Cross The Ripper?

[Ben]

If there's a "magnus opus" in the pipeline, I slightly question the omnipresence of the Crossmere theory's current enforcers. Won't it spoil the "surprise" somewhat when we discover that the entire book's content has already been churned out several times over by a succession of monster tag-team posts from Fisherman and Lechmere here on the message boards? Unless there's a smoking gun being withheld, I rather fear we'll be hearing about Mizen scams and Old Montague Street AGAIN.

[Sally]

Psst! Ben!

I know, but they seem to be having so much fun...

It seemed...well, a bit churlish to point out that they'd been posting the same stuff for the last two years.

Still! Magnum Lupus eh? Marvellous! I'm sure it'll be splendid stuff - full of surprises.

Yep.

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

Well, there's supposed to be a photo, apparently.

I'm hugely excited about that.

My only concern is that since the revelation that a photo has been discovered, one of the lead Crossmere promoters has suddenly expressed doubt that any of the witnesses saw the real killer. I'm drawing my own conclusions from that, but I do hope they're wrong!

[DRoy]

Hi all,

Props to Fish and Lech for getting the result they've received so far. You both deserve a pat on the back for the effort and research you've done, you've made a lot of people consider at least that maybe something isn't right with Lech. A lot of circumstantial things, guess work, fill in the blanks, etc but interesting to me none the less.

I'm looking forward to further research and wish you both the best of luck.

That said, I voted improbable.

Cheers
DRoy

[bolo]

Hello Ben,

If there's a "magnus opus" in the pipeline, I slightly question the omnipresence of the Crossmere theory's current enforcers. Won't it spoil the "surprise" somewhat when we discover that the entire book's content has already been churned out several times over by a succession of monster tag-team posts from Fisherman and Lechmere here on the message boards? Unless there's a smoking gun being withheld, I rather fear we'll be hearing about Mizen scams and Old Montague Street AGAIN.

I beg to differ here, actually I think it's quite nice to be able to discuss the topic with Ripperologists who are in the process of penning down/releasing a non-fiction publication about it. Apart from Helena Wojtczak who also was very open about her line of thought concerning George Chapman, who else did something like that during the past two years? I find it interesting to see how these soon-to-be published authors come to conclusion about certain aspects which helps me a great deal to assess the value of their material in light of my own experience with the case, read, whether it gets me somewhere or not.

I find it improbable that Crossmere was the Ripper due to a number of reasons I have posted elsewhere and voted accordingly, yet still am interested in a good discussion about a person who is not worse a suspect than 90% of the others so it can't hurt to keep an open mind about it in my opinion.

Best wishes,

Boris

[DRoy]

I find it improbable that Crossmere was the Ripper due to a number of reasons I have posted elsewhere and voted accordingly, yet still am interested in a good discussion about a person who is not worse a suspect than 90% of the others so it can't hurt to keep an open mind about it in my opinion.

Well said Boris! I agree completely.

Cheers
DRoy

[Ben]

Hi Boris,

I'm just a little concerned that there will be no further revelations to discuss and debate once the book is published. Lechmere (the poster) predicts that there will be more votes for Cross the Ripper once people have read the book, and unless it contains further research revelations, as opposed to repetition of previously discussed interpretations of known events, I'm not optimistic that this will happen. I'm ashamed to admit I have not yet read Helena's book, but from what I understand, she didn't just have a "line of thought" with regard to Klosowski, but actual research into his life from the refreshing perspective of not seeking to implicate him in the crimes. If we hear more about Crossmere the man, that would be welcome, irrespective or the merits and demerits of the ripper conjecture.

What we've had so far consists largely of interpreting events we all know about, which is fine, but the vast majority don't agree with those interpretations. The name change isn't suspicious, the alleged "Mizen scam" didn't happen, the assertion that he can be linked to all crime scenes is wrong, no known serial killer has ever killed and disposed of his victims on the way to work etc. I'm simply wondering aloud if the forthcoming book will consist of all this plus evidence that others might consider incriminating, or the same arguments trotted out again.

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

I think the fundamental problem with the Crossmere theory, as others have also pointed out, is that the whole edifice of conjecture relies on Crossmere having been a psychopath - for which, apparently, there is no evidence whatever.

'If he was a psychopath then.....' - and we're expected to accept that it all works.

If we reject the premise, the whole thing comes tumbling down.

I fear that the theory amounts to far more than the sum of its parts.

Still, as I have always said, if there were more....

I'm relying on Ed to deliver.

[DRoy]

Sally & Ben,

Agree with both your posts. There is a lot of circumstantial 'evidence' but nothing yet to convince me he's anything more than a witness in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Cheers
DRoy

[Garry Wroe]

There is a lot of circumstantial 'evidence' but nothing yet to convince me he's anything more than a witness in the wrong place at the wrong time.

A witness in the wrong place at the wrong time who possibly tried to shield his identity out of a fear of retribution from the local street thugs who at the time were widely suspected of being responsible for the Whitechapel Murders.

[DRoy]

A witness in the wrong place at the wrong time who possibly tried to shield his identity out of a fear of retribution from the local street thugs who at the time were widely suspected of being responsible for the Whitechapel Murders.

Thanks Garry,

As good a reason as any for why he acted the way he did and said the things he said. Much more sound than him being a killer and just as much 'evidence' in my opinion.

Cheers
DRoy

[bolo]

Hello Ben,

Hi Boris,

I'm just a little concerned that there will be no further revelations to discuss and debate once the book is published. Lechmere (the poster) predicts that there will be more votes for Cross the Ripper once people have read the book, and unless it contains further research revelations, as opposed to repetition of previously discussed interpretations of known events, I'm not optimistic that this will happen. I'm ashamed to admit I have not yet read Helena's book, but from what I understand, she didn't just have a "line of thought" with regard to Klosowski, but actual research into his life from the refreshing perspective of not seeking to implicate him in the crimes. If we hear more about Crossmere the man, that would be welcome, irrespective or the merits and demerits of the ripper conjecture.

What we've had so far consists largely of interpreting events we all know about, which is fine, but the vast majority don't agree with those interpretations. The name change isn't suspicious, the alleged "Mizen scam" didn't happen, the assertion that he can be linked to all crime scenes is wrong, no known serial killer has ever killed and disposed of his victims on the way to work etc. I'm simply wondering aloud if the forthcoming book will consist of all this plus evidence that others might consider incriminating, or the same arguments trotted out again.

Regards,
Ben

fair enough. As we don't know yet how the book will be like and whether it adds anything new to the theory or fleshes out some aspects that still seem a bit thin, I for myself will postpone commenting on it until I have actually read it. I much prefer sitting down with a book in a comfy chair with my other JTR literature within easy reach and slowly inhaling its contents over collecting bits and pieces of what an author wants to say during the course of an internet forum discussion. I think there's a tremendous difference in quality between the former and the latter in terms of getting a good and fair look on it.

On the other hand, I always found it very interesting and insightful to witness authors in spe forming opinions and discussing them in public and interacting with others either to defend or verify their theories. Stripped from the occasional niggle based on personal reasons, it gives you a little insight in how certain theories are formed in our ripperological discipline these days. Among other things, I'm interested in the whole process from a social point of view.

Maybe the voicing of the problems we have with the Crossmere suspect theory helps to set things into perspective for the authors. I wouldn't mind if research of those who do not agree with their views turned out that our carman is a perfectly harmless working man who just happened to find the victim of a series of murders that still keep us busy until today, at least that is what I think he is. That is why I will read the book to see whether it can me persuade me to think otherwise.

Oh, and do yourself a favour and have a go at Helena's book, it covers all aspects of Chapman's life and crimes in exhausting detail and makes a very good read. You can tell that a lot of painstaking research went into it. Highly recommended.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Garry Wroe]

As good a reason as any for why he acted the way he did and said the things he said. Much more sound than him being a killer and just as much 'evidence' in my opinion.

Thanks, DRoy. The fact that investigators were able to visit his home provides a surefire indication that Crossmere was in no way attempting to hoodwink the authorities. My guess is that he, like many locals, was fearful of the marauding street gangs which ranged the East End, thugs who had earned such a reputation for casual violence that it was they and not a lone sexual predator who were thought responsible for the Whitechapel Murders. But this explanation is far too mundane to be truthful. The real story must be far more convoluted than that, right?

[DRoy]

My guess is that he, like many locals, was fearful of the marauding street gangs which ranged the East End, thugs who had earned such a reputation for casual violence that it was they and not a lone sexual predator who were thought responsible for the Whitechapel Murders. But this explanation is far too mundane to be truthful. The real story must be far more convoluted than that, right?

Garry,

Since when is a rational thought/theory that is supported by historic evidence allowed in a Lech post? Watch yourself Garry.

Cheers
DRoy

[DVV]

Since when is a rational thought/theory that is supported by historic evidence allowed in a Lech post? Watch yourself Garry.
DRoy

Be honest, DRoy. Fish's posts are always well-balanced and unclouded, making the team perfect.