The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

I am commenting on the flaps below the eyes of Eddowes, nothing else, Pierre. I would be grateful if you managed to restrict yourself to that discussion on this thread.

[John G]

Hi Fisherman,

You have nothing indicating that Lechmere was the killer, apart from what you call the Mizen scam and some ideas about Lechmere living and working in Spitalfields, a catsmeat woman beeing the mother of Lechmere and her been domineering.

There is nothing that connects him to any of the other killings. No indications even. There is a problem with Lechmere: He was lying -if you donīt think in terms of misremembering during the inquest. Why was a hard working family man lying? Was he thinking about his wife? Was he thinking of his children?

Lechmere lived and worked in Spitalfields. But a lot of people did. And you donīt know anything about a domineering mother. Nothing. Zip.

Please show me that he was at any of the other murder sites. Please show me that he had some REAL problem in his life and back it up with research on serial killers and their problems in life. Show me evidence for a REAL motive.

I would love to get my "suspect" of the hook. But since he has many indications and many data sources connecting him and his motives to several of the murders and you have nothing - because if you did, I could as well say that Diemschutz was the killer - please let the poor man Charles Lechmere of the hook.

If he was a witness to the killer and was afraid of coming forward - why should you accuse him?

You have to establish facts with good data sources when you write history. There has to be a congruent theory and it must be explanatory. Lechmere does not explain any of the murders, not even Nichols, since someone has to be the first person at any murder site after the killer. That is a well established fact.


Regards Pierre

This post seems to imply that your "suspect" was a police officer/official who had a known connection to several murder sites. Well, that should narrow down the list somewhat!

[Pierre]

I am commenting on the flaps below the eyes of Eddowes, nothing else, Pierre. I would be grateful if you managed to restrict yourself to that discussion on this thread.

Hi Fisherman,

I know that you are commenting on. But your comment is depending on a whole set of questions, problems with establishing facts and ethical problems of both you and me having theories of people in the past. So all this must be in the discussion.

I also have a question for you, you being an expert on Lechmere. I think I have read that the blood was still flowing from Nicholīs throat when Neil arrived at the murder site. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) If this is a fact, is it also a fact that the killer "x" would have been at the murder site at the same time as Lechmere, regardless if you believe that the killer "x" WAS Lechmere or not?

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

This post seems to imply that your "suspect" was a police officer/official who had a known connection to several murder sites. Well, that should narrow down the list somewhat!

It is not that easy. Sorry.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I know that you are commenting on. But your comment is depending on a whole set of questions, problems with establishing facts and ethical problems of both you and me having theories of people in the past. So all this must be in the discussion.

I also have a question for you, you being an expert on Lechmere. I think I have read that the blood was still flowing from Nicholīs throat when Neil arrived at the murder site. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) If this is a fact, is it also a fact that the killer "x" would have been at the murder site at the same time as Lechmere, regardless if you believe that the killer "x" WAS Lechmere or not?

Regards Pierre

No, Pierre, the only thing that has to be in the discussion is the shape of the flaps on Eddowes' face. Curiously, it seems to be the only thing you don' t want to discuss...?

[John G]

It is not that easy. Sorry.

Regards Pierre

Great, I think we're starting to get somewhere! The logical consequence is therefore that he was a police officer/official, but with no known connection to the murder sites.

[Pierre]

Great, I think we're starting to get somewhere! The logical consequence is therefore that he was a police officer/official, but with no known connection to the murder sites.

Known to whom?

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

No, Pierre, the only thing that has to be in the discussion is the shape of the flaps on Eddowes' face. Curiously, it seems to be the only thing you don' t want to discuss...?

If you want to reduce the subject you are only doing so to protect your own theory of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

Did the blood flow from Nicholīs throat when Neil found her?

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

If you want to reduce the subject you are only doing so to protect your own theory of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

Did the blood flow from Nicholīs throat when Neil found her?

Regards Pierre

Actually, it has nothing at all to do with "protecting my theory". It has everything to do with how I joined the discussion on this thread by pointing out that the premise of the inerted V:s is a faulty one. I cannot see why that should open up a discussion about Lechmereīs viability as a suspect.

I am perfectly alright with discussing that matter on the relevant threads, although I donīt think we should start on the level you suggest, where there is no discussion to be had since the relating facts are firmly established.

So whenever you want to discuss that - do it on the correct threads.

If you donīt want to answer my point about the inverted V:s, fine. It would be useful for the theory you are presenting if you defended the reasoning you are marketing, though - that is what these boards are mainly for.

Take your pick, Pierre.

[Fisherman]

I could, specifically, comment on your theory from one aspect, of course - you suggest that there was another man in Bucks Row WITH Charles Lechmere, who was the actual killer.

My answer to that particular passus is that the existance of this suspect is uncorroborated in the sources. He is therefore an invention only, as opposed to an established fact. In that respect, he joins all the other suspects apart from Charles Lechmere who have been suggested as alternative killers of Polly Nichols - they are all phantasy figures in this respect. Most of them are established figures from history, but their respective presences in Bucks Row are imaginary only.

Proposing a man who is confirmed as having been in place (or, as the police normally describes it: having had opportunity) is automatically more viable when looking for suspects.
In any other world, that goes without saying, but on Planet Ripper, it is not only questioned but actually shunned..!

Here, if we can show that at the approximate time when person A was killed, person B was present, the outcome is that persons C-Z are just as worthy suspects, if not even more worthy.

So here, itīs farewell reason, farewell logic and bon voyage sanity. And MY, does that allow for whacky suggestions!!!

[Pierre]

Actually, it has nothing at all to do with "protecting my theory". It has everything to do with how I joined the discussion on this thread by pointing out that the premise of the inerted V:s is a faulty one. I cannot see why that should open up a discussion about Lechmereīs viability as a suspect.

I am perfectly alright with discussing that matter on the relevant threads, although I donīt think we should start on the level you suggest, where there is no discussion to be had since the relating facts are firmly established.

So whenever you want to discuss that - do it on the correct threads.

If you donīt want to answer my point about the inverted V:s, fine. It would be useful for the theory you are presenting if you defended the reasoning you are marketing, though - that is what these boards are mainly for.

Take you pick, Pierre.

Hi,

you donīt want to discuss the chevrons since you cannot connect them to Charles Lechmere. If you could, you would have done that. You have even tried to build a theory on a catsmeat worker.

This is your idea of what the chevrons are (copying your first post):

"... I think that the reoccurring discussions on the so called inverted v:s is superfluos."

OK. That is a line of thinking one often uses when one doesnīt have any theory.

"These cuts are not - and never were - inverted v:s."

That is no argument. It is a purely ontological and instrumental statement not based on any evidence.

"If anything, they are inverted u: s."

The same as above.

"They do not have the sharp angle where the legs of the letter meet that a v has."

And again.

"It is only in the drawings that this seems to be the case.

So the drawings are wrong. The persons who did them couldnīt draw.

"The blade commenced the cuts at the highest level on Eddowes' face, and so they could not begin with a sharp angle."

So now Jack the Ripper was clumsy and didnīt know how to work with a knife. He couldnīt cut a chevron into the face of Eddowes. And still he managed to take out vital organs from Chapman and Eddowes in a surprisingly short time.

"If the killer wanted to produce a v shape, he would need to make TWO cuts in each flap, meeting each other in a sharp angle."

Speaking from your own perspective and not from the killerīs perspective.

"Then there could exist no doubt about an intention, regardless of the interpretation part."

The intention must be visible for us to call it an intention.

"He did not do this. Ergo, he cut no v shapes."

Another ontological statement. Itīs like:

"There are clouds on the sky. Just look and see!"

Or even better:

"Look! There is a man at the murder site! He is standing there! He must be the killer!"

Or even better still:

"Lechmere found "with" Nicholīs body."

You are using a realistic view on the sources, believing in "the obvious".

But this is a murder case, Fisherman.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi,

you donīt want to discuss the chevrons since you cannot connect them to Charles Lechmere. If you could, you would have done that. You have even tried to build a theory on a catsmeat worker.

This is your idea of what the chevrons are (copying your first post):

"... I think that the reoccurring discussions on the so called inverted v:s is superfluos."

OK. That is a line of thinking one often uses when one doesnīt have any theory.

"These cuts are not - and never were - inverted v:s."

That is no argument. It is a purely ontological and instrumental statement not based on any evidence.

"If anything, they are inverted u: s."

The same as above.

"They do not have the sharp angle where the legs of the letter meet that a v has."

And again.

"It is only in the drawings that this seems to be the case.

So the drawings are wrong. The persons who did them couldnīt draw.

"The blade commenced the cuts at the highest level on Eddowes' face, and so they could not begin with a sharp angle."

So now Jack the Ripper was clumsy and didnīt know how to work with a knife. He couldnīt cut a chevron into the face of Eddowes. And still he managed to take out vital organs from Chapman and Eddowes in a surprisingly short time.

"If the killer wanted to produce a v shape, he would need to make TWO cuts in each flap, meeting each other in a sharp angle."

Speaking from your own perspective and not from the killerīs perspective.

"Then there could exist no doubt about an intention, regardless of the interpretation part."

The intention must be visible for us to call it an intention.

"He did not do this. Ergo, he cut no v shapes."

Another ontological statement. Itīs like:

"There are clouds on the sky. Just look and see!"

Or even better:

"Look! There is a man at the murder site! He is standing there! He must be the killer!"

Or even better still:

"Lechmere found "with" Nicholīs body."

You are using a realistic view on the sources, believing in "the obvious".

But this is a murder case, Fisherman.

Regards Pierre

Like I said, if you do not want to admit that the so called V:s are really U:s (and their shape always depended on the underlying bone structure in the face of Eddowes, arguably unknown to the killer), then that is fine by me.

Saying that V:s only require sharp angles in my perspective is a bit odd, bearing in mind that V:s do have sharp angles, but of course, if you know that the killer depicted V:s with a rounded curve instead of a sharp angle, who am I to quibble...? Sometimes facts have to give way for splendid new ideas, right?

If you want to discuss any Lechmere further, it is equally fine - but do it on the relevant threads. I may even join the discussion at some stage.

There really is nothing more to it.

[Brenda]

.

Who was the police officer in AP Wolf's theory? Or am I misremembering and it was simply a relative of a police official?

[Brenda]

.

Cutbush. It was Cutbush that AP wrote of.

Is your suspect Cutbush, Pierre, or anyone associated with Cutbush?

[Brenda]

.

a Wiki quickie:

Thomas Hayne Cutbush (1865–1903) was a medical student sent to Lambeth Infirmary in 1891 suffering delusions thought to have been caused by syphilis.[62] After stabbing a woman in the backside and attempting to stab a second he was pronounced insane and committed to Broadmoor Hospital in 1891, where he remained until his death in 1903.[63] The Sun newspaper suggested in a series of articles in 1894 that Cutbush was the Ripper. There is no evidence that police took the idea seriously, and Melville Macnaghten's memorandum naming the three police suspects Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog was written to refute the idea that Cutbush was the Ripper.[64] Cutbush was the suspect advanced in the 1993 book Jack the Myth by A. P. Wolf, who suggested that Macnaghten wrote his memo to protect Cutbush's uncle who was a fellow police officer,[65] and another recent writer, Peter Hodgson, considers that Cutbush is the most likely candidate.[66]