Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

As usual you are wrong. Lechmere is a terrible suspect at best. Bury is clearly the best Ripper suspect by several country miles. With you it is like banging my head against a brick wall. I think you'll find it's you that's made no progress. You're failure to admit you are the biggest Lechmere fanatic is frankly slightly worrying and says a lot about you.

Would you categorize yourself as the biggest Bury fanatic? Or as a Bury fanatic overall?

[John Wheat]

Once again, being convinced of something has nothing to do with being a fanatic. I am convinced the earth is round, for example, and that you are - sadly - posting drivel out here. Both things are demonstrably true, and very unfanatic.

It has also been pointed out to you that the name issue is neither the sole not the main reason that I find Lechmere the best suspect there is.

Fanatism is trying to deny this.

And now I have spent more than enough time on you. I have no illusions of any progress on your behalf, and I dislike wasting time.

Goodbye.

As usual you are wrong. Lechmere is a terrible suspect at best. Bury is clearly the best Ripper suspect by several country miles. With you it is like banging my head against a brick wall. I think you'll find it's you that's made no progress. You're failure to admit you are the biggest Lechmere fanatic is frankly slightly worrying and says a lot about you.

[Fisherman]

Typical. If you've got em post em otherwise you're just another Pierre.

No, I am not, since I stated the origins. You are welcome to look them up in the literature, they are frequently quoted there. They are substanial reports, both of them. I suggest The Ultimate Sourcebook by Evans. The latter of the reports is signed Donald Swanson.
Happy hunting.

Unless, of course, you choose to trust me...? Otherwise, search the site with the three parameters Swanson, report and october. I checked the dates, they are correct.

[Fisherman]

You have not answered the question and you are being absurd. You are clearly a Lechmere fanatic as you are convinced he was Jack because he found a body and used a false name even though that name could easily be traced back to him.

Once again, being convinced of something has nothing to do with being a fanatic. I am convinced the earth is round, for example, and that you are - sadly - posting drivel out here. Both things are demonstrably true, and very unfanatic.

It has also been pointed out to you that the name issue is neither the sole not the main reason that I find Lechmere the best suspect there is.

Fanatism is trying to deny this.

And now I have spent more than enough time on you. I have no illusions of any progress on your behalf, and I dislike wasting time.

Goodbye.

[John Wheat]

I would gladly discuss the facts, but there has to be some sort of level of decency. Try again, if you really want a debate.
If you just want to call people names, then donīt try again.

fanatic
noun
1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

So, John, fanatism lies in loosing touch with reality.

Like in thinking that a changed name in combination with an inquest is not something that could be remotely suspicious.

Like in claiming that the name issue is the only point against Lechmere - and that per se, it is not a point against him at all.

Like in arguing the way you do, wishing egg on your opponents faces and rejoicing in hoping that they are wrong. Itīs a hilarious example of a wet dream.

You have not answered the question and you are being absurd. You are clearly a Lechmere fanatic as you are convinced he was Jack because he found a body and used a false name even though that name could easily be traced back to him.

[Fisherman]

I won't apologise for telling it like it is. However I'm feeling charitable. So my question is how are you the person who has written the most about Lechmere, the person who has started the most threads about Lechmere and the person who has done the most research into Lechmere not the biggest Lechmere fanatic?

fanatic
noun
1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

So, John, fanatism lies in loosing touch with reality.

Like in thinking that a changed name in combination with an inquest is not something that could be remotely suspicious.

Like in claiming that the name issue is the only point against Lechmere - and that per se, it is not a point against him at all.

Like in arguing the way you do, wishing egg on your opponents faces and rejoicing in hoping that they are wrong. Itīs a hilarious example of a wet dream.

[John Wheat]

I would gladly discuss the facts, but there has to be some sort of level of decency. Try again, if you really want a debate.
If you just want to call people names, then donīt try again.

I won't apologise for telling it like it is. However I'm feeling charitable. So my question is how are you the person who has written the most about Lechmere, the person who has started the most threads about Lechmere and the person who has done the most research into Lechmere not the biggest Lechmere fanatic?

[GUT]

If you had not added the last sentence, I would gladly have posted them. If it is not enough for you that the police almost two full months after the murder referred to the carman as Cross, then I fear nothing is good enough for you.

On the 19:th of October, they either did n ot have his real name, or they chose to leave it out of their reports for some unfathomable reason. Maybe you can suggest something colourful, though?

If you want to live in denial, why would I stand in your way?

Iīm sure there are hundreds of other reports where both names were mentioned. All sadly lost, and all sadly failing to clear the carman on this point.

Typical. If you've got em post em otherwise you're just another Pierre.

[Fisherman]

Can you post them.

I thought you were talking about complete reports, if it's only two we have no idea what may be in the others.

If you had not added the last sentence, I would gladly have posted them. If it is not enough for you that the police almost two full months after the murder referred to the carman as Cross, then I fear nothing is good enough for you.

On the 19:th of October, they either did n ot have his real name, or they chose to leave it out of their reports for some unfathomable reason. Maybe you can suggest something colourful, though?

If you want to live in denial, why would I stand in your way?

Iīm sure there are hundreds of other reports where both names were mentioned. All sadly lost, and all sadly failing to clear the carman on this point.

[GUT]

There are reports from the 19:th of September and the 19:th of October (if I remember correctly) where the carman is named.

As Cross.

Can you post them.

I thought you were talking about complete reports, if it's only two we have no idea what may be in the others.

[Fisherman]

What reports?

There are reports from the 19:th of September and the 19:th of October (if I remember correctly) where the carman is named.

As Cross.

[GUT]

I bet, though, that the police could spell Lechmere. But for some reason, they wrote "Cross" in their reports.

What reports?

[Fisherman]

If you truly believe anyone is more of a fanatic on Lechmere than you the man who has falsified a case against Lechmere then you are an even bigger buffoon than even I thought.

I would gladly discuss the facts, but there has to be some sort of level of decency. Try again, if you really want a debate.
If you just want to call people names, then donīt try again.

[Fisherman]

Just seems to me that some Ripperologists are saying that Charles Allen Lechmere is guilty of not giving his correct name to the Police when this cannot be proven.

We know that the newspapers printed the name Charles Andrew Cross as giving evidence at the inquest but cannot say with certainty that this was the only name he gave. Some people did give more than one name (Holland/Oram). Maybe they just couldn't spell Lechmere (if indeed it was one and the same person).

I bet, though, that the police could spell Lechmere. But for some reason, they wrote "Cross" in their reports.

[MysterySinger]

Just seems to me that some Ripperologists are saying that Charles Allen Lechmere is guilty of not giving his correct name to the Police when this cannot be proven.

We know that the newspapers printed the name Charles Andrew Cross as giving evidence at the inquest but cannot say with certainty that this was the only name he gave. Some people did give more than one name (Holland/Oram). Maybe they just couldn't spell Lechmere (if indeed it was one and the same person).