Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Fisherman]

I think the research Mr. Holmgrem has done is probably the most realistic on the subject of JTR. Unlike Cornwell's Sickert research or Knight's fantasy about the evil 3.

I hope no one really accused anyone of being immoral because of an opinion on a 128 year old murder mystery! that would be ridiculous on it's face.

Many thanks for this! Now brace yourself - I am in reality not a discerning researcher with a very good suspect. I am instead the werewolf of Casebook, a seducer, a misleader and a deeply dishonest man. Oh, and immoral - I nearly forgot that!

But I really should not waste time telling you that - others will do it for me.

Anything you want to know about the theory, any questions you have, feel free to PM me if you don´t want to add ten rounds of nosebleeding verbal pugilistics to it.

That way, I can mislead you and lie to you without being scrutinized by the able guardians out here. Naughty me!

[Columbo]

"Mr. Holmgren" has done excellent research. There can be no doubt. However, using Cornwell and Knight as measuring sticks diminishes his work. The issue(s) arise when others digest the research and do not reach the conclusions desired by "Mr. Holmgren" and his trusty sidekick, "Eddie". I see you are somewhat new here, Columbus. So, I'll venture a guess: Once you've been exposed to all that's required of you to view Lechmere as Jack the Ripper, you'll be less believing in the theory, while still complimentary and appreciative of the research required to present it.

Well, in my history with this case, I was leaning towards either a sailor or a meat market type. But I never really thought that only one man did every murder. Tabram was killed by a sailor, Stride was probably killed by an angry client, and for the longest time I pushed that Hutchinson killed MJK based on the fact I couldn't understand why he would hang around for almost an hour outside her lodgings.

I realized how ridiculous the situation was getting when researchers tried to do DNA on a shaw they thought belonged to Eddowes and say it was Kosminskis! That in itself would say it's time to revisit the case.

I discovered Cross about 5 years ago when it was mentioned in a documentary that he jumped into the shadows when paul showed up (this was the Fido remark I referenced earlier). I thought if that were true, why didn't any researcher not consider Cross a suspect? (I've discovered since that Mr. Fido has a slight problem communicating the facts without embellishment). I happened to catch the documentary on Cross done by Mr. Holmgrem (sorry I was brought up to address people that way) and was very interested in the information provided. It just made sense for at least the Nichols murder. Whether it's true or not, of course I don't know but it does work on a factual basis. Unfortunately I live in America and don't have access to the information the European researchers have so I depend on what is presented by those researchers and I sift through that to form an opinion.

Please don't think I'm comparing his research to Knight, Cromwell, etc. This is heads above the rest. But people believe the royal conspiracy, or sickert was JTR, even though it's been thoroughly dis-proven. People who believe all these ridiculous theories like Fieghnborn or James Kelley being JTR in America scoff at this theory and ridicule it. Very closed minded.

I support any theory if it's done right, and I won't ridicule a person for believing in a certain theory with personal attacks.

The truth is Cross could be JTR. We just don't know, but try not to kill the messengers if you disagree with them.

[Columbo]

Many thanks for this! Now brace yourself - I am in reality not a discerning researcher with a very good suspect. I am instead the werewolf of Casebook, a seducer, a misleader and a deeply dishonest man. Oh, and immoral - I nearly forgot that!

But I really should not waste time telling you that - others will do it for me.

Anything you want to know about the theory, any questions you have, feel free to PM me if you don´t want to add ten rounds of nosebleeding verbal pugilistics to it.

That way, I can mislead you and lie to you without being scrutinized by the able guardians out here. Naughty me!

Thank you very much for the offer! I definitely have some questions that would be better answered personally then on a forum.

I've read quite a bit of these forums for years and it always goes down the drain when people run out of steam or they're constantly frustrated by other posters. Don't take it personally.

[Columbo]

Interesting registration date to Lechmerian ratio on here.

I could see that too, but unfortunately I don't know Mr. Holmgrem or any of the prominent researchers on this forum. I'd like to though. I know Stewart Evans used to post here and he's provided numerous bits of great information on the case. I think it would be kinda cool to have them consent to a chat room question and answer thing one day, but I have the feeling you all would be handing them their butts by the end of the evening

[GUT]

I could see that too, but unfortunately I don't know Mr. Holmgrem or any of the prominent researchers on this forum. I'd like to though. I know Stewart Evans used to post here and he's provided numerous bits of great information on the case. I think it would be kinda cool to have them consent to a chat room question and answer thing one day, but I have the feeling you all would be handing them their butts by the end of the evening

You do know Stewart passed away?

So I if we get him in a Q&A we might have a name at last.

[Columbo]

You do know Stewart passed away?

So I if we get him in a Q&A we might have a name at last.

He did? I didn't know. When did he pass?

[Fisherman]

Thank you very much for the offer! I definitely have some questions that would be better answered personally then on a forum.

I've read quite a bit of these forums for years and it always goes down the drain when people run out of steam or they're constantly frustrated by other posters. Don't take it personally.

You are ever so correct - and I don´t entertain any idea that I would be innocent on this point. I would like to, but I can´t.

[Patrick S]

Well, in my history with this case, I was leaning towards either a sailor or a meat market type. But I never really thought that only one man did every murder. Tabram was killed by a sailor, Stride was probably killed by an angry client, and for the longest time I pushed that Hutchinson killed MJK based on the fact I couldn't understand why he would hang around for almost an hour outside her lodgings.

Those are all interesting points. Myself, I tend to avoid, "leaning" in any direction in that I've learned that - through doing so - it can only prejudice your view of things, especially NEW things.

I realized how ridiculous the situation was getting when researchers tried to do DNA on a shaw they thought belonged to Eddowes and say it was Kosminskis! That in itself would say it's time to revisit the case.

The shawl controversy if pretty typical of how things are done, have been done, will always be done when it comes to "identifying" Jack the Ripper. There is - after all - money to be made and fame to be had. I found the entire thing pretty interesting and not the least bit disappointing in that I don't harbor the slightest illusion that case will every be "solved". The case in and of itself is interesting, the characters, the time, the place, all of it.

I discovered Cross about 5 years ago when it was mentioned in a documentary that he jumped into the shadows when paul showed up (this was the Fido remark I referenced earlier). I thought if that were true, why didn't any researcher not consider Cross a suspect? (I've discovered since that Mr. Fido has a slight problem communicating the facts without embellishment). I happened to catch the documentary on Cross done by Mr. Holmgrem (sorry I was brought up to address people that way) and was very interested in the information provided. It just made sense for at least the Nichols murder. Whether it's true or not, of course I don't know but it does work on a factual basis. Unfortunately I live in America and don't have access to the information the European researchers have so I depend on what is presented by those researchers and I sift through that to form an opinion.

I think you are laboring under some assumption that I did not take "Fisherman's" theory seriously. That's not the case. In fact, I took it quite seriously because it is very interesting and very well researched (as was Cornwell's Sickert, but - from my perspective the two theories are equally implausible). The more I dug into the Nichols' murder the more obvious one thing became: Cross/Lechmere didn't kill Nichols or - in all likelihood, anyone else for that matter. If you want specifics, ask or search this board. We've been round and round on it.

Oh, and I too was brought up to be courteous and address people respectfully. However, Mr. Holmgren's courtesy ends when you aren't showering him with compliments. Still, I give credit where credit is due and I recognize the extent of his research and his dedication to this topic. However, that's where it ends for me.
Please don't think I'm comparing his research to Knight, Cromwell, etc. This is heads above the rest. But people believe the royal conspiracy, or sickert was JTR, even though it's been thoroughly dis-proven. People who believe all these ridiculous theories like Fieghnborn or James Kelley being JTR in America scoff at this theory and ridicule it. Very closed minded.

I support any theory if it's done right, and I won't ridicule a person for believing in a certain theory with personal attacks.

Personal attacks are Mr. Holmgren's specialty. If you ever feel compelled to say that you think the whole Lechmere idea may not be all that plausible.....you'll find that out.
The truth is Cross could be JTR. We just don't know, but try not to kill the messengers if you disagree with them.

Ah. It works both ways, doesn't it? I certainly don't have to buy his theory and I'm free to say that. I began by doing so quite courteously. Only to have my intellect challenged by Mr. Holmgren. It begins with the little barbs that conclude most of his posts. It end with full on indictments of character and intelligence. Thus, I've responded in kind (and paid the requite penalty).

Reponses above bold.

[Pcdunn]

Patrick's comments re personal attacks match my own observation and experience over the past year and a half since I've joined.

[Columbo]

Reponses above bold.

I just noticed I misspelled Shawl in my original post.

[GUT]

Patrick's comments re personal attacks match my own observation and experience over the past year and a half since I've joined.

Yep some just take it so personally if you dare disagree with their pet theory.

[Columbo]

41 pages of arguing whether Lechmere used the name Cross under false pretenses and probably 5 with useful information. Ugh.

Anyway, how does this theory differentiate from the Feigenbuam theory that Mr. Marriott put forth?

Seriously, I would like to know what you think.

[GUT]

41 pages of arguing whether Lechmere used the name Cross under false pretenses and probably 5 with useful information. Ugh.

Anyway, how does this theory differentiate from the Feigenbuam theory that Mr. Marriott put forth?

Seriously, I would like to know what you think.

May be best to start a new thread then.

In a nutshell neither persuades me.

[Columbo]

May be best to start a new thread then.

In a nutshell neither persuades me.

I should start a new thread, but I don't think I'm as learned as you guys so I wouldn't do it justice. I was more curious why this theory deserves this much of a beating when I don't recall reading the Feighnbaum theory getting this much heat. It could be any other theory.

What is it about Lechmere using the name Cross at an inappropriate moment that ticks everyone off? Apparently it's true, and no matter how you feel about Fisherman you should at least concede it happened. Maybe I'm wrong.

[GUT]

I should start a new thread, but I don't think I'm as learned as you guys so I wouldn't do it justice. I was more curious why this theory deserves this much of a beating when I don't recall reading the Feighnbaum theory getting this much heat. It could be any other theory.

What is it about Lechmere using the name Cross at an inappropriate moment that ticks everyone off? Apparently it's true, and no matter how you feel about Fisherman you should at least concede it happened. Maybe I'm wrong.

So because one theory is no good, we aren't allowed say another one isn't?

Strange way of thinking.