Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Monty View Post
    Yeah, it has been mentioned many times.

    Many, many, many....

    Good work btw

    Monty
    So old hat.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Monty View Post
      Correct. Also know as.

      Monty
      So more old hat.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
        Wouldn't hurt to refresh my memory.
        Wrong. It would hurt, alright.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          Shall we do it all over again? Really? Okay.

          Because much as he gave the POLICE the address, he did not do so with THE PRESS. And please, please, please, please, please do not dredge up the Star again. Please?
          I'm not suggesting he held a press conference! However, the press clearly had no problem in determining his address: see The Star, September 3, 1888.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Wrong. It would hurt, alright.
            Then you would've posted it already.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
              Then you would've posted it already.
              That, Harry, is exactly what I am telling you - I have posted it already.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post
                I'm not suggesting he held a press conference! However, the press clearly had no problem in determining his address: see The Star, September 3, 1888.
                "The press" on the whole ("the press" does not allude to a single paper only, but instead to the institution as a whole with lots and lots of papers) had all the difficulties in the world determining an address. Fair is fair, John.
                Last edited by Fisherman; 02-02-2017, 07:11 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  That, Harry, is exactly what I am telling you.
                  I'm talking about posting it again.

                  Can you prove that Lechmere's work route took him past the murder sites at the times of the murders or not?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                    I'm talking about posting it again.

                    Can you prove that Lechmere's work route took him past the murder sites at the times of the murders or not?
                    No, I can´t. But that was not what you asked before. Before, you asked if there was any evidence for such a thing. And there is.

                    If you are going to change goalposts, this is what will happen.

                    But to prolong it would be just a waste of time. We all know that his route to work seemingly took him past or close to the murder sites at the roughly relevant hours. We all know that it cannot be proven. We all know that such a thing does not put off a seasoned murder investigator - he goes by the implications and tries to find the facts that will take his man down.

                    This funny little game of yours is just as useless as most of the posts questioning the Lechmere theory. Yeah, right, he COULD have called himself Cross...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      But to prolong it would be just a waste of time. We all know that his route to work seemingly took him past or close to the murder sites at the roughly relevant hours. We all know that it cannot be proven.
                      How can "we" know something that can't be proven?

                      I'm not saying Lechmere's routes didn't coincide with the murders, I'm just asking for evidence. Point me in the right direction if you don't want to repost it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by John G View Post
                        Hi Abby,

                        We know it was fairly common for people of this period to refer to themselves by more than one first name, but I wonder how common it was for people to innocently use more than one surname.
                        I'm sure it was fairly common. its also fairly common for criminals to do it also, or people who have something to hide.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          So old hat.
                          Upon which a dubious theory has been built.

                          Monty
                          🙂
                          Monty

                          https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                          Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                          http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                            I'm sure it was fairly common. its also fairly common for criminals to do it also, or people who have something to hide.
                            Yet pointless in this example.

                            The use of an alternate name is immaterial, as this witness was known.

                            Monty
                            🙂
                            Monty

                            https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                            Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                            http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                              Yet pointless in this example.

                              The use of an alternate name is immaterial, as this witness was known.

                              Monty
                              🙂
                              yes of course-known to police. but not pointless as the question still remains-why in this instance Cross and everwhere else (that we know of for sure)Lechmere?
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                                Upon which a dubious theory has been built.

                                Monty
                                🙂
                                A hat is just about the one thing it has NOT been built on, Monty. And it is no more "dubious" than your choice of that particular word.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X