A General Question

[Abby Normal]

Not sure if he deserves his own section, but at least half of the "suspects" in that section are a joke.

[Lechmere]

It is sometimes wondered why reasoned debate goes out of the window in 'Ripperology' or why some posters get vociferous, tempers lost, and sensible discussion a distant memory, and the absence of various posters bewailed as they go off in self imposed exile.
Then we see usually sensible posters like Jon Guy flippantly thinking he is being clever trying to compare Lechmere with Morris, Crow, Davis and Richardson, and then saying Lechmere is a joke suspect that wastes everyone's time (it only wastes the time of those who choose to have their time wasted of course).
We also have a lecture from Bridewell about witnesses as suspects.... Cadosch? Hypocrisy?

Anyway, I wouldn't want a Lechmere or Cross section in any Ripper site suspect area as I think that would diminish his credibility as a potential culprit.

[Jon Guy]

It is sometimes wondered why reasoned debate goes out of the window in 'Ripperology' or why some posters get vociferous, tempers lost, and sensible discussion a distant memory, and the absence of various posters bewailed as they go off in self imposed exile.
Then we see usually sensible posters like Jon Guy flippantly thinking he is being clever trying to compare Lechmere with Morris, Crow, Davis and Richardson, and then saying Lechmere is a joke suspect that wastes everyone's time (it only wastes the time of those who choose to have their time wasted of course).
We also have a lecture from Bridewell about witnesses as suspects.... Cadosch? Hypocrisy?

Anyway, I wouldn't want a Lechmere or Cross section in any Ripper site suspect area as I think that would diminish his credibility as a potential culprit.

Don`t be a twat, Ed.
We`ll see in ten or twenty years whether any of this Lechmere as the Ripper stuff sticks.

[Fisherman]

I wouldn't want a Lechmere or Cross section in any Ripper site suspect area as I think that would diminish his credibility as a potential culprit.

Never was a truer word uttered! It is not a very flattering selection of companions for any aspiring hardcore serialist.

Fisherman

[Patrick S]

It is sometimes wondered why reasoned debate goes out of the window in 'Ripperology' or why some posters get vociferous, tempers lost, and sensible discussion a distant memory, and the absence of various posters bewailed as they go off in self imposed exile.
Then we see usually sensible posters like Jon Guy flippantly thinking he is being clever trying to compare Lechmere with Morris, Crow, Davis and Richardson, and then saying Lechmere is a joke suspect that wastes everyone's time (it only wastes the time of those who choose to have their time wasted of course).
We also have a lecture from Bridewell about witnesses as suspects.... Cadosch? Hypocrisy?

Anyway, I wouldn't want a Lechmere or Cross section in any Ripper site suspect area as I think that would diminish his credibility as a potential culprit.

It seems that you categorize debate as "reasoned" only if it ends with all of your points conceded and your opponent recruited to your point-of-view. It appears, also, that most of the forum debates with respect to Cross/Lechmere are quite reasoned. The issue you have is that most debates faill to produce your desired result: a newly minted Crossmere acolyte.

You repeat the same points again and again. False name. Lied to to police. Route to work. You haven't sold it. You keep repeating that the problem lies with the nature of "Ripperology", how it's not accepting of new ideas. I'd disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion. In my view, those on the board and within the larger community are hungry for new information and new ideas, so long as that information is substantial and believable.

[Lechmere]

I am unconcerned about whether or not new adherents are signed up. I was commenting on the inability to engage in sensible discussion and the refusal to concede any point - where the sky has to be green instead of blue.

[Patrick S]

I am unconcerned about whether or not new adherents are signed up. I was commenting on the inability to engage in sensible discussion and the refusal to concede any point - where the sky has to be green instead of blue.

Those who disagree with you feel the same way.

[Lechmere]

Patrick
You are speaking as a poster who has spent the past several months posting in an increasingly angry and belligerent manner, exclusively on Lechmere related threads.
That must rock your boat.

[Patrick S]

Patrick
You are speaking as a poster who has spent the past several months posting in an increasingly angry and belligerent manner, exclusively on Lechmere related threads.
That must rock your boat.

Angry? Far from it. Why would I be angry? I'm no relation to Charles Lechmere and I have nothing to gain or lose through is being or not being a murderer. As far as belligerency and anger go, I'd say you've posted your fair share, along with a healthy does of condescention.

As far as my Crossmere-centric posting habits, I'll concede the point. I took a break, as I felt the topic was not advancing. Same old arguments. Checking in again, little has changed. Yet, it's either participate in the current exchange or disconnect again (I suppose this is the self-imposed exile you mentioned). I choose not to disconnect (again) just yet.

I've paid you more than one compliment in the course of this board's dialogue. I've acknowledged your zeal, your extenive research, and your passions in advocating the idea of Charles Cross, witness, as Charles Lechmere, Jack the Ripper. I came to this discussion earnestly seeking more information, if you recall. As well, I was quite attracted by the idea. In the course of these 'debates', two things happened: 1. I committed the unpardonable sin of not finding your (and Fisherman's) evidence presuasive; 2. I grew tired of your post's snide, insulting, condescending parting shots. Thus, the tone of my discourse changed. I give respect to any and all that exhibit respect to others and up to now that's not been you.

[Lechmere]

You don't seem to have fund any other topic worthy of comment.
Maybe the whole Lechmere issue has soured your overall interest in this field.

[Patrick S]

You don't seem to have fund any other topic worthy of comment.
Maybe the whole Lechmere issue has soured your overall interest in this field.

As if on cue.

[Bridewell]

Man leaves for work on a number of other days.

He went to work regularly. Innocent activity.

Interestingly, more dead bodies surface along his working routes.

This would be the working route of any man who lived in Bethnal Green and worked in Spitalfields.

Man gives another name than his real one at the inquest after the first murder.

The Times newspaper got his name as George Cross and that of his fellow witness as Robert Baul. We don't actually know what name he gave, only that The Times got both his names and Robert Paul's surname wrong.

Man misinforms PC on the murder night.

Or inattentive Pc recalls conversation incorrectly.

Man hears excellently in an east-westernly direction but is nigh on deaf in a west-easternly ditto.

Speculation.

Man walks invisibly under lights in Bath street.

Speculation again.

Man has a mother to visit, and a daughter.

This is a reference to the Stride murder, yes? the one you were convinced was not by the same hand until you learned that Lechmere's mother lived nearby?

Man has another dead body turning up on the road to his mother.

Mother who lived in heavily populated area, along with lots of other people's mothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends. You could stretch this to relevance if there was evidence that Lechmere had visited his mother on the evening in question - but you can't.

Another man tries, 126 years on, to claim that nothing of this is suggestive of anything sinister.

Not just one man, Fish, quite a few and, as you acknowledged in your Ripperologist article, all of what you claim is sinister is capable of perfectly innocent explanation.

Man is wrong.

You obviously think so and are perfectly entitled to do so.

[Lechmere]

Patrick
I have taken the liberty at looking at your posting record - which from the outset seemed hostile to the Lechmere theory and the bulk of your posts have been on that topic and you have started no less than four threads on the topic. It almost seems to me like you signed up here just to criticise the Lechmere theory. Nothing wrong with that, but you can hardly call foul when this is met with a degree of condescension.

[Patrick S]

Patrick
I have taken the liberty at looking at your posting record - which from the outset seemed hostile to the Lechmere theory and the bulk of your posts have been on that topic and you have started no less than four threads on the topic. It almost seems to me like you signed up here just to criticise the Lechmere theory. Nothing wrong with that, but you can hardly call foul when this is met with a degree of condescension.

You've taken the liberty to look at my posting record? In addition to finding the time to toss up 3,000+ posts? Hmmmm. Okay? You, um, how shall I put this.....seem to have an abundance of time on your hands. For that, I'll offer pity rather than guffaws (at least publicly). Although, If I had the time or the inclination to care so much about words on a computer screen that I resorted to any such thing I'd put myself under close scrutiny and, perhaps, a doctor's care.

I'm not going to take the time to research my own posts, or yours, for that matter. But, I'll say that I am quite certain I was open to the idea and read multiple threads on the theory before I began posting on it.

It's laughable that you'd accuse anyone of crying foul. You are the one who bemoaned the state of discourse and our "inability to engage in sensible discussion". I simply pointed out the role you continue to play in the directions these threads invariably turn.

Pehaps if you spent your time polishing your "theory" rather than researching the posts of people who find your theory silly your theory may be a little less...well....silly.

You see, I can trade barbs and insults all day. It's not a productive use of my time or yours (although you seem to place a much lower value on your time than I do mine). Thus, lets keep things above the belt going forward shall we? Ed?

[Harry D]

Anyone else think it's a little sad that this innocent carman who just happened upon a murder victim during his rounds is having his name dragged through the mud some 125 years later as a psychotic serial killer? I know you could say the same for a lot of so-called Ripper suspects but at least a number of them have something in their portfolio to arouse suspicion, like a history of violence and/or murder. Cross has none of this. He was just a regular Joe whose only crime was giving a different surname to the police.