Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Columbo]

Reponses above bold.

I just noticed I misspelled Shawl in my original post.

[Pcdunn]

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

[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.

[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 donīt entertain any idea that I would be innocent on this point. I would like to, but I canīt.

[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?

[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]

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

[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 donīt 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]

"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.

[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 donīt 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!

[Patrick S]

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.

"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.

[Harry D]

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.

Interesting registration date to Lechmerian ratio on here.

[Patrick S]

Seriously? This again?

Columbo, you seem to be somewhat new here, thus you'll need a primer on "Mr. Holmgren's" modus operandi. In another post, on another thread, last week or so. The wounded, put upon, victimized "Mr. Holmgren" posted this:

"It is not without interest that people who cry their hearts out over how they think that the carman is accused with no evidence behind it (!), are willing to sink to levels like these. From me and Edward, you demand evidence - but when it comes to castigating a renowned film company (who puts their rumour on the line everytime they put a production out there) with no substantiation whatsoever, you feel you have the right to do so.

It is shameful, pityful, disgusting and lacking any moral."

In response to this foolishness, I posted this:

"Ah. Morality. Let's not discuss the morals involved in accusing a man, long dead and unable to defend himself of having been a lifelong serial killer. What morals are involved in that? History of violence? No? So what. He's Jack the Ripper. Arrest record? No. So what. He's the Torso Killer. History of mental illness...or even ill humor? No. Ah. He was a cunning psychopath! Raised ten kids you say? Big deal. He was a KILLER! Married for 50 years? AH! He fooled everyone! Even his wife!

Yes. You and Eddie have the market on morality thoroughly cornered, "Fisherman"."

I was once like you, Columbo. I came to "Mr. Holmgren's" theory objectively. Alas, that seems to have been my mistake. I looked into everything that "Mr. Holmgren" presented and found that quite astounding leaps in logic were required to get to the heights to which "Mr. Holmgren" aspired (i.e. "Lechmere the Ripper"). After a firm scolding from "Mr. Holmgren" I did not post for many months. I did my own research into the man (Lechmere) and the cast of characters associated with the Nichols' murder. I don't know exactly where, but it's all here on these boards. The explanation for what happened in "Bucks Row/Baker's Row" is very apparent, requires no imagination to understand and accept. There was a "Mizen Scam", to be sure. And "Mr. Holmgren's" moniker is - if inadvertently so - quite appropriate. Alas, it does not convict anyone as "Jack the Ripper", or even suggest anyone was an awful human being. So, it's quite boring and will not result in internationally sent documentaries translated into Pashto.

[Columbo]

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.

[Fisherman]

Well I've never said you are immoral, and if you have taken anything I have said as implying that, I unreservedly withdraw and appologise.

I was not pointing a finger at you - others are responsible for this. And they do NOT apologise!