A General Question

[Patrick S]

Itīs fifteen minutes of fame for you, but a descent into a troll forest for me. So far, neither of you have brought anything but attitude to the boards, and thatīs where my patience ends.

Thatīs why I am done "debating" with you.

All the best,
Fisherman

You know, Fisherman. Having grown tired of you and Ed pretending that everyone is out to get you (I've no clue what 'fifteen minutes of fame means with respect to this but...uh...okay?). You claim that I have brought nothing but 'attitude', thus you are out of patience. I did take the time to dig up my first post on the Cross topic. Here it is:

"I've always found Cross/Lechmere interesting. Ultimately, I'm troubled by one aspect of his candidacy: He was on his way to work.

I assume that his employment at Pickfords was verified by police and/or press. Indeed, his start time (and his route to get there) is one of the primary facts used to view him with suspicion. Thus, let's conceded that it's extremely likely that he was employed, at Pickfords, and his start time was 4am.

I'm troubled by the fact that this man was on his way to work or was actually working (if you follow the theory to Hanbury Street his cart was being loaded/unloaded at the market while he was engaged with Chapman) and was apparently unconcerned about blood splatter on his clothing. Apparently Tabram was on Cross/Lechmere's route, as well. Thus, we attribute her murder to Jack the Ripper (Cross/Lechmere) as it fits the geography and time-frame. Tabram's throat was cut and she was stabbed dozens of times. I think it's reasonable to assume that the killer would have been covered in blood (Note: I've heard it suggested by some that the fact that JtR was covered in blood with Trabram caused him to alter his method).

Most agree that JtR planned his attacks. Therefore, if Cross/Lechmere was JtR then he left work each day intent on committing literally bloody murder, and then going straight to work. So what's the theory? That he had a change of clothes? That he never got blood on him? That he had a bolt hole along the route to wash and change?

I'm not condemning the theory. Its just an aspect of his inclusion as a suspect that I've found problematic."

This seems to counter Ed's contention that I joined the boards to attack him, you, and your theory. As well, I don't find much 'attitude in the post, either.

[Patrick S]

Further, Fish, et al. I found this post, by me, around the end of last year:

"This conversation is no longer productive. We're rehashing old points. I'll conclude my end by saying this: I think that you have some unstated (at least on this thread) desire to believe Cross was the Whitechapel murderer. I say this because rational thought simply does not lead one to conclude that this man should even be a 'suspect'. You listed a fairly typical - for the time -background/family history and state that this is more than we have against any other suspect. While that seems reasonable you, it seems unreasonable - to me at least - as there is no suggestion that Cross was ever violent toward women, had some hatred of women, was violent toward anyone, was unstable, angry, ill humoured, lacking a sense of humor, ill tempered when his shoes weren't shined just so, nothing. Cross found a body. He was a witness. He testified at an inquest. You take circumstances and facts, view them through a lens clouded by the passage of nearly a century and a half, don't see all the answers, and see a killer.

Discussions like these are only interesting if they lead somewhere. This one has led me to no longer have interest in Cross as a possible JtR. Most of the facts that have led me to do so have come from you, on this thread. These same facts have led you to be rock solid your belief that Cross was the killer. Thus, we are finished. I appreciate all the information you've shared here. I wish you luck in your future research into Lechmere/Cross. I know you agree that no one can be certain of anything when it comes to this case. Thus, I'd be thrilled to learn more compelling evidence with repsect to Cross and would be happy to take a closer look at him should such evidence prove compelling. My opinion is that the facts as we understand them now are not only not compelling, they are completely uninteresting in terms of indicting Cross as anything other than a guy who found a body on his way to work.

Good luck."

See how this post closes?

"I'd be thrilled to learn more compelling evidence with repsect to Cross and would be happy to take a closer look at him should such evidence prove compelling."

and

"Good luck."

I'm still not seeing the attitude.

[Patrick S]

By way of putting a bow in this, perhaps if you display a modicum of respect for posters rather than post things like this:

"Well, since you did confused psychopath killers with psychotic ones, I fail to see how it would not reflect on you?"

When you are peddling a theory that many find somewhat incredible, outright rude behavior and insulting parting shots - by both you and Lechmere/Ed - may not be the best way to win friends and influence people.

I'm ready for something new whenever you have it and will be the first to applaud should it prove compelling.