Criteria for plausibility

[Barnaby]

Hi Jonathan,

If secondary sources on Ostrog found data consistent with your theory of the proper interpretation of the primary sources, so much the better for your theory!

Barnaby

[curious4]

Thanks for that. I was tempted to mention it, but am glad that you did.

But I also am looking forward to reading what Fisherman has to say. On this, at least, the two curiouses are in sync.

Hello curious,

Yes, it seems people find it hard to believe there are two of us - and I don't suppose you want to change to C5 lol!

All good wishes,
from the other one,
C4

[curious]

Hello curious,

Yes, it seems people find it hard to believe there are two of us - and I don't suppose you want to change to C5 lol!

All good wishes,
from the other one,
C4

Hi, C4,
I personally think more people should be curious. I suspect they are, just don't want to be confusing. . .

I don't have anything against C5 as a name, but if I change my name I would like it to be "Case Solved" but may not live long enough for that.

Keep on being Curious 4 knowledge!

Best,
curious

P.S. I've always wanted to have a namesake. I hope you're good looking.

[Lechmere]

On Bucks Row - yes Ducking Pond Row was the derivation.
But they then opened a pub on the Brady Street corner called the Roebuck. It was knocked down in 1995. It was a bit of a dump but was still a great shame.
A few years before it was closed, I along with a group of other people, were excluded from the premises. I think the presence of a large group of young fellows looked intimidating although we we not misbehaving! Usualy there would only be the occasional dosser drinking in there.
The pub seems to have been named after the corruption of the street name which is... curious.

[Wade Aznable]

Yes, in fact many years ago it was the subject of a thread on here, and a long discussion occurred regarding Tomkins, the slaughtermen's apparent friendship with the police, and the ensuing graffiti on their door that occurred after suspicion regarding the men made the papers.

Hello Tom,
newbie question (and slightly OT) here: I was aware of most of the above, except for the graffiti on the slaughtermen's door once they were named in the papers - I searched the forum as well (quite quickly, I admit it), but I wasn't able to retrieve anything about it.
Can you tell me something about it, or point me in the right direction?

Thank you in advance,
W

[miss marple]

I think it is very useful to have a more thorough examination of witnesses in the case, and others who were actually at or near the scenes of the murders, rather than wasting time on what appears to be an expanding canon of post impressionist artists.
At the moment Cross appears more plausible than many others, but also he could just have easily been a lawful citizen going about his business.
I think to much is made of the' alias' it is out of context and not an attempt to deceive. he had a right to the name Cross.
Just to remind you of Chris Scott's research, Cross was his stepfather, a policeman, and Cross used his name until he married, when he reverted to his birth name Lechmere. Because of his police connections, he may have said Cross, to be taken more seriously.
I don't sense he was the ripper, because he pulled down Mary Ann's skirt, the ripper shamed his victims by displaying them and pushing the skirts up to the waist.
That gesture suggests respect, towards the dead woman.
Also Cross was on his way to work and the delay in reporting the body would make him late and probably irritated.
Lechme appears to be a respectable family man, unless criminal activity or an irregular life can be proved , the co incidence of being close to the murder scenes is just that.

Miss Marple

[curious4]

Hi, C4,
I personally think more people should be curious. I suspect they are, just don't want to be confusing. . .

I don't have anything against C5 as a name, but if I change my name I would like it to be "Case Solved" but may not live long enough for that.

Keep on being Curious 4 knowledge!

Best,
curious

P.S. I've always wanted to have a namesake. I hope you're good looking.

Hello Curious,

More Miss Marple than Sherlock I`m afraid - but I have my moments!

Best wishes,
C4

[sleekviper]

It probably is just me, but the plausibility for someone such as Cross leaves a question; hasn't he killed out of order? What I mean to say is that if he is nearly caught red handed, I would think that someone such as Kelly, killed indoors, would follow to regain confidence. There would seem to be enough sanity involved with him to discard self preservation, so I would think that either he has killed a whole lot of times before in order to consider that close call a fluke, or Kelly is not his. It would be like going someplace, and the service is just horrid. If it is a regular establishment of habit it can be seen as a fluke, but for the first time visitor it likely is the kiss of death. Just seems that since this is murder, he would need a really high previous body count to continue outside unabated, which then begs to ask if he was that comfortable, why Kelly inside since there would be no fear after nearly being caught with Nichols? On the other hand if he is flustered enough to need to kill Kelly inside, why isn't she after Nichols since that is so close, and there is no gap to feel safe with the passage of time? It would just seem out of order, but as noted, that is just me.

[Bridewell]

Going back to the original point of the thread, I think Fisherman makes a really good point. Being contemporarily suspected might add to the plausibility, but it is far from the only criterion that should be used. After all, many of us believe the police never were close to catching the Ripper.

Personally, I think the hallmark of a good candidate is two-fold. First, there must be some rational reason (contemporary or otherwise) to suspect him. This would exclude suspects like Van Gogh, but this is admittedly subjective. Given that a reason exists to suspect someone, a worthwhile person to investigate is one whom we can at least potentially rule out with further research. Science advances by falsification. That is why the research on Ostrog was so valuable: now we don't have to consider him. To the extent that further research does not rule the suspect out - and in fact raises more suspicions - then, inductively, the candidate grows in strength as a suspect.

Great post, Barnaby. Very well argued. (I've agreed with Fisherman again!).

Regards, Bridewell

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wade,

Following the press building up the slaughtermen as suspects in the murder, graffiti was left on their door to the effect of 'The Murderers are here'. I don't have a source to give you this second, but it was in the papers. I wouldn't put it past Jack to have done it himself!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DRoy]

Not quite sure how to ask this with out being too vague, but if you were to establish general bullet point rules for your own personal opinions on what makes a suspect viable, or even remotely plausible what would they be?

This question is too difficult to answer because the entire case including what is fact and what is fiction...is a “riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma” (Winston Churchill).

Not that it is necessarily the correct method, but personally I try to use Occam's Razor. In it's simplest form it means "the simplest answer is most often correct". This way instead of finding criteria that fits, I can at least filter out those that obviously don't (such as celebrities or suspects who's whereabouts are plainly documented to be elsewhere than London, etc).


ps: Thank you to Admin for giving me the opportunity to post and hopefully contribute something to this mystery. I am also really looking forward to having discussions with all who post here

[Fisherman]

Miss Marple:

"Just to remind you of Chris Scott's research, Cross was his stepfather, a policeman, and Cross used his name until he married, when he reverted to his birth name Lechmere."

I think all we have, Miss Marple, is a census listing signed with the name Charles Cross at the time when Charles was eleven. After that, we have no other signings with this name, and it seems very plausible that the person who did that actual signing was Thomas Cross, Charlesīstepfather.
Surely we cannot take such a thing as any certain sign that Lechmere signed HIMSELF Cross up to his marriage? Is it not true that we have no other signatures on him as "Cross" between the census listing signature and the marriage license ditto? I know of no such thing. Do you?

"I don't sense he was the ripper, because he pulled down Mary Ann's skirt, the ripper shamed his victims by displaying them and pushing the skirts up to the waist."

Who says Lechmere pulled the dress down? It was Paul that did so, and witnessed about it. As for Lechmere, yes I do believe that he made the initial pulling, but that would have been in order to conceal the gashes in Nicholsīs abdomen. He surely did bnot witness about it, at any rate!
And if you put two and two together, Miss Marple, and if we work from the presumption that he actually DID pull the clothes down, then you must realize that the were initially pulled UP instead, "shaming" Nichols as you put it. So that intention would quite possibly have been there - but self-preservation would have prevailed when Lechmere heard Paul approaching. That, at least, is how I see things.

"Lechme appears to be a respectable family man"

He does. And that would have conned the police, the inquest, the press and 124 yers of Ripperology. And this IN SPITE of how often we assert ourselves that the Ripper may well have been a typical nobody, an ordinary man on the surface - and then we scuttle off and look for a madman. You know, there is rather a full measure of irony built into that...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

" (I've agreed with Fisherman again!)."

This is becoming increasingly unsettling ...

Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Welcome

Hi DRoy,

Welcome to Casebook. Dismissing the Impressionists & Post Impressionists in your first post shows great promise. I look forward to reading your input in the future.

Regards, Bridewell.

Bridewell:

" (I've agreed with Fisherman again!)."

This is becoming increasingly unsettling ...

Fisherman

I know. (Actually I think we agree more often than we differ)

[Hunter]

Not that it is necessarily the correct method, but personally I try to use Occam's Razor. In it's simplest form it means "the simplest answer is most often correct". This way instead of finding criteria that fits, I can at least filter out those that obviously don't (such as celebrities or suspects who's whereabouts are plainly documented to be elsewhere than London, etc).

Sound approach, DRoy.

Welcome to the forums.