Charles Cross?

[Fisherman]

GUT:

There's your problem I didn't compare anybody with anybody

Then there IS no problem, Gut.

I said the reason these threads go on and on and on is that sometimes people aren't prepared to look at the other side of the coin.

And that works in both directions. There are those who keep pushing silly suspects - but there are aslo those who keep falsely believing that good suggestions have somehow been debunked.

Personally, I think that the largest problem in ripperology is tied to this question. Once the correct solution is thrown into the hat - it will get shredded together with the wrong ones. So many people have invested so heavily in so many wrongful theories, and that colours the so called judgment out here.

Does that mean that I think that the Lechmere theory is subjected to false and ridiculous criticism?

Eehhhh - yes, it does.

[GUT]

Can we please not compare a man who was found alone with one of the Ripper victims and who fits the blood evidence and who seemingly lied to the police in more than one instance with Vincent van Gogh, Gut...?

Fish...

There's your problem I didn't compare anybody with anybody, I said the reason these threads go on and on and on is that sometimes people aren't prepared to look at the other side of the coin.

Now if you think that applies to you and Cross well that's up to you, if you think that apples to those who think Cross is as innocent as a new bornh babe that's up to you, used the Diary and Van Gogh as examples of how welded tpo ideas some people get.

Pretty simple really, even went so far as to say

I am not pointing the finger at anyone,

[Fisherman]

Yep No ones forced to read or reply.

Unfortunately when anyone comes up with a theory (or becomes welded to one) they are generally loath to consider any information that doesn't support that theory.

I am not pointing the finger at anyone, and hey I'm not sure 'd be any different, I hope I would.

Just look at any theory on the Diary, or even go one step further Van Gogh (well to be fair one giant leap further), but I am convinced Dale believes it was old Vincent but has been blinded by anything that may clear Van Gogh.

Can we please not compare a man who was found alone with one of the Ripper victims and who fits the blood evidence and who seemingly lied to the police in more than one instance with Vincent van Gogh, Gut...?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman. Your theory ought to be called Crossbore.

We've been over this topic of Lechmere being the killer time and time again and it boils down to you cherry picking bits of wholly circumstantial evidence (which in some cases applies to most men living in 1888 Whitechapel) to back up an argument that has been debunked by many well respected Casebook contributors.

You have no evidence that Lechmere was involved with the killings or inquests or investigations of any of the other Ripper murders. The only link is that he walked to work through Hanbury Street, just like the countless other working men of Whitechapel.

Psychology tells us that this will more than likely bolster your conviction that Lechmere was the killer because of Confirmation Bias. One laps up information that supports their view and disregards numerous, valid and well argued views that go against said person's belief.

What I hope to have achieved here though is a summing up, in no uncertain terms, that the Casebook contributors have been wasting valuable research time into having to constantly refute your assertion that an innocent witness in the Nichols murder was none other than Jack the Ripper.

Many thanks,
Sleuth

Many thanks, Sleuth - I have been waiting for somebody to claim that the Lechmere theory has been debunked. Now you accomodate me; great!

Debunk: to discredit or expose the falsehood of something

So, what you are claiming is that the Lechmere theory has been effectively discredited or that its inherent falsehood has been exposed.

I am going to start out by saying that you lie about this. Either consciously or by having failed to understand either what debunking is or what the theory involves.

Of course, it is a grave allegation to say that somebody has presented a lie, so we must accordingly provide you with the opportunity to prove yourself correct.

I think that pretty much covers all that has to be covered. All you need to do now is to show us all how the Lechmere theory has been debunked.

Keep in mind that arguments like "I donīt think he would kill en route to work" and "He would have run" are personal takes on things and no debunking. Debunking involves presenting material that shows that a theory must be faulty.

There - I think I have covered it all. Itīs up to you now.

If you feel you are not up to the task (for whatever reason), I can inform you that others who have been asked the same thing have opted for saying "Nah, I canīt be arsed, you are going to have to find the posts yourself, they are out there, honest".

That wonīt clear you, though, it will only show me that you have realized that you have been exposed as either being very economical with the truth or simply ignorant.

Over to you.

[GUT]

I disagree with this last part. If they want to refute and take time to do so, it is exactly what they want to do with their time. That means they aren't wasting it. The frustration of having to read the same unfounded arguments over and over may be seen as time-wasting I suppose, but simply not reading them nips that in the bud as well.

Mike

Yep No ones forced to read or reply.

Unfortunately when anyone comes up with a theory (or becomes welded to one) they are generally loath to consider any information that doesn't support that theory.

I am not pointing the finger at anyone, and hey I'm not sure 'd be any different, I hope I would.

Just look at any theory on the Diary, or even go one step further Van Gogh (well to be fair one giant leap further), but I am convinced Dale believes it was old Vincent but has been blinded by anything that may clear Van Gogh.

[The Good Michael]

What I hope to have achieved here though is a summing up, in no uncertain terms, that the Casebook contributors have been wasting valuable research time into having to constantly refute your assertion that an innocent witness in the Nichols murder was none other than Jack the Ripper.

I disagree with this last part. If they want to refute and take time to do so, it is exactly what they want to do with their time. That means they aren't wasting it. The frustration of having to read the same unfounded arguments over and over may be seen as time-wasting I suppose, but simply not reading them nips that in the bud as well.

Mike

[Sleuth1888]

Fisherman. Your theory ought to be called Crossbore.

We've been over this topic of Lechmere being the killer time and time again and it boils down to you cherry picking bits of wholly circumstantial evidence (which in some cases applies to most men living in 1888 Whitechapel) to back up an argument that has been debunked by many well respected Casebook contributors.

You have no evidence that Lechmere was involved with the killings or inquests or investigations of any of the other Ripper murders. The only link is that he walked to work through Hanbury Street, just like the countless other working men of Whitechapel.

Psychology tells us that this will more than likely bolster your conviction that Lechmere was the killer because of Confirmation Bias. One laps up information that supports their view and disregards numerous, valid and well argued views that go against said person's belief.

What I hope to have achieved here though is a summing up, in no uncertain terms, that the Casebook contributors have been wasting valuable research time into having to constantly refute your assertion that an innocent witness in the Nichols murder was none other than Jack the Ripper.

Many thanks,
Sleuth

[Trevor Marriott]

Yawn.

Do try and keep up with the posts out here, old man.

I am trying to, but every so often you keep chirping in trying to make us believe that Lechmere killed Nicholls and could have killed scores of other women, either when he was on his way to work, on his way home, or when he popped out of the house to buy a newspaper !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

A theory of any kind must withstand scrutiny if it is to advance.

The Lechmere theory has been scrutinized for a number of years by now. So far, the most damning criticism has been the idea that the killer would have run instead of staying put, that a killer would not kill en route to work and that anybody is free to use any name he or she pleases.

Frankly, that is not much of a criticism. But it has not stopped a number of great thinkers out here to talk about how the theory has been "debunked", and it has not stopped other people confidently stating that Lechmere is a non-starter.

To me that says a great deal, and all that it says, it says about the originators of these suggestions.

I have seen it all, Patrick, and I have heard it all. Only yesterday, I was told that it was Lechmere who found Paul and not the other way around. Others have refused to accept that Lechmere was anywhere even near the body of Nichols.

Such is the quality of the criticism directed at the theory.

It is not a good soil to grow confidence in.

The last time over, you professed to have nothing but admiration for the theory, and you claimed to want to discuss it in a friendly manner. It ended up with me refusing to answer your posts. So far, you are the only person out here to have gained that level of trust on my behalf.

Now, that is water under the bridge. You once again claim that you want an intelligible and fair discussion, and you shall have it. Letīs see where it takes us this time.

[Fisherman]

I meant "he just stopped" might explain the end of some serial killers' trails-- it explains Ridgway and BTK; it may even explain Zodiac-- but I am of the opinion that it does not explain JtR. Something else happened: he changed disposal methods so he'd have more time with the bodies; he died; he was arrested for something else; he relocated. But he did not just stop. Albeit, if he found a way to spend more time with the bodies, and preserve and keep parts, maybe he needed fewer total victims.

I think it is very hard to make these kinds of calls - you can have a conviction, but others will disagree.
If Lechmere was the killer, I find it equally hard to define his driving forces and any potential reason for why he either (possibly) changed MO or gave up killing.
Some major change in his life may have been a reason - we know that a daughter of his died during this approximate period and that he later renamed another daughter by the same name. That could be a possibility.

He could also have gone on killing. There are a number of unexplained deaths and unsolved murders ranging from the early seventies all the way up into the late nineties, and in some of these cases, there are tentative ties to the carman; he worked nearby, he had relatives living nearby etcetera.

One thing I spend a lot of time thinking about is why he killed. I think that there may well be an element of communication involved in the murders, since there was what seemed to be a deliberate posing of the victims. If so, we may be looking at something radically different from the "normal" sexually motivated serial killing. There is so very little to go on here, but it is an angle that opens up many new perspectives, all of them quite possibly related to how and why he may have stopped or changed MO.

[Patrick S]

We? Is that not a tad royal?

1. The explanation of a former name was an easy and obvious opportunity.

2. The police would not accept such a thing, no questions asked.

It is simple enough. What you read into my phrasings, I cannot govern. I am used to people reading all sorts of things into them, and misrepresenting what I say. Really, I am.

When that happens too frequently or when a poster gets personal, I use my prerogative to bid that poster farewell. And I donīt give a rats behind about what he or others may think about it.

What I have on offer is my take on the Lechmere case. That is all.

A theory of any kind must withstand scrutiny if it is to advance. Phrasing and semantics matter and should be questioned in order to establish the basis firmly and ensure that everyone involved in the debate is of the same understanding. Again, these are not personal things unless you make them so.

I will say this again. I'm interested in your theory. It is very appealing. It's a great story and would not be a disappointment to Ripperology should it somehow prove out. But, I am not one to simply accept an idea and not question it because I am attracted to it. If that were case, I'd be out of a job. Thanks for taking the time.....

[RivkahChaya]

Who says he stopped?

Or are you saying that he would only kill by means of evisceration? That the MO was locked?

I meant "he just stopped" might explain the end of some serial killers' trails-- it explains Ridgway and BTK; it may even explain Zodiac-- but I am of the opinion that it does not explain JtR. Something else happened: he changed disposal methods so he'd have more time with the bodies; he died; he was arrested for something else; he relocated. But he did not just stop. Albeit, if he found a way to spend more time with the bodies, and preserve and keep parts, maybe he needed fewer total victims.

[Fisherman]

I don't understand? I'm asking you explain. You used the term 'easily explained'. Was that simply a poor choice of words or do you feel as if it applies here? In other words, do you feel as if Crossmere FELT that his narrative easily explained the name issue, yet the police should have immediately recognized it as, uh,.....fishy (no pun intended)?

If by old habits you mean being attacked by you for asking legitimate questions instead of joining the Lechmere Club, then I'd say we are headed in that direction, but not quite there yet. Depends upon you, I think.

We? Is that not a tad royal?

1. The explanation of a former name was an easy and obvious opportunity.

2. The police would not accept such a thing, no questions asked.

It is simple enough. What you read into my phrasings, I cannot govern. I am used to people reading all sorts of things into them, and misrepresenting what I say. Really, I am.

When that happens too frequently or when a poster gets personal, I use my prerogative to bid that poster farewell. And I donīt give a rats behind about what he or others may think about it.

What I have on offer is my take on the Lechmere case. That is all.

[Patrick S]

Bridewell:

I can take it a lot further, Colin. It is you who canīt and wonīt. Take for example the fact that the abdominal wounds were hidden. Why would the alternative killer do that? What would be the gain?
Why would Lechmere do it? What would be the gain?

Can you see how that works? which killer is implicated? Your man who soundlessly fled a minute before Lechmere ariived - or Lechmere?

See, now I can accept this on it's face as a good point. As I am NOT here to state outright that Crossmere was NOT Jack the Ripper since I don't know that for certain, I am capable of debating and critiquing points without becoming hostile.

[Patrick S]

Back to your old habits, I see.

Goodbye.

I don't understand? I'm asking you explain. You used the term 'easily explained'. Was that simply a poor choice of words or do you feel as if it applies here? In other words, do you feel as if Crossmere FELT that his narrative easily explained the name issue, yet the police should have immediately recognized it as, uh,.....fishy (no pun intended)?

If by old habits you mean being attacked by you for asking legitimate questions instead of joining the Lechmere Club, then I'd say we are headed in that direction, but not quite there yet. Depends upon you, I think.