Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[rjpalmer]

Hi George.

Let me expand. If understand Great Aunt, she doubts Lechmere could discern the body's gender from the middle of the street.

Lechmere does say 'come look at this woman' to Paul, but couldn't it still have been an assumption or his best guess?

And when he and Paul approached, and the body was indeed a woman (as opposed to seeing that it was a man) would he later recall that his assumption was just an assumption? Or would it have left his mind?

I think we are holding the witness too precisely to the English language just because he said "I saw it was a woman" at the inquest.

And as far as I know, the lighting conditions allowed him to make that determination.

Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

Hi RJ
Can't agree with you here. Three witnesses at the inquest (Neil, Cross and Paul) testified that it was very dark. When he first saw the shape he guessed it was a tarpaulin.

Report of inquest, Star 3 Sep:
He saw something lying in front of the gateway - it looked in the distance like tarpaulin. When he got nearer he found it was a woman.

Cheers, George

Hi George - Three PC's and a Police Sergeant had the opportunity to see the ambient lighting conditions in that exact spot, both that night and the next nights. I trust their judgment to know what the visibility was and if what Cross described was a wild impossibility. Yet no one raised the issue.

He did indeed initially think it was a tarp, but as he approached he saw it was a human body. Even if it was just an assumption of gender, he had a slightly more than 50% chance of being correct.

I don't see this as a red flag, but to each his own.

But maybe I misunderstand you and you do not question his ability to make out the gender at that distance (from the middle of the street)?

I thought you doubted that ability.

Cheers.

[GBinOz]

I'm new here, but I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that Herlock is the most sensible person on the discussion board.

Wait until you've been here a little longer. Sorry Herlock, I just couldn't resist.

[GBinOz]

We can’t know the ambient lighting conditions, and even if he was merely guessing, I’m not going to hang a man on a slightly better than 50/50 guess.

Hi RJ,

Can't agree with you here. Three witnesses at the inquest (Neil, Cross and Paul) testified that it was very dark. When he first saw the shape he guessed it was a tarpaulin.

Report of inquest, Star 3 Sep:
He saw something lying in front of the gateway - it looked in the distance like tarpaulin. When he got nearer he found it was a woman.

Cheers, George

[rjpalmer]

How would he KNOW it was a woman from that distance .. in the dark.?.. men wore long coats and hats in those days too.

We can’t know the ambient lighting conditions, and even if he was merely guessing, I’m not going to hang a man on a slightly better than 50/50 guess.

[Great Aunt]

Ah goody, pleased you have posted that. You do know, using simple Pythagoras Theory that the Wool Warehouse is 61 feet away from where Polly lay. SO if he crossed the road on that diagonal, I'm presuming most would, then at the middle of the road he was 30 feet or 10 yards away from the body when he heard Robert Paul and turned back to go towards him.



So basic maths proves to us Charles Cross was never closer than 10 yards from the body alone. Case closed, not guilty... AGAIN.

How would he KNOW it was a woman from that distance .. in the dark.?.. men wore long coats and hats in those days too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Hi Kunochan,

I agree with you that, at this late stage, a conclusion is unlikely. There’s certainly not enough evidence to ‘convict’ any of the named suspects but there are some that we can safely place on the ‘no evidence for’ pile despite those suspects having no alibi (only two or three suspects actually have alibi’s). Hutchinson, Mann, Cross, Hardiman etc. These are the ‘nothing suspects.’

I’m afraid that when people abandon caution, doubt and a respect for the value assessing evidence without bias we are left with the very lowest form of suspectology. A cheap form where anyone can support a suspect then, if they feel that they can’t claim the case ‘solved’ with that one they just move on to the next. The proposal and support of a suspect simply for the sake of the ego boost of saying “I’ve solved it,” or “I can see why Cross is guilty but you can’t” is the result. It becomes a case of ‘pick a suspect’ and then defend him at all costs, which we see from those quite staggeringly overconfident Cross supporters. The acceptance of ‘uncertainty’ is something absolutely vital as any historian, scientist or police officer will tell you of course and to leave this behind is to claim to know (as a fact) things which can’t possibly be known; it’s dishonest. It leads to gullibility and the favouring of any explanation which suits a particular theory. This is why we hear of all of the barking mad stuff online where everything is seen as proof of guilt for Cross.

This kind of suspectology shows on the threads where we see repeated questions that don’t get answered, we see the subject being changed in the hope that difficult points will be dropped or forgotten about (Christer was the absolute master of the ‘Im off on a fishing trip’ every time that he was up against it…which was all of the time btw). We see distraction tactics. We see the manipulation of evidence….why should a supposedly ‘strong’ suspect require the deliberate omission of a vital word from the evidence just to make a point. Why does he need all of the nonsense and dishonesty if he’s such a strong suspect? We go round in circles Kunochan but basically what we have is this…a suspect for whom there isn’t a scintilla of evidence. Not a bit. And this is the sad part as far as ripperology is concerned. It’s a phenomena that I’ve never experienced before. One utterly hopeless suspect receives an insane amount of support from people with a vested interest with the resulting bandwagon that people have leapt onto. Geddy recently showed me an online post by someone called Peyton. This person, remarkably, felt that the argument on here for Cross was going well! Can you believe it? If this is how people assess evidence it’s no wonder we have this issue. If this is the level of comprehension and reasoning then anything can be true. Mary Nichols could have been killed by an alien.


Then again…its likelier than Cross.

PS. We get, for example, someone who will praise to the skies the research of David Orsam on the diary but completely ignore his research which wipes the floor with Christer Holmgren’s nonsense. It’s like a buffet. The constant act of cherrypicking. A strong case wouldn’t need it. A non-existent one can’t survive without it.

[Kunochan]

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

I have no problem with the attitude you're describing. And I have no problem with your belief that your theory is correct. But you're claiming existential certainty, to the point of questioning the motives of those who disagree. I think that's the mistake—not strenuously defending your thesis, but claiming absolute truth.

And I feel the need to defend academia. Academics aren't entertaining purely theoretical hypotheses (unless they're philosophers), they are exercising a rigorous method to determine what you're claiming, truth. But part of that rigorous method is being honest about your level of certainty. Academics will strenuously defend their theses, but rarely claim absolute truth.

[drstrange169]

>> I find myself firmly rooted in a place where the search for answers is not just a theoretical exercise, but a pursuit of clarity ...<<

Clearly you've forgottenn some of the nonsensical prose pieces you've been de-railing thread with.

[The Baron]

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.

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

[Kunochan]

This isn’t speculation, it’s a cold, hard truth. ... Nothing else comes close. Doubt? There is none.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[Lewis C]

The Lechmere theory towers above every other suspect, leaving the rest in the dust of irrelevance. No other suspect even deserves to be in the conversation. This isn’t speculation, it’s a cold, hard truth.

Nothing else comes close. Doubt? There is none. Any attempt to conjure it is the pathetic flailing of those too afraid to face reality.

Lechmere wasn’t just a suspect. He’s the suspect. The man was practically born for the role, and the theory doesn’t just fit, it obliterates every other weak, laughable excuse for an idea about Jack the Ripper.

A carman, walking the streets of Whitechapel before dawn, blending in seamlessly, invisible to everyone, a master of the shadows by the nature of his work. He knew the East End like the back of his hand, the streets weren’t just his route, they were his territory. No one fit the profile better than Lechmere.

And Bucks Row? That scene alone screams his guilt louder than any courtroom ever could. Nichols, still bleeding, still breathing, and there stands Lechmere, caught in the act by Paul. What does he do? He refuses to help, brushes off Paul’s suggestion to sit her up, and immediately tries to get rid of him with a dismissive 'You better go on' in desperation to be left alone so he could finish what he’d started.

Without missing a beat, he lies to Constable Mizen. Boldly, confidently, a blatant lie, allowing him to walk away without suspicion or delay. It wasn’t luck, it was instinct. Lechmere knew how to manipulate his environment and vanish into the morning, he slipped through their fingers with the ease of a man who knew no one would look at him twice.

No other theory comes close. No other suspect matches the facts so perfectly. The Lechmere theory is the most logical, the most damning, and the most undeniable explanation for the Ripper murders.

The Lechmere theory doesn’t need overblown speculation, It stands on its own, untouched by the desperate fantasies and intellectual cowardice of lesser theories, It’s clean. It’s logical. It’s unbeatable.

To deny it is to deny reason itself. If you’re still clinging to other suspects, you’ve already lost.


The Baron

So you've decided that Aaron Kosminski is innocent, right?

[Geddy2112]

The Lechmere theory doesn’t need overblown speculation, It stands on its own, untouched by the desperate fantasies and intellectual cowardice of lesser theories, It’s clean. It’s logical. It’s unbeatable.

To deny it is to deny reason itself. If you’re still clinging to other suspects, you’ve already lost.

Even though everything you said in this post is lies and did not happen. Haha.

[John Wheat]

The Lechmere theory towers above every other suspect, leaving the rest in the dust of irrelevance. No other suspect even deserves to be in the conversation. This isn’t speculation, it’s a cold, hard truth.

Nothing else comes close. Doubt? There is none. Any attempt to conjure it is the pathetic flailing of those too afraid to face reality.

Lechmere wasn’t just a suspect. He’s the suspect. The man was practically born for the role, and the theory doesn’t just fit, it obliterates every other weak, laughable excuse for an idea about Jack the Ripper.

A carman, walking the streets of Whitechapel before dawn, blending in seamlessly, invisible to everyone, a master of the shadows by the nature of his work. He knew the East End like the back of his hand, the streets weren’t just his route, they were his territory. No one fit the profile better than Lechmere.

And Bucks Row? That scene alone screams his guilt louder than any courtroom ever could. Nichols, still bleeding, still breathing, and there stands Lechmere, caught in the act by Paul. What does he do? He refuses to help, brushes off Paul’s suggestion to sit her up, and immediately tries to get rid of him with a dismissive 'You better go on' in desperation to be left alone so he could finish what he’d started.

Without missing a beat, he lies to Constable Mizen. Boldly, confidently, a blatant lie, allowing him to walk away without suspicion or delay. It wasn’t luck, it was instinct. Lechmere knew how to manipulate his environment and vanish into the morning, he slipped through their fingers with the ease of a man who knew no one would look at him twice.

No other theory comes close. No other suspect matches the facts so perfectly. The Lechmere theory is the most logical, the most damning, and the most undeniable explanation for the Ripper murders.

The Lechmere theory doesn’t need overblown speculation, It stands on its own, untouched by the desperate fantasies and intellectual cowardice of lesser theories, It’s clean. It’s logical. It’s unbeatable.

To deny it is to deny reason itself. If you’re still clinging to other suspects, you’ve already lost.



The Baron

Even more rubbish.