Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JTR: The Missing Evidence

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

  • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
    Jeff - I can connect Lechmere to killings up to 1898 - I suspect he retired after that - and back to 1872.

    I think Anderson was clutching at straws and was muddled between different suspects.
    Ed,

    Was the 1872 murder in the East End or further west?

    Gary

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
      If it is not tough at all, Trevor - then where is that example of your "facts"...? Don´t be shy now!
      From the inquest....
      Robert Paul:
      "saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road"
      Charles Cross:
      "and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row..."

      Yet in your documentary it is stated & graphically shown repeatedly that Paul discovered Cross stooped over the body.
      That is what politicians call being economic with the truth, isn't it?

      Comment


      • Paul's newspaper interview which predated the inquest said Lechmere was where the body was.
        However neither Christer nor I had any input into the graphics nor any editorial control. If you care to read any if the previous threads on this topic you will see that both of us agree that we would rather that graphic was accurate.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Stephen Collyer View Post
          From the inquest....
          Robert Paul:
          "saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road"
          Charles Cross:
          "and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row..."

          Yet in your documentary it is stated & graphically shown repeatedly that Paul discovered Cross stooped over the body.
          That is what politicians call being economic with the truth, isn't it?
          That is very hard to say. It may be the exact truth that Paul DID find Lechmere standing over the body of Nichols.

          However, it is anything but proven that this was so, and so you have a good point. The issue was much discussed when the documentary aired in Britain, and both Edward and I freely conceeded that there was no evidence that Lechmere did stand over the body of Nichols as he was found by Paul.

          As such, none of us are to blame for the possible exaggeration, though - the documentary was something that the film team produced, and we had no mandate to go in and change anything. We adviced and we tried to keep things as factually clear as possible, and overall, the documentary is quite good in this respect. There is the odd flaw, and we will have to live with it.

          However, let´s not forget that Paul in his paper interview actually is quoted as saying that he found Lechmere "where the body was", so there is some ground to stand on in stating that Lechmere would have been close to the body. Bucks Row is furthermore a very narrow street, so even if Lechmere stepped back, there was not very much space left behind him.

          Personally, I think that you should also ponder that our theory involves Lechmere trying to con Robert Paul, for example by covering the wounds to the abdomen. If this was true, then it would be strange if he did NOT move away from the body. I favour that suggestion myself, and I don´t think it detracts in any way from Lechmere being the potential culprit. Whichever way we look on things, we are left with Lechmere being found in the immediate vicinity of the crime and with no corroborative alibi. And that should be enough for us to realize the possible implications.

          So I concur with you - it would have been a lot better if the film team had kept Lechmere a yard or two away from Nichols. If nothing else, it should have spared us comments and suspicions of having been economic with the truth...

          PS. I see Edward beat me to the mark...!
          "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
            Jeff - I can connect Lechmere to killings up to 1898 - I suspect he retired after that - and back to 1872..
            Isn't this rather taking the Patricia Cornwall route? I'm assuming your including a number of murders she does..

            Personally I always feel the route, presumably including the torso's? is better suited to Chapman… Indeed I don't see why the Torso's couldn't have been Chapman kills?

            I do however include more early and different kills for Jack, including Emma Smith, thats just my own personal preference

            Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
            I think Anderson was clutching at straws and was muddled between different suspects.
            Its interesting that this line of argument is always raised…yet the facts surgest otherwise. Anderson was not only a brilliant mind, but speak on penal reform (Hope I'm spelling that correctly) and a theologian well respected, if he was suffering anything it was probably deafness.

            I'm afraid its here I go with Martin Fido, I don't get that Anderson would have gambled with his immortal soul on such a trivial matter as the identity of Jack… I think he knew about the ID and that Kozminski entered a private asylum around Dec 1888.. As you know I think the ID happened much later following the Crawford letter..

            Of course I accept Swanson and Anderson could still have been mistaken…oh and I don't now believe either Schwart or Lawende were the witness… There is another explanation

            Yours Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
              Paul's newspaper interview which predated the inquest said Lechmere was where the body was.
              However neither Christer nor I had any input into the graphics nor any editorial control. If you care to read any if the previous threads on this topic you will see that both of us agree that we would rather that graphic was accurate.
              So long as it's clearly dealt with in the book (and you both seem to be distancing yourself from it) then fair enough.
              I thought the film was very interesting, but as soon as it was mentioned about the positioning of Cross & Nichols' body I had to check with a couple of books. To anyone with even a vague awareness of the events during the Autumn of Terror it would cause them to view the remainder of the film with a great deal of suspicion.
              I think we can take it as read that most people take official depositions at inquests over what is allegedly said to a journalist.
              Sorry to go down a well-trodden path, but it was by far the weakest part of an otherwise very well made documentary.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                I can connect Lechmere to killings up to 1898 - I suspect he retired after that - and back to 1872.
                Blimey. What murders might they be?

                Are you Patricia Cornwell in disguise?
                Itsnotrocketsurgery

                Comment


                • I'm not sure what Patricia Cornwell's route is - but in principle I find it unlikely that the 5-6 murders in quick succession in 1888 were how this killer began and ended. O think it is more likely that there were some before and after and the Jack the Ripper murders were just a phase. There are twenty plus unexplained deaths (with similar victims) in London between 1872 and 1898. I would not expect one person to be responsible for all of them - but I would provisionally put them together.

                  I think Chapman had effective alibis for several of the torsos.

                  Fido's argument is that Anderson dd not deliberately lie. But this oversimplifies things. If someone says something that is not true it is by no means the case that this means the person is consciously lying. They cold be mistaken or they could misremember or they could be fooling themselves. We fool ourselves and convince ourselves of falsehoods all the time.

                  Comment


                  • Stephen C - Paul's interview was in Lloyds Weekly Newspaper not the Star.
                    But significantly it was stated before any other account and so could be argued that it was uncorrupted by other opinion.

                    Comment


                    • Whichever way we look on things, we are left with Lechmere being found in the immediate vicinity of the crime and with no corroborative alibi.

                      Fish, how on earth can Crossmere be in the immediate vicinity of the crime, and be somewhere else?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                        We fool ourselves and convince ourselves of falsehoods all the time.
                        Good man, Edward. Know thyself.
                        Itsnotrocketsurgery

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                          Stephen C - Paul's interview was in Lloyds Weekly Newspaper not the Star.
                          But significantly it was stated before any other account and so could be argued that it was uncorrupted by other opinion.
                          Yes ok. I just noticed by error. Apologies.
                          I would still suggest that an inquest deposition is far more credible.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
                            Whichever way we look on things, we are left with Lechmere being found in the immediate vicinity of the crime and with no corroborative alibi.

                            Fish, how on earth can Crossmere be in the immediate vicinity of the crime, and be somewhere else?
                            Well, you are all over the place yourself on a seemingly everyday basis ....
                            "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                              I'm not sure what Patricia Cornwell's route is - but in principle I find it unlikely that the 5-6 murders in quick succession in 1888 were how this killer began and ended.
                              Patricia faced with a similar problem you have with Lechmere, argued a large number of killings were related to Sickert…sort of a scatter gun theory, but in particular she linked the murder of a young boy and the Camden Town murder…Not sure about the Kitty Ronan murder?

                              Frankly I think it unlikely that JtR very specific MO would change as much as you suggest…But then i see these murders more like a strew killing than a psychopathic killer.

                              As you know however I'm quite prepared to accept Harrold Jones continued killing, both men and women and children, and may also have committed the Stripper murders.

                              Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                              O think it is more likely that there were some before and after and the Jack the Ripper murders were just a phase. There are twenty plus unexplained deaths (with similar victims) in London between 1872 and 1898. I would not expect one person to be responsible for all of them - but I would provisionally put them together.
                              I think it reasonable to ask which murders you have in mind? Obviously Patricia came under a lot of stick for this as it soon shows a lot of flaws.

                              Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                              I think Chapman had effective alibis for several of the torsos.
                              You might be correct about some, Chapman was in the USA for periods, not certain about the specifics. I'm simply suggesting this type of disposal would fit the style of a poisoner?

                              Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                              Fido's argument is that Anderson dd not deliberately lie.
                              Actuyally Fido argues Anderson would not lie for 'personal kudos' thats because strong religious beliefs that today seem stage to us, argued that Christ would come back to earth very shortly and we would have to all answer for our sins… Something that apparently has never happened but was a strong belief guiding his actions.

                              Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
                              But this oversimplifies things. If someone says something that is not true it is by no means the case that this means the person is consciously lying. They cold be mistaken or they could misremember or they could be fooling themselves. We fool ourselves and convince ourselves of falsehoods all the time.
                              While its true our memories play tricks on details, times dates etc..

                              Actually on the 'big picture' our memories by and large work very well..

                              Forinstance I still remember big events from twenty years ago, births deaths marriages divorce… May not remember all the details but you remember the big stuff…. and Anderson almost certainly worked from a diary of some sort

                              Yours Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                                Frankly I think it unlikely that JtR very specific MO would change as much as you suggest…
                                Yours Jeff
                                You are correct on this score. It is unlikely.

                                That is the beauty of statistics. We can always point to them and say "He would not have killed en route to work, people don´t normally do that", or "he would not give his real address and workplace but the wrong name, that is not what people normally do" and - like in your case - "When a killer sticks to a pattern it is unlikely that he would stray from that pattern or abandon it".

                                In each case, those who say these things will be correct.

                                But:

                                Ted Bundy masqueraded as a cripple with a plaster cast to get to his victims - and nobody had done that before. It nevertheless happened.

                                William Heirens begged the police to catch him in a message written with a lipstick - that was a first, but it nevertheless happened.

                                Robert Hansen abducted his victims and let them loose in wasteland to hunt them down and kill then. That is not what people normally do.

                                In a sense, it is quite odd to demand that people who deviate as much from the rest of us as serial killers do, to go about things in a manner that is in accordance with statistics. These are people with twisted minds and some of them are fuelled by a wish to do something that has never before been heard of. Given that, how productive is it to ask for consequence?

                                Peter Kürten made the Duesseldorf police think that they had four mad killers on their hands, for the simple reason that he switched MO and weapon from time to time. He did what you think a killer would not do, but he nevertheless existed.

                                What do we learn from that? I´d say that what we learn is that much as we have a good point saying that something is out of the ordinary, we still cannot use statistics to prove that something out of the ordinary is also impossible.

                                You are ever so right, Jeff: On the surface of things, it is unlikely that the Ripper would change his MO to any larger degree. If we find out that he did, however, that will just be another anomaly of many when it comes to serial killers.
                                Afterwards, I promise to agree with you when you say "That was somewhat unexpected". You will be as correct about the general picture then as you are now, of course.
                                "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X