The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Stewart P Evans]

Well...

This thread does read a bit like the Monty Python Argument Clinic with a lot of 'yes it is' and 'no it isn't' going on.
I do think it's 'interesting' that some folk wont entertain the idea of Lechmere even as a suspect and as a newb it's a little frustrating that there are few clear reasons given here for why not.

Well 'Bitsie', you'll just have to internalize the record as it has come down to us and then, if you agree that the witness Cross was not a witness at all but a suspect, accept that conclusion and enjoy the 'Lechmere' ride.

However, if you conclude that the police, assuming they had any sense at all, would have indeed looked at the initial finder of the body and then rejected him as being suspicious, then you can reject him as a suspect and accept him as a witness only.

You have to get used to the fact, if you are going to follow these boards, that many proposed suspects are not accepted by others as legitimate suspects. Either way, you should make up your own mind after reading the relevant material.

[Stewart P Evans]

What...

...
Thirty years service?
One wonders.

What, exactly, is that supposed to mean?

[Harry D]

I do think it's 'interesting' that some folk wont entertain the idea of Lechmere even as a suspect and as a newb it's a little frustrating that there are few clear reasons given here for why not.

Why should people entertain the idea of a suspect without basis? Just for the heck of it? Give us a reason WHY he should be entertained as a suspect. He found the body? Well, as it's been said a thousand times, someone had to.

[Bitsie]

You have to get used to the fact, if you are going to follow these boards, that many proposed suspects are not accepted by others as legitimate suspects.

I understand that, I don't understand why the idea is so offensive to a few people.

It seems plausible to me, I haven't seen anything from the anti-Lechmere camp that makes me think it's less plausible. The evidence given seems enough for him to be a suspect at the very least, as good as any other.

That said if these boards prove anything it's that you can make a plausible argument out of almost anything.

[Stewart P Evans]

Understand

I understand that, I don't understand why the idea is so offensive to a few people.
It seems plausible to me, I haven't seen anything from the anti-Lechmere camp that makes me think it's less plausible. The evidence given seems enough for him to be a suspect at the very least, as good as any other.
That said if these boards prove anything it's that you can make a plausible argument out of almost anything.

Hi Bitsie, the first thing to understand with Ripperology is that people do seem to take things very personally, to the degree that any criticism of their ideas or theories is a personal insult. I might be accused of that, but I feel that ultimately honesty and accuracy should be the guidelines.

Some actually feel that it is offensive to smear the reputation of an innocent person, even if they are long dead, with the accusation that they are a murderer, especially if there is no real reason to do so apart from conjuring up yet another 'suspect' to add to the list. Also, there may be living descendants who do not appreciate this being done.

It's fine for you to accept whichever argument you wish as regards a suspect. That is a personal thing and your conclusion will be drawn from, in the main, opinions given by others. You either accept the arguments or you don't.

Back in 1965 I was persuaded that Druitt was the best suspect, then, in 1988, I plumped for Kosminski. That is one of the things with this subject, you may find your views changing as you read and learn more.

[Bitsie]

Why should people entertain the idea of a suspect without basis? Just for the heck of it? Give us a reason WHY he should be entertained as a suspect. He found the body? Well, as it's been said a thousand times, someone had to.

You could say he found the body or you could say Paul found him with the body.

I think being found near a recently deceased woman is grounds for being considered a suspect, then and now. If you agree (though I'm not sure I do) that she was killed recently enough that her blood hadn't yet seeped through onto the pavement then that makes him interesting for Nichols, in my eyes.

The first person with the body has to be a little bit interesting doesn't he?

[Robert]

Hi Bitsie

We don't want to put you off. If the Cross case seems strong to you, then so be it.

I find it rather far-fetched, myself. This man thinks nothing of mutilating women on his way to work. When interrupted, he boldly stands his ground and pretends to have discovered the body. Coolly walks up to a policeman and bluffs his way right past him. Notices where Paul turns in and later kills Chapman in the same street so as to frame Paul. Gives a 'false' name and those fools the police fail to spot it.

I don't have him down as the Ripper but if the Crown Jewels had been stolen in 1888, my money would be on him.

[Bitsie]

Some actually feel that it is offensive to smear the reputation of an innocent person, even if they are long dead, with the accusation that they are a murderer, especially if there is no real reason to do so apart from conjuring up yet another 'suspect' to add to the list. Also, there may be living descendants who do not appreciate this being done.

Well yes, that part is uncomfortable.

[lynn cates]

book

Hello All. Has this been discussed?

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=252948&posted=1#post252948

Cheers.
LC

[Bitsie]

Robert...I did say plausible not strong.

You lost me at Paul and Chapman.

[Harry D]

You could say he found the body or you could say Paul found him with the body.

I think being found near a recently deceased woman is grounds for being considered a suspect, then and now. If you agree (though I'm not sure I do) that she was killed recently enough that her blood hadn't yet seeped through onto the pavement then that makes him interesting for Nichols, in my eyes.

The first person with the body has to be a little bit interesting doesn't he?

Thing is, Bitsie, it sounds like you're assuming Crossmere has been blithely dismissed without any scrutiny. On the contrary, he has been debated at length on this forum, and despite no small effort from his indefatigable supporters, there's no grounds to consider him anything more than a person of interest.

[Robert]

Hi Bitsie

It was at one time part of the theory - don't know if it still is - that Cross saw Paul turn in to his place of work off Hanbury St, and deliberately killed Chapman at #29 on Sept 8th in order to put Paul under suspicion.

[Ghost]

This man thinks nothing of mutilating women on his way to work. When interrupted, he boldly stands his ground and pretends to have discovered the body. Coolly walks up to a policeman and bluffs his way right past him .... Gives a 'false' name and those fools the police fail to spot it.

That's the easy part to believe, in my book.

[Ghost]

Some actually feel that it is offensive to smear the reputation of an innocent person, even if they are long dead, with the accusation that they are a murderer, especially if there is no real reason to do so apart from conjuring up yet another 'suspect' to add to the list. Also, there may be living descendants who do not appreciate this being done.

But that's true of every single name on this site except perhaps one.

[Stewart P Evans]

Really

But that's true of every single name on this site except perhaps one.

Really, well Isenschmid, Druitt, Ostrog, Kosminski, Tumblety and a few others are named by contemporary police sources as suspects. I would consider that a valid reason to look upon them as suspects and not 'conjured up' names.