The Mizen scam

[Monty]

Indeed Sally,

I should have known better than to engage the inmates.

I didn't realise there was a poll. I sense the results didn't bode well for the pro Cross brigade. However, to confirm or dispell my conclusion, can you point me to its direction.

It seems that its not the quality of posts but how many which deems how valid a suspect is, well according to Christer.

Odd as he contracts himself a few posts earlier.

Christer,

You learn something? I'm good but I'm no miracle worker.

You have the inability to see reasoned arguement and the ability to twist, turn and deflect.

Sally is correct, one simple cannot engage with the unreasoned.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"It seems that its not the quality of posts but how many which deems how valid a suspect is, well according to Christer."

Wrong and misleading again. Why do you persist to claim unsubstantiable things like this? The many posts on this thread point to an interest, nothing else. And I have said as much already. The quality of the thread as such is not governed by how many people can be counted on it.

I canīt believe I have to defend myself against accusations like these. And it is even stranger to see it coming from you of all people, Monty. Why do you lower yourself to such things?

And of course, you will not answer my question about which suspects are sound. Me oh my, am I SURPRISED...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Here you go, Monty - the relevant posts:

"And I think that a thousand posts go to show that whatever people think about the relevance of the Lechmere bid, it is nevertheless a proposition that evokes a lot of thoughts and feelings. That alone tells me that there is a need to discuss and assess the material amongst very many out here."

and

"1004 posts and counting. All gone home. No interest at all!"

Now, take the chance to redeem yourself by making one honest effort to answer the question how these passages tell you that I believe that the many posts on this thread determine that Lechmere is a valid bid for the killerīs role.

Please sober up, Monty. Fair criticism is very welcome. Outright misleading is not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

I didn't realise there was a poll. I sense the results didn't bode well for the pro Cross brigade. However, to confirm or dispell my conclusion, can you point me to its direction.

Yep -

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6777

I guess it demonstrates that an argument built on pure conjecture can only ever take us so far, to put it nicely.

Now, fun as it always is to drop in on this thread...

[Abby Normal]

Monty:

"Go and re read my original post Christer. I did not state you were lazy, I stated the Cornwellian approach is."

Donīt be silly, Monty. Hereīs that post:

"You stated there are facts condeming Cross as a murderer. I merely question if they are facts or acts of deception that dress Cross up as the killer.
I am not accusing Cross of murder. This Cornwellian approach of picking a suspect and fitting them up is unproductive and lazy."

Right, then. You say that you donīt accuse Cross of murder, but I do (which is wrong, by the way - more on that later). You furthermore state that doing so amounts to a Cornwellian approach, which is unproductive and lazy. Therefore, by implication, you state that I am the very same.

But sweet Jesus, Monty - speaking about being improductive, surely we can do better things with our time than to quibble over something like this? "I didnīt" "You DID" "No, I didnīt" "Yes, you DID".

As Iīve understood things, you have a desire not to be liked but to make progress. I very much applaud such a stance (although I would have preferred not to be chosen as a target for your efforts not to be liked), and suggest that you return to that purpose.

Finally, I left one thing hanging - you wrote in that initial post that I "stated there are facts condeming Cross as a murderer."
Honestly, Monty, when did I do that?
I have, over and over again, written that there are very many details that potentially speak of guilt on his behalf. I stand by that. Moreover, I have said that if I have to make a choice between guilty or not guilty, then I would opt for guilty. There are just too many bits and pieces pointing to guilt for me not to make that call.
That, though, does not in any way add up to my having stated that there are facts that condemn Lechmere as a murderer. There are no such facts about. There are only indications, circumstancial evidence, nothing more.
To me, that is enough, as it stands. If something surfaces to speak of innocence on behalf of Lechmere, I will weigh that in. I am no more of a manic Lechmereian than that.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish

I have, over and over again, written that there are very many details that potentially speak of guilt on his behalf. I stand by that. Moreover, I have said that if I have to make a choice between guilty or not guilty, then I would opt for guilty.

I found this very interesting. let me ask you this though. if you were on the jury and lech was on trial for the murder of Polly Nichols, knowing all we know now would you say guilty?

Pretend a mans life is really at stake. Pretend that you have Lech's life in your hands. Would you say guilty?

And if that does not make the reality of "guilty" hit home-try this. I do it myself sometimes to see how much I really truly gut level no BS feel about how much I really beleive something. Pretend that there is a loaded gun at your head and the person holding that gun asks you a question and he knows the answer. If you answer correctly he says good job and you go home. If you answer incorrectly you get your brains blown out. He asks:

Did Lech kill Polly Nichols? Whats your answer?


As you may know right now my favorite suspects are Blotchy then Hutch for JtR. The rest are pretty much a distant group. Now when I put myself on the jury or I have the gun to my head and the question is did Hutch kill MK? My answer would be No. Did Blotchy kill MK? I would hesitate, I think he's the best suspect, but I would still say no. If your life depended on it would you still say lech was guilty?

[Monty]

Yep -

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6777

I guess it demonstrates that an argument built on pure conjecture can only ever take us so far, to put it nicely.

Now, fun as it always is to drop in on this thread...

Many thanks Sally,

Interesting results.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"I found this very interesting. let me ask you this though. if you were on the jury and lech was on trial for the murder of Polly Nichols, knowing all we know now would you say guilty?"

Not by any stretch. Such a thing would take that I could prove it beyond reasonable doubt, and that I cannot do. Legally, Iīd be lightyears away from that.

"if that does not make the reality of "guilty" hit home-try this. I do it myself sometimes to see how much I really truly gut level no BS feel about how much I really beleive something. Pretend that there is a loaded gun at your head and the person holding that gun asks you a question and he knows the answer. If you answer correctly he says good job and you go home. If you answer incorrectly you get your brains blown out. He asks:

"Did Lech kill Polly Nichols? Whats your answer?"

And the guy with the gun is not Monty? Good!
Then this is a simple question of what I believe, and not of what I can prove, as I understand it? Then yes, I would say guilty, gun or no gun. Itīs my best guess, quite simply. Of course, giving yes as an answer would have itīs benefits - if I am right, I could spend the rest of my life celebrating, and if I am wrong, I would not have to listen to Sally saying "told you so!".

At the end of the day, Abby, I somehow sense that you believe that there is a risk that I am not being flat out honest about where I stand, but Iīm afraid I am. I genuinely believe that Lechmere was the killer - there are far too many coincidences, peculiarites and lies involved for him not to be. That is MY stance, and I am NOT saying that it involves any proven facts that go to show that I must be right. There, I Monty-secured that one ...

The best, Abby!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Interesting results."

Absolutely. You wonīt find any vote on my behalf there, though. And did you notice that all the options meant that the voter opened up for the possibility that Lechmere was the killer...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

No 'inbuilt negativity', just not the willingness to accept any old crap. The 'old guard' are experienced and know exactly what it takes to build a sound case.
The New Guard will do well to fashion themselves with the facts of the case and leave to evaluate properly.
The Old Guard are leaving this thread well alone, they see it for what it is.

I really didn’t want to get involved in this argument, but I see that with all your talk of amounts of pms being bandied and numbers answering polls whatever, it might be important to stand up and say my piece.

I will lay my cards on the table straight away :

I really admire the people who do the research in Ripperology, and I want to learn the facts of the case, just for the sake of learning and out of a passion for the subject. As such, people like yourself, Monty, are the people that I admire on Casebook. And I have always read your posts with interest.

However, it is difficult to read so much about the case without forming a personal opinion as to who the Ripper may have been. I have already stated on many occasions that I firmly believe that the Ripper was an ordinary working man living in the area at the time.

Does that make me a nutter or a ‘closed mind’ ?

The ‘Old Guard’ may well have done lots of research on poor old Druitt (an innocent man ‘fitted up’ if ever I saw one ), or Kosminski, or Tumblety etc…but they never could place any of those men near a crime scene for the Ripper murders. It is fascinating History…but it doesn’t get any further.
The ‘Old Guard’ may be ‘experienced ‘ but they haven’t actually haven’t built a sound case for anyone. Bob Hinton and Garry Wroe have built a case against Hutchinson -which is the analogue of the case against Cross/Lechmere in many ways –ie lots of conjecture.

Since I am in receptive to the idea of ‘ordinary East End man’ as the killer, and I admire the researchers on Casebook, it was perhaps inevitable that I would end up admiring Lechmere (the poster). He is also a researcher who has greatly contributed to our knowledge on Toppy (very interesting, even if I didn’t find his conclusions convincing enough to be able to say that Toppy was Hutch), and also on our knowledge on Cross/Lechmere (He's probably the person with the most knowledge on this subject –based on solid research).

You obviously place Lechmere (and Fisherman) as the ‘New guard’. But why is that derogatory ? Because they don’t get as many pms as you ? Who would the person be that would pm support for you, yet not declare themselves openly on a forum so leaving themselves open to be contradicted in public –that just seems cowardly to me(it’s nothing to boast about).

I prefer to set out my position clearly. I’m a straightforward person.

I anticipate participating in several Ripper related events next year, and to meet you and as many other people from this forum as possible. I hope very much that you won’t drum me out because I state categorically that I support Lechmere and Fisherman when it comes to their very well based theories on this thread (and if you do cold shoulder me–well so be it).

[Monty]

Ruby,

No, I won't cold shoulder you.

It amuses me that the hypocrasy isn't noted. You cite the fitting up of Druitt yet the same is being done over Cross.

I dislike suspect Ripperology, I think that is abundantly clear , as I do not see what useful purpose it serves, apart from geneology of course. The reason being that to me its flogging a dead horse. We do not have sufficient info to pin the killer down, so what is the point. All it does is bring animosity to the field.

I admire Lechmere also, believe it or not. I have watched him here over the past year or so and find he is an excellent researcher with some refreshing takes on information. I'm not just saying that, and there is not but. He is very good indeed.

However, I'm not a nice man. So don't tell anyone I told you that.

Monty


PS, thank you for the kind words

[Rubyretro]

Ruby,

No, I won't cold shoulder you.

It amuses me that the hypocrasy isn't noted. You cite the fitting up of Druitt yet the same is being done over Cross.

I dislike suspect Ripperology, I think that is abundantly clear , as I do not see what useful purpose it serves, apart from geneology of course. The reason being that to me its flogging a dead horse. We do not have sufficient info to pin the killer down, so what is the point. All it does is bring animosity to the field.

I admire Lechmere also, believe it or not. I have watched him here over the past year or so and find he is an excellent researcher with some refreshing takes on information. I'm not just saying that, and there is not but. He is very good indeed.

However, I'm not a nice man. So don't tell anyone I told you that.

Monty


PS, thank you for the kind words

Thank you, Monty ! -that's a post that made me very happy tonight !

I will just say that that saying that Druitt has been 'fitted up' and Lechmere/Cross is a viable suspect isn't 'hypocrisy' -Druitt can't be tied to a crime scene at all (but he is a very interesting character in his own right ).

I think that it's inevitable that we get 'suspectology' -we are all human and we all have opinions. The more information we get, then the more we start to form opinions. And then when we formulate those opinions and others disagree with them, we naturally want to defend them..

Sadly it too often escalates..

I look forward to meeting you ..

[Fisherman]

Hi Monty!

A comment on your latest post (to Ruby):

"I dislike suspect Ripperology, I think that is abundantly clear , as I do not see what useful purpose it serves, apart from geneology of course. The reason being that to me its flogging a dead horse. We do not have sufficient info to pin the killer down, so what is the point. All it does is bring animosity to the field."

Since you were interested in the Lechmere poll you asked Sally about, you may also be interested in the poll Helena W started, about what the people on this community regard as the most important aspect in Ripperology.

41 per cent answered "to find the identity of the Ripper".

No other choice came even close to that figure.

So, much as you personally dislike suspect Ripperology, it is important to realize that it represents the key driving force behind the gathered work done out here. In that respect, it serves the use of motivating people to press on, if nothing else. And when that happens, more information will inevitably be revealed, which serves to answer your question what the point is - to amass all that can be amassed about the people involved in the Ripper drama.
And though you personally may despair about the chances of it turning up a solution to the riddle as such, it may well bring us CLOSER to the solution, or, at the very least, provide us with more tools to use in our search.

People will disagree about how to use the tools, of course, and in that respect you are correct - it will bring animosity to the field. But animosity exists inbetween researchers of all academic disciplines, exact or unexact. Itīs part of the deal, and sometimes even part of the motivation to move on further.

When it comes to Lechmere, the research that has been done on him by the other Lechmere - the posting kind - has contributed very much to our chances of getting a grip on the man. No matter if the material was dug out as the result of a wish to find the Ripper or as research without that aim, the usefulness remains uncontradictable. And in the end, the more material that has been dug up on the man, the more inevitable it became to recognize that he ticks a lot of boxes that may - MAY - point to guilt.

This is what I am doing, and the reason I have not done so before with much convincement is that no other man - to my mind - has had nearly so much going for him in this respect as Charles Lechmere.

All the best,
Fisherman

[robert newell]

Hi all..Although a lurker, I study the case and sure do respect the knowledge and experience here on these boards. I do not really see the JTR murders in the same way many of the 'old guard' does. That is one killer, 5 (give or take) murders. In this way I don't follow the Cross/Lecemere theory to it's full 'Ripper extent'. I just can not understand why Fisherman and Lechmere (poster) are being almost vilified for the idea of Cross/Lechmere as Nichols' killer. To me, it is a very legitimate proposition.
I wish more people who do not normally post would at least give their opinion on this. Since as good lurkers we do not qualify to vote in a poll. Fisherman and poster Lechmere have presented as much legitimate evidence-conjecture included- as I've seen presented towards any other suspect. IMO. For conjecture is, (whether we like it or not) a large amount of what is practiced here, when the last full measure of 'suspectology' is reached. All the evidence and history that is gathered in the study of this case is to lead to a point where we can apply it with conjecture to naming a suspect.
Anyway, I do not necessarily agree with the theory, but I find the case presented by Fisherman and Lechmere very plausible and presented very well. Still don't understand the hostility.....Robert

[Abby Normal]

Hi all..Although a lurker, I study the case and sure do respect the knowledge and experience here on these boards. I do not really see the JTR murders in the same way many of the 'old guard' does. That is one killer, 5 (give or take) murders. In this way I don't follow the Cross/Lecemere theory to it's full 'Ripper extent'. I just can not understand why Fisherman and Lechmere (poster) are being almost vilified for the idea of Cross/Lechmere as Nichols' killer. To me, it is a very legitimate proposition.
I wish more people who do not normally post would at least give their opinion on this. Since as good lurkers we do not qualify to vote in a poll. Fisherman and poster Lechmere have presented as much legitimate evidence-conjecture included- as I've seen presented towards any other suspect. IMO. For conjecture is, (whether we like it or not) a large amount of what is practiced here, when the last full measure of 'suspectology' is reached. All the evidence and history that is gathered in the study of this case is to lead to a point where we can apply it with conjecture to naming a suspect.
Anyway, I do not necessarily agree with the theory, but I find the case presented by Fisherman and Lechmere very plausible and presented very well. Still don't understand the hostility.....Robert

Welcome! Good post and I totally agree.

[Abby Normal]

Abby:

"I found this very interesting. let me ask you this though. if you were on the jury and lech was on trial for the murder of Polly Nichols, knowing all we know now would you say guilty?"

Not by any stretch. Such a thing would take that I could prove it beyond reasonable doubt, and that I cannot do. Legally, Iīd be lightyears away from that.

"if that does not make the reality of "guilty" hit home-try this. I do it myself sometimes to see how much I really truly gut level no BS feel about how much I really beleive something. Pretend that there is a loaded gun at your head and the person holding that gun asks you a question and he knows the answer. If you answer correctly he says good job and you go home. If you answer incorrectly you get your brains blown out. He asks:

"Did Lech kill Polly Nichols? Whats your answer?"

And the guy with the gun is not Monty? Good!
Then this is a simple question of what I believe, and not of what I can prove, as I understand it? Then yes, I would say guilty, gun or no gun. Itīs my best guess, quite simply. Of course, giving yes as an answer would have itīs benefits - if I am right, I could spend the rest of my life celebrating, and if I am wrong, I would not have to listen to Sally saying "told you so!".

At the end of the day, Abby, I somehow sense that you believe that there is a risk that I am not being flat out honest about where I stand, but Iīm afraid I am. I genuinely believe that Lechmere was the killer - there are far too many coincidences, peculiarites and lies involved for him not to be. That is MY stance, and I am NOT saying that it involves any proven facts that go to show that I must be right. There, I Monty-secured that one ...

The best, Abby!
Fisherman

hi Fish
I absolutely do not question your honesty on how you feel. I just wanted to try and grade your level of personal belief-Just how convinced you are of his guilt. Since you would be willing to bet your life on it, obviously you are convinced he is guilty. I appreciate your honesty.