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

[DVV]

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.

And the point I was making, Lechmere, is that it's a bit rich to say : "Let's see if Crossmere will suffer a similar fate".
The Whitechapel Series have been broadcated out of England, you know...
Hope you will have the same success with your suspect.

Hutchinson's candidacy has been built by serious researchers, while Sickert, Macnaghten and so on belong to a very different category.

I agree that Hutch or Kosminski are not as popular as William Gull or Mr Pointer, but an unknown local can't challenge a royal theory, a well-written novel, or a Hitchcock movie.

[DVV]

Take your pick, David.
The best,
Fisherman

Easy, Fish.
My pick is that only one weapon was involved in the murder.
But what makes you think it was a dagger and not a bayonet ?
That will remain an eternal mystery.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Well, Dave, acting suspicious (loitering?) around one murder scene doesn't make him responsible for all the other murders. Such suggestions only serve to emphasize the extreme's at which the 'assumption' is required to be accepted.

Both Hutchinson and Lechmere are only alleged suspects, and no more culpable, on present evidence, than Barnett, McCarthy, or Kidney, and any other witnesses who have been offered up for sacrificial slaughter.

Lechmere at least is traceable, he left a social footprint. With Hutchinson, unless Topping is accepted, we don't even know if that was his real name.
In both cases their culpability depends on an endless list of "what-ifs", negative evidence, in other words.

Selecting one witness from the bunch to make him your preferred alleged suspect boils down to personal preference as no evidence exists in either case.

The recent tendency to look nearer to home for a suspect (among the witnesses) may be the result of condemnation by those interested in the case aimed at the 'celebrity' suspect.

The 'witness' suspect appears to be an attempt to legitimize a theory, with the expectation that no such condemnation is justified if the suspect was already known and among the masses.

The trouble is, the subsequent 'fitting-up' of the witness to make him appear suspicious follows along the already predictable path well trodden by those who propose the 'celebrity' suspect.

In other words, the story remains the same, it's only the names that change.

[Fisherman]

Easy, Fish.
My pick is that only one weapon was involved in the murder.
But what makes you think it was a dagger and not a bayonet ?
That will remain an eternal mystery.

Cheers

What will NOT remain an eternal mystery though is whether you got it right or wrong when you confidently asserted that I have ever firmly belonged to the bayonet fraction.
Let´s not take our eye of the target, and let´s not loose focus here: You were wrong and you tried to escape that by suddenly moving the goalposts by claiming that those who were for the dagger suggestion were also automatically for the bayonet suggestion.
After having misrepresented me like this, you chose not to admit that you were wrong, but instead questioned my intelligence.

And you know what? Every time you babble away with the aim to conceal that you misrepresented me, it will become all the much clearer and more obvious.

Once again: Have I ever firmly ascribed to the bayonet theory? Well?

The very best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Well, Dave, acting suspicious (loitering?) around one murder scene doesn't make him responsible for all the other murders. Such suggestions only serve to emphasize the extreme's at which the 'assumption' is required to be accepted.

Both Hutchinson and Lechmere are only alleged suspects, and no more culpable, on present evidence, than Barnett, McCarthy, or Kidney, and any other witnesses who have been offered up for sacrificial slaughter.

Lechmere at least is traceable, he left a social footprint. With Hutchinson, unless Topping is accepted, we don't even know if that was his real name.
In both cases their culpability depends on an endless list of "what-ifs", negative evidence, in other words.

Selecting one witness from the bunch to make him your preferred alleged suspect boils down to personal preference as no evidence exists in either case.

The recent tendency to look nearer to home for a suspect (among the witnesses) may be the result of condemnation by those interested in the case aimed at the 'celebrity' suspect.

The 'witness' suspect appears to be an attempt to legitimize a theory, with the expectation that no such condemnation is justified if the suspect was already known and among the masses.

The trouble is, the subsequent 'fitting-up' of the witness to make him appear suspicious follows along the already predictable path well trodden by those who propose the 'celebrity' suspect.

In other words, the story remains the same, it's only the names that change.

Hi Jon,

Interesting post, but I wouldn't reduce the suspect-based ripperology to desperate attemps to challenge Knight and Cornwell.

I'm even of opinion that sometimes, not to say often, agnostic ripperologists are more stubborn and narrow-minded than those who favour a suspect.

It's so easy to object that we don't know, that we haven't seen Hutch butchering Mary Kelly...

It's more logical, I believe, to suspect Hutch than to argue that all his deeds and words are innocent.

And I sincerely believe that Lechmere is sincerely convinced that Crossmere was JtR.
I sincerely believe that Tom is sincerely convinced that Le Grand was JtR.
Same goes with Rob and Kosminski.

And I sincerely believe that Fleming was the Ripper, and that he and Hutch were one and the same.

The number of his victims is in my opinion a far more complicated problem.

Cheers

[DVV]

What will NOT remain an eternal mystery though is whether you got it right or wrong when you confidently asserted that I have ever firmly belonged to the bayonet fraction.

Once again: Have I wever firmly ascribed to the bayonet theory? Well?

The very best,
Fisherman

I've already responded that, Fish, and if I were you, I'd change topic, you've been ridiculous enough on the subject.

But since you ask for it....I repeat :

Once you agree with Killeen that two weapons were used, ie : a dagger or a bayonet, it makes no difference.

Worse : you're making a fool of yourself when you vote for the dagger, because you have NO WAY to explain why you vote so.

It's absurd. Totally, completely and definitely absurd.

Will you understand, at last ?

The whole casebook is holding its breath.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

I've already responded that, Fish, and if I were you, I'd change topic, you've been ridiculous enough on the subject.

But since you ask for it....I repeat :

Once you agree with Killeen that two weapons were used, ie : a dagger or a bayonet, it makes no difference.

Worse : you're making a fool of yourself when you vote for the dagger, because you have NO WAY to explain why you vote so.

It's absurd. Totally, completely and definitely absurd.

Will you understand, at last ?

The whole casebook is holding its breath.

Cheers

Thanks for once more underlining that you will not admit that you misrepresented me!

Here is your original post:

"As for Tabram, hem...., you firmly believed in the famous bayonet.... soldiers ?"

Every- and anybody can see what you tried to do here: You tried to point me out as having ascribed to the soldier/bayonet theory, so that you could point a finger at me and say that I had conveniently changed my mind.

Anybody believing in the dagger OR bayonet theory cannot be taken to task in that department, and the two weapon suggestion is the one we have on historical and medical record so that isn´t controversial in any manner.

Well, David, you failed miserably, didn´t you?

Things like these say a lot about different posters; will they admit when they are wrong? Will they apologize? Will they back their misrepresentations up with something? Anything?

Or will they avoid that and instead opt for trying to ridicule the people they have misrepresented?

The irony of the thing, David, is that I have never had any trouble at all changing my mind, when I have found that the evidence justifies and calls for it. Never.

That is another approach altogether than it is to refuse to accept public record registerings about the height of somebody when it does not suit you, and to refuse to accept an identification that has been made between one´s suspect and a man that was clearly not lying about his name.

But it´s your chosen path, not mine. I wouldn´t touch it with a pair of pliers myself.

Bayonet theory, was it? And soldiers?

Bye for now, David. No doubt I shall have reason to talk to you again fortwith, but not on this matter.

Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Interesting post, but I wouldn't reduce the suspect-based ripperology to desperate attemps to challenge Knight and Cornwell.

Hi Dave.
Thankfully, the witness-suspect is not all there is to suspect-based research.

I'm even of opinion that sometimes, not to say often, agnostic ripperologists are more stubborn and narrow-minded than those who favour a suspect.

I guess it could be said that attempts to 'pull in the reins' could be seen as narrow minded. Not willing to entertain the singular interpretation when several are available, and will always be available due to our lack of information.
Often I think the singular interpretation has been adopted before the right questions have been asked.

It's so easy to object that we don't know...

If you're referring to suspicions, the statement of fact is always the easiest to maintain

It's more logical, I believe, to suspect Hutch than to argue that all his deeds and words are innocent.

You believe it is illogical to believe the statement given to police, when said statement has been accepted?
Yet your choice is based on an idea that cannot be substantiated nor demonstrated.

And I sincerely believe that Lechmere is sincerely convinced that Crossmere was JtR.
I sincerely believe that Tom is sincerely convinced that Le Grand was JtR.
Same goes with Rob and Kosminski.

Agree entirely, in all cases. Though conviction is often subjective in itself.
I've always believed the objective researcher does not have a suspect.
I use to follow Melvin Harris in his exposure of myths and false claims, yet his own theory left a lot to be desired.
The objective researcher can fall victim to his own endeavors.

And I sincerely believe that Fleming was the Ripper, and that he and Hutch were one and the same.

Ah, so the short fat guy seen by Sarah Lewis was not Hutch?

[DVV]

Don't worry, Fish, I will not insist.
You've been ridiculous enough. Everybody can see you're unable to answer why it was a dagger and not a bayonet. Not a single word.

Sad also : you're unable to understand that, bayonet or dagger, it makes no difference : if you vote for the bayonet, that's absurd. If you vote for the dagger, that's equally absurd.

But all that is so pathetic.... I don't want to be cruel.

Nor will I hijack the thread with Fleming.

Take my friendly advice : have some rest. Go breathe some good fresh Swedish air. Believe me : that you cannot understand you have no way to know whether it was a dagger or a bayonet is not normal.

Cheers

[DVV]

Ah, so the short fat guy seen by Sarah Lewis was not Hutch?

Smiley aside, Jon, that's a perfect illustration of agnostic narrow-mindedness.
6'7 has been written once, so it has to be true - indeed, that's a convenient way of rejecting a suspect. It shows you're ready to use every mean, good or bad, intelligent or stupid.
No matter if the weight definitely doesn't fit, if nobody has ever mentioned such an extraordinary height, neither Mary, nor her friends, nor Barnett, nor those who knew Mary when she was about to marry Fleming, and worse : not a single mention of this incredible height and thinness in the medical records (healthy, eats well, sleeps well....although his bed must have been too short).

It just has to be true because you imagine it annoys those who favour this suspect.

But it doesn't, my friend. Not a second.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Smiley aside, Jon, that's a perfect illustration of agnostic narrow-mindedness.
6'7 has been written once, so it has to be true - indeed, that's a convenient way of rejecting a suspect. It shows you're ready to use every mean, good or bad, intelligent or stupid.
No matter if the weight definitely doesn't fit, if nobody has ever mentioned such an extraordinary height, neither Mary, nor her friends, nor Barnett, nor those who knew Mary when she was about to marry Fleming, and worse : not a single mention of this incredible height and thinness in the medical records (healthy, eats well, sleeps well....although his bed must have been too short).

It just has to be true because you imagine it annoys those who favour this suspect.

But it doesn't, my friend. Not a second.

Cheers

I don't believe Fleming was six foot seven Dave, honestly.

[DVV]

I don't believe Fleming was six foot seven Dave, honestly.

Ah ! then you've been really saucy, son !

[Observer]

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.

Oh look, I have a stalker! At least that's the reaction I would have received had I responded to a similar post submitted by you.

Also, don't tell me where to deposit my posts, it's none of your business.

As for "having a bash", at the non-starter of a suspect Hutchinson, I just might do that, but my observations will not be wasted on the likes of you.

I've had enough (much the same as friend Fisherman) of your half baked crappy theories, the smoke and mirrors, the waffle, the square pegs in round holes. No, enough is enough. Converse with Jon (Wickerman) after all, you have him captivated, at your beck and call. Yeah right, what a laugh.

You know, I sometimes wonder about you.

Of course, I'll continue to read your posts, they're good for a laugh, it amuses me no end when you get annoyed. So, keep up the good work, keep us amused, and you can't go wrong really.

[Ben]

“As for "having a bash", at the non-starter of a suspect Hutchinson, I just might do that, but my observations will not be wasted on the likes of you.”

I’m afraid the “likes of me” will respond whether the observation was “wasted” on me or not. Unless you’ve been appointed a moderator, I’m afraid you don’t have the luxury of denying people permission to respond to your posts, and if I see something I disagree with, such as a sloppily uncritical and badly thought-through condemnation of Hutchinson as a suspect, you can be assured that I’ll address it. I won’t be making any distinctions, either, between posters who contribute out of genuine disagreement with regard to Hutchinson, and those whose posting habits are motivated purely by personal animosity. If others want to debate personalities, that’s lovely, and I for one am flattered to be “wondered” about, but I’ll personally be sticking to the issues under discussion.

Hi Lechmere,

I neither said nor implied that you were "lying". I didn’t even think it, actually. It is a reality, however, that we can’t always anticipate our reactions. You’re obviously very convinced of Cross’s guilt, and that’s fair enough, but if your conviction in that regard comes anywhere close to Fisherman’s 70% likely to be the ripper, you might not be as objective as you’d hope to be in the face of what you regard as mitigating evidence (like an investigator telling his superiors that he “interrogated” Cross), if and when it came to it. I don’t doubt that many people would insist that they would behave honourably on a sinking ship (and here I’ll avoid taking advantage of the obvious “Crossmere theory = sinking ship" comparison), but who would nonetheless leap into the first lifeboat if and when the reality confronted them, and it wouldn’t make them liars either.

You bring Hutchinson into this discussion, which is an interesting decision. He was no more “interrogated” than any other witness presenting himself as such, whose truthfulness or otherwise needed to be ascertained. Abberline only used that word in his report because he was speaking to his superiors, and was bound to want to convey an impression of thoroughness. Had he been responsible for the Cross interrogation, and reported on that to his superiors, I somehow doubt he’d have written “cosied up with Cross for tea and marmite and chatted casually about his discovery of the woman’s body”.

No, there is no evidence that either police or press ever noticed the Lewis/Hutchinson connection, but there is evidence that they didn’t.

No, there was no “curfew” at the Victoria Home for anyone who had purchased a daily or weekly pass.

And no, it is not likely that Fleming was 6’7”, as it is impossible to reconcile with other details of his appearance and bodily health.

But that’s us done with Hutchinson for this thread. You’ve done a bit more on another Cross thread, which I’ll address in due course, and then with any luck, the Cross threads will be a Hutchinson-free zone. But we’ll just have to see.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Oh look, I have a stalker!

Excuuuuse Me!
He's my stalker, not yours, go get your own.

No, there was no “curfew” at the Victoria Home for anyone who had purchased a daily or weekly pass.

Let's start by establishing that the Victoria Home WAS his "usual place" up until the 8th, before we go jumping to conclusions that he must have had a 'pass', that he must have lied about the place being closed at 3:00am, and subsequently, that he also must have been familiar with the local pubs on Commercial St.

If, as is quite possible, his "usual place" was another address, then none of your complaints apply.

As is always the case, too much depends on your tenuous & convenient assumptions you so frequently adopt.

Oh, and by the way.
Your confederate Mr Wroe no longer approves of "treating personal interpretation as firmly established fact" (Oh, the irony!), so try another approach, lest you fall victim to his wroth too.