Lechmere The Psychopath

[Elamarna]

Absolutely! Don't know about you but I need a pint or ten!

Herlock

Yes I am in pub in Streatham as we chat.

But I can go on as long as this nonsense does.

Steve

[Rainbow]

No. That's what you've been told by Fisherman.

This 'blood evidence' simply doesn't exist. And even if it EVER existed (and it did not) it would no longer exist because no official records from the Nichols investigation have survived.

What we DO have is media reports. Of course, it's up to you to decide how much faith you'd like to place the contemporary reportage. I'll say that - speaking for myself alone - I don't place so much that I'm willing craft scientific "blood evidence" from those reports. Further, as with many things, media reports must be picked through, some selected, some disregarded, some gospel, some drivel, in order for this thing to limp forward. Fisherman and I recently had a discussion about Paul's statement in Lloyd's where it was suggested - not by me, of course - that the writer of that piece "spiced" things up to create a stir, because Paul's actual words were boring, bland. Not so - of course - with the reportage relating to this 'blood evidence'. In those cases words like "oozing" are given scientific merit and used as metrics to determine time of death and (even as time cannot be firmly established ANYWAY) "prove" that only Cross could have done it - unless we think it was the "phantom" (a name created because "someone else" makes it sound to reasonable).

I'm sure you see the problem here. I'm equally sure you won't admit to it. I am NOT at all sure you're not putting us on and - in truth - find this theory as implausible as most of us do.

You are discussing history here, and press report are the most of that history we are examining.

If you want a bleeding evidence in nowadays conditions, its better to solve a recent series of crime then..

If you are not sure about me, I am sure also that you are not sure of anything in this case, its just an exercise you are practising and engoying , just to say no, no , no



Rainbow°

[Mike J. G.]

You are discussing history here, and press report are the most of that history we are examining.

If you want a bleeding evidence in nowadays conditions, its better to solve a recent series of crime then..

If you are not sure about me, I am sure also that you are not sure of anything in this case, its just an exercise you are practising and engoying , just to say no, no , no



Rainbow°

The Trolling is strong with this one. At least I hope it's trolling, as the alternative is much more worrying, lol.

[Rainbow]

It's just really odd to see the mental gymnastics on display in a Lechmere thread:

Lechmere should have ran.
Why didn't Paul run?
Paul was scared, he avoided Lech.
But he never ran, did he? How do you know Lech wasn't scared?
He had no fear, he was happily standing in the street.

Literally just pulling random nonsense from their backside and hoping people buy it.

Answer this and don't run away, did Paul hear Lechmers foot steps and didn't run ?

[Elamarna]

Then answer this cleaver, did Paul hear Lechmeres foot steps coming and he didn't run away ?


Rainbow°

Paul does not tell is when he first saw Lechmere or if he heard him at all. It not recorded. All we know is Lech claimed to hear Paul when he was about 40 yards away.

Steve

[Pierre]

Hi Rainbow,

I see that you enjoy the ideas about Lechmere. Tell me, what is the difference between history and the past?

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

Is that the past - or is it history written by Fisherman?

-a normal person will very well run away

Is it possible in 2017 to decide if a person in 1888, who we have never met and have no medical papers or other relevant papers for, was normal?

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

The sources where Lechmere is referred to give no impression that Lechmere wanted to hide. How can you know if that motive existed in the past or if it is a motive invented by Fisherman?

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

Have you seen the results of Kattrup and David here? They have published many sources prooving that people in the past (who were not serial killers) actually did use their names in exactly the same way that Lechmere did. Do you ignore those examples - if you do, why?

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

Was that an existing motive in the past for which we have sources - or is it a motive invented by Fisherman?

- He didn't give his direct and real name

He did exactly what many other people did: used his two legitimate names. Don´t you think that he would have used another name, a name not connected to his father or stepfather, if he actually (in the past, not in the history of Fisherman) wanted to hide his ID?

Regards, Pierre

[Mike J. G.]

Answer this and don't run away, did Paul hear Lechmers foot steps and didn't run ?

A guy who claims he'd run away from a dead body is telling me not to run away? lol.

Errrm, we all know that Paul saw Lech in the street, or as you put it: "he saw Lech near a freshly killed body".

So why didn't Paul run away?

Your argument is invalid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes I am in pub in Streatham as we chat.

But I can go on as long as this nonsense does.

Steve

Jammy git

You may need to hit the top shelf though!

Herlock

[Rainbow]

Pierre, is this series of crimes a past, or a history written by Press ?!

[Patrick S]

I want to again address this name issue. I happen to believe, and my research backs this up, that this entire narrative that has Cross as the Ripper was created as the result of this one issue, this "name issue". When one looks closely there is simply nothing else. There's nothing suspicious. Nothing real anyway. One must bear in mind that the "Mizen Scams", the "Duping of Robert Paul", the writer who "spiced up" Paul's Lloyds statement, the hard to fathom reasons Cross the Ripper insisted a passerby see his victim, then went with him to find a cop, only to escape unnamed only to show up at the inquest 48 hours later....all of it is invention, assumption, far-fetched interpretation.

I think it's normal to view the name issue with suspicion. At first. I did. As many who have read my posts on this over the years know, I dug in and did quite a bit of research, reading, and writing on Charles Cross. Not only did I find nothing in the man's life to suggest he was anything other than what we've always known him to be (a carman, a witness in the Nichols murder), but I found nothing in his background, nothing in life, AT ALL...to suggest he was ever violent, a criminal. As you proponents of this theory are so fond of saying: PROVE to me he was anything other than what MY RESEARCH tells me he was: Married 50 years. 11 children (10 survived to adulthood and none of THEM seem to have run afoul of the law). 20+ years at Pickfords. Opened a small shop as a pensioner. Died in 1920 at around 71 years old. Left his wife a nice inheritance.

But, for fun, let's look closely at the name issue. Let's see what's there and see if it compels us to look further, even as we know that looking further leads to the knowledge that Cross seems to have been a respectable worker, father, husband.

Cross was not a name Charles Lechmere invented. Lechmere’s father died when he was boy and his mother subsequently married a policeman called Thomas Cross. It has been reported that research into Lechmere has shown no other instances of him using the name “Cross” in official or legal circumstances. But, we DO KNOW, for a FACT as I have seen the handwritten census form (as anyone with an Ancestry account can), that his name was given - in the 1861 census - as Charles Cross. So, we know he was known by that name. We know that name WAS recorded by "authority".

Again, the official records of the Nichols’ inquest have been lost. Consequently, there is no evidence that Lechmere provided the name “Cross” to the exclusion of “Lechmere”. We are left to rely upon the published reports of the inquest, primarily in “The Times” and “The Telegraph”. Reporting of the inquest’s testimony was – at times – less than accurate. There are several examples of names incorrectly reported. As has been noted, Lechmere’s middle name is given as “Andrew” in “The Telegraph”. His first name was reported as “George” in “The Times”. Robert Paul is called ‘Baul’ (Telegraph). PC John Thain is called “Thail” (Telegraph). Mizen’s first initial is given as ‘G” (Times).
It’s quite possible that that Lechmere was asked if he was known by any other names. He may have simply cited “Cross” and the reporters present chose to report this name rather than attempt an accurate spelling of “Lechmere”.

So, for me, the name issue comes down to simple reasoning: Does the fact that he gave the name Cross suggest he was Jack the Ripper.....or is it more likely that he was known by many as Cross even as that wasn't his legal name, or that he gave both names and the reporters picked the one they could spell (even as they screwed up his first and middle names) more easily, or he gave the name Cross because his stepfather was a policeman and he'd hoped the name would ring a bell, or some other reason we simply cannot imagine?

Again, after looking into the man himself, I don't see Jack the Ripper. Unless we turn summersaults of assumption and invention his behavior is completely consistent with a man finding a woman he didn't kill on the pavement, telling the next two living souls he met all about it, and then showing up in court to tell more people about it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Answer this and don't run away, did Paul hear Lechmers foot steps and didn't run ?

Yes he heard Paul's footsteps and didn't run.

Why?

Again, because he had no reason to run. He wasn't guilty. He had nothing to hide!

Please, please say that you understand that Rainbow!

[Mike J. G.]

Not only did I find nothing in the man's life to suggest he was anything other than what we've always known him to be (a carman, a witness in the Nichols murder), but I found nothing in his background, nothing in life, AT ALL...to suggest he was ever violent, a criminal.

I dunno, mate, have you seen his photograph? Those hands. The Horror...The Horror...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I want to again address this name issue. I happen to believe, and my research backs this up, that this entire narrative that has Cross as the Ripper was created as the result of this one issue, this "name issue". When one looks closely there is simply nothing else. There's nothing suspicious. Nothing real anyway. One must bear in mind that the "Mizen Scams", the "Duping of Robert Paul", the writer who "spiced up" Paul's Lloyds statement, the hard to fathom reasons Cross the Ripper insisted a passerby see his victim, then went with him to find a cop, only to escape unnamed only to show up at the inquest 48 hours later....all of it is invention, assumption, far-fetched interpretation.

I think it's normal to view the name issue with suspicion. At first. I did. As many who have read my posts on this over the years know, I dug in and did quite a bit of research, reading, and writing on Charles Cross. Not only did I find nothing in the man's life to suggest he was anything other than what we've always known him to be (a carman, a witness in the Nichols murder), but I found nothing in his background, nothing in life, AT ALL...to suggest he was ever violent, a criminal. As you proponents of this theory are so fond of saying: PROVE to me he was anything other than what MY RESEARCH tells me he was: Married 50 years. 11 children (10 survived to adulthood and none of THEM seem to have run afoul of the law). 20+ years at Pickfords. Opened a small shop as a pensioner. Died in 1920 at around 71 years old. Left his wife a nice inheritance.

But, for fun, let's look closely at the name issue. Let's see what's there and see if it compels us to look further, even as we know that looking further leads to the knowledge that Cross seems to have been a respectable worker, father, husband.

Cross was not a name Charles Lechmere invented. Lechmere’s father died when he was boy and his mother subsequently married a policeman called Thomas Cross. It has been reported that research into Lechmere has shown no other instances of him using the name “Cross” in official or legal circumstances. But, we DO KNOW, for a FACT as I have seen the handwritten census form (as anyone with an Ancestry account can), that his name was given - in the 1861 census - as Charles Cross. So, we know he was known by that name. We know that name WAS recorded by "authority".

Again, the official records of the Nichols’ inquest have been lost. Consequently, there is no evidence that Lechmere provided the name “Cross” to the exclusion of “Lechmere”. We are left to rely upon the published reports of the inquest, primarily in “The Times” and “The Telegraph”. Reporting of the inquest’s testimony was – at times – less than accurate. There are several examples of names incorrectly reported. As has been noted, Lechmere’s middle name is given as “Andrew” in “The Telegraph”. His first name was reported as “George” in “The Times”. Robert Paul is called ‘Baul’ (Telegraph). PC John Thain is called “Thail” (Telegraph). Mizen’s first initial is given as ‘G” (Times).
It’s quite possible that that Lechmere was asked if he was known by any other names. He may have simply cited “Cross” and the reporters present chose to report this name rather than attempt an accurate spelling of “Lechmere”.

So, for me, the name issue comes down to simple reasoning: Does the fact that he gave the name Cross suggest he was Jack the Ripper.....or is it more likely that he was known by many as Cross even as that wasn't his legal name, or that he gave both names and the reporters picked the one they could spell (even as they screwed up his first and middle names) more easily, or he gave the name Cross because his stepfather was a policeman and he'd hoped the name would ring a bell, or some other reason we simply cannot imagine?

Again, after looking into the man himself, I don't see Jack the Ripper. Unless we turn summersaults of assumption and invention his behavior is completely consistent with a man finding a woman he didn't kill on the pavement, telling the next two living souls he met all about it, and then showing up in court to tell more people about it.

Rainbow, please read the above. It's the result of unbiased, intelligent research. I really can't see how anyone, under any circumstances, can persist with this 'false name' nonsense. The above passage by Patrick should put the issue to bed. This is why, for me, he will be Cross from now on, as he's always been. And obviously as he would have preferred.

Unfortunately Patrick, we both know that it won't.

Conspiracy theorist thinking.

Regards and thanks for the excellent post

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm now going to lie down in a dark room for an hour or so.

Herlock

[Pierre]

Pierre, is this series of crimes a past, or a history written by Press ?!

The series is a series when it is defined as a series.

The series is a history written by the press.

Many of the journalists wrote their history as a history of a serial killer.

Fisherman is a journalist who writes his history as a history of a serial killer and he calls Charles Allen Lechmere a serial killer.

There are many problems with his history writing. He is not an historian. He misinterprets the sources. But since he is a journalist he is used to express his views in the press and on TV.

You, on the other hand, is a consumer of his views. And as a consumer of a journalist´s writings on the past you have the right to know that what Fisherman is writing is not the past but his own history about the past.

You also have the right to know that he does it without knowing how to handle sources correctly.

You may not like that, but that is a much debated issue in this forum.

Cheers, Pierre