The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

Yeah, it has been mentioned many times.

Many, many, many....

Good work btw

Monty

So old hat.

[Fisherman]

Correct. Also know as.

Monty

So more old hat.

[Fisherman]

Wouldn't hurt to refresh my memory.

Wrong. It would hurt, alright.

[John G]

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.

[Harry D]

Wrong. It would hurt, alright.

Then you would've posted it already.

[Fisherman]

Then you would've posted it already.

That, Harry, is exactly what I am telling you - I have posted it already.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Harry D]

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?

[Fisherman]

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...

[Harry D]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Monty]

So old hat.

Upon which a dubious theory has been built.

Monty
🙂

[Monty]

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
🙂

[Abby Normal]

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?

[Fisherman]

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.