Lechmere validity

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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]

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.

[APerno]

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

[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

[drstrange169]

>>""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".<<

As Gut has already explained he IS correct.

The fact that Christer appears not to understand that Gut is right is puzzling, so looked for what Christer defines as "inconsistent" with innocence and I found it in post #357,

"... it was not and could never be consistent with innocence to disagree with a PC the way Lechmere did." (My emphasis)

So apparently, by Christer's definition, anybody who disagrees with the police force cannot be considered innocent!?!

One wonders if he walked through some African American neighbourhoods telling people this, how he would fare?

Police perjury is so significant a problem, that the police themselves have given it a name, "Testilying". You can read about it here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_perjury

Police accused John Piser of being jtr, should we now consider the case closed?

Rather than admit Gut is correct, this is the level Christer has chosen to argue his case at.



>>So it is not as if you "have only ever said" that the disagreement "isn´t inconsistent" with innocence.<<

A boy named Liam Allen was recently accused and prosecuted for rape (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8184916.html).
After it was found out the police had withheld vital evidence that proved his innocence the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service publicly apologised to Allen.

Question for Christer (that he will not answer I'm betting), was Allen's denial of the rape charge ever not consistent with his innocence?



>>... 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.<<

I am not "claiming" anything. I am pointing out the evidence of your lack of honesty in this thread.

I have never written that it was "proven that Mizen lied". I have challenged Christer cite were I made that claim to which Christer acknowledged that that his statement is untrue (post# 359) and yet he still continues to write it.

How then should we judge the honesty of a someone who knowingly continues to write things they have publicly acknowledged to be untrue?



>>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 don't believe anybody can question your lack of ethics in my previous point.

And, sadly, it is not the only example of this sort of behaviour by Christer. As always, when it's called out he becomes abusive as can be verified by simply reading Christer initiating personal abuse from post# 284 onward though this thread.

These are not semantic arguments, these are facts that can be verified.



>>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.<<

We do indeed know why, because you are in the wrong and you don't have the intestinal fortitude to face up to and own your behaviour.

[harry]

All well and good Jeff,but isn't it a fact that the majority of posters on this thread,submit posts explaining why Cross should not be considered a suspect,and if he is not considered as such,why label him so. Because that has always been the case,appears to me,a weak argument.

[drstrange169]

>>Can we take it then,that Cross is not a suspect...<<

He is a person of interest.

It is possible for him to be the killer Mrs. Nichols, but the available evidence we have at our disposal supports his story.

[drstrange169]

>>All well and good Jeff,but isn't it a fact that the majority of posters on this thread,submit posts explaining why Cross should not be considered a suspect ... <<

No, that's the propaganda Christer pushes out. Most posters believe that some of the evidence put forward about his guilt is of poor quality. He still is, and will always, I suspect, remain a person of interest.

[Harry D]

It's definitely an enticing prospect: The first witness in the first canonical murder was the killer all along! And I think researchers like Christer Holmgren and Edward Stow have done a commendable job of bolstering the case against Lechmere with the little they have. However, to push Lechmere as the Ripper suspect par excellence, nevermind calling it case closed, requires a serious amount of evidence. Christer would argue a man found alone with a freshly killed victim for an indeterminate period of time, whose evidence contradicted the police fits the bill, but that is not enough to establish guilt. Two carmen came into contact with the body in quick succession. there was nothing unusual about Lechmere's proximity to the body, quite the opposite. In fact, Paul was not even aware of the victim until the supposed killer went out of his way to alert him to this. Although Christer argues that this is typical behaviour for a psychopathic serial killer, he hasn't provided any examples to support it, apart from his go-to Jeffrey Dahmer. Dahmer's circumstances were not the same. Dahmer's victim was ALIVE and WITH the police. He had to think fast in that situation otherwise the game was up. He might have relied on his psychosis to bluff the situation out, along with police incompetence, but in this scenario Dahmer acted more out of necessity and self-preservation than for the thrill of it.

We should also not assume that Lechmere lied to PC Mizen, because that is not factual, and only a Lechmerian would believe so. It's possible Lechmere lied for some reason, be it because was the murderer or because he didn't want any further hold-up on his way to work, it could be that PC Mizen lied to save face for his lack of urgency, or it was a simple misunderstanding.

[Patrick S]

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.

This is my thinking, as well, Harry. This is the reason I always use "suspect" and/or "candidate" in quotations unless the person in question was, in fact, considered a suspect by the police in 1888 or shortly thereafter. Alas, my rules are not "the rules".. by any stretch of the imagination... and virtually anyone can be a "suspect" when it comes to "Jack the Ripper", "Ripperology", etc. So, I understand and accept that we have people like Lewis Carroll, Walter Sickert, Prince Albert Victor, Dr. John Williams, etc. I do not consider Cross to be among this - in my view - "bottom rung" of "celebrity" candidates. For me he's just above, among the group of witnesses or ancillary characters that are suggested as having been Jack the Ripper. I do view him as among the weakest of the "witnesses turned suspects" that have been proposed over the years. I don't consider Barnett, Hutchinson, John Richardson, or Mulshaw, who you mentioned, or even Mann, to be excellent or likely "suspects", but I do consider them of better quality than Cross.

I view Cross as someone who warranted investigation. Of course, we do not know to what extent he was investigated by the police at the time. But, at least in my view, there's been nothing found in more contemporary investigations of him that suggests he was anything more than what we've always thought him to be. In my opinion, investigation of the facts of the case, and of his life, serve more to lead one away from the idea of him as "The Ripper". Of course, if we subscribe to Christer's theory we must bring a BELIEF that he was Jack the Ripper with us. As well, we must bring a supposition that he was a psychopath, otherwise his actions in the Nichols' matter seem consistent with his NOT having been her killer. Thus we're led to this "bluffing" and "scamming" which, to me, seems so utterly silly. And THEN we're asked to believe certain things about the actions and character of OTHERS involved, otherwise - even if we suspect Cross of being a killer a psychopath - it all falls apart. Paul must be dishonest (except when it comes to his "exact" time as his honesty is essential here), anti-police and "big-upping". Mizen must be honest and correct (except when it comes to HIS time because that MUST be an honest mistake as THAT'S essential, as well)... and down the rabbit hole we go. We must fill in ALL the blanks in JUST THE RIGHT WAYS... to fit Cross up as Jack the Ripper. And we must even make him the Torso Killer, and responsible for other murders of limited renown... otherwise we're left to wonder why so successful a killer who lived to be 71... simply stopped in 1888.