Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Geddy2112]

Dead / drunk tells the policeman that one is just dealing with another alcoholic who died on the street, not very uncommon.

Oh how many alcoholics died on the streets of Whitechapel in 1888?

Add to this Mizen sworn testimony that Lechmere told him he is wanted by another policeman in Buck's Row, and the hook will be digging even deeper!

Is this the same sworn testimony that Mizen said Cross and Paul were in his company at the end of Hanbury street at 3:45am. When the Lechmere theory demands that Paul was just entering Bucks Row then. You can't have it both ways sir.. although some do try, some do try.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Herlock,

...
I'm really starting to lose interest in Ripperology and am considering moving on to another area because this subject is constantly being denigrated by treating people like Cross as a worthy suspect. I think it's deeply sad that the study of the subject has come to this.

It would be a shame, as others have mentioned, to lose your input. With regards to Cross/Lechmere, the information we have has been thoroughly gone over, examined, and questioned, and like you, I see nothing in it that raises any red flags. The banner bearers for the "Cross/Lechmere is JtR" idea simply repeat the same low quality inferences, which prompt the same rebuttals in the hope the point will sink in, but instead get replied with "Oh, that old chessnut ...." in an attempt to dismiss the problems without ever having actually addressed them.

That isn't approaching a topic for discussion, and there is little point in engaging with those who are just going to disregard any input but who insist their every claim be taken as irrefutable.

Now, just to be clear, there are others who do discuss Cross/Lechmere, and even if their view falls in a different direction, they do consider points for and against, but simply may weigh the evidence differently. This makes for enjoyable interactions, that can be fruitful as one is exposed to different possibilities. Given the information we have to work with is so loose that nobody can ever consider all of the possibilities, so it helps to hear ideas one may have overlooked.

I think there are some extremely good contributions being made on these boards, with people contributing based upon their own particular skill sets and personal interests. Sure, sometimes discussions do get stuck in ruts, with wheels spinning and the same set of flawed reasoning or biasing descriptions being presented yet again with no signs of recognition of the problem (i.e. the above example of Stow's mis-representation of where Cross/Lechmere was standing when he stops and waits for Paul), but such people are never going to change.

In some ways, I see Cross/Lechmere as a good example of how research into JtR can be conducted and, after thorough examination of the information, is capable of ruling someone out. I accept that this ruling out might not be to the specifics one would want in a modern, ongoing, police investigation, but with historical cases, the bar is set to a different level. For those who feel that because there might be a configuration that puts him back in the running, the responsibility is on them to come up with new information, not just repeat previously flawed reasoning.

I've seen a number of posts, in various threads, where people do present new ideas, apply new approaches to the information we have, and so forth. I've also noticed a trend that those who do so tend not to have strong views on any particular suspect even if they do express some inclination towards some more than others, while those who do have a "suspect of choice", often shy away from conducting any new analysis or information other than making something up that is designed to fit their conclusion a priori (i.e. Fisherman's whole "Blood analysis" is just something he made up, where he gets to decide what the crime scene values are and what critical "values" are, and low and behold his critical values and the assumed values of the crime scene evidence all just happen to lead to the conclusion he wants! But when it is pointed out that his "blood flow" analysis is neither an accepted forensic analysis - so there's no actual information about what one should accept - or that the testimony is highly ambiguous and unlikely to mean what he claims it means - that gets ignored despite both being incredibly important and valid concerns that call into question the entire idea).

Anyway, while it is frustrating to re-read the same tired set of invalid, or even incorrect, arguments, once one notes that these are coming from a fairly limited number of individuals, in my view I think there is a lot of good stuff being put forth. Sadly, it seems the good stuff just gets less attention than the rubbish.

- Jeff