The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Ghost]

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.

I think if the police had known about his alias and if they had more experience with serial killers, and the FBI profile, they would have looked at him more closely.

Part of the problem with the anti-Lechmere position is that it says that there's no reason whatsoever to consider Lechmere .... but how do you know the police didn't investigate and clear him?

[Lechmere]

Bitsie
It does at first seem strange that so reasonable a theory attracts such ire - but after a while it becomes more a source of amusement. One of the standing jokes is the refusal of any discussion board to make Lechmere a suspect in.their suspect section.

I certainly don't expect for a moment that everyone would fall over and agree with the theory - there are many arguable points. But the response from a vociferous group is that there is absolutely nothing to it, and they don't see the arguable points as arguable points but as as iron certainties.
Hence you seldom get profitable discussions about these issues.

Yet 'normal' people, given the facts can see clearly that there is a case - whether they ultimately find it totally convincing is another matter.

You may ask why this situation prevails.
With some it is merely the outcome of the confrontational, disputive and argumentative nature of forum discussion (with isn't limited to Ripperology), with others they wish to defend their preferred solution, or non solution to the hilt.
Some just have very deeply and long held views and they are uncomfortable when they are challenged. Some just like to think they know it all. Undoubtedly 'Ripperology' will be attractive to a certain quantity of people who are not well balanced.

Whatever the case I don't see things changing but the forum posting Ripperologists don't own the subject by any means.

[Lechmere]

Ghost
We have no reason to suppose the police cleared Lechmere beyond the suggestion that they should have done it therefore they did.
Not in my opinion a very strong case...
When his true name went unrecorded and the initial phase of the Nichols investigation shows several errors being made.

[Bitsie]

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.

It does sound a bit like I'm doing that.
I can see that this subject has been discussed at length which links to my earlier comment that it's frustrating for newbs that counter arguments to the Lechmere theory aren't clear (because those arguing have no doubt done them to death). This can also make it look, to a newbie, like people are disagreeing without giving clear points about why. It would be helpful if people provided links to 'evidence' if it exists, but I realise that would be a tedious nuisance for the main contributors here.

[Westbourne Wink]

One thing is for certain from an outsider coming to this afresh the vitriol of people like Evans and Harry towards the idea appears totally unnecessary and embarrassing.

Such aggression says only one thing. You're threatened by it because (a) it's a strong theory (b) it's not yours.

If you been working on this since the 60s I think it is high time you grew up behaved like an adult not a playground bully.

[Jon Guy]

Such aggression says only one thing. You're threatened by it because (a) it's a strong theory (b) it's not yours.

That`s two things !!

[Robert]

And whom are they supposed to have bullied? NB It is not possible to bully Ed or Fish.

[Sally]

Hi Westbourne Wink - just an aside here - the Crossmere debate has been going on, and on, for a couple of years now. Have a look at past discussions - there are hundreds, if not thousands of posts raising perfectly reasonable objections and counterarguments to those promoted by the self-styled 'Team Lechmere' and a consistent denial of the validity of those arguments by Crossmere supporters. I think, between you and I, that the whole thing's become just a little bit tiresome, you know?

It's always safer not to jump to conclusions, I find.

[Sally]

Hey Ed,

Perhaps, since you consider Ripperologists to be immovable, biased, wilfully argumentative or just plain crazy; it's time to consider pastures new?

Incidentally, I watched the documentary in the end.

[Abby Normal]

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?

Hi Bitsie

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

That's actually a very astute and interesting point.

But you could also say lech found Paul for help. He did proactively reach out to him.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi harry

1.He found (WAS found by) the body.
2.There is a major discrepancy between what Mizen and lech say that lech said to Mizen.
3.Lech used an alternate name, one seemingly he did not commonly use.
4.The time lech said he left home should have brought him to bucks row much sooner-there seems to be a significant amount of missing time.

These are FACTS, not interpretations, and these facts, although probably having an innocent explanation, still NEED an innocent explanation, and are enough IMHO to raise an eyebrow or two.

[Tom_Wescott]

Great post

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.

I thought this was a great post and deserved repeating.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Has it not occurred to you that the police may well have been aware of his alternative name? You are not even prepared to concede that - it would damage your theorizing too much. You have no idea whatsoever how much the police would have investigated him. The statement they certainly would have taken from him has not survived, and that's a pity. Your problem is you take your own interpretations as fact - and they are not.

This point was made over two years ago, and I still await an answer proving Cross lied about his name...still wait Stewart...still.

Monty

[Bitsie]

But you could also say lech found Paul for help. He did proactively reach out to him.

That is true but did he have a choice since Paul was heading his way anyway?

1.He found (WAS found by) the body.
2.There is a major discrepancy between what Mizen and lech say that lech said to Mizen.
3.Lech used an alternate name, one seemingly he did not commonly use.
4.The time lech said he left home should have brought him to bucks row much sooner-there seems to be a significant amount of missing time.

These are FACTS, not interpretations, and these facts, although probably having an innocent explanation, still NEED an innocent explanation, and are enough IMHO to raise an eyebrow or two.

Totally agree.

[Monty]

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.

And again.

Monty