Lechmere The Psychopath

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let me put it to you that way,

A prostiute will bring her client to the most private sections, that was the bloody idea behind the ripper murders..

Before a little time , the policemen who were patroling that area, said clearly, there wasn't a soul around there

Then suddenly, Paul was hurrying to his work when he spoted for the FIRST TIME, a woman and a man...

the woman was still bleeding and have some movement in her chest...

Who do you think did kill her ?

Rainbow°

If crime was that simple there would be no unsolved crimes. You can't convict someone just because he found the body.

Surely you can understand this. HE FOUND THE BODY. HE DIDNT RUN AWAY. HE DIDNT WALK AWAY. HE DIDNT TRY TO HIDE. HE CALLED SOMEONE OVER. HE FOUND A POLICE OFFICER. HE ATTENDED THE INQUEST. HE GAVE THEM HIS ADDRESS AND A NAME CONNECTED TO HIM. HE WAS ON HIS WAY TO WORK.

HOW IS ANY OF THIS SUSPICIOUS?!

[Elamarna]

Who the one that is making theories here ?!

Do you want me to believe that Nichols had been killed by a phantom killer, then within seconds Lechmere came in, then within seconds Paul came in, then within seconds Neil came in ?! while she was still bleeding ?!

where the hell she took her client? to a football stadium to have sex ?!


Rainbow°

The suggestion it was within seconds is not backed by the science Rainbow.

And you have repeated That Paul was not allowed to touch the body. This is untrue Lechmere and Paul say Paul touched her face hands and chest and adjusted her clothing


Steve

[andy1867]

If I spoted a person in the dark alley standing where a still bleading murdered woman was, whome may still have movement in her chest too, at a very early hour of the morning, then yes , He will be my first suspect until proved innocent, did you managed to catch anyone else ? do you find it totally normal to find a person standing on a bleeding body ?!

and then , he didn't gave his exact true name, and gave a false statment to the policeman...

I will give him a life time preson..


Rainbow°

That wasn't the question though was it?
I didn't ask what you would do if you saw someone standing over a body
I was asking what you'll do if you found one

[Rainbow]

Then we can all be grateful that you are not a judge and I hope that you are never asked to sit on a jury!

You say that if you came upon a person standing next to a corpse he would be 'your first suspect until proven innocent.'

Cross wasn't just found next to a body. He actually called someone over (Paul.) If he was guilty he could have easily run or walked away. But he didn't, he stayed. He found a police officer and spoke to him. He attended the inquest. So nothing that Cross did made the police suspect him. Paul didn't think he was suspicious either.

'Do you find it normal to find a person standing on (I assume that you mean 'near') a bleeding body?'

Yes, because it happens all the time all over the world. People find bodies. It doesn't make everyone a murderer.

There's no real evidence that the body was still bleeding.

'He didn't give his exact true name.'

No he gave the one that he most likely used every day. This has been researched by David Orsam. It was very common for people to use names that they were not born with in those days. There is NOTHING suspicious there. He gained absolutely no advantage by doing so.

So, in your world, if a man found a body and gave the surname of his stepfather instead of his father you would give them life in prison?

Makes North Korea sound like Blackpool!

The most anti-Lechmere full of nonesense post I ever read, congratulation!


Rainbow°

[Elamarna]

Who the one that is making theories here ?!

Do you want me to believe that Nichols had been killed by a phantom killer, then within seconds Lechmere came in, then within seconds Paul came in, then within seconds Neil came in ?! while she was still bleeding ?!

where the hell she took her client? to a football stadium to have sex ?!


Rainbow°

Rainbow continuing to quote the phantom killer is a waste of time. We do not know who kled any of the victims. So the klller is unknown or are you suggesting he has supernatural powers?

It a phrase which is you seem to think is important I do not see why?



Steve

[andy1867]

Hi Andy
because perhaps he wanted to keep his more commonly used name out of the press for whatever reason.

if the police question him on that-and I doubt they even would, its a legit name anyway-he has a good reason. But He cant really lie about his address now can he?

Hi Abby
Yep , that's a good enough reason, that never crossed /( lechmered lol )my mind
I'm glad you tipped up to offer a modicum of common sense

[Rainbow]

HE FOUND THE BODY. HE DIDNT RUN AWAY. HE DIDNT WALK AWAY. HE DIDNT TRY TO HIDE. HE CALLED SOMEONE OVER. HE FOUND A POLICE OFFICER. HE ATTENDED THE INQUEST. HE GAVE THEM HIS ADDRESS AND A NAME CONNECTED TO HIM. HE WAS ON HIS WAY TO WORK.

HOW IS ANY OF THIS SUSPICIOUS?!

- he didn't find the body, he was found by the body

-a normal person will very well run away

-He can't hide, unless he had two wings to fly, he was traped like a rat in a tube

-He took Paul away to find a police officer, so he can say what he wanted, and he did, he gave a false statement

-He attended the inquest because two person will recognise him now if he didn't

- He didn't give his direct and real name

Rainbow°

[Rainbow]

Rainbow continuing to quote the phantom killer is a waste of time. We do not know who kled any of the victims. So the klller is unknown or are you suggesting he has supernatural powers?

It a phrase which is you seem to think is important I do not see why?



Steve

Important because the place and the time frame and the bleeding don't give a much place for a third player

That what I can see

Rainbow°

[Herlock Sholmes]

The most anti-Lechmere full of nonesense post I ever read, congratulation!


Rainbow°

I think you will see from other posters here who is speaking nonsense Rainbow. Your comments are laughable. 'Anti-Lechmere?' Are you starting a Lechmere fan club here?

If you spoke to 100 Ripperologists I'd guess that 95 would say that he wasn't the killer.

Why are you so convinced that he is guilty? It's pretty strange?

You accuse me of nonsense!!!!!! Yet you would give a life sentence to a man just on the 'evidence' that he found the body and used a different name to his birth name?

WAKE UP RAINBOW.

[Mike J. G.]

Let me put it to you that way,

A prostiute will bring her client to the most private sections, that was the bloody idea behind the ripper murders..

Before a little time , the policemen who were patroling that area, said clearly, there wasn't a soul around there

Then suddenly, Paul was hurrying to his work when he spoted for the FIRST TIME, a woman and a man...

the woman was still bleeding and have some movement in her chest...

Who do you think did kill her ?

Rainbow°

We obviously have no idea if there was someone around there, and nobody saw Nichols, either, did they? Who's to say that nobody else had been up the street? It seems that they had, based on the fact that Nichols was found dead in the street, followed by Lech and Paul.

[Elamarna]

Important because the place and the time frame and the bleeding don't give a much place for a third player

That what I can see

Rainbow°

Yes it did.

Have you checked the details of the blood flow idea with any independent person or scientific paper?

Do you realise the terrible problem with the hypothesis that you can place a tod based on it?

Or have you just taken what others on here have posted and accepted it.

Truly this afternoon we have had a series of vacious post lacking in detail, evidence and blatant untruths such as Paul was prevented from touching Nichols.
Why not actually go and read up before posting.


Steve

[Pierre]

I can name a convicted killer with a Ripper-esque signature who fled London a couple of months after the last canonical victim, who had graffiti at his house implicating him as the Ripper.

A couple of months after the last canonical victim?

Wouldn´t history be more interesting if he fled within a week after that?

Cheers, Pierre

[Mike J. G.]

- he didn't find the body, he was found by the body

-a normal person will very well run away

-He can't hide, unless he had two wings to fly, he was traped like a rat in a tube

-He took Paul away to find a police officer, so he can say what he wanted, and he did, he gave a false statement

-He attended the inquest because two person will recognise him now if he didn't

- He didn't give his direct and real name

Rainbow°

Is it common for you to beat a dead horse? I only ask because you've been given answers to all of these posts, and yet you're still harping on about them and at the same time are ignoring questions which you're being asked to answer. Is that a trait you carry in day-to-day life?

A "normal person" would not run away, that's literally what a nutjob would do.

[Mike J. G.]

Important because the place and the time frame and the bleeding don't give a much place for a third player

That what I can see

Rainbow°

Two people were in the street, we know that for a fact, Paul and Lech. Nichols had obviously been in the street...yet a another person is ruled out by you? That's hilarious and weird.

The TOD is not concrete, so there goes your theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Important because the place and the time frame and the bleeding don't give a much place for a third player

That what I can see

Rainbow°

Again, read Steve's research on timings. Ample time for the real killer.

Every action of Cross says witness and not killer.

To make Cross guilty you have to basically make things up.