Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

We know that he was likely called Cross around the time he was listed as such on the census.

We of course know nothing of the sort. What we know is that Thomas Cross signed him Cross in the 1861 census, but whether he himself used that name other than in combination with cases of sudden and violent death - that we do not know and ought not pretend as if we did.

[Fisherman]

Remarkable then, that Lechmere the psychopath didn't walk into the hangman's noose, on the grounds that he was simply incapable of understanding how he could have been caught, regardless of who, how or when he chose to kill!

He may as well have carried on mutilating Nichols in that case, right under Robert Paul's nose, if he was incapable of understanding how that could have got him buckled.

Love,

Caz
X

Too dumb to deserve an answer, Caz. Try again. Or better still, don´t.

[Fisherman]

How is it suspicious that the clothing was pulled down when it was done by Robert Paul?

“Exactly how do we know that the neck wounds were not hidden up to that point?“

We don’t of course, but you’re trying to suggest that covering the abdominal wounds was a deception so how could Lechmere have known that Paul wouldn’t have decided to check her neck for a pulse?

He couldn´t. But that was not the issue. The issue was that you claimed that the neck wounds were not covered.

[Fisherman]

No chance. Whoever signed it it was still an official document. Lechmere would have known that a document was being filled in. A document that would have existed and could have been referred to in the future. Someone saying “name please” is not the filling in of a document. It’s a conversation. To a working class Victorian, not as used to bureaucracy as we are, using Cross would have seemed like no issue.

Try another line of obfuscation.

Unless you noticed, you are now arguing against yourself. Well, well....

[Fisherman]

Such of course seriously undermines the major argument for Lechmere as the killer of Nichols...

steve

So you reason that the name swap is the major argument for Lechmere as Nichols´ killer?

You really have not grasped much, have you?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only arrogance around here lies in how you - and a couple of others - argue, Herlock. That is why R J Palmer´s contribution is an airfreshener and an example to anybody who wants to argue any sort of case out here. Read and learn, the sooner the better!

I’ll ‘read and learn’ when you take the goggles off.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He couldn´t. But that was not the issue. The issue was that you claimed that the neck wounds were not covered.

You keep using the fact that the clothes were pulled down as a point in favour of Lechmere’s guilt but if it was Paul that re-arranged the clothing how can this be?

My point about the neck is one that’s been made before. How could Lechmere have known that Paul wouldn’t have decided to check for life by checking the neck, thus discovering that her throat had been cut?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unless you noticed, you are now arguing against yourself. Well, well....

It’s not my problem if you can’t understand this simple point Fish

[Herlock Sholmes]

We of course know nothing of the sort. What we know is that Thomas Cross signed him Cross in the 1861 census, but whether he himself used that name other than in combination with cases of sudden and violent death - that we do not know and ought not pretend as if we did.

Wow.

Even planting subliminal messages now

[Elamarna]

So you reason that the name swap is the major argument for Lechmere as Nichols´ killer?

You really have not grasped much, have you?

Sadly Christer, but not surprisingly it is you who fails to grasp the facts. Apart from the name issue the rest of the arguments against him fail to either convince in the slightest or in some cases to even stand up to serious scruntiny.

However you mumpsimusness is clearly never going to change.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Sadly Christer, but not surprisingly it is you who fails to grasp the facts. Apart from the name issue the rest of the arguments against him fail to either convince in the slightest or in some cases to even stand up to serious scruntiny.

However you mumpsimusness is clearly never going to change.



Steve

I don´t even know if I am to be offended, Steve. I never heard the expression mumpsimusness before, but if you are on track it must mean "factual correctness".

No matter what you may think, there are issues that are much more important to me when it comes to judging the case. Of course, you may be of the meaning that you are the much better judge...

[Fisherman]

I’ll ‘read and learn’ when you take the goggles off.

Fine. Start.

[Fisherman]

You keep using the fact that the clothes were pulled down as a point in favour of Lechmere’s guilt but if it was Paul that re-arranged the clothing how can this be?

My point about the neck is one that’s been made before. How could Lechmere have known that Paul wouldn’t have decided to check for life by checking the neck, thus discovering that her throat had been cut?

You may have missed that I already answered that.

[Fisherman]

It’s not my problem if you can’t understand this simple point Fish

No, your problem is quite another one.

[Fisherman]

Wow.

Even planting subliminal messages now

Should suit you like a glove!