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

[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]

Please, accept my sincere apologies, Patrick.

[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.

[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.

[Lechmere]

Duplicate!

[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]

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.

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[DVV]

I don't think "popular attention" makes any suspect more viable.
As for Hutch, well, he was the Ripper in the Whitechapel series.
But that wouldn't be enough for Crossmere, apparently.

[Lechmere]

The point I was making DVV is merely that the interested public at large are unaware of Hutchinson and the rest, despite the endeavours of various people to push these suspects, and I was suggesting reasons for them not gaining traction. You don't have to be so defensive about the team you support, I mean the suspect theory you favour.

[Fisherman]

Fantastic.

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

No, it must not be a dagger and not a bayonet.

It could be EITHER a dagger or a bayonet.

Those who firmly cling to a dagger theory exclude the bayonet, since they think a dagger did it. They thus lay down that they donīt think the soldiers were the culprits.

Those who firmly cling to a bayonet theory exclude the dagger, since they think a bayonet did it. They thus lay down that they think that the soldiers DID do it.

Those who cannot see this distinction - or try to make out that they cannot - really should do something else than Ripperology. They donīt know the stuff they need to know, or they are not honest.

Take your pick, David.

The best,
Fisherman