Charles Cross

[John Wheat]

If he did have this form of abnormality would it have hindered his work as a carman or multiple murder?

Maybe as a carman but not as a multiple murderer as he clearly wasn't one.

[The Baron]

as a multiple murderer as he clearly wasn't one.

Clearly we still don't know for sure who the ripper was, and clearly you cannot rule out Lechmere just because you feel he wasn't.

If you want to listen just for those who sing your song, you will miss alot of beautiful melodies.


The Baron

[John Wheat]

Clearly we still don't know for sure who the ripper was, and clearly you cannot rule out Lechmere just because you feel he wasn't.

If you want to listen just for those who sing your song, you will miss alot of beautiful melodies.


The Baron

He clearly wasn't the Ripper though. Despite what you say.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You can actually get pigeon chest in old age. My father had it because he had emphysema and it’s due to the muscles used when the person has serious breathing difficulties. Maybe Cross was a lifelong heavy smoker? I can’t imagine what it must have been like in the LVP with no oxygen bottles or nebulisers to help. Horrible enough today.

[Geddy2112]

and clearly you cannot rule out Lechmere just because you feel he wasn't.

Clearly I can rule him out on the evidence thus far presented. If you have to invent evidence to convict someone the likelihood is they are innocent.

[Lewis C]

It's true that you can't rule Cross out, in the sense that you can't rule out anyone that was in the London area at the time who was physically capable of doing it. However, that's also true of hundreds of other people.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let’s face it. We can’t rule out Abberline as the ripper. He has been named. He was around at the time. He knew the area. He was physically competent. Does any of us allow the remotest possibility of him being the ripper? I think that we all know the answer to that one. Ditto many other suspects. So the ‘we can’t rule him out’ criteria isn’t even worth a mention. Everyone on my suspects list can’t entirely be ruled out but, personally, I’d rule out the majority of them.

And ‘he was there’ means nothing because it applies to other people, at the Nichols murder and at the other sites.

Cross was where we would have expected him to be when we would have expected him to have been there - this alone makes him unlikely.

He was 15/20 minutes away from clocking on at work - this adds to his unlikeliness.

He ignored the obvious and easy opportunity to escape in favour of waiting for Paul to turn up. If he was guilty then this would have been insanely risky and illogical - adding massively to his unlikeliness.

He goes looking for a Constable as an innocent man would - adding to his unlikeliness.

He turns up at the inquest.

We have no evidence of him being violent. We have no evidence of him having mental health issues. We have no evidence of him having an issue with women or prostitutes. We have no evidence of drink or drug problems. And we can’t place him at the scene of any of the other murders.

And actually he was almost certainly at work when Annie Chapman was killed - this makes him massively unlikely as a suspect.

In his favour… he went by his step-fathers name rather than his birth name but he still gave his correct forenames and address at the inquest so he was hiding nothing.

Charles Cross doesn’t have a single thing going for him as a suspect. Basically someone was looking around at people who were around to see if they could invent a feeble case for their guilt and they found Cross. The way that Stow, Holmgren and their acolytes have promoted this witness is a disgrace to honest enquiry.

[Lewis C]

Someone could about as easily put PC Watkins forward as a suspect. He was the first person known to be near the freshly killed body of Catherine Eddowes, and he was alone and it was dark.

[The Baron]

One Lechmere, who was spotted alone, in the dark, near a frshly killed woman, is better than 10 Burys combined, who may or may have not killed their wives, while drunk, somewhere in Dundee, and better than 10 Kellys combined who may not have been in London at all during the murders.



The Baron

[John Wheat]

One Lechmere, who was spotted alone, in the dark, near a frshly killed woman, is better than 10 Burys combined, who may or may have not killed their wives, while drunk, somewhere in Dundee, and better than 10 Kellys combined who may not have been in London at all during the murders.



The Baron

Ridiculous post. Bury may well have been the Ripper. Lechmere is a complete non starter as a suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, and just in case anyone had forgotten…until he just fancied the idea of trying to wind people up this is what The Baron had always said about the Lechmere theory and its proponents…

“Don't tell me you swallowed the blood 'evidence' of Fisherman?!”

“Lechmerians want us to believe anything they say,”

“It must be Lechmere's magic,”

“I like to start my daywork by killing cutting and mutilating someone around”

“Fisherman is selling the idea that if Mizen went to the body and found no policeman there,”

“And look how the Lechmerians contradict themselves!”

“This whole theory is based ubon the ignorance of all other parties involved, one has to be an imbecile to believe such nonsense”

“No Fish, that will not work, try harder!”

“Caz post has set an end to this fishy tunnel under logic and facts that you are trying to escape through”

“I read some fairy tales that were much better than this.”

“Sophistry: the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”

“Lechmere wouldn't have lied to Mizen, then he is risking finding the police over his shoulder.”

“He could have run away, but the Lechmerians want us to believe he injected himself intentionally in the events after killing Nichols,”

“A very disturbed theory, with zero consistency.”

”Lechmerians have failed to bring any single evidence or shred of a clue to justify their claims, they even went to the extreme phantasy and presented Lechmere as the solo ripper-torso murderer of his time, aka Lechmerianismus!”

“If a lechmerian told me: look at Lechmere, all of his actions whithout any single exception were very normal, doesn't that seem suspicious to you? Then I would say he has a better argument than anything was ever produced by Fisherman and his company.”

“If he chose to run away no one ever will be talking now about him, and Paul could have very likely missed the body.”

“Thats why this is a very weak theory, one has first to believe of Lechmere guilt then try to find excuses to keep the flame on:

“Endless excuses to fit Lechmere in.

“But the Lechmerians remained in their subzero state of denial.”

…

Now Baron, for absolutely no reason at all, conveniently switches from Bury - good suspect/ Cross - rubbish suspect to the other way around simply because he saw a chance of a pointless argument.

There couldn’t be a better example of anyone being ‘caught out.’ Still he continues though.

Not to be taken seriously. Posts just to annoy…no other reason.

[Geddy2112]

One Lechmere, who was spotted alone, in the dark, near a frshly killed woman, is better than 10 Burys combined, who may or may have not killed their wives, while drunk, somewhere in Dundee, and better than 10 Kellys combined who may not have been in London at all during the murders.

So it's only the notion that Robert Paul saw him in Bucks Row that makes him a suspect? So without Robert Paul we have nothing. I was wondering why Holmgren's fantasy piece in the latest Ripp was so important now...

[Sam Flynn]

It's true that you can't rule Cross out, in the sense that you can't rule out anyone that was in the London area at the time who was physically capable of doing it. However, that's also true of hundreds of other people.

Thousands, in fact, in the overcrowded East End alone.

[FrankO]

Someone could about as easily put PC Watkins forward as a suspect.

Or nightwatchman George Morris. We know he was there before, during & after the crime at a maximum of, maybe, 25 meters from the spot where Eddowes was found. That's more than we can say of Lechmere.

[Geddy2112]

Someone could about as easily put PC Watkins forward as a suspect.

See this is something that narks me a touch. Who decides who is a suspect and what are the qualifications for doing so? What qualifies a person to being a suspect?
We get the well trodden 'He was the only SUSPECT that can be placed at the scene of one of the murders.' Would that sound as bad if we said 'He was the only WITNESS that can be placed at the scene of one of the murders.'

I propose PC Watkins now as a suspect. So now Lechmere was not the only suspect to be placed at the scene of one of the murders. (That is how ludicrous that part of the Lechmere Theory is...)