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

[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, I´d 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. It´s a short warmt to pee in your pants, as we say over here.

We need to weigh in more than the simple "He´d 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 Miller´s Court? You said it - from the pub!
What is a pub? It´s 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

[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 don´t 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 wasn´t.

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

[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.

[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]

The pipe seems to have been retrieved from Filbert Street.

[Robert]

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

[Lechmere]

That's illogical.

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

[Robert]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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!

[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

[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]

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