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

[Fisherman]

I chip in as I want, when I want.

I'm afraid you will have to deal with that.

I deal with whatever comes my way. Always did, always will.

And nothing ever does from you.

So basically, it´s easy.

By the way, Edward is correct. Search the threads as you may, you won´t find three pertinent questions about Lechmere, posed by you. You will, however, find heaps of other things from your pen.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Because when someone will never, ever get it, continuing to attempt a discussion is the biggest waste of time on the planet.

There's a big difference between the art of persuasion and using a sledge hammer to try to beat someone into submission.

People have a a few choices. They can get frustrated and irritated, or they can realize it's a complete and total waste of time, chuckle about how things never change, and move on to something productive and peaceful.

It's the latter choice for me.

Enjoy your Sunday. :-)

curious

Your first paragraph has a lot going for it.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

...and of course, nobody debates the Lechmere issue.

MAJOR surprise.

Fisherman

[Wickerman]

The hypocrisy one sees in this field is remarkable.
The cases against Druitt, Kosminsky and Tumblety (to name just three) have massive doses of implausible conjecture running through them like the lettering in a stick of Blackpool rock (Skegness if you prefer).
But it is almost regarded as being rude to point this out.

Could it be that you are attempting to attain a level of recognition that simply does not exist?
None of those suspects excel in any way, none can be viewed as 'superior', the best you may achieve is to equal their level - but how far in the future that point may be is hard to determine.

[Monty]

That is simply a lie Christer,

An out and out lie.

Monty

[Fisherman]

That is simply a lie Christer,

An out and out lie.

Monty

Could you be a bit more specific? I have no wish to lie about anybody or anyone. But I need to see what it is you refer to before I can apologize/negate/comment/clarify or whatever my reaction will be.

The post of mine closest to yours chronographically speaking is the one where I say that nobody debates the Lechmere issue. Is that the one you refer to? Or is it something else?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

None of those suspects excel in any way, none can be viewed as 'superior', the best you may achieve is to equal their level.

Hmm, Jon - I would have said that such a thing must depend on the evidence you put behind a theory.

There is of course the old Ripperological rule that no amount of evidence can ever elevate any suspect to the level of the police suspects of 1888 - but I really don´t buy into that. I say the evidence rules!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Fisherman,

Without wishing to fan further flames, you can't seriously be offended at being told to "get rid" of Lechmere (not that you really were) when only a few posts earlier you told me to "dump Hutchinson". You must realise how that sort of thing is bound to invite accusations of double standards.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

Without wishing to fan further flames, you can't seriously be offended at being told to "get rid" of Lechmere (not that you really were) when only a few posts earlier you told me to "dump Hutchinson". You must realise how that sort of thing is bound to invite accusations of double standards.

Much of what I say result in that precise accusation, Ben, and I´m pretty used to it.
However, there is a difference between "acerbic" outbreaks and friendly advice. And that difference comes into play here.

Thanks, by the way, for not wishing to fan further flames!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I’ve gone back over this painfully resurrected thread and what do we actually find?

It started as a discussion about whether or not the culprit could have been a policeman.
I don’t think there is the slightest chance of this being the case and wouldn’t bother to comment on such a thread.
The first sensible post (no offence to the rest) was 50 posts in by Caz, with her evaluation as to whether or not Kelly’s killer knew her or not.
In a follow up – post 53 – she mentioned Hutchinson. Mistake! This led to a discussion about Hutchinson and then Cox.
The thread then went way off topic and turned into a full blown Hutchinson thread, which was confirmed by Ben’s appearance in post 81.
The first reference to Charles Lechmere was by Ben in post 96, in a jibe at Fisherman.
But Fisherman didn’t rise to the bait, so it was back to post after post about that non-Policeman and non-Police suspect Hutchinson.

Then Monty chimed in with an off the off-topic dig at Fisherman with respect to Charles Lechmere.

Fisherman had said:
‘People who know themselves to be innocent will very often come forward.’
Monty evidently believed there was some sort of contradiction here, as Fisherman thinks Charles Lechmere is guilty, yet he came forward.

But Fisherman didn’t say:
‘People who know themselves to be guilty never come forward.’
did he? Which makes Monty’s clever point not very clever.

The pros and cons of Lechmere coming forward – the ‘if guilty’ rationale for him coming forward - is not something I will go into on this thread, yet to claim that Fisherman had been caught out employing double standards is nonsensical.

But nevertheless we then have several posts with Monty persuading himself that he had somehow found Fisherman out, and Fisherman arguing back.

And then what do we find?

A jibe is made at Fisherman for being the equivalent of a ‘Trekkie’ for taking an interest in a Ripper suspect.

Did Fisherman impose his suspect on this thread? No.
Did Fisherman derail this thread with a discussion about his favoured suspect? No. He participated in discussions about Hutchinson but did not initiate them.
Other people kept raising issues relating to Charles Lechmere.

Has Fisherman got a collection of nooses in his own personal ‘Black’ museum? Not that I am aware of.
Does he travel with Victorian paraphernalia such as Bull’s Eye lamps about his person? Not to my best knowledge.
The ‘Trekkie’ comparison is more fit to cling on to its originators.

Was any complaint raised against Hutchinson being discussed at great (some might say tedious) length on this thread? No.
He is after all not a contemporary suspect in an official file.
Yet what do we see?
Silence.

Monty when you state:
‘the Swanson maginalia shouldn't be accepted until proven kosher yet expect others to swallow the use of the name Cross is an act of guilt.
‘Now that's hypocrisy.’

You have mixed two very different things up – that are only connected as both are discussed on this forum and both broadly relate to Jack the Ripper.

I do think that new documents should not be accepted as kosher until they have been rigorously tested. The type of testing depends on their provenance, the type of document the nature of any supporting documents and so on.
I make no apology for this.
There were glaring gaps in the Swanson marginalia’s authentication which I pointed out. This was effectively acknowledged by Adam Wood (although I don’t want to put words into his mouth) who sensibly went to the trouble of closing off some loop holes which has had the effect of authenticating the Marginalia almost (almost) beyond reproach.
This was the outcome of a protracted and ill-tempered discussion which I am sure you recall.
You may have missed this outcome.
I am more than happy that unless I had raised those issues, these loop holes would not have been closed.
In my opinion this is the correct way to proceed with documents. I believe it is correct in such circumstances to be sceptical and probe and probe until there is nothing left to probe.
Your level of credulity may be way lower than mine.

Does this have any application in ‘Suspectology’? Not much. It is a given that much ‘Suspectology’ is based conjecture. Conjecture of that variety is not necessary when establishing the authenticity of items such as the Swanson marginalia.
For the record I try to avoid baseless conjecture and like to have at least some factoids on which to base any theorising – such as suspicions over Chares Lechmere’s use of the name Cross. The ‘case’ isn’t based on the ‘name swap’ however and your repetition of this claim suggests to me that you don’t grasp the nature of the ‘case’ against Charles Lechmere.

Anyway to cut a long story short, your counter claim of hypocrisy crashes to the floor like a discarded briar being kicked down a derelict Filbert Street.

I haven’t suggested that the ‘Ripperological’ establishment are scared. I suspect that their way of thinking operates differently. That they approach the case from a different direction and some show a marked reluctance to be receptive to look at things with a different perspective.
I can see that a suspect who has been there all along in plain view is a challenge to anyone who has been studying the case for a long time. Particularly when books have been written and reputations made with this insignificant guy barely being mentioned.

Also in any field of study it is commonplace for the ‘Old Guard’ to be hostile to whippersnappers with different ideas.

The police-centric approach that you describe is a consequence I think of two factors:
1 The fact that a lot of ex-policemen promote that standpoint (there are obviously exceptions to this rule). It is natural that ex-policemen will tend to put more reliance on the opinions of ex-policemen.
2 A lot of the valuable research that gave us a greater understanding of the facts behind these crimes are primarily and correctly based on what was uncovered by the police investigation.
It is however a flawed extension to give primacy to the ‘police’ suspects, who although they may have been suspected by individual policemen at the time – maybe as their personal ‘favourites’ - were far from being universally accepted by the contemporary police as accepted prime suspects. What has been handed down to us invariably contains glaring errors (eg they died at the wrong time) and they conform to late Victorian stereotypes that sit uncomfortably with present day knowledge.

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!

[Monty]

oop, touched a nerve huh?

Calm down Ed, You haven't the hair to lose.

The thread was waaaaaay off topic before I 'chimed in'.

Monty

[Ben]

I’ve gone back over this painfully resurrected thread and what do we actually find?

We find you "painfully resurrecting" it, Lech!

I'm saddened that you've pinpointed me as the nucleus from which all the thread's evils originated, but I should point out that I only "jibe" when deliberately antagonised, as occurred here. But I'd rather hoped we'd moved on from all that.

Has Fisherman got a collection of nooses in his own personal ‘Black’ museum? Not that I am aware of.
Does he travel with Victorian paraphernalia such as Bull’s Eye lamps about his person? Not to my best knowledge.
The ‘Trekkie’ comparison is more fit to cling on to its originators.

Does that mean you regard researchers who are collectors of Victorian memorabilia as "Trekkie" ripperologists?

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Ben
Fisherman was being accused of imposing his suspect into every discussion.
I merely pointed out that he was not responsible for importing Charles Lechmere into this thread - you mentioned him in passing.
Don't be too sad.

I collect Victorian British militaria - on the quiet - so I wouldn't actually accuse anyone who collected Victorian memorabilia as being a 'Trekkie'.
But it wasn't me that brought the puerile 'Trekked' comment up or who then thought it was such good fun.
It is obviously a bit rich when the 'accusers' are clearly more 'obsessional' about obscure aspects of Victorian crime and punishment than Fisherman, and so they can be regarded more accurately as 'Trekkies'. But people seldom see their own reflection in the mirror.
I was just making that rather obvious observation.

I personally prefer to debate the issues without getting into childish name calling. Also when discussing a rival suspect or debating any issue I prefer to discuss the matter raised by my 'opponent' rather than refer to whatever other theories he or she may hold which may or may not inform their overall viewpoint.
Although sometimes no doubt I sin in this regard.

Monty
I don’t really care whether this thread is off or on topic – as I said it is one of those somewhat flaky topics that doesn’t interest me.
This thread is remarkably illustrative of the hypocrisy that permeates so much of the discussion these days, so I thought it was worthy of comment.

[Robert]

Captain's log supplemental : someone...or some thing...is trying to take over this thread. Spock, I want a full report.

[Lechmere]

That's illogical.

Robert
It's high time you organised one of your smoking parties.