The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[John G]

Yeah, right: that is probably what any seasoned cop would ask if he was aware of a person who had been found alone with a freshly killed victim, only to then be found to have his paths taking him right through the killingg zone where numerous other victims died:
So what?

You are making a mockery of the human capacity of a thought process right now.

But, as you say: So what?

Goodbye.

Oh dear, you seem to be getting extremely agitated. Have you been at the vodka again? Have you considered relaxation techniques? I suspect it's because your entire case is now on the verge of collapse, but I can hardly be blamed for that.

And what do you mean by "killing zone?" I mean, the entire population of Whitechapel lived within the "killing zone". "Found alone with a freshly killed victim"? Well, maybe on that basis we should suspect PC Thompson for the murder of Frances Coles!

And do you seriously think that, if he was guilty of murdering Nichols, he would murder is next victim a short distance away, and also on one of his routes to work? Particularly if he was so cautious that he lied about his identity?

Of course not. It's totally absurd. What you've done is to construct some grand theory: Professor Lechmere Moriarty, master knifeman and master criminal for the ages [although who knows where he picked up his Knifeman skills-Pickfords perhaps!]A man so devilishly clever that he'd successfully hoodwinked the stupid detectives of the Metropolitan Police for almost 20 years. A man who defies precedent by effortlessly alternating crime signatures, MOs and from being a maurauder to a commuter killer. And then, demonstrating his uniqueness even further, he once again defies precedent by suddenly, after almost 20 years as a violent psychopath, deciding to become a retired serial killer and to live out his remaining days as a conventional husband and father.

It is a story that gets more fanciful with every telling. And I'm afraid it has become fatal for what's left of your reputation.

[Harry D]

This is VERY interesting - you claim that I cannot know which routes he took, but apparently YOU can?

Nope. I'm claiming it's disingenuous to assert that Lechmere's work route took him past the murder sites when that isn't a proven fact.

And then we have Phillips, who said that Chapman had been dead at least two hours at 6.30, and probably longer than that.

Phillips gave an estimate, and I'm sure you know that TOD is an inexact science to say the least. Nevertheless, at 4:30 Lechmere would've been half-hour late for work, no? Unless you want to keep putting it earlier and earlier, despite evidence from Richardson, Cadosch & Long (conflicting as it may be) putting the murder much later.

And then we have the fact that Richardson said a god many things that do not sit well with the idea that he was on the money.

Ah yes, let's selectively discredit witnesses that don't suit your argument. The bane of the suspect-based poster. So what you're saying is that we have a witness (Richardson) at the murder site who's of questionable character?

[Sam Flynn]

Found alone with a freshly killed victim

Sticking to the evidence, that in itself is a potentially misleading turn of phrase. Cross himself found a woman on the pavement (not yet established to be a "victim" of anyone), and drew another passer-by's attention to it - a passer-by, moreover, who only arrived at the scene a very short time after Cross had arrived there. How "freshly-killed" Nichols was is not known, and remains a matter of conjecture.

What I've said above is consistent with the evidence, but to assert as fact that Cross "was found alone with a freshly-killed victim" is an interpretation of the evidence. An interpretation that makes Cross's actions that night look more sinister than an objective reading of the evidence permits.

[Pcdunn]

Sticking to the evidence, that in itself is a potentially misleading turn of phrase. Cross himself found a woman on the pavement (not yet established to be a "victim" of anyone), and drew another passer-by's attention to it - a passer-by, moreover, who only arrived at the scene a very short time after Cross had arrived there. How "freshly-killed" Nichols was is not known, and remains a matter of conjecture.

What I've said above is consistent with the evidence, but to assert as fact that Cross "was found alone with a freshly-killed victim" is an interpretation of the evidence. An interpretation that makes Cross's actions that night look more sinister than an objective reading of the evidence permits.

Hear, hear! Well said, Sam!

[Fisherman]

Oh dear, you seem to be getting extremely agitated. Have you been at the vodka again? Have you considered relaxation techniques? I suspect it's because your entire case is now on the verge of collapse, but I can hardly be blamed for that.

How does that work? What has changed in the case? I would be grateful if you could explain that to me.
You see, you are not judging ME out here, you are judging the quality of a theory. I want you to state what it is that has weakened that theory, otherwise, I can only surmise that you are misinforming.

It would be nice to see your case laid out. If you have one.

Do you, John?

As for vodka, why would I use vodka? I´ve got you for intoxication, haven´t I?

[Fisherman]

Sticking to the evidence, that in itself is a potentially misleading turn of phrase. Cross himself found a woman on the pavement (not yet established to be a "victim" of anyone), and drew another passer-by's attention to it - a passer-by, moreover, who only arrived at the scene a very short time after Cross had arrived there. How "freshly-killed" Nichols was is not known, and remains a matter of conjecture.

What I've said above is consistent with the evidence, but to assert as fact that Cross "was found alone with a freshly-killed victim" is an interpretation of the evidence. An interpretation that makes Cross's actions that night look more sinister than an objective reading of the evidence permits.

Was he found there by Paul?

Was he alone at the murder site at that remove in time?

Was he found in close proximity to Nichols? (...standing where the body was)

Was Nichols long dead, or was she even still bleeding?

Oooops, Gareth.

Who is up for contradicting any of these points?

PS. The part about how Nichols was "not yet an established victim" as she was found was SO amusing! More ingenuity like that and we can shroud the whole case in thick fog!

[Fisherman]

Nope. I'm claiming it's disingenuous to assert that Lechmere's work route took him past the murder sites when that isn't a proven fact.



Phillips gave an estimate, and I'm sure you know that TOD is an inexact science to say the least. Nevertheless, at 4:30 Lechmere would've been half-hour late for work, no? Unless you want to keep putting it earlier and earlier, despite evidence from Richardson, Cadosch & Long (conflicting as it may be) putting the murder much later.



Ah yes, let's selectively discredit witnesses that don't suit your argument. The bane of the suspect-based poster. So what you're saying is that we have a witness (Richardson) at the murder site who's of questionable character?

Nothing to see here, apparently. Falsities and repetition only.

[Harry D]

Nothing to see here, apparently. Falsities and repetition only.

Yup, I thought as much.

[Fisherman]

Yup, I thought as much.

Then you shouldn´t have posted it, should you?

[harry]

Fisherman,
In reply to your post 382.Innocence does not have to be proven,it is assumed.Cross came upon a woman he believed was dead or dying.This w as reported to the authorities.That was the involvement of Cross.An innocent involvement.Guilt of murder has to be proven against him.It never was nor never has been.Not one element.Certainly not of lying about his name.

[CertainSum1]

Fisherman,
In reply to your post 382.Innocence does not have to be proven,it is assumed.Cross came upon a woman he believed was dead or dying.This w as reported to the authorities.That was the involvement of Cross.An innocent involvement.Guilt of murder has to be proven against him.It never was nor never has been.Not one element.Certainly not of lying about his name.

In the courts one is assumed innocent, yet in law enforcement I believe detectives assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent (i.e. alibi). If I were a detective I'd assume everyone could be the killer unless he can be absolutely eliminated. Why would anyone looking for a killer assume innocence?

[drstrange169]

Hello Abby,

>>I stopped reading when you wrote "the likes of fisherman and Pierre". If you can't tell a real researcher and serious student of the case vs an obvious troll well you have nothing else worth reading.<<

A real researcher and serious student doesn’t block their ears and whistle when they are asked tough questions. It’s something children do that’s why we call it childish.

I don’t bother with Pierre as there is very little to recommend, but at least he shows some trace of a backbone when facing his dissenters.

[drstrange169]

Hello John G,

>>What do you mean "investigated annually"? How does this argument undermine the view that Cross was the name he used in his everyday day life, whereas for official documents he continued to use the name Lechmere for consistency.<<

If Mysterysinger’s post is correct, we may have just found the answer to the name issue.

If the Lechmere’s were reliant on the Bostock’s and the Bostock’s knew Elisabeth’s name was Lechmere then naturally that’s the name they would put down in any “official” documents.


>>Why do you (Christer) say that he could have successfully concealed his name, but not his address or place of work?<<

Because he hasn’t done the research and won’t listern to any factual information that might upset his theory.

Christer is wrong when he claims Xmere had to give his place of work.
One only has to look at other witnesses to see that.

By giving his place of work and adding that he had been there for 20 years he was affectively identifying himself to all who knew him.

Which, I guess effectively ends this issue.

[drstrange169]

Hello Harry,


>>It's oft repeated that Lechmere's work route took him past the other murder sites at the approximate times of the murders. Can we see some evidence of this please?<<

There is none, that’s why Christer is being deliberately evasive.

His theory is predicated on their only being one entrance to Broad St station, there wasn’t.

Without knowing which entrance he used it is imposible to say, all the mureder occurred on his work route.

I’ve asked Christer several times to clarify this, but like most things that get down to actual evidence he runs a mile (kilometre here in Oz).

[drstrange169]

Hello John,

>> But If you're saying that he had no option but to reveal information about himself by which he could be publicly identified, i.e. work and home address, how did it benefit him to give a false name?<<

And there’s the rub.

As I have shown, it would have incredibly unlikely that the family did not recognise the name Cross in combination with a Buck’s Row work route, a job at Pickfords, which had been held for 20 years.

Ditto for the people at Pickfords.

So, where is the benefit? In pretending that Xmere did something wrong or unusual to make a weak theory appear stronger to people who might not question it.