Leaving Aside the "Name Issue"

[John Wheat]

But Thompson could see through Kelly's window, from his own!

Anyway. I don't see a need for people to sneer at each other's methods or filters for viewing the crimes. I think all have merit, if people don't start up with arrogant willy-swinging, with the wild and mostly baseless claims and the like.

Though its getting my goat, the number of times this bloody historical source stuff is being chucked about like Pollock's paint on every thread.

I don't think it's utterly *ridiculous* to eyeball a man who was found next to a body. Ok, it's a bit silly, I think, to proclaim him the Ripper (case solved!) based on what's being currently presented. Not a suspect, imo, as much as a potential person of interest? Idk. But I've no problem with the idea being discussed. Is it really so grievous?

No but its bloody boring when discussed to the extent it is on these boards. Numerous threads on Crossmere. Wankers.

[Fisherman]

We have no way of telling which is true.

Yes, but that was not my question, was it? If you make the assumption - right or wrong - that Mizen gave a correct version of what was said, then what happens?

[wigngown]

John Wheat,

������

Best regards.

[Billiou]

Yes, but that was not my question, was it? If you make the assumption - right or wrong - that Mizen gave a correct version of what was said, then what happens?

I suppose then based on that assumption, I'd then make another assumption.

[Patrick S]

Yes, but that was not my question, was it? If you make the assumption - right or wrong - that Mizen gave a correct version of what was said, then what happens?

This is similar to the "view Lechmere's actions with an eye on him being guilty" instructions you've given posters in the past. I think the fact that you cannot see the obvious issues with this approach is what drives the circular direction of most of these Lechmere discussions.

[Pierre]

And if Mizen remembered correctly? What then?

1. We do not have the originals.
2. Newspaper articles often are not reliable.
3. You can not build a whole theory on hypotheses drawn from newspaper articles that are not reliable.
4. There is no possibility to know what Mizen remembered.
5. Since there is no possibility to know what Mizen remembered we can not hypothesize, from the non existent knowledge about that memory, that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.
6. Since we do not have the originals, and since newspaper articles often are not reliable (se my post about the tendency in the source for the statements of Paul) we can not know if the hypotheses we make are valid.

7. Since the primary hypothesis in the whole theory is that

Lechmere was a liar

we can not build a whole theory about Lechmere being a liar on the liar´s statment about the time that he left home.

If, however, we would want to build a timeline on a liar´s information about his leaving home for work, we must use the hypothesis, since we have made such an hypothesis, that he was indeed a liar, to hypothetically build that timeline.

Regards, Pierre

[Columbo]

Another redundant thread.

[Pierre]

Another redundant thread.

How can it be redundant to ask why someone thinks Lechmere is a liar and still believes in Lechmere?

You think Lechmere was a liar, don´t you? Well, if you do, how come you think he told the truth?

Regards, Pierre

[Columbo]

How can it be redundant to ask why someone thinks Lechmere is a liar and still believes in Lechmere?

You think Lechmere was a liar, don´t you? Well, if you do, how come you think he told the truth?

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I don't know if he lied or not. I think we're re-treading old ground. This questions been asked a dozen times on the other thread. You're trying to elicit an answer you didn't get from fisherman

Columbo

[John Wheat]

Another redundant thread.

Every thread on Crossmere is redundant. But at least this one is rationally pointing out that the Crossmere theory is flawed.

[Columbo]

Every thread on Crossmere is redundant. But at least this one is rationally pointing out that the Crossmere theory is flawed.

Of course it's flawed. It's a 128 year old unsolved murder.

[Richard Patterson]

Thompson was at the Providence Row Refuge.

At the end of the day, Cross can be placed in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, something you cannot say for, say, Druitt or Thompson..

Francis Thompson can be placed in Spitalfields in Whitechapel at Providence Row night refuge. From the window of the room that contained his bed Thompson would have been able to look down Dorset Street to the covered archway that led to Kelly's room.

[John Wheat]

Of course it's flawed. It's a 128 year old unsolved murder.

No its flawed because Crossmere was a witness that some have tried to turn into a suspect.

[wigngown]

The choice is yours Columbo: you don't have to read it.

Best regards.

[Damaso Marte]

Francis Thompson can be placed in Spitalfields in Whitechapel at Providence Row night refuge. From the window of the room that contained his bed Thompson would have been able to look down Dorset Street to the covered archway that led to Kelly's room.

But not for the entire murder series - wasn't he only in there for a month?