Jack The Ripper solved?

[Monty]

The confidence is misplaced.

The evidence against your man can be and, in fact, has been, convincingly countered.

It wouldn't get through CPS.

However, we all know this.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Stephen White, Bob Hinton, and Chris Miles have written 'suspect books' on Hutch. Other than the Royal Conspiracy, has any suspect had more suspect books written on him by different authors? Just a thought that occurred to me this morning.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

high class poll

Hello Christer, Neil. My instincts tell me that a poll is about to come off, pitting Lechmere against Hutch.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

The confidence is misplaced.

The evidence against your man can be and, in fact, has been, convincingly countered.

It wouldn't get through CPS.

However, we all know this.

Monty

Twentyfour words! Wow!

That HAS to be a new record.

Of course, and as usual, you make no facrtual point whatsoever, but instead point to how the Lechmere bid haas been "convicingly countered".

That would be, I suspect, your own declaration that he is a non-starter since he did not run for it.

You are an ex-cop, eh, Monty? I thought such men took an interest in factual evidence as regards the paths suspects move along and when they do it, the use of false names, possible lies told by suspects ... No?

Maybe, Monty, you should run for it yourself, while there is still time. Thereīs no shame in admitting that you may have been wrong.

For now, Iīm trough talking to you, though.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer, Neil. My instincts tell me that a poll is about to come off, pitting Lechmere against Hutch.

Cheers.
LC

... and such a poll may well see Hutch coming out on top. Itīs not about the truth, itīs about convictions, when you make polls on Casebook. Anybody can compare the stuff relating to the respective men and see that there is no need for any poll.

Fisherman

[Sally]

No,

Lynn is right. We should have a poll.

[Monty]

Twentyfour words! Wow!

That HAS to be a new record.

Of course, and as usual, you make no facrtual point whatsoever, but instead point to how the Lechmere bid haas been "convicingly countered".

That would be, I suspect, your own declaration that he is a non-starter since he did not run for it.

You are an ex-cop, eh, Monty? I thought such men took an interest in factual evidence as regards the paths suspects move along and when they do it, the use of false names, possible lies told by suspects ... No?

Maybe, Monty, you should run for it yourself, while there is still time. Thereīs no shame in admitting that you may have been wrong.

For now, Iīm trough talking to you, though.

The best,
Fisherman

I dont feel the need to spout a barrage of words to get my point across Christer, no need to hide behind the waffle, whereas you....

Your statement that Cross used a false name is erronous (this hasnt been proven at all), and the other evidences you cite are circumstantial, they can easily be countered. In fact, they were when we went through it all last year.

So its gone from lying to possible lies huh? My, you do flit between your words, depending on the mood. It seem even you are not that convinced in your mans guilt. I know Im not.

What you are through doing holds no interest to me. You seem to be under the false impression I hang on your every word.

However you shall return, you cannot help yourself.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

It's truly astonishing that a very brief mention of the misplaced iconic image of Jack in a top hat and cape should have given rise to a lengthy repetitive Hutchinson debate, with Isaacs and chums making an unwarranted appearance...

Hi Caz,



No, not necessarily. He might have misplaced it temporarily and wrongly assumed he'd left it in the room, thus accounting for his need to vindicate its presence there when found. It would hardly have been a comfort to him that "nobody was asking about it". The fact it wasn't published in the press that a red handkerchief was found - and its owner accordingly sought - wouldn't have provided any measure of security to the killer if he owned it and thought he left it there, unless he was silly and deluded enough to believe that no mention in the press meant no interest at all on the part of the police. So yes, there is a compelling and logical argument for Hutchinson incorporating the hanky detail into his story if he was the killer and believed he'd left it by accident in the room.



Why?

An absent hanky need only indicate - for Hutchinson-believers - that Astrakhan man reclaimed it before he left.



There's "flowering things up" and there's inventing entire episodes involving objects that never existed. I don't know of too many examples of mere exaggerating witnesses doing the latter.



No, it wouldn't be much like that at all.

It would be far more like Hutchinson, being conscious of the need to make his fictional diversionary suspect very striking (in order to justify his fascination with the couple, and his subsequent loitering behaviour), was also aware that previous witnesses described a man of a very different appearance (and if Hutchinson himself was the killer, they were obviously describing him). In both scenarios - killer or mere attention-seeker - there was an obvious incentive to establish some sort of common ground that united his bogus, ostentatiously dressed individual with the genuine sightings of the ordinarily-dressed presumed ripper. The red rag would have done the trick in that regard.



Again, he was in absolutely no position to know whether or not the police were asking about it. If Hutchinson was guilty, it was already "imperative" in his mind that they believe his account. A bogus explanation of how the hanky made it into the room (if he mistakenly believed he'd left it there) would only have increased the likelihood of the police believing it.

All the best,
Ben

Great post ben. I agree with everything you say. Wether or not Hutch was the killer or not, the red hanky only bolters his tory. the last supect had one and so what if they dont find it in her room, hutch could just say the killer took it back.

And if he somehow knew she had one and the police found it in her room-well bingo.
One scenario is that he did see her that night and gave her the hanky but the rest of his Aman story is a lie.


Its win win for hutch on the red herrin.. I mean hanky.

[caz]

Oh no it's not, Abby. That red hanky doesn't 'bolter his tory' at all.

If it belonged to Hutch, and could be identified as his own, it would have been the very opposite of 'bingo' if he gave it to Kelly himself and wasn't sure he had retrieved it after murdering her.

If it belonged to Hutch, he'd only have mentioned it to bolster his story if he could be absolutely certain that nobody had seen him with it before, or could identify it as his, and that he could keep the police believing that A Man existed and it was his hanky that Hutch saw him give to Kelly.

If there was no red hanky, there was no need for Hutch to invent one if he was the killer, seeing as it would require his fictional A Man to have taken it back later.

Mentioning the red hanky only adds another risk if Hutch was guilty.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Monty:

I dont feel the need to spout a barrage of words to get my point across Christer, no need to hide behind the waffle, whereas you....

Of course I shall return - not to help myself, but instead to help you.

No need to hide behind the waffle, you say. So you hide behind silence instead, as always. And that is wise! You would not want to be revealed as having a very poor toolbox when it comes to saving Lechmere, would you?

And no, I am not in error when saying that Lechmere used a false name. And I have explained my stance a million times, but will gladly do it again: Any name that is not the name by which you are officially listed is a false name. No matter if everybody you know call you Sherlock, it still will not be anything but a false name unless it is the name that is written in the official files.
You are Neil, you are not Monty. And being called Monty does not mean that it is not a false name - it is.

So its gone from lying to possible lies huh? My, you do flit between your words, depending on the mood. It seem even you are not that convinced in your mans guilt.

I can write that a man that lies to the police is a suspicious man, and speak of Lechmere. It is not the same as saying that I am sure that he lied. Logic dictates that I cannot be.
Logic also dictates, however, that taken in context with all the rest of the parameters, the odds that he was truthful are very much diminished. The man fits the crimes like a glove, seemingly (yes, seemingly), and when I picked up on the scam, it only fortified what we already had on him.
So no, I am no less confident in his guilt than before. He is way, way before any other suspect, and thatīs as it should be since the other guys have nothing or next to nothing to their names in comparison.

Iīll give you something to laugh about (Iīm in a generous mood today): I have never counted any of the other candidates as representing a percentage chance that comes in two numbers. None of them stand more than the odd per cent chance of being the Ripper to my mind. But when Iīm asked how large a chance I think it is that Lechmere was the killer, then Iīd say itīs a 70-30 chance.

I donīt care much about whether you hang on to what I say or not. By saying that Lechmere is a non-starter, as you have said, you disqualified yourself from any truly useful discussion. And the interesting thing is that YOU say that I am the one with the agenda! That one is yours. Apart from that, you have nothing - as you willingly display repeatedly when posting on Lechmere.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Its not a false name Christer,

He was known as Cross. That simple. You fail to comprehend what is a false name and what is an also known as. Giving a name by which you are already known as isn't false. Nor is it hardly a sign of guilt, using a name you have used previously. Was Cross really that stupid?

It is clear you feel the need to support this shaky theory with lots n lots of convoluted conjecture, this isn't required when you take the man as innocent until proven, which is something you journo's often fail to do. There is nothing in the theory to condemn Cross.

Like Cross's guilt, my qualification does not rest on your opinion. I'm here, and shall speak as and when and how I wish.


Monty

[Fisherman]

Its not a false name Christer,

He was known as Cross. That simple. You fail to comprehend what is a false name and what is an also known as. Giving a name by which you are already known as isn't false. Nor is it hardly a sign of guilt, using a name you have used previously. Was Cross really that stupid?

It is clear you feel the need to support this shaky theory with lots n lots of convoluted conjecture, this isn't required when you take the man as innocent until proven, which is something you journo's often fail to do. There is nothing in the theory to condemn Cross.

Like Cross's guilt, my qualification does not rest on your opinion. I'm here, and shall speak as and when and how I wish.


Monty

Apparently, Iīm not the only one who canīt help myself...?

I have already defined a false name, Monty. What was it you failed to understand about it?

I donīt know whether you define false names differently in Britain than we do here in Sweden. But over here, if I was to sign a legal document with a name other than the one Iīm listed by in the church books and in the official papers, then that document would be unlawfully signed and not legally binding. The reason being that I used a false name - and it would not change a iot if I was known colloquially by that name.

That is how it goes, and that is how it works. Maybe you havenīt comprehended that this is so here in Sweden? Since you speak of lacking comprehension, I mean?

Moreover, you do not know that Lechmere had ever used the name Cross. All you know is that he was signed into the 1861 census by that name - by his father. Plus you know that every single document with his name on it that has ben found up til now, has the name Lechmere on it. And what this discrepancy does to the credibility of the man when he calls himself Cross is something an ex-cop should have no severe problems figuring.

Since I do not have clear proof that things went down the way I suggest - only different types of evidence lining the way - yes, I must use conjecture when presenting my theory.
Have you heard of any theory about Jack the Ripper where no conjecture was used? Eh? You need to give that some long and hard afterthought.

You see, filling out the blanks with conjecture based on these blanks, is what theorizing is made up of. In every case. For every theorist.

Does that come as news to you?

Does it furthermore come as news to you - given that every theory on the Ripper is built using conjecture to a smaller or lesser degree - that the only outcome of such a thing will be that the person cast in the killers role will not be decisevely condemned. Cannot be concisively condemned, furthermore. Is that news to you? No?

Then why point it out? The opposite is to claim that he COULD be decisively condemned, and only an idiot would propose such a thing. Itīs not about condemning, itīs about forming a theory where all the elements fit together - like they do in the Lechmere case. All of it - the venues, the work route, the timings, the false name, the Mizen scam, the hidden wounds, the time window, the fact that Paul did not hear Lechmere walking in front of him etcetera. These parameters lend themselves to an interpretation of guilt, simple as. And no other suspect comes even close to anything like it, not by any standards.

Your qualification rests on what you achieve and how you achieve it, Monty. And anybody who uses the words Lechmere and non-starter in the same sentence is badly qualified when it comes to judging suspect quality, Iīm afraid. Whether it rests on a true lack of ability to assess such things or simply on a dislike of the person/s who propose a theory is of no consequence for the actual outcome. Iīve only just had an exchange with another poster who also claimed Lechmere to be a non-starter, only to in the next post say that he actually liked him as a suspect. I can only assume that this poster allowed his temper to get the better of him in the first instance, only to sober up in the next.

But some will stay drunk throughout. Tīwas always like that.

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

... and such a poll may well see Hutch coming out on top. Itīs not about the truth, itīs about convictions, when you make polls on Casebook. Anybody can compare the stuff relating to the respective men and see that there is no need for any poll.

Fisherman

Didn't Lech even lose in a poll against Lynn's completely alternaRip theory regarding Isenschmid having killed only Nichols and Chapman? I dare say Lech wouldn't fair well in many suspect polls.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Its not a false name Christer,

He was known as Cross. That simple. You fail to comprehend what is a false name and what is an also known as. Giving a name by which you are already known as isn't false. Nor is it hardly a sign of guilt, using a name you have used previously. Was Cross really that stupid?

It is clear you feel the need to support this shaky theory with lots n lots of convoluted conjecture, this isn't required when you take the man as innocent until proven, which is something you journo's often fail to do. There is nothing in the theory to condemn Cross.

Like Cross's guilt, my qualification does not rest on your opinion. I'm here, and shall speak as and when and how I wish.

Forget it Monty. Deaf ears. When Fish has told me what a lousy suspect Le Grand is, I point out that Le Grand had far more aliases than Cross...and since apparently an alias makes you a killer, Le Grand is a far better suspect. His response? Oh, well Le Grand was a criminal, so naturally he had aliases. But Lechmere was an honest man.

Doesn't serial murderer constitute criminal???

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I have already defined a false name, Monty. What was it you failed to understand about it?

Be careful. The man you're antagonizing is not really named Monty...that's an alias...therefore I suspect he's very dangerous.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott