I made my case to assist the prosecution in the previous thread.
***********
Scott Nelson
02-23-2008, 02:21 AM
It's a pity that Michael Conner didn't once mention the name of Derek Osborne in any of his three Ripperologist articles on Cross/Lechmere (No. 72 Oct. 2006; no. 78 April 2007, or last month's no. 87).
It was Osborne who first posited that Charles Cross was none other than Charles Lechmere (see Ripperana, no. 37, July 2001, p. 12-17
***********
It was Michael Connor who wrote 2 articles in 2006 that brought attention to him.
Later, others elaborated and a television program gave a convincing case that it was Lech.
Hot & cold wars ever since.
Regardless, I am rational.
It was Lechmere.
Convince me otherwise.
***********
Scott Nelson
02-23-2008, 02:21 AM
It's a pity that Michael Conner didn't once mention the name of Derek Osborne in any of his three Ripperologist articles on Cross/Lechmere (No. 72 Oct. 2006; no. 78 April 2007, or last month's no. 87).
It was Osborne who first posited that Charles Cross was none other than Charles Lechmere (see Ripperana, no. 37, July 2001, p. 12-17
***********
It was Michael Connor who wrote 2 articles in 2006 that brought attention to him.
Later, others elaborated and a television program gave a convincing case that it was Lech.
Hot & cold wars ever since.
Regardless, I am rational.
It was Lechmere.
Convince me otherwise.
Comment