gareth? Really? God is supposed to stand on the side of the judicial system. He is not supposed to go along with the kind of antics you are engaging in right now. Surely, he has better things to do?

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-09-2018 at 12:00 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-09-2018, 12:17 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,375
Default

Not often one sees a thread starting in such a personal fashion. I'm impressed!
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-09-2018, 01:11 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Not often one sees a thread starting in such a personal fashion. I'm impressed!
All credit to you, Gareth - normally, a thread like this does not have to be created. It is only when somebody throws all logic and empirical knowledge overboard and cries "For Godīs sake, I am correct in doing so!" that the need arises.

Once you admit the importance of having been present at a murder site or having had reason to do so at the relevant hours, this thread will not be necessary any longer - as indeed it should never have been in the first place.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-09-2018, 01:27 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

A few remarks to show where I am coming from:

If we have a murder in London, and if we choose two men as suspects, one living in Equatorial Guinea and one in Britain, it is obvious that the former has a clear drawback as a suspect. If you are not even in the country, you are an unlikely killer there.

So far, so good - and this is the basic principle that Gareth is rooting for, unless I am misunderstanding him.

If we move on, and theorize about a murder committed in London, where the suspects chosen is a Londoner and a Glaswegian, itīs much the same - living in Glasgow will make you a worse suspect. But not as weak a suspect as the guy from Equatorial Guinea!

Next: If the murder we are looking at is committed in Battersea and the suspects we deal with live in Chelsea and Bow, resepctively, then the Bow man IS further afield than the Chelsea suspect. But by now, the borders are getting a lot more blurred: The Bow man may certainly be the killer, because he is not vary far away. The Chelsea man is however closer, and has a slight edge.

And so we arrive at the last example: What if somebody is killed in Whitechapel and the suspects come from Bethnal Green and Whitechapel itself?
Well, letīs begin by realizing that depending on WHERE in Bethnal Green and Whitechapel the suspects live, the Bethnal Green man may actually have lived closer to the murder site of the two. So here, the model of "furthest away, unlikeliest killer" has lost traction almost totally.

Now, all of this works from totally basic angle: We have added no other information than the places of residence for our suspects and the rough place of the murders.

Now, letīs add one more parameter. Letīs say that we donīt know where the Whitechapel man were on the murder day. We only know where he lived, but not where he actually was - he could have been in Croydon for all we know.

Letīs say that the same goes for the man from Bethnal Green, the Glaswegian, the Londoner and the Brit from the examples - we have no idea where they were at the time of the murder.

But letīs assume that the guy from Equatorial Guinea was actually found at the murder site, alone with the victim, claiming to have only just arrived there and noticed the body when another man surfaced.

Given these parameters, surely it is almost a certainty that the man from Equatorial Guinea could not possibly be as good a suspect as the other men, who we know all had home addresses closer to the murder spot than he did?

There is somebody suggesting that this holds true. I am saying the contrary: once a person is tied to a murder spot or can be shown to have had a reason to be at that spot at the relevant hour to have been the killer, then that person is a better suspect than anybody with a home address close to the murder spot and no evidence at all pointing to being involved in the murder or having been close to the spot of the deed.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-09-2018 at 01:31 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-09-2018, 01:29 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
All credit to you, Gareth - normally, a thread like this does not have to be created. It is only when somebody throws all logic and empirical knowledge overboard
I am being logical and empirical.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-09-2018, 01:30 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
I am being logical and empirical.
No. You are being wrong and persisting that you are right. Once you try a logical and empirical answer to post 4 above, you will see why. It should be interesting enough.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-09-2018 at 01:33 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-09-2018, 02:14 AM
Busy Beaver Busy Beaver is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: West Lothian
Posts: 135
Default

Considering the Ripper murders were quite cold and almost calculating, if some one is going to murder in the fashion that the Ripper did, it is probably likely that the suspect is close to home. If all the victims were found lying in the street, the man from Equatorial Guinea could be responsible, but he is more unlikely to go to a dark place, or into closes and behind houses he does not know- a street with lighting would be safer for him. So since Annie was killed behind homes in a back close, Elizabeth was killed up a dark alley and Mary Jane was killed indoors, the Person responsible for these murders had no fear of where they were going to kill- as long as they were not caught and they knew the area. So I still think we are looking for someone local who is very familiar and feels safe in Whitechaple.

Last edited by Busy Beaver : 11-09-2018 at 02:17 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-09-2018, 02:21 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Beaver View Post
Considering the Ripper murders were quite cold and almost calculating, if some one is going to murder in the fashion that the Ripper did, it is probably likely that the suspect is close to home. If all the victims were found lying in the street, the man from Equatorial Guinea could be responsible, but he is more unlikely to go to a dark place, or into closes and behind houses he does not know- a street with lighting would be safer for him. So since Annie was killed behind homes in a back close, Elizabeth was killed up a dark alley and Mary Jane was killed indoors, the Person responsible for these murders had no fear of where they were going to kill- as long as they were not caught and they knew the area. So I still think we are looking for someone local who is very familiar and feels safe in Whitechaple.
The one thing to keep in mind is the example I provided: If the man from Equatorial Guinea is found alone at the murder site with the freshly killed victim, then how can he NOT be a better suspect than anyone with a home address in the vicinity of the murder, but whose whereabouts at the time of the murder are totally unknown?

That, and that only, is the question asked, so letīs not muddle things here.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-09-2018, 02:38 AM
Busy Beaver Busy Beaver is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: West Lothian
Posts: 135
Default

If the police were doing their job correctly, then the man responsible for the murder would be arrested and charged no matter where he came from. Ok no DNA and CCTV back in 1888, but certainly in today's techno world. So I would say that in 1888 the Police were satisfied that those found at the body were just on their way to work and that was that. Perhaps the police did keep notes and if something came up again regarding those tow witnesses, then the police would have more to go on.

Last edited by Busy Beaver : 11-09-2018 at 02:41 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-09-2018, 02:51 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Beaver View Post
If the police were doing their job correctly, then the man responsible for the murder would be arrested and charged no matter where he came from. Ok no DNA and CCTV back in 1888, but certainly in today's techno world. So I would say that in 1888 the Police were satisfied that those found at the body were just on their way to work and that was that. Perhaps the police did keep notes and if something came up again regarding those tow witnesses, then the police would have more to go on.
Thatīs another answer to a question nobody has asked. Why is it so hard to answer the one that WAS asked: If the man from Equatorial Guinea is found alone at the murder site with the freshly killed victim, then how can he NOT be a better suspect than anyone with a home address in the vicinity of the murder, but whose whereabouts at the time of the murder are totally unknown?
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 04:39 PM.


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