So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Steve, I believe it was Kattrup. That’ll help me track it down.

Did I imply it was conclusive? It’s possible that he gave both names but the press and the police neglected to take note of the more important one I suppose.

Kattrup was involved, but to be fair, I think that David Orsam made the main effort, Gary. Not sure, but thatīs how I remember it.

[Fisherman]

I believe that is a very fair position to take, given the family history. I don't find it strange at all. It is this type of "bigger picture" attitude that I find the hardline, Lechmere supporters just are not prepared to consider.
Steve

Oh, please! I have considered it a hundred times and I have said as many times that it may well be that he used Cross to protect the Lechmere name. I do, however, find the sifting of information he seems to have made a very good reason to opt for him wanting to conceal information from those who read the paper reports.
That is preferring one version over another for informed reasons - not being "unprepared to consider" the alternatives.

[Batman]

Batman:
What's Cross doing with a Liston knife going to work down Buck's Row?

What was Ted Bundy doing, driving to Lake Sammamish with handcuffs, a ligature and a crowbar in his car? The same thing as Lechmere: looking for prey.

Ah is this really a good example? Ted Bundy got caught with his rape and murder kit in the trunk.

Batman: How did Cross avoid being caught with a knife when he is out at an hour going to work when JtR was striking and 500+ PCs (on shift work) actively looking for JtR, especially in the early hours?

So now the police frisked all people out in the streets...? I thought they were all up at Aldgate, safeguarding that noone passed there.

Don't you think that sort of checking would be at the hours around murder scenes most of all?

All it would take is one investigator to visit these scenes at these hours and they would be seeing the same people on their route to work, no?

[Fisherman]

No, instead he is wearing his 'I am walking past a few murder scenes at the same time they were murdered, every day' badge and yet not a single investigator staked out a single crime scene to witness this individual walk by at the right time and right place, as per your model?

At the very least don't you think a quick search for a potential weapon would have ensued should such a person be noted?

Cross must be walking by the same crime scenes in the "way to work" model with a liston knife.

Eh... knife. Not necessarily Liston knife. We donīt know that at all. Long blade, sharp, pointed, probably double-edged. Thatīs it. Claiming it was a Liston knife puts the medical occupation in the hair-cross in what may be an unfair manner.

[Fisherman]

Ah is this really a good example? Ted Bundy got caught with his rape and murder kit in the trunk.



Don't you think that sort of checking would be at the hours around murder scenes most of all?

All it would take is one investigator to visit these scenes at these hours and they would be seeing the same people on their route to work, no?

Yes, itīs a good example.

No, I donīt think that they searched the many Eastenders on the streets.

[Fisherman]

If we - for some unfathomable reason - should decide to revisit the aim of the thread, Iīd say that it has been pretty conclusively laid down that people cannot only kill within the parish where they live. Equally, it has been shown that geographic profiling is only useful if the perpetrators searched for kill in relation to their home addresses. Once something like a work trek is introduced, the model fails to work.

Just saying.

[Elamarna]

Oh, please! I have considered it a hundred times and I have said as many times that it may well be that he used Cross to protect the Lechmere name. I do, however, find the sifting of information he seems to have made a very good reason to opt for him wanting to conceal information from those who read the paper reports.
That is preferring one version over another for informed reasons - not being "unprepared to consider" the alternatives.

That depends if one truly considers the alternatives rather than just paying lip service to the suggestion. One has to accept that you have done so as you say you have. Just has one accepts that you had no control over some of the comments in the Documentary.


Steve

[Batman]

Your model including re-visiting the scenes of the crime at the same hours

No, I donīt think that they searched the many Eastenders on the streets.

How many were on Buck's row when Nichols was found?

Notice I said...

All it would take is one investigator to visit these scenes at these hours and they would be seeing the same people on their route to work, no?

Meaning, in your route to work model, investigators re-visiting the scene of the crimes, could help but fail to notice the same worker re-visiting the scenes of the crimes, at the exact times they were murdered, according to your model.

[Sam Flynn]

Ah is this really a good example? Ted Bundy got caught with his rape and murder kit in the trunk.

At least Bundy had a trunk, and with a car attached, whereas JTR had to make do with getting to (and from) his victims on foot, with little more than the clothes on his back in which to hide his knife and stash his trophies. Given these constraints, I seriously doubt that he'd have strayed far from home, and I doubt that he'd have had anything planned for quite some time after a successful kill. Therefore, the idea that he was a pedestrian commuter from Bethnal Green en route to start a shift of work just doesn't ring true.

[Fisherman]

That depends if one truly considers the alternatives rather than just paying lip service to the suggestion. One has to accept that you have done so as you say you have. Just has one accepts that you had no control over some of the comments in the Documentary.


Steve

Am I reading this right, Steve? Are you saying that I may well just have been "paying lip" to the suggestion? Instead of simply accepting that I really do consider what I say I consider?
And why are you talking about how you "have to accept" that I am honest about this?
You donīt have to accept anything. If you think I am deluded or a liar or anythin g along those lines, then say so by all means. I would not want any beating about the bush, and I certainly donīt pull any punches when I find your posts lacking in any way. So be my guest!

[Abby Normal]

My take is not set in stone, Gary. There is merit in the suggestion that he may have wished to protect the family name.
My reasoning goes like this:
If he felt he had no choice but to go to the inquest, he may have felt inclined to hide his identity from those who knew him.
If he had chosen to lie about all parts of his identity, the police would have revealed that if they checked the information, and he would be in very bad trouble.
So what COULD he hide?
Well, he could not hide his address from the police, if they checked.
He could not hide his working place, for the same reason.
But he COULD provide them with another name than his official one, and claim to use Cross at times - it was not unlawful. If the police did not ask "Is this your registered name", he would be in the clear.
At the inquest, with the press present, he could take it a step further, by not naming his address - and it seems he may not have done so, since only the Star had it, implicating that they may have gotten it from a desk clerk, whereas the other papers missed out on account of his omission.

To me, it is a bit too much of a coincidence that the exact measures he was able to take to hide his identity also seems to have been taken, and so I opt for him deliberately concealing information to mislead those who read the inquest reports - or had it read to them...

I agree Fish
and perhaps to keep his more commonly used name out of the papers might have been done (if guilty) to perhaps keep it from wife, family members, friends, cowrkers etc. who might have put two and two together if they had seen or suspected anything suspicious from him.

[Fisherman]

At least Bundy had a trunk, and with a car attached, whereas JTR had to make do with getting to (and from) his victims on foot, with little more than the clothes on his back in which to hide his knife and stash his trophies. Given these constraints, I seriously doubt that he'd have strayed far from home, and I doubt that he'd have had anything planned for quite some time after a successful kill. Therefore, the idea that he was a pedestrian commuter from Bethnal Green en route to start a shift of work just doesn't ring true.

Your killer would have accepted ten minutes walking on the streets. Mine would have accepted twenty.

There really is no material difference - ten minutes and twenty minutes are both very long times to walk the streets after a murder, and anyone who does that has accepted to take that kind of risk.

[Fisherman]

How many were on Buck's row when Nichols was found?

Notice I said...



Meaning, in your route to work model, investigators re-visiting the scene of the crimes, could help but fail to notice the same worker re-visiting the scenes of the crimes, at the exact times they were murdered, according to your model.

There were THOUSANDS of people living there who were as likely or likelier than Lechmere to be the killer. Or so Iīm told. And if there was, they would have needed to be on the streets, since they could not kill by remote control.

Or have you come around to realizing that there was basically no people at all on the small streets of Spitalfields at these hours?

Which is it?

In any case, I donīt think that I have seen a single report of PC:s searching the dwellers of the East End or read about such measures being taken.

[Fisherman]

I agree Fish
and perhaps to keep his more commonly used name out of the papers might have been done (if guilty) to perhaps keep it from wife, family members, friends, cowrkers etc. who might have put two and two together if they had seen or suspected anything suspicious from him.

That is how I reason, yes.
Then again, it seems I have not payed any real attention to the alternative innocent suggestions. Or so Iīm told. By some.

[Elamarna]

Am I reading this right, Steve? Are you saying that I may well just have been "paying lip" to the suggestion? Instead of simply accepting that I really do consider what I say I consider?
And why are you talking about how you "have to accept" that I am honest about this?
You donīt have to accept anything. If you think I am deluded or a liar or anythin g along those lines, then say so by all means. I would not want any beating about the bush, and I certainly donīt pull any punches when I find your posts lacking in any way. So be my guest!

Fish,
It appears you are not reading it correctly,

Maybe this is because you appear to have interpreted my original post to Gary as being aimed at your good self.

The original comments were not aim exclusively at you, but Lechmere supporters in general, some of whom in my experience on Say Facebook, are not as open minded as yourself, and are fixed on that Lechmere must be the killer.

You gave your reasons for accepting one alternative over another, my comments were intended to accept your personal reasoning, but to question if such applied to other supporters.

If someone says they have done something, one either has to accept it or reject it surely, and just as I accept that you had no control over the Documentary, I accept that you have considered this particular issue.

I hope that has clarified the posts


Steve