The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: I would suggest that the reasons they supported you was was that the full facts as they are known at this current time could not have been presented to them in full. With regards to Scobie I know that to be the case because I have spoken to him in person.

... and that is the quality of your "criticism". You simply claim that we misled and lied to Scobie and Griffiths. Presumably you know a lot about things like these?

James Scobie could not be presented with all the case, since it would take years to take in. He was presented with a fair overview of the case.

Whe you spoke to him, did he say that he was deprived of details that would have made him opt for another route than the one he tok? Did he say that he felt misled by the film team? Is there any evidence at all that this happened?

I will say this in as civil a manner a possible, Trevor: If you wish to claim that Scobie was misled, then you must prove it - or take it back. There are no other options.

The trouble you have is that you are statistically bewildered, here you are quoting statistics yet again, you quote statistics in relation to someone running or jogging specific distances. you quote statistics regarding blood flow and blood congealing. Statistics are not to be regarded as prime evidence, they are simply a guideline which may or may not be accurate.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. When did I say something else? Show me, or take it back. Same again.

And on the topic of blood congealing you want to dismiss what Dr Briggs a forensic pathologist who has told you all about blood congealing based on his crime scenes examinations. Evidence in fairness to the Doctor, which may or may not support you blood congealing theory. But of course because he has sat on the fence that does not sit well with you because parts of what he says suggests that your blood congealing times you rely on could be way out.

I never said that the congealing could not deviate from instance to instance. I said that there is a normal curve and I follow that.
I can also say that you are seemingly as fit to understand what Briggs said and the implications of it as a two-year old is to interpret the reports from Wall Street.
Plus Jason Payne-James, much superior to Briggs as I understand it, supports my take.
End of story.

You have also been told that those who viewed the body at the scene only had cursory glances and the main witness from the scene Dr Llewelyn says absolutely nothing to support your theory regarding the blood flowing and blood congealing times.

With respect (which is odd...), you do not know how "cursory" the "glances" were. We can be looking at a close inspection for fifteen seconds on Mizenīs behalf, aided by his lamp. Is that a "cursory glance"?

Is it not true that you just made this up? To suit your thoughts? Yes, it is.

You make great play on the facts that he gave a different name but of course despite what you say he was entitled to use that name and it is not known whether or not at that time he did use that name as and when it perhaps suited his purpose.

Exactly, Trevor - no such thing is known. But it IS known that he used the name Lechmere otherwise, when in contact with the authorities.

Are you even remotely able to see the difference here? I will spell it out to you:

You suggest that something with no underpinning evidence applied.

I suggest that something with underpining evidence applied.'

Is that clear enough for you? YOU keep saying that I should not guess and that I have no factual ground to stand on. But it is really the exact other way around here, is it not?

Does that bother you in any way? No?

It should, Trevor.

You have also been told that despite the different names there appears to be no suspicion placed on him by the police or the coroner. So on that basis it is perhaps right to assume that the issue of the different names was not something that was of concern to the authorities, which you now says is part of what makes him a suspect.

How and why would the authoritites be concerned by something they did not know, Trevor? It is not as if they had BOTH his names, is it? So why would it be a concern to them?

Didnīt think of that, did you? Yikes!

Where and when the clarification was made is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because he was spoken to the police before being summoned to appear at the inquest and he did attend. In order for that to have happened the police would have had to have his name and an address and furthermore he would have been interviewed prior to the inquest in order for the police to know if he had any valuable evidence to give to the court. So any name issues surely would have been sorted out at that time and that wuld have been the time any concerns would have been raised, perhaps they were but it seems soon allayed.

That is simply wrong. But letīs do it the way you and I should always do it:

Prove that they had his real name. Prove that nobdy has ever succeded in feeding the police a wrong name.

Or take it back.

As to Scobie suggesting there is enough evidence for a prima facie case I have discussed this previous, but you should look at that term closely and see if it makes your case as strong as you think it does.

Definition

"At first sight, based on what seems to be the truth when first seen or heard"

Gone are the days when suspects went to court just on prima facie evidence alone. The prosecution now have to believe that they have more than a realistic chance of conviction based on the evidence to hand

As to your experts may I suggest you go back to them and put in writing all the facts that are now known and see if they are still of the same opinion. I somehow dont think they will be.

He said that it was a prima faciae case that suggested that Lechmere was the killer. He said that the jury would not like a man like Lechmere, since he behavrd suspiciously.

You may think that a weak case. I certainly donīt.

But I do consider YOU a weak case. Perhaps the weakest case to ever plague Ripperology. I find you uninformed and ignorant. If somebody else had claimed what you claim, I would be upset by it.

But being accused by you for something really is not a big deal. It is more like pathetich and a bit touching.

[Jonathan H]

Geez, that post touched sure touched the proverbial nerve!?

Considering it was you who brought up the concept of academia?!?

Your reactionary caricature, however, of an academic -- a painfully stale cliche straight out of the Gov. George Wallace playbook, circa 1968 -- suggests a person who has never set foot in a college or university, or even met an academic (yet according to you, you are one and you're married to one!?)

Your reply proved the thesis of my post completely: the blustering defensiveness, the rather Victorian indignation (in a second post too), the bringing up of alternate Ripper theories (I brought up none), the disparaging of laser-beam whilst you then split hairs about the counting of minutes and what people claimed about their minutes, the accusation that I am a liar, or not a gentleman (true) but a bounder (sometimes) or something childish like that.

Temperamentally you seem to come across (and not just to me) as a person unsuited to a 'mystery' involving limited and contradictory data, all of which is entirely documentary in nature, especially your calling upon barristers and police to make evaluations based on their professional expertise. It is like when Uri Geller easily fooled scientists in the 70's, because they were applying the wrong kind of methodology (e.g. scientific) to assessing a con man (he was actively deceiving them). whereas an expert on the Victorian Era (which I am not) would be an excellent place to start -- as a legal and forensic solution is long gone.

Yet you talk as if Lechmere is about to be arrested and put on trial.

Also your, hey, sure, other theories can co-exist -- except that they cannot, because they are all rubbish. Can't you see how, eh, a touch fanatical this all is?

Had you found documentation (a bit academic, I know, but oh well, do you want some tea and scones?) of an alternate identity to Lechmere that showed him to be doing nefarious things relevant to a murder inquiry, and it was proven that the police of the day had not found this out, that would be totally different.

But you've got nothing and you've found nothing. Ir is so thin and weak I would not call it a viable theory at all.

That probably wraps it up. By all means defend yourself, of course, but we are done here.

I would, though, say this as a final comment. The theory, often treated as fact, that all the competing police solutions automatically cancel each other out because there are competing solutions is arguably a superficial interpretation, again one bordering on cliche.

[Trevor Marriott]

And once again it happens! When will people read and understand what I say?

I have not convinced myself that Lechmere was the Ripper. The evidence has. If there was no evidence, there would be no case. The reason a QC and a retired murder squad detective with a clearing rate of 97 per cent say that there is a prima faciae case and that Lechmere must be cleared before anybody else can be looked into, is that the evidence suggests this.

I would suggest that the reasons they supported you was was that the full facts as they are known at this current time could not have been presented to them in full. With regards to Scobie I know that to be the case because I have spoken to him in person

The trouble you have is that you are statistically bewildered, here you are quoting statistics yet again, you quote statistics in relation to someone running or jogging specific distances. you quote statistics regarding blood flow and blood congealing. Statistics are not to be regarded as prime evidence, they are simply a guideline which may or may not be accurate.

And on the topic of blood congealing you want to dismiss what Dr Briggs a forensic pathologist who has told you all about blood congealing based on his crime scenes examinations. Evidence in fairness to the Doctor, which may or may not support you blood congealing theory. But of course because he has sat on the fence that does not sit well with you because parts of what he says suggests that your blood congealing times you rely on could be way out.

You have also been told that those who viewed the body at the scene only had cursory glances and the main witness from the scene Dr Llewelyn says absolutely nothing to support your theory regarding the blood flowing and blood congealing times.

You make great play on the facts that he gave a different name but of course despite what you say he was entitled to use that name and it is not known whether or not at that time he did use that name as and when it perhaps suited his purpose.

You have also been told that despite the different names there appears to be no suspicion placed on him by the police or the coroner. So on that basis it is perhaps right to assume that the issue of the different names was not something that was of concern to the authorities, which you now says is part of what makes him a suspect.

Where and when the clarification was made is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things because he was spoken to the police before being summoned to appear at the inquest and he did attend. In order for that to have happened the police would have had to have his name and an address and furthermore he would have been interviewed prior to the inquest in order for the police to know if he had any valuable evidence to give to the court. So any name issues surely would have been sorted out at that time and that wuld have been the time any concerns would have been raised, perhaps they were but it seems soon allayed.

As to Scobie suggesting there is enough evidence for a prima facie case I have discussed this previous, but you should look at that term closely and see if it makes your case as strong as you think it does.

Definition

"At first sight, based on what seems to be the truth when first seen or heard"

Gone are the days when suspects went to court just on prima facie evidence alone. The prosecution now have to believe that they have more than a realistic chance of conviction based on the evidence to hand

As to your experts may I suggest you go back to them and put in writing all the facts that are now known and see if they are still of the same opinion. I somehow dont think they will be.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

As an aside, it deserves to be mentioned that every time I have been told that an academic approach is what we must have in the Ripper errand, it has turned out that this "academic" approach is first and foremost about automatically grading down any suspect who was not suspected by the Victorian police.

Thatīs about as academic as it gets.

If one works from the recorded data, uses the existing evidence and reads up on relating material such as the social context, the prejudiced criminal anthropology, psychological dispositions of caught serial killers and so on, it is all good and well - if one decides that it was one of the contemporary police suspects who did it, and tries to wring the real material on the academic bodies of the contemporary suspects.

If the material instead fits very much on another body, you may be as diligent and skilful as ever and it wonīt do you any good anyway with the "academic" proponents.

I say if this is what the academic demands add up to in practical life, then let the academics reside in a cozy little room of their own where they can drink tea, eat bisquits and chat "academically" about the case til kingdom come.

And while they sip away, let the rest of us look at the evidence from a practical viewpoint instead, the way real murder investigations are conducted.

[Fisherman]

Jonathan H: You write as if these are unimpeachable facts; ones that rely on split-second timing and observations in the dark about unusual things (a person brutally murdered) that are, according to you, laser-beam accurate.

They aren't. How could they be? It's silly.

No, what is silly is for you to suggest it. Now, letīs be honest here, Jonathan. When did I say that there is laser-beam accuracy? That is not true, is it?
So you chose not to tell the truth. Why?

I have said that the timings may be somewhat incorrect and that the bloodflow can vary from person to person. Yet you accuse me of having said that there is laser-beam accuracy. Once again: Why do you do that?

I read a bit in Mei Trows book on Mann yesterday. He says that the trip from Bakers Row to Bucks Row takes three minutes. Is he a liar and a seducer of his readers who claim there is laser-beam accuracy, or is he saying that it takes around three minutes to walk the stretch?

Three minutes is a bit rich, according to me. Two and a little more covers it, walking speedily.

But the overall message that you need to take in here is that it took four minutes plus to do the trek for the carmen and Mizen. That is not something that you can change by speaking of me being overzealous or imagining that I can be laser-beam accurate.

Now, I have said it before and I will say it again. Get a map, measure the distance, read up on walking times. Do the math, Jonathan. Instead of having a field day accusing me of trying to push the unoushable, get a picture yourself. Try to bring it down under four minutes and tell us how you did! The exercise must be done before you are fit to comment.
As for Mizen having gotten things wrong in the darkness, he actually had a lamp. And guess what? If he said that the blood flowed and that it was somewhat congealed, then the much, much better guess is that he was correct.

Instead we have to rely on the way people of the time acted and reacted to the people and events of the time.

Yes, that is a very useful exercise.

What does that tell us?

Different things, I should think.

That nobody was suspicious about Lechmere, not in the extant record.

Agreed.

And we can see why they would not be.

No, we cannot. "We" can see how the police goofed up on various instances, "we" have read up on the prejudices that ruled police work in all of Europe and "we" learn from that.

Nothing you have produced proves they should have been.

Correct! If proof is what you demand, that is. But circumstantial evidence tells us that they should have been wary of him. I am going to show you why, by suggesting a scenario.
A PC steps into the room of a superior officer and says "Hey, sergeant - I just found out that this carman Cross, he gave us the wrong name. And I noticed that his route to work takes him past the murder spots that have been added since we had him in. And he does so at a time that is consistent with when the women were supposedly killed. Plus it seems that his mother lives right by the Stride murder site.

Tell me that such a thing would not interest the sergeant, Jonathan. Tell me that he would go "Ah, thatīs probably nothing". And believe it yourself, if you can!

Sorry, but our positions are unbridgeable. We will have to agree to disagree.

Thatīs fine by me. But since you say things about my stance that are not true, we may be closer than you think. Not that it helps all that much, but still.

As for Mutologists and Ufologists and ... Ripperologists?

I am not sure you can 'tell the difference', because your field is not history.

Only historical methodology, not modern forensic science, not police profiling, not lawyers, can provide us with a provisional solution, e.g. it could be wrong, and/or allow for strongly argued yet competing theories to co-exist.

And just to be clear, I'm not an historian either.

Wrong, Jonathan. But I wonīt even go into why, since it would be a waste of time. Let me just say that I have never argued that the Lechmere theory could not be wrong. It allows for "strongly argued yet competing theories" - the sad thing is that there are no such theories. There are fervently argued theories, theories with hundreds and thousands of follwers, theories with ingenuous arguing behind them, theories that are fanciful, dumb, interesting, ridiculous, money-fetching and/or tedious. But there are no really good theories, as far as a factual underpinning of them goes.

The contemporary theories, but for the disproven ones (Ostrog) should be lent an ear, since one hopes that the contemporary police had at least something to stand on when suggesting them. But the fact that there were many contemporarily suggested suspects (Kos, Dru, Tumblety, Ostrog, Le Grand) tells in no uncertain terms that in at least four out of these five cases, the police were perfectly willing to name a suspect on no underlying factual evidence whatsoever. We KNOW this, since there cannot have been evidence against more than one man if there was just the one killer.

And if they could conjure up a case against four suspects, they sure could do so against the fifth too.

So thereīs your answer: The Lechmere theory can be wrong. It probably is not. And there is no other theory that can compete, because there is no other theory with such a wealth of circumstantial evidence. Not by a countre mile.

Because you do not accept the above, yours is not an academic solution, but it does make for a for a sexy doco.

Those 97 per cent of the murderers that Andy Griffiths put behind bars were not academically solved either. They were solved by looking at the evidence, Jonathan. If I wanted to impress a dustcovered professor in Victorian historics, I would be left with the same suspect, but perhaps a harder task.
If, however, I was to convince a doctor in criminology, it would be another matter. I know that, because I have tested. There are academics and there are academics, and criminology doctors - and professors, for that matter - are often ex-coppers. Like Andy Griffiths.

Is that academic enough for you? If you prefer an academic approach to a practical one, I mean? Or will you settle for just sexy?

[Fisherman]

I think you have convinced yourself that cross/lechmere was jack the ripper when there is no real evidence to support that theory.It's just a shame that been so blinkered means you cannot look at other theories concerning this fascinating case .

And once again it happens! When will people read and understand what I say?

I have not convinced myself that Lechmere was the Ripper. The evidence has. If there was no evidence, there would be no case. The reason a QC and a retired murder squad detective with a clearing rate of 97 per cent say that there is a prima faciae case and that Lechmere must be cleared before anybody else can be looked into, is that the evidence suggests this.

How in the whole world can you say that I cannot look at other theories??? I have looked at other theories for thirty years! I have read up on Bury, on Kelly, on Mann, on Levy and on van Gogh. I have spent weeks and months in the company of Kosminsy and Druitt. I have bought books and watched documentaries.

The problem you have and the question you need to ask is why I donīt like the other theories as much as I like the Lechmere theory, and the answer is simple: because they are not half as good.

But donīt tell me I donīt know these theories, and havenīt looked into them. That is just plain daft.

[Jonathan H]

You write as if these are unimpeachable facts; ones that rely on split-second timing and observations in the dark about unusual things (a person brutally murdered) that are, according to you, laser-beam accurate.

They aren't. How could they be? It's silly.

Instead we have to rely on the way people of the time acted and reacted to the people and events of the time.

What does that tell us?

That nobody was suspicious about Lechmere, not in the extant record.

And we can see why they would not be.

Nothing you have produced proves they should have been.

Sorry, but our positions are unbridgeable. We will have to agree to disagree.

As for Mutologists and Ufologists and ... Ripperologists?

I am not sure you can 'tell the difference', because your field is not history.

Only historical methodology, not modern forensic science, not police profiling, not lawyers, can provide us with a provisional solution, e.g. it could be wrong, and/or allow for strongly argued yet competing theories to co-exist.

And just to be clear, I'm not an historian either.

Because you do not accept the above, yours is not an academic solution, but it does make for a for a sexy doco.

[pinkmoon]

Have you seen what Danny Rolling, Arthur Shawcross and Ted Bundy did to their victims?

Did THEY have traits that we could read on the outsides of them, giving away that they were deranged psychos?

There goes that argument.

Do we know that Lechmere stopped killing?

There goes THAT argument.

Could Lechmere have been able to kill quickly and efficiently? Are we sure that all the victims WERE killed quickly? Was not Tabram stabbed 38 times while alive? Is it not true that Nichos may have had her stomach cut while alive?

There goes that argument.

Itīs all good and well that we have fixed ideas, Pink. But we need to be able to bolster them also.

I think you have convinced yourself that cross/lechmere was jack the ripper when there is no real evidence to support that theory.It's just a shame that been so blinkered means you cannot look at other theories concerning this fascinating case .

[Fisherman]

I can't make this clear.

It does not matter what I think, only the historical result.

Which is no suspicion of this man -- in the extant record -- by anybody at the time.

I would need very strong evidence to second guess that opinion, e.g. Lechmere having a dual identity that we know, but they did not know -- and an explanation as to why they did not know -- which could be criminal and/or violent, or both.

Thatīs convenient.

But never mind. Letīs look at a few unbendable facts:

From the spot where Nichols lay to the spot where the carmen found Mizen, it is a stretch of around 250 meters.

Average walking speed varies. In a survey of some 7000 people walking over streets at green light, it was extablished that the fastest walkwers were young men. They averaged 1,5 meter per second.

If you walk 1,5 meters per second, then you need 167 seconds to cover 250 meters. That is two and a half minutes and some more.

This will not change. It was no different in 1888.

A fit novice jogger will cover a kilometer in around 5 min 40 seconds, or 340 seconds. That means that 25 meters will take 85 seconds, five seconds short of one and a half minute.

Mizen walked, as far as we know, and so did the carmen. The carmen were both late, so they could have improved a bit on the 167 seconds, but they would not reach 85 seconds. A viable suggestion is perhaps that they shaved thirty seconds off the 167 second suggestion, landing at 137 seconds, 17 seconds over two minutes.

We KNOW that both stretches had to be covered, one by the carmen and the stretch back by Mizen. It lands us on 274 seconds if we are optimistic. That means that the treks took four minutes and thirtyfour seconds to cover. Add to this the examination time and the time it took to inform Mizen, and we can not possibly be speaking of five minutes only. Six minutes or slightly more is the only sensible suggestion.

And when Mizen arrived, the blood was STILL flowing from the neck, plus it was somewhat congealed. Jason Payne-James, who is just about the best forensic expert you can find, says that the expected bleeding time would be more expected to be three or possibly five minutes, but not very likely seven or more.

The things that point to Lechmere are not wobbly guesswork - they are facts to a very large degree.

Do the exercise yourself, Jonathan, if you dare! Or stay away from it if it feels uncomfortable. But rest assured that we ARE looking at a time of four minutes plus for the treks only, and that means that we DO have Lechmere in the eye of the storm. Like it or not, but donīt try to claim that I have nothing to go on.

[Jonathan H]

I can't make this clear.

It does not matter what I think, only the historical result.

Which is no suspicion of this man -- in the extant record -- by anybody at the time.

I would need very strong evidence to second guess that opinion, e.g. Lechmere having a dual identity that we know, but they did not know -- and an explanation as to why they did not know -- which could be criminal and/or violent, or both.

[Fisherman]

Jonathan H: You can ask, of course, ask anything you like but you surely know my answer is going to be not how long does this, or that take, or who met who, and when, but rather what is the source we are relying on to inform us about the past, about a particular past event.

Is the source reliable to a point of exactitude where the difference of a few minutes supposedly puts somebody in the frame -- somebody who was not in the frame in any extant source from the period being studied?

Forensically, there can be no doubt that Lechmere has always been in the frame as far as the timings and the bloodflow goes, Jonathan. Look at it from two extremes, if you will:

A/ The examination of the body, the trek down to Hanbury Street/Bakers Row, Mizens return trek to Browns Stable Yard - letīs assume that this magically was performed in a manner that took no time at all. If so, then Mizen arrives at the stable yard door around a minute or two before Lechmere leaves it. The blood is at that stage flowing from the wounds to the neck, telling us that Lechmere is in the frame.

B/ All of these matters take a lot longer than we have formerly thought, and Mizen only arrives down at Browns stable yard seconds before Llewellyn comes there. At this stage, the blood is still flowing and it is in a process of coagualating, which means that the coagulation only started to show some 25-28 minutes after the cuts to the neck. Or that it started shwoing after the ordinary three to four minutes, but for some reason did not turn into the finished coagulation stadium until seconds before turning into a congealed mass. Nevertheless, Lechmere stays in the frame, on account of alone having found the woman on the ground, a woman who was subsequently found to have been murdered.

Both of these scenarios are of course La-La-land inventions. The more important thing to notice is that we cannot discuss any take from the contemporary policeīs side that would exonerate Lechmere, as far as the blood evidence goes.

I would nevertheless call upon you to make an estimation of your own: Read all the material, and then give me an estimation of the time span withing which you would say it is reasonable that Mizen arrived at Browns stable yard. It would be very intersting and - I foreshadow - quite, quite revealing. Once you have done it, we will together reason about what the evidence implicates. I promise that it will be a rewarding journey!

[Jonathan H]

You can ask, of course, ask anything you like but you surely know my answer is going to be not how long does this, or that take, or who met who, and when, but rather what is the source we are relying on to inform us about the past, about a particular past event.

Is the source reliable to a point of exactitude where the difference of a few minutes supposedly puts somebody in the frame -- somebody who was not in the frame in any extant source from the period being studied?

PS

Ironically, I do not agree with the "awful glut" litmus test -- that the murderer of Mary Jane Kelly could not go on -- a test set up by Macnaghten for reasons of bureaucratic scrambling in 1894.

Twenty years later his memoir abandoned this dodge and conceded that his "belief", rightly or wrongly, was based on information received "some years after" the Kelly atrocity, e.g. "certain facts" which led to a "conclusion".

Part of abandoning the dodge was to have the killer kill himself the next day, or evening, or next night of the Kelly murder, ruining the dodge because it meant the Ripper could function to get away from the crime scene.

I do not propose the above as 'proof' that the Lechmere theory is wrong. Just that Macnaghten did not believe in Druitt's guilt because the drowned barrister fit a preconceived notion, e.g. the false notion of his own report(s) of a madman who could not go on even "a single day" (Sims, 1907).

[Fisherman]

Jonathan, could I ask one thing of you?

Could you go through the evidence and try and establish, to the best of your knowledge, how long you think it took from the moment when Paul arrived at the body to the moment when Mizen arrived at Browns, after having been informed by Lechmere about the woman lying there?

I would be very interested to see what you arrive at, if you feel up to it!

[Fisherman]

I think I can end this interesting thread by pointing out the "bleeding obvious "as basil fawlty would say.Who ever was doing this wasn't going to wake up the next day after slaughtering poor Mary Kelly no longer a deranged physco we are asked to believe that Mr cross did and lived to good old age .Something happened to our killer that physically stopped him from killing this fact as well as the fact that our killer knew how to kill quickly and effeciently is always forgotten about.

Have you seen what Danny Rolling, Arthur Shawcross and Ted Bundy did to their victims?

Did THEY have traits that we could read on the outsides of them, giving away that they were deranged psychos?

There goes that argument.

Do we know that Lechmere stopped killing?

There goes THAT argument.

Could Lechmere have been able to kill quickly and efficiently? Are we sure that all the victims WERE killed quickly? Was not Tabram stabbed 38 times while alive? Is it not true that Nichos may have had her stomach cut while alive?

There goes that argument.

Itīs all good and well that we have fixed ideas, Pink. But we need to be able to bolster them also.

[Fisherman]

Jonathan H: I wrote a post directly to you, some time back, and you did not respond, which is your right not to respond. I'm not a cop and you are not under interrogation.

But it seems you simply missed it and, if so, I apologize.

Thatīs fine, Jonathan - it seems I may be the one owing you an apology! I just cannot remember that post, so you are welcome to ask again whatever it was you asked.

Now, here are two things you get fundamentally wrong about the evidence, which gives me no pleasure to point out (and also about my argument) as you have put a lot of time and effort into all this.

1. When you write that we know this, and we know that, we don't
know any such thing to the degree of exactitude that you claim, or need to know and then claim, in order to build a case for incriminating dodginess.

The documents you treat as gospel to make these measurements could be wrong.

There are so many things that can be wrong, Jonathan. There is no denying that. But once again, when Mizen says the blood was congealed, he could be wrong or right - but the better guess is that he is right. When Paul says that it took no more than four minutes between his finding of Lechmere and reachin Mizen, he could be wrong or right - but the better guess is that he was correct. And so on. What we have is what he have, and that is what we go by. We donīt treat it as gospel, but we DO accept it as more credible than incredible.
Then there are other matters where we cannot drag the papers in. A distance is a distance, bloodflow is bloodflow etcetera.

2. I am not saying that the case ipso facto cannot be [provisionally] solved at this distance, e.g. because of the distance.

Good on you, Jonathan.

I am saying that second-guessing the people who were there is extremely difficult without really strong evidence that they missed and that they can be shown to have missed said evidence.

One of the elements that is added on account of the distance in time is that a police force back then would have ben faultily or inadequately informed about matters that we today have go right. These were men who to a smaller or lesser degree accepted that a thick neck was a sign of atavism, Jonathan. They had advantages comparing to us, but they also had disadvantages. To try and establish to what degree they were a competent force, compating to the forces of today, is a very hard thing to do. There is therefore a lot of room to alow for speculation that they may have missed out on many things because they acted along guidelines that were not always sound.

This might be documentation, for sure, showing criminal and/or violent behavior by this man under a separate identity (you have none whatsoever) or forensic evidence involving blood (but you don't have any blood or bodies).

To be frank, I DO have two separate identtites - Cross and Lechmere. I also know that many of todays serialists are caught with no earlier convictions at all. As for forensic evidence and blood, I have already pointed to the bloodflow and the coagulation, where Lechmere as the killer fits the picture and can never be discarded.

Thirdly, and I am not bringing up my theory here as it is irrelevant.

But you make an assertion about my opinion that I have to correct.

I am not arguing that some of the 'Jack the Ripper' murders cannot be solved -- except, and its a big except, absolutely (we do not know that Lizzie Borden, who was acquitted, is absolutely guilty either but we can live with the contingent nature of knowing she axed her father and step-mother).

No, it cannot be solved absolutely and I realize you agree with me about that.

But I am arguing it was not a mystery after 1891. I am not putting this forward as evidence that the Lechmere theory is wrong. Not at all. I am trying to say that I think it was solved at the time, albeit a posthumous solution.

It was rebooted as a 'mystery' after the Great War.

I am going to read your book when it arrives, Jonathan. I can only say that so far, I think the difference between your theory and mine is that mine is hand-on, practically simple, supported by evidence and in line with serial killing as we know it today, whereas I find your theory the exact opposite.

PS

The term 'Ripperology' is made-up and is simply a tabloid, pop term. It has no academic weight, and nor should it. In the real world people use it to denigrate people like you and I who write books on this subject. It is the equivalent of the 70's term for believing in UFO cattle mutilations, e.g. Mutologists. If you want to use it, well, that's your funeral but if you use the even more appalling and grating term 'suspectology' then I really will have to call the police ...[/QUOTE]

I think the term Ripperology is quite convenient. That does not mean that I regard it as an academic discipline. I am an academic myself and I am married to a PhD who spent many years working at Lund University. I have helped people write academic papers.
Believe me, I can tell the difference.