Jack the........ Police Officer??

[Robert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N55UWxVzos

[Lechmere]

The pipe seems to have been retrieved from Filbert Street.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman
I’m not sure what you mean by attempting to ‘attain a level of recognition that simply does not exist’.
If you mean that I am attempting to have Charles Lechmere universally accepted as the Ripper, then I am not so naive!

I was not singling you out, and I do acknowledge you are not alone in promoting Cross/Lechmere, but you were the one making the complaint that those three suspects (Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety) are not without criticism yet you think it is frowned upon to criticize them.
I don't agree.

I have no reservations about contesting Kosminski, and I don't even take Tumblety as a serious police suspect. Druitt is the fly in the ointment.

Traditionally Druitt, Kosminski & Tumblety have had the most attention over the years, Cross is a relative newcomer so it might be years before that theory gains suitable recognition - I just don't think you are making a fair comparison.

[Lechmere]

Wickerman
I wasn't really making that sort of comparison.
I'm not seeking equal billing or recognition for Charles Lechmere. I'm unconcerned that he hasn't a section on any suspect section on any forum either.
I was just making the point that all suspects rely on conjecture, so to loftily (I'm not accusing you here) sneer at Charles Lechmere-related conjecture is hypocritical.
Conjecture rules all areas, because people who don't secretly favour one suspect, will invariably get into a passion over whether Stride was by the same hand, or whether the graffiti was by the killer and so on.

But I have noticed that when the cases against 'police' suspects are pulled apart there is an indignant tone in some quarters - as if it isn't quite the done thing.

I have noticed your preference for Druitt!
Some posters can good humouredly discuss their preferred suspect and defend their case without getting all narky and ansty about it. This should be the norm but it is the exception.

[caz]

Caz:

Hmm, I think we can safely say that nobody in the room that night, Blotchy especially, would have been fool enough to come forward afterwards of his own accord, proving Hutch a liar and his description false. Quite the reverse in fact. Blotchy must have thanked his lucky stars when he read Hutch's account of the flash harry who entered that room a good hour after he had been seen by Cox. If I were in Blotchy's shoes I might have paid good money for a break like that.

Nope, Caz - we cannot "safely" say this. People who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward. If you know that you are not the culprit, you donīt realize the risk. There is also the possibility that Blotchy would have passed the next client on his way out, and felt eager to tell the police.
Ruling any of these possibilities out would put Hutchinson at a very obvioius risk. And that risk would be effectively eliminated by the non-descript version of a Mr Nobody, as I said before, whereas he would stand no chance at all with his toff invention - if, that is, it WAS an invention. I think it wasnīt.

Nonsense Fishy, on several levels. We know for a fact that Blotchy didn't come forward, and for bleedin' obvious reasons. Who would not have realised the risk, in 1888 and in the wake of Kelly's murder, of admitting to being in that room with her that night at a late hour? The police were itching to put someone in there. Hutch would have known this too if he wasn't a complete fool, so it makes sense that if he was there at all, it was best for him to claim the room was 'in use' and to describe the man inside.

Also, it makes no sense to argue that a Mr Nobody invention would have carried no risk, while a Flash Harry invention would have been a 'very obvious' risk, when you yourself believe there was a man of exactly the latter description chatting up Kelly the previous night and going back to her room! Think about it. If Hutch didn't see the man, why would there be no risk in claiming he looked like a Mr Nobody, when Flash Harry could have come forward to protest his innocence (yeah, right) and shown himself to be anything but Mr Nobody? It's the same risk either way, but I don't agree it would have been much of a risk at all, since no man would have been daft enough to volunteer the information that he had invited himself into Kelly's bedroom that night.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

Nonsense Fishy, on several levels. We know for a fact that Blotchy didn't come forward, and for bleedin' obvious reasons.

This is classic! Here you take one detail and use it to conjure up another. We know for a fact that Blotchy did not come forward, true. But although we may guess, Iīd submit that we do NOT know why. One step at the time, Caz, my dear!

Who would not have realised the risk, in 1888 and in the wake of Kelly's murder, of admitting to being in that room with her that night at a late hour? The police were itching to put someone in there. Hutch would have known this too if he wasn't a complete fool, so it makes sense that if he was there at all, it was best for him to claim the room was 'in use' and to describe the man inside.

But how would Hutch know that the police would believe him? And STILL he placed himself at the scene - like nobody would do by his own accord...? Next - of course Blotchy could have seen the risk. But saying that he would never come forward, is simply oversimplifying matters. Itīs a short warmt to pee in your pants, as we say over here.

We need to weigh in more than the simple "Heīd never...!", Caz. Think of this: What did Blotchy hold in his hand as he entered the room? Correct - a pail, presumably of ale.
Where do you find ale? Correct again - in the pub.
So from where, seemingly, did Blotchy and Kelly come, when entering Millerīs Court? You said it - from the pub!
What is a pub? Itīs short for public house - an establishment open to all and sundry.

How big a risk was it that a customer in the pub would point Blotchy out? It was an almight risk.

How does that affect out discussion? Well, it points out that Blotchy must have been able to realize the exact same thing - at any given moment, somebody from the pub could step forward and say: That man with Kelly was Mr Picklesworth, because he left here with her and that pail.

So Blotchy needed to weigh things up - should he take the risk that somebody pointed him out, and that the police came looking for him? Or should he save his own behind by coming forward and telling the truth?

Mind you, there is also the chance that he had an alibi - on leaving Millers court, he could have done so with Kelly, perhaps meeting somebody they knew. In such a case, he would be outright stupid NOT to come forward.

So you see, Caz, much as it is easy to speak of nonsense, the peril is that you concoct that exact product yourself. Like now.

Also, it makes no sense to argue that a Mr Nobody invention would have carried no risk, while a Flash Harry invention would have been a 'very obvious' risk, when you yourself believe there was a man of exactly the latter description chatting up Kelly the previous night and going back to her room! Think about it. If Hutch didn't see the man, why would there be no risk in claiming he looked like a Mr Nobody, when Flash Harry could have come forward to protest his innocence (yeah, right) and shown himself to be anything but Mr Nobody? It's the same risk either way, but I don't agree it would have been much of a risk at all, since no man would have been daft enough to volunteer the information that he had invited himself into Kelly's bedroom that night.

Read again - I said IF THE TOFF WAS AN INVENTION.That was what I postulated.

All the best,
Fisherman