Criteria for plausibility

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[Jonathan H]

To Barnaby

Primary sources about Ostrog showed that he was not much of a suspect, if one at all. In fact, since he had become fictionalised that this had to be done suggests there was not much to begin with?

We potentially knew this before other primary sources -- eg. the French asylum records -- proved he had an iron-clad alibi.

For example here is Macnaghten, via Sims, from 'Lloyds Weekly, Sept 22nd, 1907:

'The second man [the un-named Ostrog] was a Russian doctor, a man of vile character, who had been in various prisons in his own country and ours. The Russian doctor who at the time of the murders was in Whitechapel, but in hiding as it afterwards transpired, was in the habit of carrying surgical knives about with him. He suffered from a dangerous form of insanity, and when inquiries were afterwards set on foot he was found to be in a criminal lunatic asylum abroad. He was a vile and terrible person, capable of any atrocity.

Both these men [Ostrog and 'Kosminski'] were capable of the Ripper crimes, but there is one thing that makes the case against each of them weak.

They were both alive long after the horrors had ceased, and though both were in an asylum, there had been a considerable time after the cessation of the Ripper crimes during which they were at liberty and passing about among their fellow men.'


Although the story makes several false calims about Ostrog the monster, eg. carrying knives, dangerously insane, and being in hiding in Whitechapel during the murders, nevertheless by the 'awful glut' criteria set up by Mac this Russian doctor is not much of a suspect (we even see the real data being manipulated here: about Ostrog being in an asylum abroad).

Finally and most pertinently there is Mac's 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' of 1914. This was the only document by this police chief about the case under his own name for the public.

It is arguably definitive.

So, what does Mac claim about the un-naned Ostrog in that document?

He had the hyped-up version of his Report, 'Aberconway', at his elbow when Mac wrote that memoir chapter (despite his boasts to be writing entirely from memory having supposedly destroyed all of his papers on the case).

What does Mac claim about this minor suspect in his memoirs?

Nothing.

Ostrog is apparently not worth writing about.

I am therefore challenging the notion that secondary sources ascertained a new notion about Ostrog. Rather, Sudgen finding those asylum records confirmed the implication of Mac's eve-of-the-Great-War memoir -- Michael Ostrog was not a real suspect.

[Fisherman]

Barnaby:

"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."

Bought!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom:

" I also used to like to use these boards as testing grounds for new ideas, but I'm shying away from that more and more, because too many times I've posted a thought or a theory to test it and it's been thrown back in my face time and again as though I had somehow committed myself to it."

You donīt say ...?

"Or else it's been picked up by others and endlessly (and often wildly) discussed and accepted, and because it's a 'cool' idea, it gains ground. The irony is I often find myself then arguing against an idea that was originally mine but that I've abandoned or set aside because it didn't pass muster. "

Yep, that too is a collateral damage risk of bringing your ideas to the boards. But in my case, we have to keep in mind that I have not yet brought my idea here - it is still in the pipeline only.
On the whole, I think that sometimes people are too restrictive about giving fellow Ripperologists a go at what they are contemplating. But I am not opposed to the possibility that you may be right - it would perhaps be wiser not to do so too enthusiastically, since it entails these problems you mention.

"I've no doubt that's true in your case, but I know I've made a few whoppers in my time."

In the best of worlds, we would all be able to present our thoughts on the boards at a very early stage, have them tested, and then move on with the ones who were not revealed to be "whoppers". But we are normally too afraid to do that, are we not? Prestige has a tendency of getting the better of taking advantage of the collective knowledge out here, and that is something we all have reason to regret. Iīm as guilty as anybody else in that respect.

All the best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Barnaby]

Being among the contemporarily suspected candidates adds to the plausibility, generally speaking. The same goes for a subsequent criminal record.

Then again, what happens when we take a look at my favourite suspect, Charles Lechmere? Was he suspected at the time? No. Do we know of a criminal record on his behalf after 1888? No.

But we DO know that he can be geographically tied to the murder spots in a manner than no other suspect comes even close to.
Fisherman

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.

[Tom_Wescott]

For instance we have the bit in Tomkins's testimony where he mentions women coming to his yard on previous evenings. I am unaware that this detail had been noticed before.

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.

I would say it's not so much a case of reinterpretatings things but more looking closely at what was actually said and not going with what it was assumed had been said. Or picking up on details that were glossed over.
There are many such details that can re-colour our view of the case.
I also feel that the Nichols case in particular has been neglected and deserves much closer study. There is a wealth of detail just waiting to come out when it is examined and it is this detail which tends to incriminate Cross.

I felt the same way about Stride back in 2005 and started on a crusade with her. Nichols used to be completely ignored, but fortunately that's not the case any more. Tabram has been completely ignored. Thanks to researchers/writers like Monty, Sam Flynn, and Gavin Bromley, I feel we have a lot more insight into the Eddowes murder, and Mary Kelly is...oh my goodness...a labyrinth I'm dreading having to make my way through when I reach that chapter in my book. Miller's Court was where everyone was looking while I was plugging away on Berner Street and Lechmere (the poster) was camping out on Buck's Row (no doubt lodging at Essex Warf!).

Is everyone here aware that Buck's Row is derived from Duck's Row which is derived from Ducking Pond Row because they used to persecute witches on that spot by dunking them in a pond that was there? Just an aside that popped back in my mind from reading it eons ago in Ripper Notes magazine in an article written by Bernard Brown.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Wise words Wescott! That makes the words in a row, starting with a w - but more important, I think you are spot on. If you need a clue, I can say that in this particular case, itīs much more a case of not looking than one of it not being there...

I've no doubt that's true in your case, but I know I've made a few whoppers in my time. But I play it safe and ALWAYS have select individuals read over my essays before they're turned in to the editor of whatever journal I'm sending it to. I also used to like to use these boards as testing grounds for new ideas, but I'm shying away from that more and more, because too many times I've posted a thought or a theory to test it and it's been thrown back in my face time and again as though I had somehow committed myself to it. Or else it's been picked up by others and endlessly (and often wildly) discussed and accepted, and because it's a 'cool' idea, it gains ground. The irony is I often find myself then arguing against an idea that was originally mine but that I've abandoned or set aside because it didn't pass muster.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious]

Looking forward to reading it!

Best wishes,
C4 (not to be confused with curious)

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.