Cross The Ripper?

[DVV]

Druitt and Crossmere are one and the same

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.

No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer, Ben, didn't you know that ?

[Wickerman]

.... 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.

I haven't read anything to convince me otherwise either.

[Lechmere]

Ben
Your 'little concern' is about as believable as that of Herod the Great for the well being of the infant Christ child. If you excuse my blasphemy.


Garry
So Lechmere was frightened of the street gangs and he masked his true identity to shield his family from attack - then gave his address?
Good thinking.

Every single Ripper suspect is based on conjecture.

[Fisherman]

I haven't read anything to convince me otherwise either.

Convince? Okay.

... but have you read something to evoke your interest and rouse your suspicion?

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Convince? Okay.

... but have you read something to evoke your interest and rouse your suspicion?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Christer.
Every time someone makes the effort to research the background of these people who, up until now, have just been a name on a piece of paper, we all benefit, we should be grateful.
As far as unearthing anything that makes this witness any more likely to be a killer, I can't see it.

The way I do see it Christer; Crossmere, Levy, Barnett, Kosminski, and all the legitimate suspects only stand as 'named', among the entire 'unnamed' male population across the East End aged between 20 and 60 (arguably) as potential suspects.
Crossmere is no less a possibility, but no more, than any of them.

We are searching for an arch criminal among the denizens of lesser criminals.
By lesser I mean that lying, deception & dishonesty were a matter of survival.
People used different names, gave false addresses, lied about who they knew or what they saw or where they were, quite often to avoid trouble.
They gave false background stories, they exaggerated when necessary, and made up stories for a variety of reasons.
The East End was a dishonest place, so when we uncover examples of such peccadilloes I think they are being interpreted by some theorists as some kind of proof, or at least cause for suspicion.

We are not looking for one dishonest person among a hundred honest person's, but among a hundred equally dishonest person's.
And I'm not overlooking the fact there were honest decent hardworking people in the East End, just trying to put into words why I am not willing to accept minor cases of dishonesty as an indication of anything being out of the ordinary.

We might be judging these suspects based on a modern sense of right & wrong, not the 19th century survival techniques required to exist in the abyss.

[Fisherman]

We are searching for an arch criminal among the denizens of lesser criminals.
By lesser I mean that lying, deception & dishonesty were a matter of survival.
People used different names, gave false addresses, lied about who they knew or what they saw or where they were, quite often to avoid trouble.
They gave false background stories, they exaggerated when necessary, and made up stories for a variety of reasons.

I understand this, Jon, and I donīt doubt for a second that you are correct.

But what happens when one of these seemingly lying people are found by the side of a freshly killed victim?

And what happens when the logical routes and timings of that same man just happen to coincide with all of the murders?

And what heppens when we realize that it is only in the case when this suggesed killer is present on one of the murder spots, that the damage done to the victim is concealed?

These are not instances of lying or dishonesty. These are other factors altogether. What happens when they surface?

The best,
Fisherman

[Barnaby]

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.

I think this is a bit unfair but you do have a good point. I think most of us would agree that Jack the Ripper was a psychopath. So, if Cross was the Ripper, then he was a psychopath by logical deduction.

Using "he was a psychopath" to explain Cross's actions, however, to me is problematic because in some cases it can become a circular explanation and really doesn't explain much at all.

This is why I tried in another thread to provide a set of circumstances that would make Cross's interactions with Paul the most rational course of action to avoid being detected. Most were unconvinced but hey I tried.

[Sally]

I think this is a bit unfair but you do have a good point. I think most of us would agree that Jack the Ripper was a psychopath. So, if Cross was the Ripper, then he was a psychopath by logical deduction.

Using "he was a psychopath" to explain Cross's actions, however, to me is problematic because in some cases it can become a circular explanation and really doesn't explain much at all.

This is why I tried in another thread to provide a set of circumstances that would make Cross's interactions with Paul the most rational course of action to avoid being detected. Most were unconvinced but hey I tried.

Well that's the thing, isn't it, Barnaby? It does become a circular argument.

We can play the 'If he was a psychopath' with so many suspects - it's very handy to explain away the little issue of contradictory evidence - or the absence of any at all.

And of course, it's been done. Paley's book on Barnett is a great example of how easy it is to construct a detailed fantasy from pure conjecture. Alibi? No problem! It can be easily explained away because Barnett was a cunning psychopath and managed to fool everyone.

I can't see how the arguments put forward to promote Crossmere as a suspect are either different or better. Why isn't he just a man who was in the wrong place at the wrong time?** Why, because he was a psychopath, of course.

It's offered to explain everything - yet in fact, it explains nothing at all.

** It;s ok, I don't really need to have it explained to me again, Team Lechmere, just in case you get any ideas

[Fisherman]

** It;s ok, I don't really need to have it explained to me again, Team Lechmere, just in case you get any ideas

Iīll just do it anyway, Sally!

Nobody is saying that Lechmere was a psychopath.

What we are saying is that IF Lechmere was the killer, then most things point to him being a psychopath.

There is a subtle but necessary difference involved, you know.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Except that the reason why he didn't run has been conveniently "explained" (let's be generous) by the supposed psychopathy of Mr Carman (see Lechmere's posts). But to this day, we haven't understood whether shouting at Paul and looking for a bobby was a cunning thing to do or not.

[DVV]

Every single Ripper suspect is based on conjecture.

True, for once.
So how come that the main part of your strategy consists in bashing every other suspect - especially those who are far more convincing than Crossmere. For the record, you have argued that the Joseph Fleming who died in Claybury wasn't Mary's Joe, without the beginning of the shadow of any evidence. Of course, you know you're wrong - but you have kept repeating this nonsense.
Does it add anything to your own candidate ?
I don't think so.

[Lechmere]

The main part of my strategy?
I don't have a strategy. If I did I would have sat in my lair and not breathed a word until I unleashed my magus opus onto an unsuspecting world and the twenty or so 'Ripperologists' who have thus far discussed it would have been none the wiser.

I enjoy discussing other suspects to see if they add up or what the basis of the claim is. Doing that also helps to broaden my knowledge of all aspects of the case an assist me in judging the validity of my favoured theory.
Finding out the weak points of those theories is also interesting.
I find the blank denial of written records one of the most remarkable things about this area of study - whether it be Barnett's alibi, the Victoria Home late admission rules or Fleming's height - and the associated comparison of this denial with mild conjecture over matters which are not in the written record.
Often we see otherwise clearly intelligent people totally suspend their critical faculties to make the most ludicrous points.

I know that deconstructing other theories is very unsettling for the protagonist involved and it often leads to bad temper outbursts, but that is also part of the fun!

[Wickerman]

My apologies Christer, the World Cup got in the way

I understand this, Jon, and I donīt doubt for a second that you are correct.

But what happens when one of these seemingly lying people are found by the side of a freshly killed victim?

I don't see that as being too significant because a killer, other than Cross, had two options open to him.
On hearing footsteps approach he stepped inside the wicket gate or, had time to slip away westward and around the Board School.
If Cross had approached from the Board School end then the options for this other killer were halved, but still not eliminated.

And what happens when the logical routes and timings of that same man just happen to coincide with all of the murders?

If what you refer to is accurate (no reflection on you or Ed.), it only confirms his 'could have' status, to my mind.
Knowing if he actually did take those routes at those times would elevate him, in my opinion, but as you know, such detail is beyond us at this late stage.

And what heppens when we realize that it is only in the case when this suggesed killer is present on one of the murder spots, that the damage done to the victim is concealed?

Her clothes being over her wounds?
I tend to think 'concealed' suggests intentional, I'm not sure that can be determined. Another killer could also have done that. The idea to leave them exposed may have evolved in him due to reactions in the press, not being his first intentions.

All I can say Christer is that the theory still leaves me with questions.

[DVV]

I know that deconstructing other theories is very unsettling for the protagonist involved and it often leads to bad temper outbursts, but that is also part of the fun!

No. And don't be silly : if that Fleming was so tall, where's the problem ? Since you've repeatedly claimed it wasn't Mary's Joe - which was definitely unwise on your behalf, and completely unsubstantiated.

So you are just proving I'm right. QED : the main part of your strategy is to attack other suspects by every mean, including contradictions and patent mistakes.

Do you think it helps your own candidate ?
Apparently, yes, that's what you think.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman: My apologies Christer, the World Cup got in the way

No apologies needed - I watched too.

I don't see that as being too significant because a killer, other than Cross, had two options open to him.
On hearing footsteps approach he stepped inside the wicket gate or, had time to slip away westward and around the Board School.
If Cross had approached from the Board School end then the options for this other killer were halved, but still not eliminated.

If what you refer to is accurate (no reflection on you or Ed.), it only confirms his 'could have' status, to my mind.
Knowing if he actually did take those routes at those times would elevate him, in my opinion, but as you know, such detail is beyond us at this late stage.

Her clothes being over her wounds?
I tend to think 'concealed' suggests intentional, I'm not sure that can be determined. Another killer could also have done that. The idea to leave them exposed may have evolved in him due to reactions in the press, not being his first intentions.

All I can say Christer is that the theory still leaves me with questions.

Iīve got a few of my own too - but to me, itīs enough to crown him the top contender and the probable killer. Itīs good to hear (some) other peopleīs opinions, though!

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Ainīt them Germans a bunch of lucky bastards - Neymar gone. Think the Dutch will run away with the gold, anyhow. But the Argentinians will be a tough hurdle to overcome!