Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[chubbs]

I noticed that your passion for philology and archaeology, while admirable, seems to miss the critical point of my argument.

It’s one thing to enjoy the intellectual challenge of the case, but it’s another to overlook the sharpness of the evidence and analysis in favor of a more abstract, almost detached perspective. The details I presented about Lechmere’s actions, and the suspicious nature of his involvement with the crime scene point to a much more grounded and compelling theory than what is often offered. I understand the beauty of considering a theory from an academic standpoint, but when it comes to the Ripper case, with real events and real evidence, it’s not just an exercise in archaeology, but a pursuit of truth in the face of darkness.

As for your assertion that "nobody is going to solve it", I’m afraid this is a place I left behind long ago. It’s the comfortable space of intellectual uncertainty, where every possibility is valid, but nothing is truly pursued to its logical conclusion. I’m no longer there, clinging to ambiguity for the sake of a puzzle. There are truths we can grasp even in the absence of full answers, and Lechmere fits into that truth more convincingly than any other theory on the table. It's a far more concrete place to stand than endlessly revisiting a void of unanswered questions.

To paraphrase something I’ve heard before, it’s easy to enjoy the mystery when you aren’t committed to finding an answer. But those of us who look at the evidence and dare to make a judgment have already moved beyond that uncertainty, knowing that the search for answers, while imperfect, is still far more meaningful than endlessly circling a void.

So, while your stance on the case is understandable in its own right, I find myself firmly rooted in a place where the search for answers is not just a theoretical exercise, but a pursuit of clarity, no matter how messy or incomplete the puzzle may be. We may not have everything, but we have enough to make reasoned conclusions. And the theory of Lechmere is the one that fits best in the current landscape.



The Baron

You really believe you're Poirot, don't you - and everyone else is a bit Japp.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Don't tempt fate, Herlock. Perhaps he hasn't noticed.

Me and my big mouth Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Fisherman is listed as a Cadet. There is no asterix beneath his name. Surely this means that he isn't currently banned?

Don't tempt fate, Herlock. Perhaps he hasn't noticed.

[Abby Normal]

Holmgren and Butler are the chief proponents of the Lechmerian Theory. Other proponents of the theory reference their ideas, so why can't opponents of the theory do the same?

we can argue the merits of the lechmere theory on its own merits or lacktherof, especially when someone is not bringing those two up. they overegg the pudding, have a cult like following on their social media stuff, and are also disliked by many, especially stow (and for good reason) so by bringing them up it just taints the debate imho.

but of course if someone on the lech favorable side brings them up than by all means its fair game. i dont know how many times i and others will be making some point that has nothing to do them, and the response drags them into it for no reason.

if the particular argument dosnt involve them, leave them out.

[John Wheat]

Lechmere was a witness and not a suspect.

[Fiver]

it would be nice if we could debate lech without bringing up stow and fish all the time, especially since they dont post here anymore.

Holmgren and Butler are the chief proponents of the Lechmerian Theory. Other proponents of the theory reference their ideas, so why can't opponents of the theory do the same?

[Herlock Sholmes]

it would be nice if we could debate lech without bringing up stow and fish all the time, especially since they dont post here anymore.

I'd be perfectly happy not to mention either of them Abby but it's difficult to avoid mentioning Christer when those proposing Cross keep mentioning 'the gap' as if it's a real thing. So to counter that untruth we have to mention Christer. I can't see any other way.

[Fiver]

Can someone suggest a reason why Lechmere Denialist commentary should reach so readily for language that suggests a man dead since 1920 needs to be protected from the hangman? What is going on in people's minds that makes it appear reasonable to type stuff like the above -- or like 'putting a noose round the neck of an innocent man!' (to take another actual example from a couple of years ago)? Something about Lechmere's candidacy really does appear uniquely destabilising: I've never seen any row over, say, a deceased Zodiac suspect that includes someone shrieking about 'sending an innocent man to the chair!' or 'electrocuting a man on a slightly better than 50/50 guess'. Can anyone tell me what is going on here? Clearly, more is happening than simple recourse to convenient figures of speech: on some psychological level, Lechmere is being saved...

M.

So rather than trying to refute the evidence or the reasoning used to support the innocence of Charles Cross, you choose to attack the emotions expressed. Meanwhile, you ignore the emotional reactions of the Lechmereian accusers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman is listed as a Cadet. There is no asterix beneath his name. Surely this means that he isn't currently banned?

[Abby Normal]

it would be nice if we could debate lech without bringing up stow and fish all the time, especially since they dont post here anymore.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And now someone has reached for the Holocaust. Immediately. Instantly. Irrelevantly.

I was right, wasn't I? Something is going on in people's minds, and it's not metaphors.

M.

You used the 'Denialist' word. It's there in black or white or are you a 'written in black and white denialist?'

The only thing that's 'going on' is the bandwagon that you and others have jumped onto. What you are clearly trying to do, because your case is lost, is that you are trying to imply some kind of 'conspiracy to clear Cross.' It's simply a reaction to the absolute fact of your bandwagon. You are just employing a very obvious distraction tactic Mark. Nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps, just once, as a bit of a change, you might actually attempt to discuss the evidence...although it's probably too much to ask.

[Fiver]

As for your assertion that "nobody is going to solve it", I’m afraid this is a place I left behind long ago. It’s the comfortable space of intellectual uncertainty, where every possibility is valid, but nothing is truly pursued to its logical conclusion. I’m no longer there, clinging to ambiguity for the sake of a puzzle. There are truths we can grasp even in the absence of full answers, and Lechmere fits into that truth more convincingly than any other theory on the table. It's a far more concrete place to stand than endlessly revisiting a void of unanswered questions.

The Baron

This is a fundamental misunderstanding and a complete misrepresentation of the position of those who disagree with you.

There is no forensic evidence against any of the hundreds of people who have been named as the Ripper. Most of them didn't even exist at the time. DNA or handwriting analysis might prove who wrote a particular letter, but most, perhaps all, of the Ripper letters were hoaxes. The "shawl" has nothing to do with the case. The apron piece might have had the killer's blood on it, but it has been lost. Geographical profiling cannot identify a criminal, merely make police searches more efficient. Offender profiling has never identified a criminal.

There is no eyewitness against any of the hundreds of people who have been named as the Ripper. None of the men seen with the victims before their deaths have been identified. Such identification is impossible now. Being the last person seen before the death is not necessarily the same thing as being the last person who was with the victim. Being the first person to find a body is not evidence against anyone.

What we have is a few puzzle pieces, but without a picture of the puzzle. The picture people create out of that unknown, empty space says more about the creators than it does about what the picture really is. And the greater the certainly claimed, the less credible those claims become.

[rjpalmer]

<*boggle*...>




In other words, it took you literally one step to get from pointing the finger at Lechmere to the undermining of our entire legal system.

How does Lechmere -- and he alone! -- do this to people? My question now seems even more urgently in need of an answer than it did an hour ago.

M.

Hi Mark,

Let me answer at some length.

For one thing, the Lechmere theory is hardly alone in receiving a drubbing and it was Christer and Ed who brought their theories to the forum on an almost daily basis, so they knew they would receive a reaction. They wanted a reaction.

I do have mixed feelings about the attacks on the Lechmere theory continuing when Stow and Holmgren are banned, but that is up to the moderators. It's hard to seriously argue that Stow has been "deplatformed" when he has his own YouTube channel.

I remember well the reception Patricia Cornwell's theory received on this forum. It was brutal even though she never responded. Calling the Cornwell theory 'distasteful' would be mild compared to some of the abuse it received. Russell Edwards' claims are also receiving a slap down--even by Mr. Stow himself. There is a bloke over on the Maybrick threads who has been recently characterized as a 'persecuted minority' though no one is forcing him to post.

I think that, by in large, the Lechmere critics (I'd give a shout out to Dusty and Frank, etc.) have stuck to analysis and logic in their criticism. Some, admittedly, have been more hostile and it is probably counterproductive and may even win Stow sympathy more than anything else, since he has a remarkable talent for keeping his cool and to keep on smiling.

You're also ignoring that it was the Lechmere theorists themselves--Christer Holmgren, citing James Scobie, QC--who said there is enough evidence to put Lechmere on trial. And of course, Holmgren and Stow argue he is guilty. Those are bold words.

So why is it over-the-top to compare Lechmere to an innocent man being on trial? Holmgren introduced the idea.

Some people don't like wrongful conviction cases, and I see nothing inherently wrong with defending someone even if they are dead.

Even so, I can't entirely justify my own dislike for the Lechmere theory except that I feel it on a gut level. I'll grant you that much--it's not entirely rational---the reaction, I mean, not the logic used to diffuse the theory. I wouldn't waste as much effort debating the Joseph Barnett theory, though I don't find it compelling, either.

I think the reason I find the Lechmere theory 'distasteful'--though that is not quite the right word--is that I've studied wrongful conviction cases, and I saw the same techniques used to 'convict' those poor sods being used--here and now--to accuse Lechmere.

Not evidence, just innuendo. I resist that.

RP

[Fiver]

But see here's the thing about the Ripper case. There is not enough information available to us for anyone's theory to even pass reasonable doubt, much less existential certainty. Most of the police files are gone (and would have been of dubious quality anyway), and most of what we have to work with is largely inconsistent newspaper reports (also of dubious quality). As I saw someone else on here say, it's a jigsaw puzzle with most of the pieces missing.

That's what's wrong with someone like Cornwell—not her theory per se, which is admittedly weak, but so are many others. It's her claim of absolute certainty that discredits her.

I'd love to be the one to solve this mystery, but it's not going to happen. It's not the reason for my interest in this case; I'm into this because it's fascinating, and entertainingly frustrating. It's basically an exercise in archaeology and philology, both topics I love. But nobody is going to solve it, because it's insoluble.

Promote any theory you like. Believe in the theory if you want. But claiming absolute certainly is a mistake.

In general, the more certainty claimed for a theory, the weaker the theory. Often it's an attempt to stifle actual investigation and distract from flaws in the theory. At a minimum, it's an emotional investment in wanting to look clever and an inability to admit that they could be wrong.

I look at the case through the lens of my interests in history and genealogy. In genealogy, records can be lost, damaged, or badly transcribed. In history, accounts can also be missing or damaged, often were written with an agenda, and can contradict each other. Sorting that out requires weighing the sources.

[Mark J D]

... you compare those that don’t accept that man’s guilt with those that deny the deliberate extermination of 6,000,000 human beings...

And now someone has reached for the Holocaust. Immediately. Instantly. Irrelevantly.

I was right, wasn't I? Something is going on in people's minds, and it's not metaphors.

M.