Jack The Ripper solved?

[Fisherman]

Thompson musta done for Coles then, going on that simplistic logic.

Monty

The refreshing simplicity of the logic is courtesy of Rob, not me. And jestering does not help your case - people found by the sides of freshly killed victims - PC:s to a healthy degree discounted - are always good bids for the killers role, unless other evidence nullifies this. And ten feet and an upright position does not belong to that toolbox, Iīm afraid.
But now we are entering areas where no discussion is needed, as most rational people will realize. So letīs move on, shall we?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bold mode huh? The Holmgren sign of agitation.

I was talking about the entirety of Cross's life.

As Rob states, Cross gave an address and a work address, as well as a know as connected to him.

It is no sign of guilt.....and the font cannot get any darker.

Try red.

Monty

The "Holmgren sign of agitation" is more like the Holmgren inaptitude with technical stuff, actually. When I must break up the text Iīm answering I get lazy, thatīs all.

But disregarding that -no matter whether you speak of the entirety of Lechmereīs life, you still only have him using the name Cross at one occasion only. There never is any "previous" occasion on record where we know he used the name Cross on his own accord, entire life or not.

Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

Thompson musta done for Coles then, going on that simplistic logic.

Monty

Dimshitz, Davis, PC Watkins. All as guilty as hell.

Rob

[Monty]

Thatīs even better - people standing next to freshly killed victims are guilty if they move but innocent if they stand still.

Textbook stuff, that.

Fisherman

Thompson musta done for Coles then, going on that simplistic logic.

Monty

[Monty]

Monty:

He used the name Cross on 3rd September 1888, at inquest.

Since the rest of your post sounds terribly familiar - and terribly wrong - Iīll just pick this one telling example. In your earlier post you wrote:

"Nor is it hardly a sign of guilt, using a name you have used previously" about Lechmereīs use of the name Cross. And now you say that he used the name at the inquest.
But that was not "previously", was it?

We both know extremely well that the name Charles Cross is mentioned twice in combination with our carman.

We both know extremely well that he was 11 years old the first time it happened, and that it was most probably filled in the census listing by his stepfather Thomas Cross. Meaning that we donīt know that Charles used that name himself, especially not since he was baptized Lechmere a year AFTER his mother married Thomas Cross.

We both know extremely well that the only time we see the name being used by Lechmere himself was in combination with his contacts with the authorities over the Nichols murder.

So no, there was no instance we know of when he himself used the name Cross previously.

Therefore, what you produce is a false claim. The implications should be very clear.

Fisherman

Bold mode huh? The Holmgren sign of agitation.

I was talking about the entirety of Cross's life.

As Rob states, Cross gave an address and a work address, as well as a know as connected to him.

It is no sign of guilt.....and the font cannot get any darker.

Try red.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Thatīs even better - people standing next to freshly killed victims are guilty if they move but innocent if they stand still.

Textbook stuff, that.

Fisherman

Ten feet is not next to.

Common sense stuff, that.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

It seems sarcasm is wasted on the Swedes.

And apologies to you for dragging you into this sorry mess.

Monty

You should be

Rob

[Fisherman]

Yes, standing. Not moving backwards away from the body but standing still in the middle of the road. It speaks volumes.
Cross/Lechmere was a nonstarter 20 years ago when I looked at him and that was before we knew his real name.
And nothing in that time has even come close to changing my mind.

Rob

Thatīs even better - people standing next to freshly killed victims are guilty if they move but innocent if they stand still.

Textbook stuff, that.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

He used the name Cross on 3rd September 1888, at inquest.

Since the rest of your post sounds terribly familiar - and terribly wrong - Iīll just pick this one telling example. In your earlier post you wrote:

"Nor is it hardly a sign of guilt, using a name you have used previously" about Lechmereīs use of the name Cross. And now you say that he used the name at the inquest.
But that was not "previously", was it?

We both know extremely well that the name Charles Cross is mentioned twice in combination with our carman.

We both know extremely well that he was 11 years old the first time it happened, and that it was most probably filled in the census listing by his stepfather Thomas Cross. Meaning that we donīt know that Charles used that name himself, especially not since he was baptized Lechmere a year AFTER his mother married Thomas Cross.

We both know extremely well that the only time we see the name being used by Lechmere himself was in combination with his contacts with the authorities over the Nichols murder.

So no, there was no instance we know of when he himself used the name Cross previously.

Therefore, what you produce is a false claim. The implications should be very clear.

Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

You are correct, Rob. Standing all alone, ten feet away from a freshly killed victim, was always the perfect alibi. Iīll have to agree with Monty on his latest point.

Fisherman

Yes, standing. Not moving backwards away from the body but standing still in the middle of the road. It speaks volumes.
Cross/Lechmere was a nonstarter 20 years ago when I looked at him and that was before we knew his real name.
And nothing in that time has even come close to changing my mind.

Rob

[Monty]

Thanks for bringing me into your petty squabbles.

But while I am here. Cross was an alternative family name. He gave his correct home address and place of work. So obviously nothing to hide.
When Robert Paul first saw him, Cross/Lechmere was standing in the middle of the road. So about 10 feet from the body. Perfect alibi if you ask me.
Sometimes you just have to use a bit of common sense.

Rob

It seems sarcasm is wasted on the Swedes.

And apologies to you for dragging you into this sorry mess.

Monty

[Monty]

Apparently, Iīm not the only one who canīt help myself...?

Im not the one who makes promises they cannot keep.

I have already defined a false name, Monty. What was it you failed to understand about it?

Your definition is incorrect.

I donīt know whether you define false names differently in Britain than we do here in Sweden. But over here, if I was to sign a legal document with a name other than the one Iīm listed by in the church books and in the official papers, then that document would be unlawfully signed and not legally binding. The reason being that I used a false name - and it would not change a iot if I was known colloquially by that name.

This is a false signature, not a false name.

That is how it goes, and that is how it works. Maybe you havenīt comprehended that this is so here in Sweden? Since you speak of lacking comprehension, I mean?

My comprehension is quite full on the subject, having been trained on the matter in the summer of 2002.

Moreover, you do not know that Lechmere had ever used the name Cross. All you know is that he was signed into the 1861 census by that name - by his father. Plus you know that every single document with his name on it that has ben found up til now, has the name Lechmere on it. And what this discrepancy does to the credibility of the man when he calls himself Cross is something an ex-cop should have no severe problems figuring.

He used the name Cross on 3rd September 1888, at inquest.

Since I do not have clear proof that things went down the way I suggest - only different types of evidence lining the way - yes, I must use conjecture when presenting my theory.about Jack the Ripper where no conjecture was used? Eh? You need to give that some long and hard afterthought
Have you heard of any theory .

You do not acknowledge it as conjecture. You pass it off as fact.

You see, filling out the blanks with conjecture based on these blanks, is what theorizing is made up of. In every case. For every theorist.

Does that come as news to you?

Oh dear, you have resorted to patronising me. Regretful.

Does it furthermore come as news to you - given that every theory on the Ripper is built using conjecture to a smaller or lesser degree - that the only outcome of such a thing will be that the person cast in the killers role will not be decisevely condemned. Cannot be concisively condemned, furthermore. Is that news to you? No?

Oop, still patronising. Your admittance on the matter, and therefore admittance that Cross's quilt is purely conjecture, is noted.

Then why point it out? The opposite is to claim that he COULD be decisively condemned, and only an idiot would propose such a thing. Itīs not about condemning, itīs about forming a theory where all the elements fit together - like they do in the Lechmere case. All of it - the venues, the work route, the timings, the false name, the Mizen scam, the hidden wounds, the time window, the fact that Paul did not hear Lechmere walking in front of him etcetera. These parameters lend themselves to an interpretation of guilt, simple as. And no other suspect comes even close to anything like it, not by any standards.

Its about forming a theory where all the elements fit together huh? However they do not.

Apparently its about prejudiced thinking, the inability to comprehend and assess evidence with an open and fair mind, to accept a likely alternative scenario and install personal interpretation. This coupled with an ego so large that it cannot process the obvious flaws in this theory, and accept them, instead choosing to addresses them by creating convoluted counters and repeating them ad nauseam in hopes people shall either cave in or simply walk away, which has happened.

Is that news to you? Huh?

Your qualification rests on what you achieve and how you achieve it, Monty. And anybody who uses the words Lechmere and non-starter in the same sentence is badly qualified when it comes to judging suspect quality, Iīm afraid. Whether it rests on a true lack of ability to assess such things or simply on a dislike of the person/s who propose a theory is of no consequence for the actual outcome. Iīve only just had an exchange with another poster who also claimed Lechmere to be a non-starter, only to in the next post say that he actually liked him as a suspect. I can only assume that this poster allowed his temper to get the better of him in the first instance, only to sober up in the next.

Thank you for your opinion. It is quite fortunate, for me, that your opinion is merely that, yours alone, a journalist from Sweden.

I truly do not care about your theory, or if its accepted or not. However I am concerned with balance, and truth. Even in this post you have claimed 'all the elements fit together' when clearly they do not. Each piece of evidence you lay as an indicator of guilt can be, and has been, counter evidenced with sound, solid argument.

My qualification does not rest on your opinion. It rests on those I respect in the field.

But some will stay drunk throughout. Tīwas always like that.

I truly wish I was, it would make what you put forward more bearable to read.


Monty

[Fisherman]

Thanks for bringing me into your petty squabbles.

But while I am here. Cross was an alternative family name. He gave his correct home address and place of work. So obviously nothing to hide.
When Robert Paul first saw him, Cross/Lechmere was standing in the middle of the road. So about 10 feet from the body. Perfect alibi if you ask me.
Sometimes you just have to use a bit of common sense.

Rob

You are correct, Rob. Standing all alone, ten feet away from a freshly killed victim, was always the perfect alibi. Iīll have to agree with Monty on his latest point.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Indeed. But I am longing for a poll.

Frankly, I'm not sure which way I'd vote right now. Rather like Druitt vs Kosminski, I think.

Cheers.
LC

Youīre not sure? Go back and read again, then Lynn. Check which of the witnesses was closest to a victim, which has the best geographical ties, which we can be certain avoided using his real name, which witness we have on record as contradicting the police etcetera. That should do the trick, I believe.

Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

Mrs Clack,

You sure didn't raise a stupid boy.

Monty

Thanks for bringing me into your petty squabbles.

But while I am here. Cross was an alternative family name. He gave his correct home address and place of work. So obviously nothing to hide.
When Robert Paul first saw him, Cross/Lechmere was standing in the middle of the road. So about 10 feet from the body. Perfect alibi if you ask me.
Sometimes you just have to use a bit of common sense.

Rob