Lechmere's Behavior in Buck's Row

[DVV]

Hutch was an ordinary geezer who was (he says) present at a murder scene and whose name appeared in the papers in connection with the case. To that extent, he is no different from Lechmere. The fact that later researchers happen to ping both Lechmere and Hutch for ostensibly similar reasons - i.e. they were both incorrigible liars! - makes the comparison even more apposite.

I don't mean to hijack that thread, so let's meet somewhere else. We'll talk of Petticoat Lane and some other details. But as I said, a signature doesn't make Hutch more believable. I do remember many posts of yours, even before I started posting, Gareth.
Especially one, in 2005.

[DVV]

That is why (DVV) the Reeves, Dimschutz, Davis and Bowyer examples are not comparisons. Apart from they show how innocent people react when confronted by a dead body.

That was a reply to a Rainbow's post, not the ultimate objection to your theory, who seems to imply more than the Buck's Row murder scene.
Still, Cross-the-flexible-psychopat did not behave like a killer in Buck's Row.
But ordinary killers aren't that flexible, I presume.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't mean to hijack that thread, so let's meet somewhere else.

Sounds good to me!

[Patrick S]

Patrick
Dare I suggest that as you regard the Lechmere theory as hogwash and in the same category as Sickert, Van Gogh and Lewis Carroll you may – just may – have not done the theory justice when discussing it with your five buddies.

And it’s not that we have one person finding the body. We have one person being found by the body by someone else. Those two people the leave the body and it is found again by a third person.
If you constantly misrepresent the scenario is it any wonder that your five buddies were unable to come to a rational conclusion?

That is why (DVV) the Reeves, Dimschutz, Davis and Bowyer examples are not comparisons. Apart from they show how innocent people react when confronted by a dead body.

Patrick (back to you)
You keep repeating the ‘why not kill Paul’ question – with which you seem to have promoted your buddies. I would hope that you might have picked up that psychopathic killers rarely if ever turn on an interrupter– particularly if male. They deliberately seek out weak victims – ones that will not put up much resistance. It would barely cross such a killers mind to use their knife on an able bodied person. That you keep suggesting this course of action suggests to me that you don’t really understand this type of crime.

Yeah. It's me. I just don't get it. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm still waiting to find out how we know Cross was a psychopath....aside from the fact that he was Jack the Ripper...and Jack the Ripper HAD to be a psychopath.

[DVV]

You're disappointing me, Patrick.
Crossmere was married and used to wake up early to feed his children.
What else do you need ?

[Lechmere]

Gareth

Thank you for your list.
I thought you may have included Mann.
I will explain briefly why these suspects won’t or don’t gain as much traction (bearing in mind that the Lechmere theory is a relative baby and has not yet had a major treatment in a book or on TV).
I will explain why I think each of those theories will never gain wider acceptance beyond a few die hard aficionados.
The unobtrusive nobody appeals to those who want the solution grounded in things that do not require the total suspicion of judgement or simple yet inconvenient facts being ignored.

Barnett
He was specifically cleared at the time so any theory is dependent on him somehow fooling the police with his alibi. His guilt is based on a Scooby Doo-type plot where he killed the others to scare Kelly off the streets. Evidence is brazenly manufactured such as that he was proficient at knife work due to his filleting fish at Billingsgate, where he was a porter – and porters most certainly did not filet fish.

Hutchinson
We know he was interrogated.
He is unsatisfactory as he has no ‘back story’ – so how can he be linked to any crime except the Kelly murder?
The Hutchinson theorists are forced to deny he was Toppy as Toppy’s back story is not that of a murderer. Denying a witness is the same as someone who’s son claims him is always going to be difficult, particularly when research shows that the George Hutchinson of Victoria Home fame matches much of what we know of Toppy.
Some Hutchinson theorists blankly refuse to accept that the Victoria Home had a curfew which meant Hutchinson would have to have absented himself for the duration of every night on which he committed a murder.
Some Hutchinson theorists try to create a back story by making Hutchinson identical with Joe Fleming – the ex-boyfriend of Mary Kelly (according to Barnett). To do this they have to refuse to believe a clear historical record which puts Joe Fleming’s height at 6 foot 7 inches.
These are just some of the biggest problems associated with Hutchinson being the Ripper.

Kosminski
I regard Kosminski as one of the more credible suspects and as a ‘police suspect’ I would not regard him as an ‘unobtrusive nobody’ as he clearly attracted attention to himself. That being said, his relative ordinariness (excluding the fact that he was mad) is one of his major plus points along with his local residence, and the fact that he was known to the police.
However the police obviously didn’t know when he was locked up in an asylum and mistakenly thought he had died soon after being detained.
These facts – besides his degree of madness – have prevented him from gaining stronger acceptance, and have caused the search for the culprit to continue for a more satisfactory candidate.

Sadler
I think he remains a strong contender for the Coles murder, however he seems to have had alibis for the rest, he was not picked out in an ID parade, and he seems to have passed a strict interrogation which resulted in charges being dropped.

Kidney
The case against Kidney was effectively demolished (for example the false story that Stride was padlocked in her room and the exaggerated tales of suppose abuse of Stride at Kidney’s hands) by Tom Wescott, to the extent that few if anyone goes there now.
(Although in his enthusiasm for Le Grand, Tom made a couple of errors himself in his essay ‘Exonerating Michael Kidney’.)
Kidney certainly went to the police and gave statements and Swanson implicitly stated that Kidney had been thoroughly checked out.

Bury
The only reason we now about Bury was because he murdered his wife so I don’t think it’s credible to include him as a local unobtrusive nobody. He only lived in the outer East End for just over a year and had no real connections to Whitechapel. He seems to have been investigated by the police with a view to him being ‘Jack the Ripper’ but they didn’t seem to come away with that idea intact.

Mann
I will add him. He was a doddery and too old. Fatally he lived in the Workhouse and would not have been allowed at late at night to wander the streets and find victims.

The reasons I have listed against each of these are the prime reasons why these candidates won’t gain traction. Kosminski is an exception but only in the absence of anyone else remotely credible… until now.

[Lechmere]

Patrick
I think it is just you, because I have said we don’t ‘know’ that Lechmere was a psychopath.

That being said, the ‘psychopath’ question crops up because some critics of the Lechmere theory (such as yourself) can’t fathom why a guilty Lechmere would have turned to face Paul.

The simple reason is that a guilty Lechmere would have been a psychopath. Turning to bluff it out is something that would not have been unnatural behaviour to a psychopath.

So affecting to scratch your head and chuckle over an allegedly guilty man behaving like a psychopath, when if he was guilty he would have been a psychopath, leaves me wondering if that’s the best you’ve got.

[Sam Flynn]

The only reason we now about Bury was because he murdered his wife so I don’t think it’s credible to include him as a local unobtrusive nobody.

Well, Bury was an unobtrusive nobody until (a) he got his name in the papers; and (b) later writers made a case, rightly or wrongly, for his being the Ripper. The same goes for all the others, though, Cross included. If as you say (and I fully agree) the Ripper was likely to have been an "unobtrusive nobody", then Cross is by no means in a minority.

[DVV]

Ridiculous desperado

Gareth

Thank you for your list.
I thought you may have included Mann.
I will explain briefly why these suspects won’t or don’t gain as much traction (bearing in mind that the Lechmere theory is a relative baby and has not yet had a major treatment in a book or on TV).
I will explain why I think each of those theories will never gain wider acceptance beyond a few die hard aficionados.
The unobtrusive nobody appeals to those who want the solution grounded in things that do not require the total suspicion of judgement or simple yet inconvenient facts being ignored.

Barnett
He was specifically cleared at the time so any theory is dependent on him somehow fooling the police with his alibi. His guilt is based on a Scooby Doo-type plot where he killed the others to scare Kelly off the streets. Evidence is brazenly manufactured such as that he was proficient at knife work due to his filleting fish at Billingsgate, where he was a porter – and porters most certainly did not filet fish.

Hutchinson
We know he was interrogated.
He is unsatisfactory as he has no ‘back story’ – so how can he be linked to any crime except the Kelly murder?
The Hutchinson theorists are forced to deny he was Toppy as Toppy’s back story is not that of a murderer. Denying a witness is the same as someone who’s son claims him is always going to be difficult, particularly when research shows that the George Hutchinson of Victoria Home fame matches much of what we know of Toppy.
Some Hutchinson theorists blankly refuse to accept that the Victoria Home had a curfew which meant Hutchinson would have to have absented himself for the duration of every night on which he committed a murder.
Some Hutchinson theorists try to create a back story by making Hutchinson identical with Joe Fleming – the ex-boyfriend of Mary Kelly (according to Barnett). To do this they have to refuse to believe a clear historical record which puts Joe Fleming’s height at 6 foot 7 inches.
These are just some of the biggest problems associated with Hutchinson being the Ripper.

Kosminski
I regard Kosminski as one of the more credible suspects and as a ‘police suspect’ I would not regard him as an ‘unobtrusive nobody’ as he clearly attracted attention to himself. That being said, his relative ordinariness (excluding the fact that he was mad) is one of his major plus points along with his local residence, and the fact that he was known to the police.
However the police obviously didn’t know when he was locked up in an asylum and mistakenly thought he had died soon after being detained.
These facts – besides his degree of madness – have prevented him from gaining stronger acceptance, and have caused the search for the culprit to continue for a more satisfactory candidate.

Sadler
I think he remains a strong contender for the Coles murder, however he seems to have had alibis for the rest, he was not picked out in an ID parade, and he seems to have passed a strict interrogation which resulted in charges being dropped.

Kidney
The case against Kidney was effectively demolished (for example the false story that Stride was padlocked in her room and the exaggerated tales of suppose abuse of Stride at Kidney’s hands) by Tom Wescott, to the extent that few if anyone goes there now.
(Although in his enthusiasm for Le Grand, Tom made a couple of errors himself in his essay ‘Exonerating Michael Kidney’.)
Kidney certainly went to the police and gave statements and Swanson implicitly stated that Kidney had been thoroughly checked out.

Bury
The only reason we now about Bury was because he murdered his wife so I don’t think it’s credible to include him as a local unobtrusive nobody. He only lived in the outer East End for just over a year and had no real connections to Whitechapel. He seems to have been investigated by the police with a view to him being ‘Jack the Ripper’ but they didn’t seem to come away with that idea intact.

Mann
I will add him. He was a doddery and too old. Fatally he lived in the Workhouse and would not have been allowed at late at night to wander the streets and find victims.

The reasons I have listed against each of these are the prime reasons why these candidates won’t gain traction. Kosminski is an exception but only in the absence of anyone else remotely credible… until now.

Hi all

Have you read the post above ?

I have not.

Symptomatic of an uneasy theorist that tries to dismiss other suspects in order to promote his own nag.
He - Lechmere-the-Poster - is smart enough to shoot down any better suspect than his in some short sentences.
All those who have written essays and books on Kosminski, Hutchinson and so on are crooks, but you know what ? Let's Jah be praised, he just came in time to save us all with his little married carman.

[DVV]

And mind you, he's got an atrabilarious supporter who can eat a raw Volvo for breakfast.

[Lechmere]

Actually DVV I was pointing out the issues with respect to these suspects which are the reasons I think they haven't obtained traction - with the exception of Kosminski, who obviously has to a degree.
I wasn't inviting a debate on these issues or dissing others to promote my favoured suspect.
I certainly didn't suggest anyone was a crook for promoting any theory. Get a grip man.

Gareth
Most people are unobtrusive nobodies until they get their name in the papers.
I meant nobodies in their lifetime. I discount any nefarious latter day fame.
I went through your list to illustrate why those unobtrusive nobody suspects have never caught on - despite the popular desire among sensible people for an unobtrusive nobody to be the culprit.

[Roy Corduroy]

Lechmere, in regards your list of suspects and why they should be axed, recall what I said. Something I've learned here. The pure essence of Ripperology IS the de-constructing of suspects. Suspects get cut down to size right quick around these parts.

That goes for you too David. actually your suspect could benefit cut down a foot or so.

Roy

[Lechmere]

Yes Roy
I enjoy de-constructing suspects. And I have no problem with anyone wanting or trying to de-construct the theory I subscribe to.
One of the points I was making with the list of suspects Gareth provided is that most involve ignoring a black and white fact - such as Fleming's height, or the wrong death date for Kosminski, or Mann being locked in his Workhouse, or Barnett's alibi, or the Victoria Home rules on late entry for Hutchinson and so on.
Or they ignore, discount or minimise recorded police interest in the individual - such as with Hutchinson, Barnett, Sadler, Bury and Kidney.

Incidentally I wasn't saying they should be axed - I was suggesting reasons why, except Kosminski, they haven't gained traction and attention outside this narrow field.

The theory I subscribe to doesn't depend on ignoring a recorded police interrogation, a known alibi nor do I have to blithely argue away any record.

[Lechmere]

Roy
Do they hang horse thieves in these here parts?

[Hunter]

The pure essence of Ripperology IS the de-constructing of suspects. Suspects get cut down to size right quick around these parts.

That's secondary. Promoting "suspects" is the essance- naturally followed by deconstructing the viability of others as more tenuous than one's own... Or maybe its the chicken or the egg.

Truth is certainly not the essance because it is an unacceptable uncertainty.