Lechmere validity

[JeffHamm]

Should Cross be considered a suspect simply because Fisherman describes him as such? Was Cross a suspect in 1888?.Suspect implies guilt.Now I have no argument with Fisherman useing the term.He(Fisherman) states his is a theory,not an actuality.In other words if a number cicumstances could be proven to be true,Cross could be considered suspect.He is correct.I,on the other hand,do not believe the circumstances have or can been proven to be of a guilty nature,so I would not use the word suspect.Simple as that.
I have suspicions of Patrick Mulshaw,a witness in the Nichols Murder.Do I claim he should be a suspect.I do not.However,should the necessary evidence surface to prove those suspicions,that would change.

Hi,

Personally, for what it's worth, I would rather we didn't propagate this discussion of definitions from the Druitt thread to every suspect-based thread. Basically, if one doesn't like the word suspect because they don't feel the person is guilty (in which case the term would be perpetrator, or "the offender", since once proven guilty they are no longer a suspect but the offender) then use whatever term you like. Just be aware that others will use the term suspect as it is used in the context of JtR discussions, which is basically the word used to indicate you're talking about a person with the focus of the discussion being whether or not that person was JtR. In the context of a JtR discussion, there are times when individuals seem plucked out of thin air (i.e. Lewis Carrol, for example), but that is how the word is used among those who discuss the case. If you wish to convey some level of "likely to be guilty", then that can be done either directly (i.e. I think Lewis Carrol as a suspect is about as likely to be guilty as Queen Victoria). Language is used to convey ideas, and individual words can be used to convey different concepts in different contexts. If we reserved the word suspect only for those against which there is clear evidence suggesting guilt, then it would simply never be used. Therefore, suspect as a word must be dropped (not going to happen) or it must be understood to mean something other than certainty of guilt, which it does in the context of JtR discussions. It just means "the person being discussed as a potential identity for JtR - it indicates who is being suspected devoid of an indication of how well founded those suspicions may be.

- Jeff

[APerno]

Actually what The Fisherman has is a hypothesis, not a theory. But I'm just being a diction dick so ignore me.

[harry]

Should Cross be considered a suspect simply because Fisherman describes him as such? Was Cross a suspect in 1888?.Suspect implies guilt.Now I have no argument with Fisherman useing the term.He(Fisherman) states his is a theory,not an actuality.In other words if a number cicumstances could be proven to be true,Cross could be considered suspect.He is correct.I,on the other hand,do not believe the circumstances have or can been proven to be of a guilty nature,so I would not use the word suspect.Simple as that.
I have suspicions of Patrick Mulshaw,a witness in the Nichols Murder.Do I claim he should be a suspect.I do not.However,should the necessary evidence surface to prove those suspicions,that would change.

[Abby Normal]

The Ripper knew better than to be found at the scene of the crime. He was, for all intents and purposes, a phantom.

phantom like. ; )

[Harry D]

The Ripper knew better than to be found at the scene of the crime. He was, for all intents and purposes, a phantom.

[Abby Normal]

On this thread it has (among other things) been stated that:

- the theory about how the carman may have lied to Mizen is something that I have personally "made up". (Patrick S)

- experts in a documentary will always adjust to what the ones presenting a theory in that documentary claims or suggests. (same source)

- when a theory involves layers of speculation, that promotes/invites dishonesty. (Steve)

- disagreeing with a PC the way Lechmere did is consistent with innocence. (Gut)

- it is a proven thing that Jonas Mizen was either a liar or a misleader. (Dr Strange)

The reason I mention this is because I intend to avoid debating with people who express these kinds of things in the future. Not because they need no correction but because correcting them is a waste of time.

This is not to say that I am not going to partake in the debate forthwith. I will, arguably beginning with the upcoming book by Drew Gray, since it makes a case I believe must be made - the one of a common originator in the two murder series of the Ripper and the Torso killer. I bank upon how many debaters of an entirely different ilk than the ones mentioned above will participate, mainly because no other issue at hand has such an importance for our overall understanding of the events in victorian London.

I hope Mr Gray is anticipating that it will be claimed that his theory is something he quite simply has made up, and that whatever experts he may or may not have employed are of no interest at all since they will all have been told to agree with himself about whatever he may say in the book. Equally, I hope he is prepared for having his honesty questioned if he presents a thinking that involved more than one layer of speculation, that it will be claimed that whatever detail he chooses to point to that cannot be conclusively proven to point to guilt will instead be described out here as being "consistent with innocence" and that he is prepared for having it claimed that those he believe are the good guys of the drama will all be pointed out was liars and/or misleaders if they have - accidentally, unimportantly or not - left something out of their respective testimonies.

My prediction is that he is not likely to become a frequent poster on these boards. The fewest are, when it comes to Charles Lechmere. It is as if those who do not produce the kind of breakthrough thinking elucidated above avoid the company offered on many - or most - of the Lechmere threads.

Myself, I will not avoid the threads. Whenever I find it of importance to parttake, I will. But I will be choosy when it comes to who I find it worthwhile discussing with. My favorite opponents would be those who disagree with me and who are able to intelligibly express logically based criticism in a friendly manner.

I look forward to that.

fish does gray name lech in his book as the torsoripper?

[Patrick S]

Can we take it then,that Cross is not a suspect,there is no evidence to substanciate it.What is he then? This is the 464th post,surley his status should be known.

He's a suspect. That's unfortunately not a high bar. I think the issue is that, when considering the facts as they are - he's clearly not a good suspect. On the other hand, being a suspect isn't enough for Christer and Ed "Stow". He must be the BEST suspect. The suspect with an 85% chance of having been Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, et al. The suspect above all other suspects. And.... of course... he's not that. Not close. Not remotely.

[Patrick S]

On this thread it has (among other things) been stated that:

- the theory about how the carman may have lied to Mizen is something that I have personally "made up". (Patrick S)

You've assembled, created, imagined, built... made up this Mizen Scam by nonsensically interpreting information in ways that strain... no... shatter credulity in ways that might lead one to believe, or at least hope, that you're not entirely serious about it.

- experts in a documentary will always adjust to what the ones presenting a theory in that documentary claims or suggests. (same source)

You're either confused, or making something else up here. You yourself claimed that only a fool would believe that these experts would be recruited to present an alternative view in a documentary that - again, you're words - is inherently "one-sided" and designed to "present Lechmere as the killer". I have pointed out - repeatedly - that Griffiths DOES, in fact, disagree with you in the he states Cross could not have simply walked (or run) from Buck's Row do to the police presence that night and because Paul was in Buck's Row. I find it ironic, if not flat-out hilarious, that you'd write this in post lamenting the unfairness in accusing you of dishonesty.

- when a theory involves layers of speculation, that promotes/invites dishonesty. (Steve)

- disagreeing with a PC the way Lechmere did is consistent with innocence. (Gut)

- it is a proven thing that Jonas Mizen was either a liar or a misleader. (Dr Strange)

The reason I mention this is because I intend to avoid debating with people who express these kinds of things in the future. Not because they need no correction but because correcting them is a waste of time.

I would suggest that the reason you'll avoid debating is because your positions have become indefensible. This thread - especially over the past few weeks - has, to put it mildly, done your theories and scams, bluffs, and big-ups, no favors. Of course, you fully realize this or we'd be spared "woe is me" posts like this one.

This is not to say that I am not going to partake in the debate forthwith. I will, arguably beginning with the upcoming book by Drew Gray, since it makes a case I believe must be made - the one of a common originator in the two murder series of the Ripper and the Torso killer. I bank upon how many debaters of an entirely different ilk than the ones mentioned above will participate, mainly because no other issue at hand has such an importance for our overall understanding of the events in victorian London.

I hope Mr Gray is anticipating that it will be claimed that his theory is something he quite simply has made up, and that whatever experts he may or may not have employed are of no interest at all since they will all have been told to agree with himself about whatever he may say in the book. Equally, I hope he is prepared for having his honesty questioned if he presents a thinking that involved more than one layer of speculation, that it will be claimed that whatever detail he chooses to point to that cannot be conclusively proven to point to guilt will instead be described out here as being "consistent with innocence" and that he is prepared for having it claimed that those he believe are the good guys of the drama will all be pointed out was liars and/or misleaders if they have - accidentally, unimportantly or not - left something out of their respective testimonies.

If what he presents is based on some even tenuous connections to plausibility rather than, well, something like what you've, ah, "proposed"... then it would be "indecent" to say that he made it up. Also, if he's a nice enough guy who treats people with respect... I personally would never dream of using language that may upset the man. It's common courtesy.

My prediction is that he is not likely to become a frequent poster on these boards. The fewest are, when it comes to Charles Lechmere. It is as if those who do not produce the kind of breakthrough thinking elucidated above avoid the company offered on many - or most - of the Lechmere threads.

Myself, I will not avoid the threads. Whenever I find it of importance to parttake, I will. But I will be choosy when it comes to who I find it worthwhile discussing with. My favorite opponents would be those who disagree with me and who are able to intelligibly express logically based criticism in a friendly manner.

I look forward to that.

In my experience there's a common thread connecting those who consistently bemoan that they're not respected as others are, not treated with courtesy. They're always comparing themselves to others and asking, "Why am I treated so horribly when "so-and-so" is treated with respect! It's not fair!" Of course the common thread is that they themselves treat other disrespectfully and without even common courtesy. They're insolent, condescending, arrogant, and mean spirited... and utterly confused as to why they're not respected and beloved as they so wish to be.

Speaking only for myself, I treat people with respect and courtesy until they consistently demonstrate an incapacity for either. And then I treat them as they treat others.

[Harry D]

Of course, I should have said, "cart before horse". Getting my idiom mixed up! For the record, Christer, we often disagree but I don't think you're dishonest. Passions are clearly running high on this thread, but any suggestion to the contrary are clearly unfortunate.

Every single suspect-based theorist is guilty of confirmation bias to some degree. We all favour information that supports our own conclusions. That's just human nature. Let's also not pretend that ripperology isn't egocentric either. Some theorists appear to take it quite personally when their chosen suspect is pooh-poohed.

[JeffHamm]

Can we take it then,that Cross is not a suspect,there is no evidence to substanciate it.What is he then? This is the 464th post,surley his status should be known.

Well, that opens up a can of worms. In the field of JtR, Cross will be listed as a suspect because he is "suspected and put forward by someone", this is not the way the term is used by police of course, but we're in a different context here (I mean really, some still consider Lewis Carroll viable and Cross/Lechmere is at least better than that). Also, the focus on Cross/Lechmere has been very productive, it has led to some very worthwhile focus on the evidence that we do have, and it has been discussed, sometimes heatedly, from just about every angle. On the whole, the evidence does not support any suspicion against him, and is far more easily understood from the hypothesis of his innocence than from the hypothesis of his guilt, and so the result of the research into him indicates that he's best seen as extremely improbable. Given that other murders occurred at a time when he should have been at work (i.e. Chapman was probably murdered around 5:30 am; some evidence to suggest Kelly was murdered around 4:00 am; and Cross/Lechmere had to be at work by 4:00 am), if evidence of him being at work were to be uncovered at either of those murders then he could be considered exonerated (provided one believes Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly were all murdered by the same person - if so, cleared for one, cleared for all). At the moment, though, while all the evidence is strongly in favor of his innocence, there is nothing that makes it absolutely impossible (impossible requires proof that he was elsewhere at the time or proof of someone else's guilt, and we don't have either - maybe he wasn't at work when Chapman was killed, for example? we don't know, or I should say, I don't know).

For those who wish to use the suspect in the way that police would use the term, then no, I don't think from the evidence available they would consider him a suspect. I think, though, he would have been looked into given the circumstances, and his whereabouts determined. As the series progressed, there would be more opportunity for him to clear his name (as Pizer was able to); unless, of course, one ascribes to the "the murders were all separate, and not linked" line of thought. Cross/Lechmere would probably be seen as someone whom the police would look into in order to prove that line of investigation was closed (as if they don't close off all avenues, if things go to trial that's a line open to the defense - "but person x was never looked into and what if ...").

- Jeff

[harry]

Can we take it then,that Cross is not a suspect,there is no evidence to substanciate it.What is he then? This is the 464th post,surley his status should be known.

[Elamarna]

"Correcting"? What you said, and it is on print in post 229 on this thread, is "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

So it is not as if you "have only ever said" that the disagreement "isn´t inconsistent" with innocence. Is it, Gut? Maybe that was what you meant to say, but it seems that something stood in the way of it coming out correctly.

I think this post is an appropriate send-off to you and the ones with whom you take side on a reoccurring basis, like for example Dr Strange, who in his post comments on this matter like this: "Gut wrote, "I didn’t say it was a good indicator of innocence, I said it was consistent with innocence". And therein lies the problem, you alter what people write.

Of course, being consistent with innocence means being in line with innocence, and therefore the expression as such is normally used to point to how innocence is suggested. Now, Dr Strange wants to claim that I am tampering with the truth for pointing that out, while he has no problems at all claiming that it is proven that Jonas Mizen either lied or misled the inquest. One has to ask oneself how he can put these two things together and add it up to a reason to say that I am the one making factually questionable statements...

I really could not have hoped for a more clear example of what is going on and who are the ones altering what has been said and/or written.

This, Gut, is the precise reason why I am by and large bowing out of any further discussion with the knee-jerk naysayers in this case - because of the combination of posting factually questionable material, followed up by a subsequent refusal to admit to having done so.

It will be nice not to engage with you gentlemen in the future other than when I choose to. I have made my point and you have helped me prove it, and that will have to suffice for me. I have little doubt that more of the same will be presented along the exact same lines, but I have chosen to let it go uncommented by me to as large as degree as I find possible. Life is too short to spend it on such matters. I look forward to discussing with other posters, less set on inflaming and more on debating factually.

Before you pass comment on this post, please read again: "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

Now that I leave this discussion, let me take the opportunity to say that I don´t regard you personally as the worst culprit in the misrepresentation business, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are others who have made much more far-reaching efforts in that department. I actually think you have quite a few interesting and worthwhile things to say every now and then. I only used your post because it tells us that regardless of that, it always comes with a risk to say things like this - and not admitting to it in retrospect only make things worse.

Whatever comment you may choose to make about all of this, you - and not least Dr Strange - will find that it goes unanswered by me. Now you know why.

Comments which do not agree with your viewpoint, will go unanswered one suspects because you are aware of the many faults in the theory, which can no longer be answered to indicate Lechmere as the killer convincingly.


Steve

[Kattrup]

Before you pass comment on this post, please read again: "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".

It’s perfectly true and straightforward:

Charles Cross was an innocent witness and every bit of evidence we have regarding him is consistent with him being innocent.

I’m not sure why you find the statement so shocking or damning?

[Elamarna]

On this thread it has (among other things) been stated that:

- the theory about how the carman may have lied to Mizen is something that I have personally "made up". (Patrick S)

- experts in a documentary will always adjust to what the ones presenting a theory in that documentary claims or suggests. (same source)

- when a theory involves layers of speculation, that promotes/invites dishonesty. (Steve)

- disagreeing with a PC the way Lechmere did is consistent with innocence. (Gut)

- it is a proven thing that Jonas Mizen was either a liar or a misleader. (Dr Strange)

The reason I mention this is because I intend to avoid debating with people who express these kinds of things in the future. Not because they need no correction but because correcting them is a waste of time.



This is not to say that I am not going to partake in the debate forthwith. I will, arguably beginning with the upcoming book by Drew Gray, since it makes a case I believe must be made - the one of a common originator in the two murder series of the Ripper and the Torso killer. I bank upon how many debaters of an entirely different ilk than the ones mentioned above will participate, mainly because no other issue at hand has such an importance for our overall understanding of the events in victorian London.

I hope Mr Gray is anticipating that it will be claimed that his theory is something he quite simply has made up, and that whatever experts he may or may not have employed are of no interest at all since they will all have been told to agree with himself about whatever he may say in the book. Equally, I hope he is prepared for having his honesty questioned if he presents a thinking that involved more than one layer of speculation, that it will be claimed that whatever detail he chooses to point to that cannot be conclusively proven to point to guilt will instead be described out here as being "consistent with innocence" and that he is prepared for having it claimed that those he believe are the good guys of the drama will all be pointed out was liars and/or misleaders if they have - accidentally, unimportantly or not - left something out of their respective testimonies.

Drew's work, of which he is only part author, will be treated with whatever respect its contents demand of it.
it is not being prejudged and the arguments for a common killer are awaited with anticipation.

What you continually fail to grasp, be it because you cannot or will not, is that the arguments put forward regarding Lechmere as presented by yourself are NOT personal.

My prediction is that he is not likely to become a frequent poster on these boards. The fewest are, when it comes to Charles Lechmere. It is as if those who do not produce the kind of breakthrough thinking elucidated above avoid the company offered on many - or most - of the Lechmere threads.

Why should he be commenting on Lechmere, I gather that is not the name in his work, I could be wrong of course.

Myself, I will not avoid the threads. Whenever I find it of importance to parttake, I will. But I will be choosy when it comes to who I find it worthwhile discussing with. My favorite opponents would be those who disagree with me and who are able to intelligibly express logically based criticism in a friendly manner.

I look forward to that.

Oh. dear, portraying oneself as the victim yet again!!


Steve

[GUT]

Fish said

Now that I leave this discussion, let me take the opportunity to say that I don´t regard you personally as the worst culprit in the misrepresentation business, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are others who have made much more far-reaching efforts in that department. I actually think you have quite a few interesting and worthwhile things to say every now and then. I only used your post because it tells us that regardless of that, it always comes with a risk to say things like this - and not admitting to it in retrospect only make things worse.

no ants a title you holll to resell when you chanecosistent with innocence to a good indicator of innocence