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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Not for nothing - by DJA 2 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG? - by Ozzy 4 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG? - by Herlock Sholmes 8 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Just my theory. - by Callmebill 12 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Were Belle Elmore’s remains that proved she wasn’t related to her living relatives an - by jmenges 12 minutes ago.
General Police Discussion: Lost police records & documents............... - by Joshua Rogan 18 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (35 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (34 posts)
Witnesses: Why Buck's Row? - (27 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG? - (26 posts)
General Police Discussion: Lost police records & documents............... - (22 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was Annie Chapman a rotund woman? - (6 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
  #1791  
Old 07-14-2017, 03:00 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Actually

Yes
Yes
And
Yes.
Well GUT, if the principle in my example rules, then we could say that Scobie is right.

But I have no interest in Scobie. Fisherman has a theory, he says. And he does not have to put forth any evidence for it.

So it is the guys with a theory without evidence. Again.

Ripperology.

Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly. From the C-5. No evidence.

Only propaganda.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1792  
Old 07-14-2017, 03:02 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,259
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
You are welcome to that interpretation. I see it very differently. And so do hundreds of people out on the net who are commenting on the theory.

If you close your eyes and ears, it should not bother you, though.
Hi Fisherman,

KELLY?

ANY EVIDENCE?

PLEASE?

My eyes and ears are open. I see and listen. I wait.

You are a journalist. You can write. Please write.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1793  
Old 07-14-2017, 03:17 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,011
Default

Pierre,

You still seem unduly irritated by the very existence of the Lechmere theory. Can I ask respectfully, how are your own researches progressing? Are you any closer to finding the remaining piece of evidence that confirms the identity of the killer, or announcing the solution? I know that the gogmagog letter turned out to be a basic but huge error of research, and the 'biological explanatory variable' also seemed to be a dead end. Oh, and likewise the Tennyson 'clue' was based on a hilarious misunderstanding (but you were not researching the murders specifically at that point, but rather 'the cultural production of literature' or something, so that's understandable). So many threads, so many dead ends, I don't know where to look to find the latest updates on your work. Could you be so kind as to point me in the right direction?

How do your university colleagues react when you tell them you're a ripperologist? I hope they indulge you. I'm sure you'll be back to publishing peer-reviewed papers and books very soon, once you've cracked the case.

Best

HF
__________________
What should I do at Rome? I have not learnt
The art of lying


Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis - Satire III
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1794  
Old 07-14-2017, 03:27 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,323
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
To YOU it is not convincing.

To those who know legal matters and who are aware how qualified a queens councellor and barrister is when it comes to judging the viability of a court case, Iīm sure itīs a different stroy altogether. They will realize that Scobie knew what he was talking about.

But I can see why it is a very hard pill to swallow for you, I really can.

Why you say that circumstantial evidence can be more or less damning, I donīt know - I would have thought that everybody out here would be able to spell that out for themselves. This is why Scobie is udeful - he tells us that the amount of circumstantial evidence attaching to Lechmere is enough to form a prima faciae case. So that calls for either trying to denigrate Scobie (hard) or to try and lead on that he was misinformed, lied to or underinformed (much easier).

It was always going to be very predictable. But you know what, Steve? Itīs "not convincing".
No comments were made on Scobie's opinion.
No attempt to attack him, or say he was misinformed, lied to or underinformed. So mention any of those is unneeded and without purpose.

However once again we see the reverence with which the opinion of one "expert" is held.

Same old, same old.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1795  
Old 07-14-2017, 03:28 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,323
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Eh - my post spoke of an ABILITY to read, not an inability. I celebrated how you were able to put John G right on the matter.

I really donīt know how I could be any clearer.


I see you respond before reading my later post.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1796  
Old 07-14-2017, 03:31 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,073
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Well GUT, if the principle in my example rules, then we could say that Scobie is right.

But I have no interest in Scobie. Fisherman has a theory, he says. And he does not have to put forth any evidence for it.

So it is the guys with a theory without evidence. Again.

Ripperology.

Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly. From the C-5. No evidence.

Only propaganda.

Pierre
Fish has a theory without evidence you say....



At least he presents his theory, backs his man, gives his reasons.

More than I can say for someone here, you arrived thundering "I think I've solved it" and "One more piece of data".

I seem to recall something about "If I haven't solved it in ... (was it a year) I'll just withdraw".

Mmmmm
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1797  
Old 07-14-2017, 03:40 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,323
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Which point says that one should not misrepresent other posters, Steve? You had a very clear post pointing out exactly where it went awry for you. Saying in retrospect that it did not is denying the obvious.
Has far as I can see that is not mentioned in the "Major Rules" of such.
However I disagree you were misrepresented. The quote provided was in your own words.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1798  
Old 07-14-2017, 03:49 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,323
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
You are welcome to that interpretation. I see it very differently. And so do hundreds of people out on the net who are commenting on the theory.

If you close your eyes and ears, it should not bother you, though.
Are those the same I have read basing their views on a certain documentary. You know the one. The one with lots of speculation presented as historical fact.

If the information given is not a full representation of the facts, the views of those persons commenting on the internet will be wrong.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1799  
Old 07-14-2017, 03:50 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,323
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
THERE we go!

As for you always being big enough to admit your mistakes, I simply disagree. I find you admit the ones you cannot possibly deny, but keep the lid tightly on a number of other matters. Plus I think that we may not be best suited ourselves to judge how big we are.

Or small.
So now we even have a go at an apology.

I need say nothing else.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1800  
Old 07-14-2017, 05:09 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
I see you respond before reading my later post.

Steve
Yes, taking them one by one. On the whole, I find it better than answering without having read and understood at all...
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 04:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.