Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi RJ,

I read Great Aunt as saying that she doubts Cross could determine the body's gender at a distance of 60 feet on a night describes as very dark, and I agree. The PC's and a Police Sergeant were not asked if it would have been possible to discern a gender at a range of 60 feet, and I suggest that they would not be thinking of that as a possibility for what happened.

What I think happened: Cross stated he was running late in his walk to work. He reaches a point in the vicinity of the wool house gate and notices a shape in the distance. When I did my re-enactment I first discerned the shape at a distance of 15 metres, but it was just a shape, not the outline of a body of either sex. As he is trying to make out what the shape may be, he is still walking. He wonders if it is a tarpaulin, while still walking. At some point he realises that the shape is the body of a woman. In my re-enactment, that point was two metres from the body replica if I walked directly towards the body from the 15 metre mark (I was then "where the woman was"), and four metres if I walked straight ahead and crossed opposite the body, that being approximately in the centre of the road. IMO, the latter better fits the evidence, with Cross just neglecting to say that he was still walking on the northern pavement while pondering what the shape may have been. So Cross is opposite Polly's body about 12 feet away, in the middle of the road, when he realises the shape is the body of a woman, and stops walking. His footfalls are no longer echoing, and he is able to hear the footfalls of Paul following behind him, and waits for him to appear. What puzzles me is that Cross chose to advance towards a man that was clearly trying to avoid him, reach out and touch him on the shoulder. I'm surprised that Paul didn't respond with a punch to the nose and a quick escape. Why didn't Cross just talk to him from a distance? Anyway, that is my current interpretation of the evidence.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

to tell it was the body of a woman on a darkened street lech had to be at most 20 feet away . although by pauls description of " he was standing were tje woman was" i would imagine he was probably closer.