A new critique of the Cross/Lechmere theory from Stewart Evans

[Fisherman]

M[B]

Since you clearly ignore my posts, I'll read no more of yours.

You know, Phil - that may well be the best call youīve made all night. I thoroughly recommend such an approach on your behalf.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jenni Shelden]

no worries, who am I to talk

[Lechmere]

Sorry Jenni - I as using my phone to post - always dangerous.

[Phil H]

M"...historical suspects ... need to be understood and researched because they are part of the record - that is the way history and historians operate world-wide and professionally"

Fisherman: Good. Then I propose Lechmere. He is part of the record.

Which just proves my point - you don't READ posts - you simply assume they mean what you want them to. You ignore the key words in my sentence - "historical suspects" - which Lechmere never was. A point which i was at pains to make.

Since you clearly ignore my posts, I'll read no more of yours.

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

Behind all Fisherman's mindless and inconsequential bluster, there is a serious point to be resolved.

This is interesting. You will find my comment on the "blustering" business in my signing off lines of this post. But donīt sneak-peak!

"...historical suspects ... need to be understood and researched because they are part of the record - that is the way history and historians operate world-wide and professionally"

Good. Then I propose Lechmere. He is part of the record.

"... plucking a character - whether included in contemporary reports or just contemporary with the murders, and attempting to make a case against them."

This is hypocritical nonsense, I fear. What you are saying is that there is no need to make a case against Kosminski et al since the police already made that case a century ago.
That wonīt hold up as long as you donīt know the particulars.

You are doing the same thing as the Hutchinsonians do when they celebrate the Sue Iremonger verdict on the witness signatures pertaining to Hutchinson: accepting that the verdict is a viable one in spite of the fact that we donīt know which signatures she looked at.
Is believing in authority as a religion. Itīs thumbsucking.

The weakness of the case is underlined by the fact that for about 100 years or more no one ever discussed Cross as a suspect.

And the strength of the Kosminski and Tumblety arguments lie in the fact that they too were forgotten for the longest time, I take it?
Do think before you type - it helps immensely.

"you have to rubbish serious scholarship because it provides no comfort or support for your arguments"

Serious scholarship? To look away from the fact that Lechmereīs road to work coincides with all the victims? Serious scholarship?

To disregard the name swop? Serious scholarship?

The pomposity of that argument is immeasurable.

Hence my pointing out the two kinds of suspect here as a warning to newcomers to the field.

Iīm sure you are doing a world of good, Phil - may the followers line up and all be given three forms to sign up on, one white, one yellow and one blue, all of them listing the social security numbers of the applicants.

If the sort of arguments that Fisherman inclies to are accepted widely then any standards and quality disappears.

Yep. Letīs not care about the proximity between Lechmereīs work trek and the murder spots, letīs look away from the coinciding timing, letīs disregard him being found by the victim, letīs forget the pulled down dress, the Mizen scam, the appearance in court in working clothes, the omission to give his address in open court, the nameswop .. letīs ditch all that, and return to TRUE form and TRUE SCHOLARSHIP!!!

And we all know whoīs the man when it comes to teaching THAT discipline!

It is a commonplace of the internet to confuse two concepts:

1) everyone has an equal right to express their ideas; and

2) all ideas are equal.

Number 1 may be true. Only fools believe number 2. The views of a neophyte clearly need to be scrutinised carefully, whereas a student of 20 years standing has greater credibility. The newcomer may have insights, the experienced scholar is likely to be more aware of the evidence and its pitfalls.

Yeah? Iīve studied the case for thirty years - where does that land me ...?

Fisherman ... seeks to denigrate all that went before to give life to his ephemeral theory.

Any theory has to stand on itīs own legs, Phil. And if those legs wobble under a suspect because no evidence can be found to support him but a statement from a policeman that other policemen distinctly denied, then itīs not my fault. You are free to support any suspect you like - even Barnett, in fact - but the right to belittle, to scorn, to criticize and to laugh at suspects is not something you have some sort of monopoly on.

Don't be fooled. Look at what he is saying; consider the evidence and weight its authority and provenance. Mixing chalk and cheese creates a sandwich but one not nice to eat. That is what Fisherman, IMHO, is offering.

You know, Phil, I have heard things like these before. In sermons from the 19:th century: "Beware of the devil, least he devours you and let you roast in eternity". And then we grab a whip and drive Belsebub out, eh ...?

"Blustering", was it? Me oh my.

All the best, Phil - really!
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Libel?
Do you know what libel is?
I said you proposed Barnett and you have confirmed it.

I have NEVER proposed Joe Barnett as JtR - which is what you meant. You misrepresented my views, deliberately, in print (which is what libel means).

Given my position, which is simply that MJK may have been a domestic, I can hardly have been "hypocritical" in critiquing your and Fisherman's proposal (I won't honour it with the word theory).

There is no point in discussing anything with you, because you neither listen nor are, evidently, interested in balanced views.

However, the fact that your case is non-existent is now evident - your violent response indicates that.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Lechmere,
firstly, 2 n's

secondly, I don't make the rules, you are allowed to do what you want. If you want to bluster and call out other theories that's fine. I was merely pointing out that it might make your case seem mere solid if it were backed up with facts rather than repetitive speculation that was the same regardless of whatever anyone else said followed by laughing at other theories and poking fun at people

that's all

[Lechmere]

Libel?
Do you know what libel is?
I said you proposed Barnett and you have confirmed it.

[Phil H]

Just to be absolutely clear, I have NEVER proposed Barnett as "Jack".

I have said that I believe MJK may have been killed by an "intimate" - of whom Barnett is one.

I have also asserted Barnett as a possible killer of Kelly - NEVER as "Jack".

So get your facts right before you libel people in a way irrelevant to the point under discussion.

If I believed that the Man in the Moon was "Jack" (I don't!) it is irrelevant - as Jenni says (no offence taken ) - to the point under discussion.

Edited to add, I HAVE no one suspect for "Jack".

Phil

[Lechmere]

Jeni
I was merely pointing out the gross hypocrisy inherent within Phil's post - I'm sure that's allowed.
I'm working and can readily type such one liners.

[Jenni Shelden]

Says the man who proposes Barnett.
Enough said

With the greatest deal of respect Ed, that is irrelevant to the point in question i.e the candicay of Cross as the Ripper.

Who gives a toss (sorry Phil) who Phil thinks is JtR, what we are talking about is the likelihood of Cross being the Ripper.
If the only comeback to the perfectly legitimate points that Phil has raised is to say 'my candidate is as bad as your candidate' that is hardly a sign of conviction of the argument. Surely if there is a solid argument there would have some points to counter what Stewart originally then Phil and others have said. There is plenty of speculation based on what Stewart and others already were pointing to flaws in but no, instead it is acted as though we are in the playground aged ten by trying to belittle Phil , which is uncalled for and outside of what is being discussed anyway. The ranking of candicates against each other is not a reflection on if your candidate is any good. If kosminski is a good candidate is irrelevant ot if Cross is. If Maybrick could have transported the organs home unnoticed or Sickert needed a magic flying carpet to get to the crime scene does not prove Cross was the killer or excuse an idea of what he would have done. If you are speculating then it is fair for others to point out flaws in that speculation

You keep mentioning that your next post will address Stewart's points, but you never do.

I can see this suspect going the way of Donston some years ago.

That is probably a good thing as there is no evidence either was Jack the Ripper.

To all you Lechmere theorists i say, show your solid evidence or put up with the fact that , whatever your conviction, there is plenty of legitimacy is questioning your theory/speculation. Because at the moment it seems that is all you have

best wishes
Jenni

[Lechmere]

Says the man who proposes Barnett.
Enough said

[Phil H]

Behind all Fisherman's mindless and inconsequential bluster, there is a serious point to be resolved.

That is the clear distinction between:

a) historical suspects who need to be understood and researched because they are part of the record - that is the way history and historians operate world-wide and professionally;

b) plucking a character - whether included in contemporary reports or just contemporary with the murders, and attempting to make a case against them.

Druitt, Tumblety and Kosminski all fall within the first category, the interest originating (in all three cases) in senior officials with inside knowledge of the investigations.

Category (b) - Van Gogh, Barnardo and Dodgson I have already cited as examples (see previous posts) - also includes Cross/Lechmere, against whom there is not a single shred of evidence. All that Fisherman can come up with is contention, suggestion and inference based on - the fact that the man was found next to the body. The weakness of the case is underlined by the fact that for about 100 years or more no one ever discussed Cross as a suspect.

Now, category (b) is also, in its methodology - you have to rubbish serious scholarship because it provides no comfort or support for your arguments - is akin to that of writers like Von Daniken (Chariots of the Gods), Graham Hancock etc. It is a cheap and unprofessional approach but dangerous because it can fool the unwary.

Hence my pointing out the two kinds of suspect here as a warning to newcomers to the field.

If the sort of srguments that Fisherman inclies to are accepted widely then any standards and quality disappears. Anything can be cited and must be acceptable. This is the manner and style of the "snake oil salesman".

Discernment and descrimination are essential. It is a commonplace of the internet to confuse two concepts:

1) everyone has an equal right to express their ideas; and

2) all ideas are equal.

Number 1 may be true. Only fools believe number 2. The views of a neophyte clearly need to be scrutinised carefully, whereas a student of 20 years standing has greater credibility. The newcomer may have insights, the experienced scholar is likely to be more aware of the evidence and its pitfalls.

Fisherman has every right to express his ideas, but he respects neither his audience nor the evidence in the way he uses his sources and mixes conjecture with solid investigation; the way he seeks to denigrate all that went before to give life to his ephemeral theory.

Don't be fooled. Look at what he is saying; consider the evidence and weight its authority and provenance. Mixing chalk and cheese creates a sandwich but one not nice to eat. That is what Fisherman, IMHO, is offering.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Fish, let's get away from your motivations or my motivations, and concentrate on the murderer's. Now, Phil said : ""But ANY evidence of motive.....might help to strengthen your case."

You replied :
"U-huh. And how does this apply to, say, Kos?"

I was pointing out that there was evidence of motive regarding Kosminski, although it is indirect evidence. We don't know why Macnaghten said this, and he may have been wrong. But it is true that there was this allegation against Kosminski - and no similar allegation against Cross.

Kos has less going for him evidencewise than Lechmere has. That was what I meant when I asked Phil my question. I can see, however, how you reason. And, typically Ripperish, I realize that there are two sides to see this from.

Thanks for explaining.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, let's get away from your motivations or my motivations, and concentrate on the murderer's. Now, Phil said : ""But ANY evidence of motive.....might help to strengthen your case."

You replied :
"U-huh. And how does this apply to, say, Kos?"

I was pointing out that there was evidence of motive regarding Kosminski, although it is indirect evidence. We don't know why Macnaghten said this, and he may have been wrong. But it is true that there was this allegation against Kosminski - and no similar allegation against Cross.