Jack The Ripper solved?

[Sally]

Hello Sally. Thanks.

Care to set one up? And what about a public one? See whom thinks what.

Cheers.
LC

Certainly, Lynne. What sort of poll would you like? Were you thinking of a general 'best suspect' poll; or shall we have a direct Crossmere/Hutchinson comparison poll? What do you think?

And of course, it can be public so far as I am concerned.

[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

Mrs Clack,

You sure didn't raise a stupid boy.

Monty

[Wickerman]

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

You might also add that the 'Hutchinson theory' has so fractured into numerous conflicting versions that if the theory had been solid in the first place this would not have happened.

[Wickerman]

Ben knows that the Echo was privy to special police info that was kept from the rest of the press - but shared with the Penny Illustrated apparently....

Ben has invented a special relationship between the police and their preferential comrades in the press.

Regardless of any historical fact that the press in general, and the Star & Echo, in particular, were kept at arms length as far as case related information was concerned, Ben will create his own Police/Press liaison, unknown to the historian, unknown to the police at large, and even unknown to the Star themselves, who persistently complained about the police refusing to tell them anything.

Yet, against all the odds, our highly impressionable comrade will absolutely insist (in order to uphold his theory?) that they are all wrong and he, himself, alone, is the one who knows the truth...

We are not worthy....

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

Hi Jon,

Packer and Violenia were both discredited despite claiming to have witnessed events at a time critical to a ripper-attributed murder, which means they compare beautifully to Hutchinson, who received similar treatment from the police.

Except in this case we actually know the police were still looking for Astrachan throughout November. Which is the most powerful indication that your single source, in this case the Star, (like Lloyds Weekly) was completely false.

You really have a strong penchant for false newspaper stories.

[Wickerman]

I really wouldn't bother with the Isaacs stuff if I were you. He was in prison at the time....

I'll explain to you how Lloyds confused the George St. attack with the Kelly murder.

On Dec 7th this was reported in the Press:
"The police, however, were led to believe that he was connected, not with the mutilations, but with the recent attempt to murder a woman in George-street, Spitalfields. Exhaustive inquiries were made, but as far as can be ascertained the man could in no way be connected with that outrage."

Why was he in no way connected with that outrage? - because he was in prison at the time of the attack on Annie Farmer.

Lloyds themselves already published the events of the night of Nov. 9th, as with all the other press accounts they named the witnesses (Cusins/Oakes) who saw Isaacs at his residence on the night in question.

"To prove that the prisoner was the man who entered the shop, a woman named Mary Cusins was called. She is a deputy of a lodging-house in Paternoster-row, Spitalfields, and said that the prisoner had lodged in the house, as a single lodger, for three or four nights before the Dorset street murder - the murder of Mary Jeannette Kelly, in Miller's court. He disappeared after that murder,..."

Clearly Isaacs was not in prison, and Lloyds knew this.

So when they published this piece three weeks later..

"The result is that it is ascertained that at the time of the murder he was undergoing a term of imprisonment for stealing a coat, which proves that he could not have been connected with the murder."

Lloyds had confused the attack on Annie Farmer, which they described as a murder, for which Joseph Isaacs was indeed in prison at the time.
And, he was in prison for the theft of a watch, not a coat.

This isolated piece from Lloyds Weekly so late after the events occurred clearly contradicts all their previous reports, and all the previous reports of their contemporaries - from whom they ultimately copied as weekend publications always did - and, as we have a copy of the arrest & detainment records for Joseph Isaacs we can see Lloyds sadly misrepresented what was known about Joseph Isaacs.

Mary Cusins had already informed the police what Isaacs was doing on Nov. 9th, and the fact he left his room not to return - so clearly he was not in prison yet.
On Nov. 12th Isaacs was sentenced to 21 days hard labour, being released on Dec 3rd - from the 12th to the 3rd is 21 days.

[pinkmoon]

Hi Guys,
Some great recent posts.
The only reasons Hutchinson would incorporate the handkerchief into his tale, would be an attempt to spice up his story , and make it more convincing, or to give a good reason for that item to be found in Kelly's room.
I used to believe that the Handkerchief belonged to Hutchinson, and Mr A was a invention of himself, and that scenario still is possible.
If G H owned a distinctive red handkerchief, and was a dapper sort, that used to always display one, and he left it in Kelly's room, he may have become paranoid that it could lead to someone putting two and two together, especially if he was known to have been a friend of the dead woman, and had no alibi for the night in question.
He may have been seen with Kelly that morning, and again became paranoid that the Handkerchief might lead to questions being asked , and his missing hankie might become relevant, and lead to him becoming a suspect.
All this is pure speculation[ what's new?]
We know that Topping [ if G H] was the type that may have been that Dapper Dan type, his love of music halls, and his dress attire , which included a cane, may give a suggestion that a silk handkerchief would not have been alien to his personality .
But we are left with the obvious question.
If Hutchinson was in Mary's room around 2,30am , was it in a capacity to doss down until his lodging became available , or was it in for murderous reasons.?
I would suggest it was the former.
The whole crux of the matter is If Hutchinson lied to the police because of being afraid, because he could hardly admit to being in room 13 until around 6am, when medical reports suggest MJK was dead, then it would suggest quite firmly that Mary Kelly met her end much later, and that the morning sightings are believable ..
We obviously must not lose sight of the possibility that Mr A did exist , and our George was ''Honest George''.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,could Mr Hutchinson have been a pimp who introduced Kelly to her killer he couldn't really tell the police this also it would explain the detailed description he gave of the well dressed Jewish man it would also explain him hanging round for a long time.

[lynn cates]

public

Hello Sally. Thanks.

Care to set one up? And what about a public one? See whom thinks what.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

blame it on the polls

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Indeed. But I am longing for a poll.

Frankly, I'm not sure which way I'd vote right now. Rather like Druitt vs Kosminski, I think.

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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]

... 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

[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

[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]

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