Favoured Suspect...

[The Rookie Detective]

Nice little detour, but can we all get back to the topic of "Favoured Suspect" please.

(Myself included)


Many thanks.


RD

[Fiver]

Lechmere was spotted alone, in the dark, near a freshly killed woman...

Lechmere was spotted about 10 feet away from a woman who had been killed some time within the last half hour. He drew attention to himself and the body by getting Robert Paul's attention. He then went with Paul to find a constable. Everything Lechmere did from the moment Paul saw him until they parted company near the Spitalfields Market was either the action of an innocent man or of a stunningly stupid killer.

...gave a controversially statement to the police...

What was controversial about Lechmere's statement? His account of the timing agrees with three police officers. His account of his and Robert Paul's actions and Paul's account corroberate each other. The coroner and the police founds nothing controversial about Lechmere's statement.

...lived in Whitechapel...

Virtually all of the suspects lived and/or worked in the area. It's not evidence against Lechmere or anyone else.

...had the opportunity to be outside at the time of murders....

Virtually all of the suspects had the opportunity to be outside at the time of murders. It's not evidence against Lechmere or anyone else.

There is no evidence that Lechmere was anywhere near murder sites at the time the murders occurred. Chapman was killed after Lechmere would have arrived at work. Killing Stride and Eddowes would have required staying awake 23+ hours or getting up 3+ hours early on his only day off. The Ripper took trophy organs, which would have been nigh-impossible to hide in a house full of children.

...was alive and breathing when Mckenzie was killed....

If Mckenzie was a Ripper victim, that rules out a few suspects. It's not evidence against Lechmere or anyone else.

Killing Mckenzie would have required staying awake 21+ hours or getting up 3+ hours early on a work day.

...and Lechmere violently killed a totally strange to him boy.

In 1876, Lechmere accidentally ran over one of two children who darted in front of his Pickford's van. It is not evidence that Lechmere was a murderer.

[John Wheat]

This is what he always does John. We had this months ago from him and I totally humiliated him by quoting post after post after post from him saying what a rubbish suspect Lechmere is. I mean he seriously trashed Lechmere as a suspect portraying anyone who supported him as a fool. He says stuff, gets proven wrong, disappears, then comes back months later with the same stuff hoping that everyone’s forgotten. Just because he wanted to denigrate a legitimate suspect (Bury) simply because at some point Bury had a beard he suddenly, without shame, started spouting about what a great suspect Lechmere was. The guy will literally say anything to make some kind of silly point but every single time he puts his foot in it. He even claimed that if a person had a beard at one time in their lives then we should assume that they always had one. You couldn’t make this kind of stuff up.

A few years ago HarryD made an obvious joke that John Richardson must have been blind in one eye and had long hair over his one eye if he hadn’t seen Chapman’s body. Guess who was the only person in the world that took this seriously? You guessed it…The Baron. And even worse, in his rush to become a Lechmere supporter he again messes up. Baron supposedly believes that Kosminski was the ripper but he was so desperate to support Lech over Bury that he made this post to Steve Blomer:

”Why do you think a crap theory deserves books to be written against it ? Can you point me to a better theory please? I am not Lechmerian, but I still don't see any theory that can compete with it.”

So, apparently the Lechmere theory is stronger than the Kosminski theory? Isn’t it? No, Baron will still say that he favours Kosminski.

Baron posts to wind people up and for no other reason John. PM anyone with experience and they will all tell you the same. I’ve lost count of the amount of “ignore him,” pm’s I’ve had over the years from various posters. It’s a miracle that he hasn’t mentioned Druitt on this thread because that’s his usual, number one trick. He brings up Druitt in threads that I’m on even when Druitt hasn’t previously been mentioned simply to provoke a response. We all know the word for that.

Sadly, reasonable discussions are impossible with him present.

Hi Herlock

Thanks for the heads up. Much appreciated.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cross is a non-suspect. He didn’t do one thing that was suspicious. He acted perfectly normally as anyone in his position would have done at that time and doesn’t deserve to be called a suspect. That this witness is rated by some higher than an actual murderer is enough to make the whole of ripperology a laughing stock. It’s why Christer had to use false evidence to create a non-existent gap simply to con people into thinking that Cross was of interest in a book and a documentary which there is no excuse for and for which he should have apologised.

How many serial killers can we name that a) murdered a woman 20 minutes before he was due at work, b) stood around (bloodied knife in pocket) waiting for a complete stranger to show up for a chat, or c) killed at a spot that he passed 6 days a week. Answer…none. If Cross was guilty (and he wasn’t) then he was unique in the history of serial murder. But hey “he was there, he was there, he was there….”

If we talk about weakest suspects then Cross should be in that group. Far too much time is wasted on this man. It’s a sad reflection on ripperology when a man is suspected and all that can be said is ‘well at least we can prove that he was there.’ Talk about low hanging fruit. I really do wish that people would let this go and stop pandering the Holmgren/Stow Church of Cross and the world’s most gullible disciples.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“I am sure you know that deep inside yourself, it is this common difficulty one has by admitting he was wrong all his life.“

A cigar to anyone that can decipher this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So the fact that he might have killed a boy in a cart accident is a point against him being a murderer?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another ridiculous post.

This is what he always does John. We had this months ago from him and I totally humiliated him by quoting post after post after post from him saying what a rubbish suspect Lechmere is. I mean he seriously trashed Lechmere as a suspect portraying anyone who supported him as a fool. He says stuff, gets proven wrong, disappears, then comes back months later with the same stuff hoping that everyone’s forgotten. Just because he wanted to denigrate a legitimate suspect (Bury) simply because at some point Bury had a beard he suddenly, without shame, started spouting about what a great suspect Lechmere was. The guy will literally say anything to make some kind of silly point but every single time he puts his foot in it. He even claimed that if a person had a beard at one time in their lives then we should assume that they always had one. You couldn’t make this kind of stuff up.

A few years ago HarryD made an obvious joke that John Richardson must have been blind in one eye and had long hair over his one eye if he hadn’t seen Chapman’s body. Guess who was the only person in the world that took this seriously? You guessed it…The Baron. And even worse, in his rush to become a Lechmere supporter he again messes up. Baron supposedly believes that Kosminski was the ripper but he was so desperate to support Lech over Bury that he made this post to Steve Blomer:

”Why do you think a crap theory deserves books to be written against it ? Can you point me to a better theory please? I am not Lechmerian, but I still don't see any theory that can compete with it.”

So, apparently the Lechmere theory is stronger than the Kosminski theory? Isn’t it? No, Baron will still say that he favours Kosminski.

Baron posts to wind people up and for no other reason John. PM anyone with experience and they will all tell you the same. I’ve lost count of the amount of “ignore him,” pm’s I’ve had over the years from various posters. It’s a miracle that he hasn’t mentioned Druitt on this thread because that’s his usual, number one trick. He brings up Druitt in threads that I’m on even when Druitt hasn’t previously been mentioned simply to provoke a response. We all know the word for that.

Sadly, reasonable discussions are impossible with him present.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Same old bla bla bla.. he was very bad, he drank alcohol, he was filthy, he was young, he was in England, he knew prostitutes, he had a knife... bla bla ...

Very weak suspect, with a beard.



The Baron

Same old Baron. Caught out yet again making worthless posts motivated by personal bias. Your posts are few and far between but sadly not few enough or far enough between.

[The Baron]

Strange.

Baron says:



then he says:



to Sunny’s:



The problem is that Baron has edited Sunny’s quote because he completely ignores the part where he said:



Sunny was clearly saying that Bury is one of the better of a pretty poor bunch which is entirely fair enough.

Look, none of us know who the ripper was. There are some awful suspects but the worst are the Van Gogh’s and the Lewis Carroll’s etc. How can a knife murderer/mutilator living near the crimes be one of the weaker suspects? We should all try to retain a sense of balance and not treat the subject as if we are promoting and supporting a football team.

Same old bla bla bla.. he was very bad, he drank alcohol, he was filthy, he was young, he was in England, he knew prostitutes, he had a knife... bla bla ...

Very weak suspect, with a beard.



The Baron

[John Wheat]

John, you know that Lechmere is way better a suspect than Bury, don't let those superficially supporting posts mislead you to believe otherwise

Lechmere was spotted alone, in the dark, near a freshly killed woman, gave a controversially statement to the police, lived in Whitechapel, had the opportunity to be outside at the time of murders, was alive and breathing when Mckenzie was killed, and Lechmere violently killed a totally strange to him boy.


I am sure you know that deep inside yourself, it is this common difficulty one has by admitting he was wrong all his life.


The Baron

This is another crap post. With your opinion mascarding as fact. Lechmere found a body and that's it. Bury is a proven violent murderer with a similar M.O. as the C5. That alone makes Bury a very good suspect but of course Bury has a lot more than that going for him as a suspect.

[Sunny Delight]

But Bury was a nobody and was spoken to the Police at the time but overlooked.

I think McKenzie and Coles were Ripper victims so that discounts him for me. But I can't argue Canonical five wise he is one if the better suspects put forward. In saying that what do we have on him in regards the murders? Nothing, but that can go for all suspects really. His circumstances make him a little interesting but that's about it.

[The Rookie Detective]

John, you know that Lechmere is way better a suspect than Bury, don't let those superficially supporting posts mislead you to believe otherwise

Lechmere was spotted alone, in the dark, near a freshly killed woman, gave a controversially statement to the police, lived in Whitechapel, had the opportunity to be outside at the time of murders, was alive and breathing when Mckenzie was killed, and Lechmere violently killed a totally strange to him boy.


I am sure you know that deep inside yourself, it is this common difficulty one has by admitting he was wrong all his life.


The Baron

The incident in which the boy was killed as a result of walking out in front of Cross's cab, waa an accident.
The boy was seen by multiple witnesses step out into the road and also saw Cross try to quickly swerve to avoid him. Unfortunately, the boy was caught under the back left wheel and mortally injured.
This incident would have almost certainly had a profound effect on Lechmere, but it is important to state that he was in no way responsible for the child's death.

The rest of your post is fine and can be argued either way, but the point about the boy being violently killed by Lechmere is suggestive of him having been at fault for the boys death. That is completely untrue and somewhat misleading, and therefore warrants correction.

[The Baron]

John, you know that Lechmere is way better a suspect than Bury, don't let those superficially supporting posts mislead you to believe otherwise

Lechmere was spotted alone, in the dark, near a freshly killed woman, gave a controversially statement to the police, lived in Whitechapel, had the opportunity to be outside at the time of murders, was alive and breathing when Mckenzie was killed, and Lechmere violently killed a totally strange to him boy.


I am sure you know that deep inside yourself, it is this common difficulty one has by admitting he was wrong all his life.


The Baron

[John Wheat]

Of course he is NOT John, he was 2 meters under the ground while the Ripper was active.



The Baron

Another ridiculous post.

[The Baron]

Of course he is NOT John, he was 2 meters under the ground while the Ripper was active.



The Baron