Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
It's not the risk factor I'm talking about here.
It's the flat contradiction of the two arguments that makes no sense, Fish.
Argument A: He calls himself Cross so those who know the paths he treads and when he treads them will not realise that the man they only know as Lechmere is the Buck's Row witness, and start to become suspicious when each new murder happens along one of those paths.
Argument B: He continues to kill along those paths so he will always have an innocent reason for having been there.
They cancel each other out.
He won't need to prove that innocent reason if the police don't check it. But if they do check, nobody will be able to verify it for him anyway if they don't know him as Cross. If he ever has to admit he is Lechmere, so his employer or whoever can confirm he had an innocent reason for going that way when another murder happened, he is pretty much sunk.
So the reason for sticking to paths that people will associate with an innocent Lechmere, going about his normal business, goes out the window by calling himself Cross.
And the reason for calling himself Cross goes out the window by sticking to paths that people can only associate innocently with a man called Lechmere.
Love,
Caz
X

Leave a comment: