The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Lewis C]

I think we can reasonably safely say "Unknown" did it.

I agree.

[drstrange169]

I think we can reasonably safely say "Unknown" did it.

[Fiver]

Hi Fiver,

Please tell me about UN Owen.

UNknOwn.

[Lewis C]

Several more? Here is my list of top suspects - again.

* UN Owen.
* David Cohen. The suspect was violent and insane. Institutionalized in May 1889. He matches many points of Macnaghten's Kosminski.
* George Capel Scudamore Lechmere. Semi-employed barber who tried to murder his estranged wife in June 1890. He tried to slit her throat, but failed due to drunkenness, was sentenced to 18 months hard labor and died in 1893 a few months after his release.
* James Hardiman. May have been a horse slaughterer. Infant daughter died in June 1888 of syphilis inherited from her mother. Hardiman's wife was hospitalized and died in September 1888. Hardiman died of tuberculosis in December 1891.

Odds are none of the named men were the Ripper, but none of them is ridiculous. All are better suspects than Charles Allen Lechmere, although that's a low hurdle to clear.

Hi Fiver,

Please tell me about UN Owen.

[Fiver]

fiver has posted in the past a list of other people who "are better suspects than lechmere" including james hardiman and even another man named lechmere lol and several others which are frankly ridiculous on the face of it,

Several more? Here is my list of top suspects - again.

* UN Owen.
* David Cohen. The suspect was violent and insane. Institutionalized in May 1889. He matches many points of Macnaghten's Kosminski.
* George Capel Scudamore Lechmere. Semi-employed barber who tried to murder his estranged wife in June 1890. He tried to slit her throat, but failed due to drunkenness, was sentenced to 18 months hard labor and died in 1893 a few months after his release.
* James Hardiman. May have been a horse slaughterer. Infant daughter died in June 1888 of syphilis inherited from her mother. Hardiman's wife was hospitalized and died in September 1888. Hardiman died of tuberculosis in December 1891.

Odds are none of the named men were the Ripper, but none of them is ridiculous. All are better suspects than Charles Allen Lechmere, although that's a low hurdle to clear.

[Fiver]

But is is of course completely honorable، fair and commendable to accuse persons that are no longer among us to defend themselves of being the infamous Jack the Ripper and the Torso murderer, that is how all of us should do the f.... ripperology.



The Baron

That is the nature of suspectology and it has been that way since before any of us were born. The problem comes when people adjust facts to fit the theory instead of adjusting the theory to fit the facts. I have seen people claim that Dr Gull's strokes, which began before the murders, were faked so that he could have an alibi for the murders. The best suspectologists acknowledge evidence that points against their theory, but far too often inconvenient facts are ignored.

[Admin]

We are re-opening this thread. If you would like to post, please make sure you read the updated policy in Casebook Announcements prior to posting.

[John Wheat]

Changing subject, are we? You have still to provide examples of your false claims, John. But you can't. Not a single one. It was all made up, from beginning to end.

Concentrate on that instead.

But why would I do the hardwork when someone has already done it? Especially on a theory that is a joke to all but a handful of the ill informed? I notice you have yet to properly refute Fivers claims. If you are so confident about the Lechmere theory then refuting Fivers claims should be a walk in the park.

[Fisherman]

Fiver has made many claims that you have so far not refuted why don't you? Because there all true?

Changing subject, are we? You have still to provide examples of your false claims, John. But you can't. Not a single one. It was all made up, from beginning to end.

Concentrate on that instead.

[John Wheat]

So there we are, no verification of your false claims. Thank you.

Fiver has made many claims that you have so far not refuted why don't you? Because there all true?

[Fisherman]

If you've got a problem with what I and Fiver said maybe you should prove that the case against Lechmere is made up of facts but you won't because its not.

So there we are, no verification of your false claims. Thank you.

[John Wheat]

All you have to do now, John, is to prove it. Without the usual ”I have already done that”. And the long and the short of it is that you cant. You just made it up.

If you've got a problem with what I and Fiver said maybe you should prove that the case against Lechmere is made up of facts but you won't because its not.

[Fisherman]

But the case against Lechmere is based on false claims, misrepresentations and cherry picking.

All you have to do now, John, is to prove it. Without the usual ”I have already done that”. And the long and the short of it is that you cant. You just made it up.

[John Wheat]

Because what Fiver posted was an array of false claims, misrepresentations and cherrypicking, obscuring the full picture. What I suggested was that these kinds of things would be better to criticize. I stand by that too.

But the case against Lechmere is based on false claims, misrepresentations and cherry picking.

[Fisherman]

The killer hasn't been identified, so I don't like anyone claiming that he has been whether they claim that he was Lechmere, Sickert, Pedachenko, or whomever.

It is up to anybody who has a suspect to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to claim that they think that the killer has been identified. As long as one admits that there is no conclusive proof for it, I myself prefer to be completely honest about my take on things. Lying about it is no option for me, nor is clamming up about it. I call it as I see it, and I expect no less from other posters.

Given the nature of The Baron's criticism, why would he criticize what Fiver posted when Fiver didn't even name a suspect?

Because what Fiver posted was an array of false claims, misrepresentations and cherrypicking, obscuring the full picture. What I suggested was that these kinds of things would be better to criticize. I stand by that too.