A Cross by any other name...smells like JtR?

[Lechmere]

Sally
Yes there seems to be a few Lechmere threads - but don't go blaming me as I didn't start any of them.
Of course conjecture is involved - this is Ripperology.
But I think the telling point - as I was endeavouring to illustrate - is whether the conjecture is accompanied by basic facts being ignored or known police action side stepped.
Also I mentioned that the non Ripperological world is waiting for a believable inconspicuous local ordinary culprit, and is uninterested in the 'exotics' - apart from as an excuse to snear at the eccentricity that is perceived to go hand in hand with 'Ripperology' - not I have to say always undeservedly so.

Barnett despite several books hasn't attracted any popular attention outside the narrow and often weird world of Ripperology. The same goes for Hutchinson despite him being talked up vigorously by the adherents of that theory over quite a few years.
It remains to be seen whether Lechmere suffers a similar fate.

[Lechmere]

Bridewell
I may have misconstrued what you meant - I assumed you meant that despite having a wife and kids that Cadosch had disappeared?
Maybe instead you meant that like Lechmere he could not just disappear but due to his family circumstances was compelled to stick around and if necessary be called as a witness, even if he was potentially guilty of the crime?

[Ben]

It makes a welcome change from the non-starter who is Hutchinson, don't you think?

But you've done such a terribly bad and unconvincing job of demonstrating that he's a "non-starter", that's the problem.

By all means, have another bash at it, just not on this thread.

[Sally]

Once again the forums are awash with Crossmere threads - and just as it was a couple of years ago, when Team Lechmere first tried to sell it, the Crossmere theory depends on an edifice of conjecture [acronym tbc] in order to work.

I've always said, personally, that any new info on Crossmere that alters that position would be of interest - but so far, it hasn't emerged. Oh well.

I don't think the lack of any evidence will matter to the general public once the suspect book appears - it hasn't in any other case. Whatever Ed may tell me concerning the utter crapness of Barnett as a suspect - with which I agree entirely as it happens - he remains a popular suspect largely due to the fact that he's been promoted as a suspect in a couple of dodgy books.

Crossmere too can be a popular suspect, I'm sure, joining the ranks of the popular [perhaps soon to include Van Gogh if we're really lucky].

I doubt that the theory will ever gain critical acceptance though - not as it stands.

[Bridewell]

Albert Cadosch? The guy who didn’t disappear but testified at Chapman’s inquest?

My comment was made, as I'm sure you know, in response to your assertion that Charles Allen Lechmere "couldn't simply disappear because he had a wife and family".

[Lechmere]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion.
I think it very clearly isn't hogwash and is a theory that is taken seriously as a credible solution.

[Patrick S]

Patrick
When reinvestigating the case it is necessary to put 'suspects' in the role of the killer to see if their actions possibly fit the range of behaviours that might have been carried out by the culprit.
That is all that is being done - that is what you object so strongly to.
In my view your objections are cranky and in the league of the exotic theorists - Van Gogh, Lewis Carroll, Sickert etc.

Your suspect belongs in that group. So that makes sense.

I understand the approach. The issue is with what you're finding suspicious. It REQUIRES several major assumptions, chief among them that Lechmere was a psychopath. Lechmere is a psycho because he's Jack the Ripper, and Jack the Ripper was obviously a psycho. Only a psycho would be capable of a great ruse like the one pulled off at Buck's Row, and a psycho he was....because he was Jack the Ripper.

It's Hogwash.

[Lechmere]

Duplicate!

[Lechmere]

Patrick
When reinvestigating the case it is necessary to put 'suspects' in the role of the killer to see if their actions possibly fit the range of behaviours that might have been carried out by the culprit.
That is all that is being done - that is what you object so strongly to.
In my view your objections are cranky and in the league of the exotic theorists - Van Gogh, Lewis Carroll, Sickert etc.

[Observer]

Well said, Patrick.Can't believe we have three concurrent threads on this complete non-starter of a suspect.

It makes a welcome change from the non-starter who is Hutchinson, don't you think?

whereas my poor Mr. Levy is out in the cold.

Best place for him Harry, believe me.

[DVV]

Please, accept my sincere apologies, Patrick.

[Patrick S]

Fantastic.

Therefore, because you don't think that the two guardsmen are guilty, it must be a dagger and not a bayonet ?


Learn to think properly, or take some rest.

You beat me to it.

[DVV]

Unless you conveniently failed to see it, David, a bayonet implicates the soldiers Tabram was with. That is why I have never subscribed to it.
Fisherman

Fantastic.

Therefore, because you don't think that the two guardsmen are guilty, it must be a dagger and not a bayonet ?

As if Martha could not have met another soldier after 11:45...

But to begin with, a bayonet merely implicates someone who has a bayonet.... I'm not Somalian, but I have several Somali swords home.
In your world, if I kill someone with one of these swords, the police should suspect a Somilian, that's it ? How cute.

Learn to think properly, or take some rest.

[Harry D]

Read his testimony with a view of him being guilty? And you think this is reasonable? This is exactly the issue with Lechmere as a "suspect". In order to take him seriously you must view him as guilty going in to even entertain the idea.

He brilliantly bluffs his way out of trouble, because he's a psychopath. We must view him as a psychopath in order to see the brilliance of his deception. If we don't, we just see a man acting with no consciousness of guilt. Nothing in the man's life indicates he was a psychopath - other than baseless accusations that he was Jack the Ripper, of course. What? He kept detailed records? He seems a buttoned-up, proper gentleman who called people, sir? All a ruse! Why? Because he was a killer. Do you not see? You see all these things because you see him as a murderer first. Therefore, everything you learn about him subsequently just serves to underscore what you believe. For those who don't examine him with a 'view of him being guilty', well.....we don't see what you see.

Well said, Patrick.

Can't believe we have three concurrent threads on this complete non-starter of a suspect, whereas my poor Mr. Levy is out in the cold.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

You're only quibbling, I'm afraid.
You've constantly supported Killeen's suggestion, and obviously, when he said "a dagger or bayonet", it can only mean that one of these two phantasmagorical weapons, with a similar blade, had inflicted THIS wound.

Therefore, when you follow Killeen, you just can follow him entirely : dagger or bayonet. There is nothing that allows you to decide whether it was one or the other.

How can you know it was a dagger, but not a bayonet ?

Answer this, please, my friend.

Cheers

Unless you conveniently failed to see it, David, a bayonet implicates the soldiers Tabram was with. That is why I have never subscribed to it.

If you had said that I had always supported the bayonet or dagger theory you would have saved yourself the embarrasment. But you didn´t. You opted for me being a bayonet subscriber - that I "firmly believed in the old bayonet". That´s thoroughly misleading and, as long as the dagger is excluded, something I will not tolerate.

As for supporting the dagger OR bayonet theory, what´s strange with that? The evidence and Killeen supported it too. It´s the mainstream suggestion.

You REALLY need to shape up. And to word what you want to say in a manner that allows other people to see what you are after. Otherwise, you will likely step in it again.

Adieu,

Fisherman