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

[Fisherman]

There is no point in discussing this further, Fisherman. Your mind is closed, you simply babble the same nonsense ad infinitum without actually reading what other's write or pondering what they mean. Your posts are, as i have said, without discernment or discrimination.

We are ships that pass in the night, I regret.

If you won't accept genuine feedback and comment, I have no more to say.

Phil

And if I will accept genuine feedback and comment, Phil - then where should I look for it?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, one mustn't over-egg the pudding :

"But ANY evidence of motive, of involvement with any other murder, of contemporary suspicion... anything that ties him to another murder in the series (and not just passing the spot) might help you. None of that would convince me - but it might help to strengthen your case."

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

Macnaghten said Kosminski had a great hatred of women. Not much evidence as to motive - but it scores in this respect over Cross, who is not known to have harboured any misogynistic thoughts.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
As I remarked earlier, Cross comes into the Hutchinson bracket.
They are both witnesses, albeit Cross did see a body, but both have no motive that is known, to fulfill a roll as a homicidal maniac.
We simply should not seriously suggest that one of the two is a strong suspect warranted enough to fill page after page of posts, when it is highly unlikely to say the least.
People like Druitt, Kosminsky, Tumblety,Fleming,Maybrick, and a host of other much discussed suspects surely take preference over Cross, although I fully accept that the culprit most likely is someone else, possibly connected to one of the victims.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

Robert

The tying of Kosminski to the murders is not a modern "conceit" - it dates back to the officials close to the case at the time.

Sensible people do not, I think, try to "pin the murders" on Kosminski (whether Aaron or another). That, in our present state of knowledge would surely be futile.

Rather energies, such as Rob House's, are best used trying to improve our knowledge of Kosminski and his family. We know now much more than we used to.

As I see it, Kosminski is a plausible suspect because:

a) there was suspicion of him at the time (that apparently extended to an exceptional attempt at identification);
b) he was deranged enough to end up in an institution;
c) we have snippets of information from Swanson that suggest he was a concern to those who knew him;
d) nothing has emerged that makes him implausible and a good deal that makes him a reasonable suspect.

But there is nothing to tie him into any of the murders specifically. maybe there never was - only suspicion.

NONE of this applies to Cross/Lechmere. He evidently did not create enough suspicion at the time to warrant anyone considering him as the killer. Yet he was known to the authorities. I can see very little more reason to make him than the killer than (say) Richardson - who's testimony has been questioned; Indian Harry Bowyer; or Albert Cadoche - who's integrity has been besmirched. All "could have had" opportunity - and were in a similar relation to the body as Cross (unless one places significance only on selected aspects of the case.

Fisherman's case relies so heavily on special pleading and the interpretation of events connected to the first killing being extended to all the others, that it defies logical critique. There is nothing of logic to it - save a desire to argue in a certain line.

While that might be momentarily amusing, I suggest making it a self-contained theory is a waste of time and breath.

Fisherman:

And if I will accept genuine feedback and comment, Phil - then where should I look for it?

Not from me unless I see evidence of an openness expressed by actually reading and responding to points made other than by boringly re-iterating the same tired litany.

I don't think I have ever seen you admit the weakness of the case - so how can one discuss anything? Your current approach simply responds by repetition, not by a desire to actually deconstruct the evidence and look at it from more than one perspective.

I am always suspicious, I'll admit, of those who pursue only a single suspect though. Even those with contemporary underpinnings.

Phil

[Robert]

Hi Phil

That's what I was saying. Fish seemed to be saying that there was no evidence of motive as regards Kosminski, so I mentioned Macnaghten's remarks on his hatred of women, and said that there was no corresponding evidence that Cross hated women.

The same thing applies, of course, regarding contemporary suspicion. Kosminki seems to have been suspected, but Cross wasn't.

Of course, we can't say that Kosminski was the killer. He seems a good candidate for research, though.

[Phil H]

Robert - we clearly are of a mind.



Phil

[Fisherman]

Phil H:


Fisherman:

And if I will accept genuine feedback and comment, Phil - then where should I look for it?

Not from me unless I see evidence of an openness expressed by actually reading and responding to points made other than by boringly re-iterating the same tired litany.

I don't think I have ever seen you admit the weakness of the case - so how can one discuss anything? Your current approach simply responds by repetition, not by a desire to actually deconstruct the evidence and look at it from more than one perspective.

The thing is, Phil - why would I admit that the case was weak when I think the exact opposite?

As for the details of the case against Lechmere, I have said over and over again that each and every little thing that I think points to guilt on his behalf can also be read as being innocent.

What more can I do? Get on my knees and confess that the innocent scenario is the better one? I really don´t think it is, see. I truly believe that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper, and I do so because I find that there are too many details pointing to him for it all to be a more likely case of innocence.

But to state that I only repeat? What would you have me do when, for example, for the umpteenth time it is said that Lechmere could have called himself Cross colloquially? Think up a fresh new explanation every time to why I don´t agree? There is one reason and one reason only that I don´t agree - he NEVER represented himself as Cross other than on the murder night.
What other answer could I give?

Could he have called himself Cross colloquially? Yes, the offhand chance is there. And I have said so thousands of times already. What more can I do? Which answer should I give to avoid repetition? You tell me!

As for deconstructing the evidence, I don´t think anybody has gone further in that direction than Edward and me. We have been over each little syllable and asked ourselves "what does this mean?" and "how can it be interpreted" more times than I can count. When I presented the Mizen scam, I added that an alternative explanation could be that Lechmere simply was in a rush and wanted to get past Mizen. I don´t favour that explanation, but since I had looked at it all from different angles, I mentioned the possibility.

What more can I do? I don´t know. But I know what YOU could do: list the three most telling objections to the Lechmere theory, to your mind. And then YOU try to look at them from all angles. And then YOU try and estimate to what extent they do any real damage to the theory.

Who knows, you may surprise yourself.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"That's what I was saying. Fish seemed to be saying that there was no evidence of motive as regards Kosminski ..."

Pay less attention to what I "seem" to be saying, Robert, and more to what I actually say. Phil asked for evidence, and I pointed out that when it comes to factual evidence, Kosminski comes up with very little. And it´s hearsay to boot.

In that context, the pulled-down dress, the Mizen scam, the long time it took to walk from Doveton Street to Buck´s Row etc, etc, etc, represent real evidence. And a lot more too.

So you see, Robert, what you thought I "seemed" to say and what I DID say were two different things. Plus it implicated that I either suppressed or had no knowledge of the alleged "great hatred of women" on Kosminskis behalf. I do not wish for me to be represented in such a manner.

All 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.

[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

[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

[Lechmere]

Says the man who proposes Barnett.
Enough said

[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]

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.

[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