Jack The Ripper solved?

[Rob Clack]

Anybody who thinks that is not a remarkable thing needs to get another hobby.

Fisherman

So anyone who doesn't agree with your tripe should get another hobby? That would be about 99% of us.

I feel pretty certain that Lechmere didnīt consider what I thought at the time since I was not yet born.

If you are asking whether the reason I gave was the confirmed truth or a suggestion, well ...

Fisherman

Question to difficult?

Rob

[Fisherman]

Yes, but Fish - if a man lived and worked in the area then of course there'd be a good chance that his routine routes (it's Alliteration Day today, evidently...) could take him past the murder sites - and could is all that we're talking about here after all, with the obvious exception of Nichols.

There'd be a reasonable chance that he'd have relatives living in the area.

We are talking about a small, densely populated area - so while it's interesting that you can see a correspondence between Crossmere's walk to work (there we go again..) I don't see it as particularly significant.

Try and think of it differently, Sally. Imagine how many choices Lechmere had of different routes after Buckīs Row. They were innumerable.

Then imagine how many choices of murder venues a killer in the East End had. Innumerable, them too.

Listen to how many people were out and about on them streets at that time, according to Hutchinson, Lechmere, Halse. Only the fewest.

Now, ask yourself, if you pick at random one man and his path to work, and if you randomly place seven murder spots in the East end - how big is the chance that they all correspond in terms of location, in terms of times, in terms of weekdays?

One in a thousand? Not likely. More like one in a million, Iīd say.

How do police squads looking for serial killers work? What do they take an interest in when they start to suspect a person, perhaps because of this person having given them a false name or perhaps because they suspect that he has lied to a fellow officer?

They map their suspect as closely as they can. They look for receits, observations etcetera, they check the suspects mobile phone marks on the map.
If they all correspond, and they can prove that their man has been in the vicinity of each of the murders that have taken place at the approximate hours they occurred, Sally, what do you think the police will do? Say that he could just as well have been out buying new trousers or just walking about in the wrong places at the wrong removes of time - just been unlucky?

Or do they arrest their man and get a search warrant?

Exactly. And no prosecutor would disallow the police to get that warrant on that sort of evidence.

Thatīs not your way of doing the homework - itīs only narrowminded me and the police. You seem to allow for a lot more before you become suspicious.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

We do have Paul`s statement, too.

Yep. And does he say they arrived at the body together?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Rob Clack:

So anyone who doesn't agree with your tripe should get another hobby? That would be about 99% of us.

Then so be it.

Question to difficult?

Thatīs for you to say.

Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

Rob Clack:

So anyone who doesn't agree with your tripe should get another hobby? That would be about 99% of us.

Then so be it.

Question to difficult?

Thatīs for you to say.

Fisherman

That post just about sums you up.

Rob

[Lechmere]

Sally
You can wonder and conjecturise to your heart’s content about what Charles Lechmere was known as at Pickfords or the significance of his long deceased step father being a policeman.
I am going on what we do know.
I would point to 1859 baptism and that fact that his sister died as a Lechmere before Thomas Cross died as the only evidence we have as to what names the children where known actually known as.

Jon
He didn’t give Mizen his name and according to Mizen said he was wanted by another policeman in Bucks Row and just said there was a woman lying in the street. Not much of a notification.

I think the meeting was strange as Paul thought Lechmere was about to mug him. Lechmere didn’t just call out to Paul.

According to PC Mizen only Lechmere spoke to him, and according to PC Mizen Lechmere said he was wanted by another policeman and also according to PC Mizen all Lechmere said was that there was a woman lying there.
Lechmere claimed he told PC Mizen that she was dead or drunk.

Rob
I might lend you a copy.
I’ve heard about your book reviews.

[Fisherman]

That post just about sums you up.

Rob

Iīm glad I made it easier for you.

Then again, you have already "summed me up" lots of times, havenīt you?

Not to worry, though - Iīve got you sorted too.

Fisherman

[Scott Nelson]

What about the scenario where Lechmere tries to set Paul up by murdering Chapman on Hanbury street, one street away from where Paul worked and where both men walked past?

[Monty]

Latter, I reckon........

Exactly Steve,

The boys in blue who were there at the time vrs an ill informed hack from Sweden who is 125 years too late?

Its all old ground, now churned to mush, which is why it goes nowhere. Its quite sad to see others unable to accept that their theories are flawed, quite blatantly too.

The theory is rejected by the majority in the field, certainly by those who have studied the case and the period in great depth, too much conjecture regarding what is supposed to be key damning evidence.

However, I bet you'll buy the book....won't you?

Monty

[Fisherman]

Exactly Steve,

The boys in blue who were there at the time vrs an ill informed hack from Sweden who is 125 years too late?

Monty

Yeah, it should not be much of a fight really. Canīt believe they lost, but there you are.

Didnīt even bother to check out a man found by a murder victim, did they? Good going!

Boys in blue, my XXX.

Fisherman

[Monty]

Yeah, it should not be much of a fight really. Canīt believe they lost, but there you are.

Didnīt even bother to check out a man found by a murder victim, did they? Good going!

Boys in blue, my XXX.

Fisherman

And your proof is....?

Oh wait, you don't need proof do you?

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Rob
I might lend you a copy.
I’ve heard about your book reviews.

Always fair and honest.

Iīm glad I made it easier for you.

Then again, you have already "summed me up" lots of times, havenīt you?

Not to worry, though - Iīve got you sorted too.

Fisherman

I'm not difficult to work out.

Rob

[Jon Guy]

Yep. And does he say they arrived at the body together?

No, they were about 30 seconds apart.
But Paul`s statement corresponds with Cross`s.

[Fisherman]

No, they were about 30 seconds apart.
But Paul`s statement corresponds with Cross`s.

Who says they were about 30 seconds apart, Jon? We are speaking of Paulīs testimony now, and he had no clue about how far apart they were. The only guy trying to establish the space of time inbetween them was Lechmere.

And he could have arrived in the street ten minutes earlier for all we know. Paul did not notice him until he saw him out in the street.

By the way, what was suggested was not 30 seconds, it was 30-40 yards, methinks. Lechmere only noticed Paul as he was 30-40 yards away.

Or so he said.

Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Who says they were about 30 seconds apart, Jon? We are speaking of Paulīs testimony now, and he had no clue about how far apart they were. The only guy trying to establish the space of time inbetween them was Lechmere.

And he could have arrived in the street ten minutes earlier for all we know. Paul did not notice him until he saw him out in the street.

By the way, what was suggested was not 30 seconds, it was 30-40 yards, methinks. Lechmere only noticed Paul as he was 30-40 yards away.

Or so he said.

30/40 yards is about 30 seconds away, Christer. Somehwere in that ballpark.

Paul didn`t see Cross crouching, wiping his hands, stashing anything away, moving away from the body, he was just standing in the middle of the road, as Cross tells us.