Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Abby Normal]

How do you know? Do you know how good Cross' eyesight was or 100% what the lighting was like near the body? 'I would imagine...' <--- speculation your Honour!

hi geddy
yes it is. but the witnesses say it was very dark. he thought it was a tarp at first, that should tell you something and neither could see the wound to her neck. plus paul saying he was standing where the woman was indicates he was pretty close.
but youre right it is all speculation.

[Mark J D]

... I’m not going to hang a man on a slightly better than 50/50 guess.

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.

[rjpalmer]

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.

It's a metaphor, Mark. What should I have said?

"I wouldn't want an innocent man, now dead and thus far away from any harm, to be verbally lynched by Stow's supporters based on what was a 50/50 proposition"?

Considering that Stow is training his YouTube audience (all potential jurors) to think uncritically about what is and what is not legitimate evidence, I think a more visceral metaphor was entirely appropriate and that's why I used one with Great Aunt.

Perhaps the stakes are higher than you appreciate.

[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.

Excellent summary.

A lot of people subconsciously treat the case as a whodunnit. In a whodunnit we have a definite list of suspects. In the Ripper case we don't even have a definite list of victims. In a whodunni all timings are accurate unless deliberate deception is involved. In the real world times are estimations based in unsynchronized time pieces of unknown accuracy, and usually rounded off. In a whodunnit doctor's estimates of time of death are accurate. In the real world, Victorian doctors had no accurate techniques and even today time of death estimates can be wildly off. In a whodunnit anything found is clue or a red herring. In the real world the found thing may just be a random bit of garbage or graffitti. In a whodunnit contradictory statements are a clue. In the real world, contradictions are usually the result of fallible human perception and memory. And if there are lies, they are more often to hide personal failings or exaggerate their own importance, rather than proof of guilt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I was just sitting here listening to my favourite album, Led Zeppelin’s masterful Physical Graffiti, turned up loud when all of a sudden the classic roar of Messrs Plant, Page, Jones and Bonham was drowned out by a deafeningly loud wailing noise. After a few seconds I realised that the Extreme Irony Alert was going off after your post where you criticise Roger for employing a well known phrase to describe an unwillingness to ‘convict’ a man of murder whilst, at the same time, you compare those that don’t accept that man’s guilt with those that deny the deliberate extermination of 6,000,000 human beings. Lechmere Denialist!? You couldn’t make it up.

I’ll treasure your post for a long time.

[Mark J D]

... verbally lynched...

<*boggle*...>

... Stow is training his YouTube audience (all potential jurors) to think uncritically about what is and what is [sic] legitimate evidence...

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the subject of how close Cross was to the body when he recognised that it was a body…

The problem is that, just as the ‘Gap’ was created by Christer we are in a similar position only we aren’t doing it deliberately…it’s simply a matter of differing interpretations.

Cross saw an indistinct shape when he was at the gateway of the Wool Warehouse and the reports suggest that he immediately stepped into the road. He then advanced until he was at such a point that he could distinguish that it was a body; and that point was in the middle of the road. This might not have been the literal middle though of course but it wouldn’t have much out either way. The problem is that we can’t know that he walked ‘as the crow flies’ toward the body. He was, after all, still walking to work. So the ‘middle of the road’ point could have been any point between the Wool Warehouse and the corpse. It’s only if we assume that he walked in a direct line between the two points that we can calculate the distance to the middle of the road.

Its an unknown.

[Fiver]

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.

When someone is focused on one sensory task, the brain tends to tune out other stimuli. Once Cross determined that the shape was a woman, his sensory load dropped, making it easier for him to hear Robert Paul approaching.

[Herlock Sholmes]

<*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 do this to people? My question now seems even more urgently in need of an answer than it did an hour ago.

M.

Because the ‘case’ for his guilt is provably created by dishonest means. There is no case. It’s over. The fact that people continue is due to bias, self-interest and wilful gullibility.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.