Why doesn't Lechmere have his own thread?

[Fisherman]

Joining esteemed company such as Prince Albert, Alfred Napier Blanchard, & Lewis Carroll.

Plus, not to forget, on boards with participants like you!

I blush.

[John Wheat]

Joining esteemed company such as Prince Albert, Alfred Napier Blanchard, & Lewis Carroll.

And soon or not so soon to be revealed Pierre's suspect.

[Harry D]

Well then, John, you may want to know that he just turned a suspect on these boards.

Joining esteemed company such as Prince Albert, Alfred Napier Blanchard, & Lewis Carroll.

[John Wheat]

Well then, John, you may want to know that he just turned a suspect on these boards.

To Fisherman

Yes but he's not considered one of the main suspects. And I quote from the suspects page ' By some counts, more than 500 individuals have been put forward by various experts, historians and theorists - most based on flimsy or non-existent evidence'. The latter part certainly applies to Lechmere a witness who has been turned into a suspect on flimsy or non-existence evidence.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

Well then, John, you may want to know that he just turned a suspect on these boards.

Still a witness in my book.

[Fisherman]

Because he was a witness not a suspect.

Well then, John, you may want to know that he just turned a suspect on these boards.

[John Wheat]

Because he was a witness not a suspect.

[Admin]

Given the sheer amount of discussion about the man spread over dozens of threads, why doesn't Lechmere have his own thread.

I'm not particularly a supporter of his candidacy, but looking at the suspect list already existing he deserves to be there more than some on the list.

It would definitely tidy up the myriad of conversations about the man.

Because we're busy and no one asked us to.

[Fisherman]

Really? I kind of don't.

But I'm open to correction, of course.

It seems you missed my point, which was to highlight the inconsistency of championing the views of "renowned researchers" on the subject of this particular Hutchinson, when you're quite happy to reject those same "renowned researchers' views on the subject of Fetchbeer.

But they are different matters, Ben. Didnīt you know?

Philips Sugden never looked at Lechmere as a suspect.

Does that mean that I cannot appreciate him as a very good researcher and point to his conclusions in different matters? Is that so?

That would be descending into Kindergarten thinking - "you disagree with X about which shoes are the more comfortable, so how can you agree with him about which gloves are the more durable?"

You see, Ben, this is one of the reasons that you and I should keep our dealings to an absolute minimum - you do not have the rationale required for a nuanced and thoughtful debate.

On this thread, I am therefore done debating with you. I will do my utmost to reach the same status on other threads where we have unfinished business.

[Ben]

I kind of count on her accepting that Lechmere is a very good bid for the Nichols murder - at the very least.

Really? I kind of don't.

But I'm open to correction, of course.

It seems you missed my point, which was to highlight the inconsistency of championing the views of "renowned researchers" on the subject of this particular Hutchinson, when you're quite happy to reject those same "renowned researchers' views on the subject of Fetchbeer.

[Harry D]

I think you mean section, not thread. There's Lechmere threads aplenty on this forum. A couple of them are even worth reading.

It does seem unfair that a crackpot suspect like Lewis Carroll merits his own subsection whereas Lechmere doesn't.

[Fisherman]

Ben:
Those others who have expressed a critical view of Sinese's article - all Fetchbeerians, presumably?

Eeehhhhhhh... Jon Menges? And Debra Arif? Lechmerites...? Actually no, not as far as I know. Definitely not, Jon, leastwise.
Havenīt asked Debra, though, but since she is sharp as a razor, hugely knowledgeable and normally very openminded, I kind of count on her accepting that Lechmere is a very good bid for the Nichols murder - at the very least.

Not sure that it clinches the deal, though.

[Ben]

Itīs not that I canīt see why you would rather not have it known that a number of renowned researchers think that the new Hutchinson is a complete non-starter as it stands.

As against the chorus of renowned researchers in the field of "ripperology" who support Fetchbeer as a suspect? Those others who have expressed a critical view of Sinese's article - all Fetchbeerians, presumably? But yes, let's give it time and not quibble. I'll admit to being quietly confident about the chances of this particular Hutchinson being considered a very reasonable one in the long run, although it won't be a "major disappointment" for me if I'm wrong, considering that I neither wrote the article nor conducted the research that went into it.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

If you're so fixated on what other people are saying on a different website, go over there and talk the matter over with them. I know you're keen to find some sort of distraction from the enormous amount of opprobrium you're receiving over your Crossmere theory, but this isn't the way to go about it. I would be interested to read the feedback on the Hutchinson article, both positive and negative, from contributors to this forum. I hope it'll be a bit more persuasive that some of the non-criticisms I've read elsewhere.

Back to Fetchbeer...

No offense whatsoever, Ben, but if I am to take advice from somebody - anybody - on the boards about how and what to post, I cannot for the life of me see who would rank below you.

Itīs not that I canīt see why you would rather not have it known that a number of renowned researchers think that the new Hutchinson is a complete non-starter as it stands. Believe me, I absolutely can, Ben.

Trust me, I am only trying to save you a major future disappointment.

But letīs not quibble about this, you and me - letīs give it time and we will see if Flash George manages to eke out an existence as a credible Jack the Ripper.

Til then, Ben!

[Ben]

Fisherman,

If you're so fixated on what other people are saying on a different website, go over there and talk the matter over with them. I know you're keen to find some sort of distraction from the enormous amount of opprobrium you're receiving over your Crossmere theory, but this isn't the way to go about it. I would be interested to read the feedback on the Hutchinson article, both positive and negative, from contributors to this forum. I hope it'll be a bit more persuasive that some of the non-criticisms I've read elsewhere.

Back to Fetchbeer...