The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[John G]

Thatīs all your own decision, John. I canīt see what it is you find strange at all.

Well I'm sure that Stephen Knight and Patricia Cornwall didn't see anything strange about their theories either. Okay Fisherman, I'm feeling bold, what exactly is your reasoning?

[Fisherman]

Well I'm sure that Stephen Knight and Patricia Cornwall didn't see anything strange about their theories either. Okay Fisherman, I'm feeling bold, what exactly is your reasoning?

Apparently you already know, since you found it strange?

[Harry D]

The embarrasment lies wholly on you, Harry. Bury has no more of a proven case connection to the Ripper case than Cottingham OR ANY OTHER EVISCERATION KILLER RECORDED.

That is the long and the short of it. Being an evisceration killer makes you interesting as a comparison, nothing else. It does not per se establish a factual connection to the case.

Sorry that you dislike the facts, Harry. Perhaps you should never have tried to push an unsustainable case?

Then why were Scotland Yard notified of Ellen Bury's murder?

[Fisherman]

Then why were Scotland Yard notified of Ellen Bury's murder?

Because there were some similarities between her murder and the Ripper murders.

Basically, what the police looked at was whether the Bury murder was related to the Ripper murders. In other words, they tried to decide whether it was related to the Ripper series or not.

They decided it was not.

[Harry D]

But according to you, Ellen Bury's murder was completely unrelated to the Ripper case. So why did the Dundee police feel the need to inform Scotland Yard?

Because there were some similarities between her murder and the Ripper murders.

Thank you.

And goodnight.

[harry]

Cross is caserelated to finding Nichol's body.He is not caserelated to her killing.
She was dead when he (Cross) arrived at the scene of her killing.It's never been proved otherwise.

[drstrange169]

>>You probably caught me out again, yeah?<<

No “probably” about it. Your post #136 contained more porkies than a pig factory.

If I’d been wrong on any of the counts in my reply you wouldn’t have hesitated to let everyone know.

It is certainly no surprise you want to distance yourself from it.

[drstrange169]

Re: Post #219

Loved this one.

Having backed away from a post where you’d been caught out fabricating things. You post a long winded ramble about nothing, hoping to muddy the waters and me.

Here are the facts.

Nothing I posted was a lie. You are free to disagree with anything I write, you are free to think I’m crazy, you are free to denigrate me, but you will never find a post from me where I intentionally falsify facts and that's where we differ.

>>Dusty is a mediocre researcher, to begin with.<<

Good that we can agree on something, that’s exactly how I would describe myself. The only difference is you meant it as an insult, I mean it as a fact.

When I read the things Chris Scott brought to the field or Deb continues to bring, when I look at the kind of information Kattrup (who started this particular thread) has found in the Danish archives, I’m humbled. But what continues to make me higher than you, is that I don't falsify things.

Are you beginning to see a theme here?


>>you chose to call me a liar and yourself an accomplished researcher.<<

“you chose to call … yourself an accomplished researcher”, love to see the post where I claimed that!

The title of this thread is “Lechmere/Cross the name issue. Therefore the central issue is the name, not any of the lists you keep dreaming up.

So please can you stop trying to distract from your failures and get back on topic?

[drstrange169]

>>It still remains that there is not a iot of evidence that the carman ever used the name Cross other than in combination with the murder case.<<

It still remains that there is not a iot (whatever that is) of evidence that Xmere visited his mother on the night of the double murder.

It still remains that there is not a iot of evidence that Xmere had that night off.

It still remains that there is not a iot of evidence that Xmere's route took him through all the murder sites.

It still remains that there is not a iot of evidence that Xmere worked at Broad Street when he lived in James St.

It still remains that there is not a iot of evidence that Mitre Sq was a "logical" route to Broad Street from James.

In fact,it still remains that there is not a iot of evidence that Xmere was not simply an innocent man and told the truth at the inquest.

Why then should speculation about the name "Cross" and Pickfords not be just as valid for a discussion?

[John G]

Apparently you already know, since you found it strange?

I can't think of any viable reason. However, how about this? At some indeterminate time in the future Lechmere's friends, associates, neighbours, relatives might come to the sudden realization that there's a serial killer in their midst?

[Fisherman]

But according to you, Ellen Bury's murder was completely unrelated to the Ripper case. So why did the Dundee police feel the need to inform Scotland Yard?



Thank you.

And goodnight.

As I said, there were similarities. And after having scrutinized these matters, the police wrote off the case as being unrelated to the Ripper case - they decided that Bury was not their man.

You are welcome.

[Fisherman]

Cross is caserelated to finding Nichol's body.He is not caserelated to her killing.
She was dead when he (Cross) arrived at the scene of her killing.It's never been proved otherwise.

Nor has it been prove that she was dead at the time, Harry. She was dead or dying, and the damage done would assure death. That is what we can say, nothing more.

And yes, Lechmere is caserelated.

[Fisherman]

>>You probably caught me out again, yeah?<<

No “probably” about it. Your post #136 contained more porkies than a pig factory.

If I’d been wrong on any of the counts in my reply you wouldn’t have hesitated to let everyone know.

It is certainly no surprise you want to distance yourself from it.

Why would I debate with somebody who changes goalposts, offers falsehoods as truths, cuts away the relevant material to produce a "fact", has a poor understanding of the case as such and habitually answers a question about A with an answer about B? You have placed yourself in trouble before on the other site in this respect too, and that is not a kind of debate that contributes anything useful at all.

I find it disgusting, and I much prefer to stay away from it. If you think that adds up to some sort of victory on your behalf, you may need to think again.

[caz]

Yes, it relies on him not being known as Cross. And that is partly because there is not a whiff of evidence making him Cross, other than the murder case proceedings. The problem is that you write about "the very people he is meant to have been fooling". You see, there is no telling who these people were. It caould have been his wife, it could have been his friends or aquaintances - we canīt tell. But we CAN tell that there is no reason for them all to have known that he had had a Cross stepfather 19 (nineteen) yars earlier. Less so, if he never used the name himself.

So he was deliberately hiding behind the name Cross in the hope that some unspecified person or persons who had only ever known him as Lechmere would not put two and two together and work out that he - Lechmere - was the Pickfords carman from Doveton Road named Charles Allen Cross who had found a murdered prostitute, his reasoning being that the unspecified person or persons might later have had cause to suspect him if they knew Cross was Lechmere?

How much more cause for suspicion would this person or persons have needed if the ruse didn't work and the word went round that the police had - with not a little difficulty - discovered during their enquiries that the man who found Nichols was Lechmere, and not Cross at all?

Naturally, anticipating all this from long before his first murder, Lechmere would have been careful to keep any references to the name Cross - and preferably any references to his middle name Allen - from the person or persons concerned, or the whole purpose of adopting the name Charles Allen Cross after carelessly connecting himself to the Nichols murder would already have been undermined.

Great stuff isn't it? More convoluted than Midsomer Murders or Sherlock and even less credible, but that seems to be what the public want to see in their tv crime dramas, so all is not lost.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

So he was deliberately hiding behind the name Cross in the hope that some unspecified person or persons who had only ever known him as Lechmere would not put two and two together and work out that he - Lechmere - was the Pickfords carman from Doveton Road named Charles Allen Cross who had found a murdered prostitute, his reasoning being that the unspecified person or persons might later have had cause to suspect him if they knew Cross was Lechmere?

How much more cause for suspicion would this person or persons have needed if the ruse didn't work and the word went round that the police had - with not a little difficulty - discovered during their enquiries that the man who found Nichols was Lechmere, and not Cross at all?

Naturally, anticipating all this from long before his first murder, Lechmere would have been careful to keep any references to the name Cross - and preferably any references to his middle name Allen - from the person or persons concerned, or the whole purpose of adopting the name Charles Allen Cross after carelessly connecting himself to the Nichols murder would already have been undermined.

Great stuff isn't it? More convoluted than Midsomer Murders or Sherlock and even less credible, but that seems to be what the public want to see in their tv crime dramas, so all is not lost.

Love,

Caz
X

I don't know Caz. It doesn't seem too far fetched to me that lech as the killer would use his less well known name to try and keep his more common name out of the public eye and away from family and friends.

Anyone of them could put two and two together and could spell trouble to the killer trying to stay incognito.