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

[Fisherman]

But would you have used your real first and middle names and given not one, but two addresses where you could be found? Or would that be more like something a child of six might do?

How much more trouble would you have been in with whoever paid you a call [as in visited either address] and found you had lied to them about your surname, but stupidly not about the rest?

Fish's argument that Lechmere would not have been trying to fool the police in this way [because it wouldn't have worked had they checked - obviously] doesn't wash, because the police would not have known this, and he could hardly have explained who he was trying to fool and why:

"Oh sorry, officers, I never intended to deceive you, or to put you to any trouble working out who the hell I was, when Pickfords denied employing anyone called Cross. I used that name to deceive the missus/my relatives/my friends/my workmates, so they wouldn't associate me with the murder and suspect I had something to do with it."

"Right you are then, Mr Lechmere. It's our turn to apologise, because as a result of our enquiries at the addresses you provided, your missus and your workmates now know all about it, and they also know you gave us a false name. Would you like to fill out this compensation claim form?"

Love,

Caz
X

I asked you a question before. How much was he able to do if he was intent on not presenting the police with obviously false information but wanted to keep paper readers out of the know as much as possible?

So far, I have seen no answer to that question.

You say "Fish's argument that Lechmere would not have been trying to fool the police in this way [because it wouldn't have worked had they checked - obviously] doesn't wash, because the police would not have known this, and he could hardly have explained who he was trying to fool and why".

What are you on about? The police would not have known what? That it would not have worked if they checked?

You may have strained yourself.

[Fisherman]

Another point worth making here is that Lechmere would not necessarily have known if the police checked the records at Pickfords and learned that he had given them a false name in connection with his claimed discovery of the murder victim. For all he could have known at the time, the police might well have decided to keep this intelligence to themselves and to ask Pickfords not to mention it to the carman while enquiries were ongoing. No sense in alerting a potential suspect that they might be onto him, when they knew enough to keep a discreet eye on him instead. He must surely have realised that they might check, and what they would find out about him if they did. But he couldn't rely on them coming back to him and asking for an explanation for the false name, even if he had a convincing one up his sleeve. He could only cross his fingers and hope they wouldn't bother checking.

So the argument that he wasn't using a false name to hide anything from the police is specious, because - as we are constantly being asked to acknowledge - the very use of one would immediately arouse suspicions that the user has something to hide. How could Lechmere, under such circumstances, have had the first clue that the police a) wouldn't find out that he had used a false name; or b) hadn't already found out, within a day of his coming forward as Charles Cross; or c) were not keeping tabs on his movements to and from home and work, thanks to his own stupidity in giving them both addresses alongside a false name?

Love,

Caz
X

You HAVE overstrained yourself.

You see complications where there are none. Lechmere had not signed any paper telling the police that he was called Cross at Pickfords, Caz. All he needed to do would be to say that he sometimes used the name or that he simply did so to honour his old stepfather.

It was a risk that could/would involve further interest from the police, but what could they prove, once he had left Mizen behind after having lied to him?

Thatīs correct: Nothing.

[Fisherman]

[Sam Flynn: Clearly it wouldn't have helped, but unless a major abdominal artery had been severed, the blood lost via the abdominal cuts would have been trivial compared to that lost via the horrific wounds to the throat...
[/QUOTE]

Very, very, VERY true!

And what do we have? A horrific bloodloss from the neck, leaing spatter on the sidewalk and a huge pool of blood under her neck, combined with an abdomen with bīvery little blood in it?

Or an abdomen into which the blood had flowed, no spatter on the sidewalk and a very modest pool of blood under her neck?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Lech was certainly in the wrong job. What with all this bluff and double bluff to the authorities he should have been a secret agent

[Fisherman]

Quite right. No matter what rational arguments are made against Lechmere you will perform the necessary mental gymnastics and wild speculation to keep your little fantasy in tact. Truly a waste of time and space.

The mental gymnastics applied are not mine:

An ex-murder squad leader is not better suited to comment on the matter than me, Harry D!

That is acrobatics that would have earned you a gold medal in the Olympics.

Out here, it earns you a coneshaped hat.

[Fisherman]

What in God's name are you on about, Fish? My argument is that if they knew him at Pickfords as Charles Cross, it would make perfect sense for him to have used that name in connection with a fatal accident while working [the child's death in 1876, assuming the same Charles Cross was involved] or the discovery of a murder victim on his way to work. Neither of those events happened while he was only 'thinking' about going to work, or making preparations before leaving the house, nor would he be needing to identify himself as one name or the other in connection with such circumstances. That would truly be bonkers: "I always go by the name of Lechmere when I'm undressed for bed at night and again when I wake up in the morning." Another thing is, if he was known as Cross to his boss and workmates, as is perfectly plausible, his wife would almost certainly have been aware of the fact, so it wouldn't matter whether he thought of himself as a Lechmere or a Cross at any particular time of day, or during any particular activity. I sign myself Caz here on the boards but am only known as Caroline outside ripper world. I only think of myself as Caz while I'm here on the boards. Make something of it.



This is assuming the police would have made Lechmere aware if they had any concerns about him as an honest witness 'once he had spoken' to them - or if they had no such concerns. You appear to assume they would have paid him a visit if they wanted to check him out, so he'd have known about it and been ready with a credible explanation for using a false name when asked for one. But that would by no means have been a given. He couldn't have satisfied them with any explanation if he wasn't asked for one. If they could have discovered his use of a false name without him knowing he'd been rumbled, what else might they have gone on to discover while he didn't even know they were looking? The false name would have been the least of his worries if it had resulted in the police watching him on his walk to work the following weekend. What credible explanation could he possibly have had up his sleeve when they arrested him standing over Annie Chapman, holding the knife he had been keeping up his other sleeve?

"You stupid constable! I was about to give this lady the kiss of life, after wresting from the real villain his shiny knife."

"Hell's bells, here's another compensation claim form for you. Use whichever surname you are more comfortable with. You'll not be bothered again."

Love,

Caz
X

Why is it that I never find any logical line in your posts that I can criticize? Itīs like swimming in a diarrhea.

And you always write little plays with funny characters saying stupid things that are totally unrelated to what I have stated.

Somehow, you are trying to get away with the idea that Charles Lechmere always had to think about how jobrelated a matter he commented on was before he could decide whether to think of himself as Charles Cross or Charles Lechmere.

I could write a REALLY funny sketch about that.

But why would I? All the laughter it could bring down from the rest of the posters could never hide the fact that you - the target for the sketch - would probably not be able to understand it.

[Harry D]

An ex-murder squad leader is not better suited to comment on the matter than me, Harry D!

An ex-murder squad leader who was not infallible and may have been led astray by producers looking to frame their subject matter.

[Abby Normal]

According to the aforementioned officers it was a technicality. The killer had been identified, the witness just didn't have the balls to testify against him.

more than likely the witness, like he said at the time of the sighting, wouldn't know him if he saw him again.

he probably said that kos may have been the man but I cant swear to it, especially if it might get him accused and hanged falsely.


and it changed over the years in Andersons big head that he had the ripper.

[Fisherman]

On the contrary. If someone dies from a cut throat, that is invariably how it's described; indeed, I've heard of cut throats frequently, but rarely of a "cut neck". Google searches can be quite handy as a guide:

"Cut neck" - 466,000 matches (many of which hits relate to items of clothing with a cut neck)

"Cut throat" - 4,530,000 matches

Invariably? Didnīt Batman just write "neck"? Donīt I do it? And 466 000 others?

I am sure that 4 500 000 of the Google hits for cut throat is derived from anglers sideīs about cutthroat trout fishing.

I am going to rename that fish cutneck trout, by the way.

[Fisherman]

An ex-murder squad leader who was not infallible and may have been led astray by producers looking to frame their subject matter.

See? Thatīs where you invariably end up on account of not being able to accept that you may be a worse judge of the case than me and Griffiths.

You have to resort to this kind of sad, sad things the way sad, sad people will do when cornered and unable to find a way out.

Then again, you are probably paid by Gareth to do it. (A joke, aimed at showing you what kind of path you have taken).

Well, it saves me the time of debating any further with you.

[Fisherman]

more than likely the witness, like he said at the time of the sighting wouldn't know him if he saw him again.

he probably said that kos may have been the man but I cant swear to it, especially if it might get him accused and hanged falsely.

Or he said something else, or somebody else said something else and Anderson muddled it, or there was some core of truth in it all, but maybe not decisive, or...

Itīs La-La Land. Nothing will ever come of it and as a lead in the case it is 100 per cent worthless until more evidence can be added. And letīs face it, that is not going to happen some time soon.

[Fisherman]

Lech was certainly in the wrong job. What with all this bluff and double bluff to the authorities he should have been a secret agent

Mmmm. And maybe you should be a comedian instead of a poster out here.

Wow. Thatīs a tough decision, come to think of it.

Which task are you worse at...? Iīm not sure I can tell.

[Fisherman]

This is a good point in time as I will possibly be able to find to take my leave for now. So thatīs what I do.

[Michael W Richards]

So you are saying that I am of the meaning that the killer interchanged MO and signature? Why would you do that? I have certainly never done such a thing - it is something you have quite simply and unashamedly made up!

You are trying to associate a killer who quietly subdues his victims out at night then mutilates the abdomen with someone who kidnapped women, took them somewhere indoors and then, over who knows how many hours, cuts them into disposable pieces.

Thats interchanging MO and Signature.

[Abby Normal]

You are trying to associate a killer who quietly subdues his victims out at night then mutilates the abdomen with someone who kidnapped women, took them somewhere indoors and then, over who knows how many hours, cuts them into disposable pieces.

Thats interchanging MO and Signature.

hi MR
if your speaking of the ripper and torsoman I disagree.

I doubt torsoman kidnapped his victims-im sure he used a similar ruse to the ripper. As the only one of torsomans victims identified was a prostitute, they probably all were unforunates and like the ripper, probably involved a ruse to get them where he wanted them-in the case of his torso victims-to his chop shop as opposed to his other (ripper victims) that he killed on the streets. probably posing as a client punter of some sort in both.

also, the torso victims were mutilated shortly after the death just like the ripper. both series involved medical or at least anatomical skill and skill with the knife.

the MO is probably the same in terms of procuring the victim-ruse and mutilation shortly after death. with no sign of torture while alive.


the sig, to me anyway, is also the same- post mortem mutilation with both series having cutting up of female bodies and removal of internal and external body parts.