Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[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]

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]

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?

[John Wheat]

Lechmere was a witness and not a suspect.

[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.

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Me and my big mouth Sam.

[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.

[GBinOz]

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.

I have to agree with Abby. Christer has his theory and strongly promotes it, as do other members of this forum on their single suspect theories. The subject can be discussed without the pillaring of any particular advocate of the suspect of their choice, particularly when they are not here to defend their position. I see the constant vilification of Christer, and his subjection to perceived humorous pejoratives, to be an attack on the standards of this forum. Knock it off.

Thus endeth the sermon for today.

Cheers, George

[Admin]

I have to agree with Abby. Christer has his theory and strongly promotes it, as do other members of this forum on their single suspect theories. The subject can be discussed without the pillaring of any particular advocate of the suspect of their choice, particularly when they are not here to defend their position. I see the constant vilification of Christer, and his subjection to perceived humorous pejoratives, to be an attack on the standards of this forum. Knock it off.

Thus endeth the sermon for today.

Cheers, George

First, nobody but me gets to tell anyone on this forum to knock off anything. So knock it off.

Second, Christer is a published author who makes, or attempts to make, money off his theory. He is selling it, to the masses. As such, he is a public figure and earns no more protection in terms of people discussing what he is SELLING than any other author, be it Patricia Cornwell and her Sickert bullshit, the Diary gang, and their Maybrick bullshit, or any other author attempting to sell and profit off a theory.

He is not immune from the criticism that comes along with selling a product to the gullible masses.

Everyone needs to get off their high horses and recognize that just because you might like, or know someone personally, doesn't make them immune from criticism. And if you think that's different, take a look back at 2001-2002 and how I was raking Paul Begg and Martin Fido over the coals, for how they characterized, in The A-Z, another person/author I actually didn't like at all and had also personally raked over the coals on some of his more egregious BS.

I don't give a ****, who it is. When you offer your theory for money, to the masses, you don't get to clutch your pearls at people taking issue with your words. He has written a book on his theory. He happily debates and gives interviews on said theory. Criticism is fair game.

[Mark J D]

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.

Hi Abby. Hope you are well.

You know, while everyone is having such terrific fun at the Buck's Row Trigonometry Festival, there's a simple fact that can't be ignored.

This is that no native English speaker would say 'Come and look at this woman' unless (i) she was close by, and (ii) he had been even closer to her.

The idea that Lechmere would say 'Come and look at this woman' when all he'd previously done is peer at her from 60-odd feet away is, as Euclid would say, absurd.

Bests,

Mark D.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Abby. Hope you are well.

You know, while everyone is having such terrific fun at the Buck's Row Trigonometry Festival, there's a simple fact that can't be ignored.

This is that no native English speaker would say 'Come and look at this woman' unless (i) she was close by, and (ii) he had been even closer to her.

The idea that Lechmere would say 'Come and look at this woman' when all he'd previously done is peer at her from 60-odd feet away is, as Euclid would say, absurd.

Bests,

Mark D.

I think we must all agree that Lechmere was i) close to the woman, close enough to identify that it was a woman's body, that she was not moving, and that possibly needed aid. How close is a matter for debate, because we cannot be absolutely sure about the amount of light, but we know it was quite dark, so he probably needed to get quite close to establish the situation. Whether ii) he had been even closer to her is pure conjecture. All we know is that he was close enough to express concern about her.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Abby. Hope you are well.

You know, while everyone is having such terrific fun at the Buck's Row Trigonometry Festival, there's a simple fact that can't be ignored.

This is that no native English speaker would say 'Come and look at this woman' unless (i) she was close by, and (ii) he had been even closer to her.

The idea that Lechmere would say 'Come and look at this woman' when all he'd previously done is peer at her from 60-odd feet away is, as Euclid would say, absurd.

Bests,

Mark D.

You never disappoint me Mark as you display the same unerring abilities that other Cross supporters regularly display. That someone can actually make that claim is another jaw-dropper in an increasingly long list of jaw-droppers.

Cross sees a shape and moves to a position where he can make out that it was the figure of a woman. We have no way of knowing what distance away he was when he identified that it was a woman. He hears a man approaching, waits at that spot until he arrives and asks him to come with him to look at the woman. Why would he have needed to have been closer if he could see that it was a woman from his position in the middle of the road…where Paul saw him.

First invent a 60 feet and then you misuse the English language. It’s no wonder you favour a guilty Cross with ‘reasoning’ like this. The whole case is built on inventions and poor reasoning.

Surely it’s time that you gave up. The game has been over for a long time. Cross is a joke suspect. The ‘case’ against him has been comprehensively disposed of.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think we must all agree that Lechmere was i) close to the woman, close enough to identify that it was a woman's body, that she was not moving, and that possibly needed aid. How close is a matter for debate, because we cannot be absolutely sure about the amount of light, but we know it was quite dark, so he probably needed to get quite close to establish the situation. Whether ii) he had been even closer to her is pure conjecture. All we know is that he was close enough to express concern about her.

Exactly. Cross did exactly as he said at the inquest. As did Paul. We have no need for the fantasies, fictions and creative writing. Evidence kills the case against this pretend suspect.