Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Leaving Aside the "Name Issue"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post
    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.
    Last edited by John Wheat; 04-23-2016, 07:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Richard Patterson
    replied
    Thompson was at the Providence Row Refuge.

    Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post
    Another redundant thread.
    Every thread on Crossmere is redundant. But at least this one is rationally pointing out that the Crossmere theory is flawed.
    Last edited by John Wheat; 04-23-2016, 05:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    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, donīt 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

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    Originally posted by Columbo View Post
    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, donīt you? Well, if you do, how come you think he told the truth?

    Regards, Pierre

    Leave a comment:


  • Columbo
    replied
    Another redundant thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    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 liarīs statment about the time that he left home.


    If, however, we would want to build a timeline on a liarīs 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

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Billiou
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • wigngown
    replied
    John Wheat,

    ������

    Best regards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Billiou View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by Ausgirl View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Billiou
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    And if Mizen remembered correctly? What then?
    We have no way of telling which is true.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Billiou View Post
    Could it be simply that Mizen, in his own mind, took the term "you're wanted in Buck's Row" to mean a "policeman wanted him"? And at the time he heard "dead and drunk", would not necessarily be a reason to immediately drop everything and run there..... You know, "a woman dead with her throat cut" would have been different. Remember both Paul and Cross "thought" she may be dead as a result of an "outrage", not a vicious murder. And where did the "drunk" come from anyway? Did they smell drink on her?

    So I think maybe Mizen quoted what he "thought" he heard, and as both Paul and Cross confirmed they didn't say that, it was merely him being human.

    On a general note not directed at anyone, I don't think we should expect all the witnesses to remember exactly what they said or did. There has to be some leeway given to human error and weaknesses. We don't all have a photographic memory, and the same with what we have said in the past. Some people can remember exactly word for word, others won't. So I have come to the realisation that trying to forensically dissect everything said probably leads no-where.
    And if Mizen remembered correctly? What then?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X