Criteria for plausibility

[Bridewell]

Missed Opportunity

I am sure that whoever did it, he went out on that night with murder on his mind. I am equally sure that whoever did it, he did not kill every time he went out with murder on his mind as for a host of reasons opportunity will not have presented itself.

Hi Lechmere,

That's likely I think. It would provide a possible explanation for the week-ends, during the relevant period, when no murders took place.

It throws doubt on the Double Event as the work of one killer though, perhaps. If he could refrain from killing when circumstances made it diffiicult, would he not have given up for the night when the Stride murder didn't go according to plan?

Regards, Bridewell

[Garry Wroe]

Garry, you are much too clever for me! Listing them quotes really point to me being of the meaning that Lechmere was the killer, I have to give you that!

I did nothing more than present your own words, Fish. Hopefully the penny will drop and you’ll understand why some are less than impressed by the inconsistency of your arguments.

And what a fascinating discussion it makes for - Iīm sure that all and sundry are very happy to have me dissected instead of engaging in Ripperology!

You are not being ‘dissected’, Fish. Your arguments are. That’s what comes of making blatantly conflicting statements.

A wide variety of people have done the exact same thing that I do. They have investigated a suspect, and come to the conclusion that their man would probably have been the Ripper.

Then present some real evidence rather than the convoluted logic you are passing off as evidence.

I canīt help but feel that you are after me personally here. Tom Wescott hinted earlier at the possibility that some people seem to prefer attacking the theorist instead of the theory. I realize what he means.

Tom also stated, Fish, that my responses were based purely on the evidence. Playing the victim is all well and good, but it’s a bit rich coming from someone who has made a career out of bullying and bulldozing other posters.

If you want to discuss the case, fine. If you have useful criticism, so much the better - it will advance our knowledge and insights.

I’ve learned from long and bitter experience, Fish, that discussion with someone who only hears what he wants to hear is utterly futile.

Finally, letīs not leave you in any doubt: I think that Charles Allen Lechmere killed Polly Nichols in the early morning hours of the 31:st of August 1888, and lied his way out of the situation. When/if you read my upcoming dissertation, you will have me stating that I think that Lechmere is the best bid by far for the Ripperīs role, you will have me suggesting that we (well) may finally have run the killer to the ground, and you will have me saying more or less outright that what we are left with after a thorough investigation of Lechmere is the Ripper.

And I wish you every success. My fear, however, is that your analytical blindsight will lead you to formulate a set of conclusions that will be rejected by almost everyone else. My advice is that you drop the grandiose claims and concentrate on presenting a noncommittal case. It may save you a great deal of embarrassment in the long-run.

[Tom_Wescott]

I am sure that whoever did it, he went out on that night with murder on his mind. I am equally sure that whoever did it, he did not kill every time he went out with murder on his mind as for a host of reasons opportunity will not have presented itself.

It's hard not to agree with that.

It throws doubt on the Double Event as the work of one killer though.

No it doesn't.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"I did nothing more than present your own words, Fish. Hopefully the penny will drop and you’ll understand why some are less than impressed by the inconsistency of your arguments."

Nah, Garry - Iīm probably a lost case when it comes to adjusting to your penny-dropping. But I have high hopes that a guinea or two may drop on your behalf in days to come!

"You are not being ‘dissected’, Fish. Your arguments are."

Aha - like when you wrote that you always work from the assumption that Iīm wrong? Whooops, Garry ...

"Then present some real evidence rather than the convoluted logic you are passing off as evidence."

Havenīt you heard? Itīs in Ripperologist, so you shall have to wait. And I donīt have any real hope that YOU will see the value of my theory. I hope for others to make that judgment. Thatīs what comes from stating that you always expect me to be wrong.

"Playing the victim is all well and good, but it’s a bit rich coming from someone who has made a career out of bullying and bulldozing other posters."

Oh, I would not say that youīve made a carreer out of it. Sure, you have claimed that you always expect me to be wrong, but that was mostly frustration, I believe. And yes, you have made ridiculous suggestions about why I am not at liberty to regard Stride as a potential Ripper victim, but we all make bad calls every now and then. Likewise when you implied that I only favour sources that support my own thinking - it was not a nice thing to do, but I donīt mind much; I was none too surprised by it. Your reoccurring nagging about how I am "inconsistent" could of course be regarded as bullying too, I guess, but I digress...
No, Garry, you are no much worse than other posters Iīve come across in this respect. Donīt blame yourself.

"I’ve learned from long and bitter experience, Fish, that discussion with someone who only hears what he wants to hear is utterly futile."

Ah - something to agree about! Very well put!

"And I wish you every success."

Well, clearly - I read that between the lines. Thank you!

" My advice is that you drop the grandiose claims and concentrate on presenting a noncommittal case"

Once again thanks! But as far as I can tell, you have not even seen my article yet. Donīt you think it is a tad premature to start laughing already?

Garry, in spite of your misgivings, I know very well myself what the implications and values of my article is. I have a pretty good idea about the objections that will be raised against it. I know itīs strengths and itīs weaknesses fairly well. And I fail to see how I could have made any "grandiose" claims, since I - over and over - have pointed out that I present MY take on things only, and whatever "claims" that are met by it, I myself am the one making the judgments and assessments.
I have yet to see a theory where everybody comes up with the same judgment; some will say "of course" while others will say "not a chance". It happened last time over when I wrote a dissertation about Hutchinson and his absence on Dorset Street on the Kelly murder night. The Hutchinsonians - if you donīt mind - came out as one man and said it was drivel, whereas Tom Wescott stated that it was a piece worthy of the Jeremy Beadle award, and Lynn Cates said that it was the simplest and best solution and that it worked for him.

Under circumstances like that, who should I listen to? The ones who claim that I did a really good job, or a seemingly very bitter man who claims that I am making grandiose claims? Figure that out if you can, Garry. As far as Iīm concerned, you have burnt your ships when it comes to making an unbiased judgment of my article, so I have made my call on that issue.

I wish it had been the other way around, since I would really like to get a fair judgment from anybody, you included, that have useful insights into the case. As far as I can tell, that wonīt happen, though. The only embarrasment I see headed our way relates to that problem.

Incidentally, before Tom Wescott came out and told me that my Hutchinson article was something he appreciated very much, he and I were locked in combat for the longest time. The last thing I can remember him saying to me before the Hutchinson article was that he wanted to send a chihuahua up my ass. So what he did when he hailed my effort was something I very much appreciated - he proved that he would not let his former notions about me as a person get the better of his judgment. And that is not only a strong thing to do; it is also something that makes him a very good researcher. Just saying. And it is only MY judgment of it all, all served with the hope of not coming across as somebody with grandiose claims.

Lats time over, Garry, you bowed out of the exchange between the two of us. Now I return that favour by stopping posting against you until after my article has been published.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom!

It was not Lechmere that posted the second quotation in your post - it was Bridewell!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

The Bride of Lech?

Hi Fish, you're quite right, and my apologies to both. I knew it was Bridewell so I'm not sure why I wrote Lechmere.

Regarding your method of expressing yourself and your views...I can't speak for everyone, but I must confess I find it very curious that you have managed to become convinced that Cross was the Ripper on so very little circumstancial evidence when the rest of us are still trying to figure out which women were and weren't killed by the same man, etc.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Jack the Ripper. Done one, done 'em all. Fundamental Ripperology.

Accepting for a moment your theory about Nichols, what evidence can you bring to suggest that Cross/Lechmere might have murdered C2, 3, 4 and 5?

A one-line answer will suffice, as the length of posts is all too often in inverse proportion to their logic.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"I can't speak for everyone, but I must confess I find it very curious that you have managed to become convinced that Cross was the Ripper on so very little circumstancial evidence when the rest of us are still trying to figure out which women were and weren't killed by the same man, etc. "

Tom, it is emphatically NOT "very little circumstancial evidence". And I have not become as convinced as I am - however much that is; people seem to have differing views of it, and few seem interested in hearing my own take - on the presented evidence only!
I had a totally jawdropping experience some time back, and thatīs what lies behind my upcoming article in Rip - so there IS more behind my stance.
Letīs just say that I took a look at something that has been looked at before, but from a different angle, and came up with something that - at least in my view (trying desperately to be as un-grandiose as possible here!) has been inexplicably overlooked. And for the life of me, I canīt understand why no other poster have seen the same thing. Itīs so obvious itīs flabbergasting.
Then again, people are flabbergasted by different things, are they not? And we are speaking Ripperology here, so I feel pretty certain that some people will be flabbergasted - without wanting to admit it. Others may perhaps think that there is nothing to my "find", if we are to call it such a pretentious thing. I donīt know. Perhaps somebody will prove my article faulty and useless for some reason I have overlooked myself - anything can happen.

Tom, Simon!

My feeling that Lechmere was the Ripper rests very much on the Nichols case. I cannot place him at the other murder sites per se - but since I think I may know how he did the Nichols deed and got away with it, I simply look at the geographical line-up of the other deeds, and recognize that Lechmere would have moved along paths that took him close to these sites too, as has been stated before. The geography and timing is there, and I donīt believe in a whole set of eviscerating killers roaming the streets of London, only to simultaneously disappear afterwards.

So, Simon: " Done one, done 'em all" applies in my world to a very significant extent. Not totally, though - I leave the door ajar for alternative takes, although I think that at the very least Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, falling prey to somebody who wished to eviscerate, in all reasonability and probability ought to be regarded as victims of the same killer until any useful proof to the contrary surfaces.

I feel convinced that the research into Lechmere - sadly overlooked for way too many years - will increase in years to come, and I firmly believe that it will turn up interesting data, none of which points away from Charles Lechmere. I think the difficulties to find any hard evidence at all linking any of the other suspects specifically to the murders owes to the fact that they did not do it, simple as that - Lechmere did.

There - now I will have Garry all over me like a rash again for holding a belief. Oh, well ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

How can "done one, done 'em all" not apply totally?

The very essence of Jack is that he slayed C1 to C5.

Surely this must be true. The top cops told us it was true.

Are you, perchance, having your Scandinavian cake but not eating it?

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"How can "done one, done 'em all" not apply totally?"

Maybe I was unclear: I myself THINK that we have one killer only for the 1888 eviscerating deeds - but just as you have no proof that there were multiple killers, I have no proof that there were not. Therefore, I cannot state that there must have been one killer only - I have to settle for saying that I believe so.

"The top cops told us it was true."

I have spent a lot of time on the boards flogging the top cops for negligence in the Nichols investigation, Simon!

"Are you, perchance, having your Scandinavian cake but not eating it?"

Well, on the one hand ...

The best, Simon!
Fisherman

[Sally]

Fisherman

Take no notice of these doubters. I can't wait for your article. I'm looking forward to it immensely.

[Fisherman]

Sally!

Your punch line down below - the Wellesley quotation - hasnīt been spelt correctly. It says "Beng" instead of "Being", and "beng" in colloquial language in the parts where I live means "stupid". Not that you would employ Swedish, I take it, but you may want to fix it anyway.

I hope you will appreciate my article, so thanks for sharing your anticipation!

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

I had a totally jawdropping experience some time back, and thatīs what lies behind my upcoming article in Rip - so there IS more behind my stance.
Letīs just say that I took a look at something that has been looked at before, but from a different angle, and came up with something that - at least in my view (trying desperately to be as un-grandiose as possible here!) has been inexplicably overlooked. And for the life of me, I canīt understand why no other poster have seen the same thing. Itīs so obvious itīs flabbergasting.

Hi Fisherman,

Does your jaw-dropping experience relate to the Nichols murder or to one of the others? Mitre Square perhaps?

Regards, Bridewell

[Lechmere]

Tom
I agree that if the Ripper tended to abort his attacks if things didn't feel right, does not imply that the double event was carried out by different hands.
Psychologically it is one thing to stop before you have started.
It is quite another to stop after you have started - once the blood and adrenalin start flowing.
The idea that two knife murders of similar victims by two different perpertrators took place within walking distance of each other and within a realistically narrow timeframe (i.e. one that neatly allowed the same person to do both) is barely credible.

Simon - if I may...
Evidence for Cross/Lechmere killing the others (with presumptions - naturally):
C2 - on the route he took on the morning of 31st August with Paul. Body found 100 yards or so from where Paul worked. Paul raided soon after. Cross did it to implicate Paul.
C3 - committed earlier than the others on Sunday morning - a non work day. Body found very close to Cross/Lechmere's mother's house, where his daughter also lived. Body found on route home to his own house from his mother's house. He killed her after visiting his mother and second step father and getting in a rage.
C4 - due to unsatisfactory outcome of C3 attack he followed his old route to work (he used to live near the C3 attack as well) to where he knew was a popular stamping ground for prostitutes, and also to a location well away from his home. He left apron and graffiti on his direct route home from C4 site - using chalk borrowed from his school student daughter.
C5 - pretty much on his normal route to work.
Furthermore Tabram and Mackenzie were on his normal route to work. (I'm not a fan of the C5 limitation).
The Pinchin Street Torso was found very near his mother's house at a time when she was possibly engaged in the cat meat business.

Obviously the 'evidence' behind these connections are much weaker than in the C1 instance. However he can be plausibly put at each of these crime scenes. Can any other Ripper suspect be placed at more than one crime scene? Most can't be placed at any!
I rather think that if this were a modern day investigation, given the amount of knowledge we have about each potential suspect, the person who would top the list of people the police would want to talk to would be Cross. It is almost certain that they failed to interview him properly at all in 1888.

[Cogidubnus]

many people would have used aliases in the East End of 1888, I am not opposing that. They would have been around in thousands. What I AM opposing is that it would have been a thing the man and woman on the street normally did.

So there would've been thousands of men and women on the street using aliases...but the man and woman on the street generally wouldn't...I'm sorry...am I the only person seeing a contradiction here?

Fish, you're obviously a great guy (certainly more approachable than some of the allegedly great debaters on here), but with respect you do tend as Gary Wroe suggests, to slant your statements to suit the particular argument you're making at the time...I'm not even necessarily knocking it...we all do it, even subconsciously sometimes...I certainly have...

But you see Christer, being prepared to admit it is a different thing...

All the best

Dave