Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

[drstrange169]

>>The more of an investigation into Cross is argued, the less sense it makes that Swanson only mentioned him in passing. <<

The more you exclude the fact that Paul was searched for and questioned yet did not appear in Swanson's report, the less sense this argument makes.

[drstrange169]

>>And something similar applies to his not legging it when he caught sight of Paul. If he had done so, Paul would have immediately been alerted to the fact that a crime had been committed. <<

Assuming the same person/s murdered all the victims, their modus operandi was to get away not stay.


>> If he was the killer, the way he interacted with Paul and Mizen was probably the best thing he could have done. <<

Abby's real life example provides "probably the best thing he could have done".

Send Paul for help and then either leg it or dispose of the knife and find a policeman.

As I said, guilt requires a story to be manufactured, innocent requires none.

[drstrange169]

>>‘There’s a woman in Buck’s Row who needs your attention.’ ‘There’s a woman lying in Buck’s Row, as I approached her a man who was standing over her ran away.’

Which statement is more likely to get you past a PC?<<

All of which avoids the proposed question, why go and seek out a policeman.

[drstrange169]

>>He didn’t ‘seek out’ a policeman, though. That’s just more spin.<<

I know available evidence are dirty word in the Lechmerian vocab but,

"Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him"

Cross

"... they decided that they ought to acquaint the first policeman they met with what they had discovered."

Paul.

[drstrange169]

>>This is a photo of CAL’s son, Thomas Allen, and his wife ca 1890. TAL was also a carman - he delivered cats meat - but he and his Mrs scrubbed up well and perfectly demonstrate Mr Dwane’s description of the family as ‘v. decent’. <<

Thomas Allen, wore those clothes to work? What on earth is your point Gary?

[drstrange169]

First you write,

>>so now we have the interesting idea of CAL/Charlie Cross being two elements of a split personality. <<

Then you write,

>>Let’s make it easy for you.
There is zero evidence Lechmere…had a split personality.>>

and then,

>Well perhaps there is<<

And apperently everyone else is to blame for the confusion.

[drstrange169]

>>It’s Cross who wears his apron to an inquest and CAL who is described as ‘v. decent’ by Mr Dwane.<<

Surely he was describing their living conditions, not the man personally.

Did Dwane even meet Lechmere or did he speak to Elizabeth?

If he did meet Lechmere and Lechmere was wearing his work clothes would Dwane have downgraded the household living conditions because of it?

There seems to be a degree desperatism in your post.

[Aethelwulf]

Nor was it FISHY. You just misread his post. And Aethewulf followed your lead, so now we have the interesting idea of CAL/Charlie Cross being two elements of a split personality.

It’s Cross who wears his apron to an inquest and CAL who is described as ‘v. decent’ by Mr Dwane.

Yes I misread the post and didn't see the correction to John's similar misunderstanding. My point remains valid though: the nonsense theories people come up with to accommodate Lechmere (like the comical near fatal illness in October, parking up to dispatch Chapman (not Farmer though, we can't have that coz the times don't work)) are farcical.

There are others. There was some pseudo psychology nonsense about Lechmere having some sort of heroic military personalty attributes - i forget the exact wording but I think it was RJ who pointed out how totally ridiculous it was.

The other stand out load of nonsense was this one. I was talking about the FBI profile which is widely rubbished as nonsense as 'your average casebooker' knows more than people that have actually worked on cases involving serial killers - casebooker duly steps forward with their own 'profile' in post #5386 of Evidence of Innocence- what do you know- profile accepted as describing Lechmere to a tee, despite no evidence for any of it. Look at Mr Barnett's response to said profile in #5391:

There’s only one item there that definitely didn’t apply to Lechmere: the military/navy thing. What was the rationale for including that?

A pretty bold claim considering the list includes 'Possible masterbation and or cannibalism with trophies/ parts'

But also includes:

Single or dominated wife
Knew prostitutes and socialized with
Had problems having sex
Former military and or navy/ sailor
Very familiar with knife
Accustomed to carrying knife before murder spree
Appears very cocky to people
Thinks he is smarter than anyone else
Self assured
Cunning

No evidence any of these applied to Lechmere. I'm not rubbishing Abby's post, just the nonsense application to Lechmere.

Lechmere is best understood by considering he is innocent, then you don't have to fudge all of these ridiculous theories about illness, time off etc.

[Mark J D]

... lech saying he heard footsteps scurrying away would immediately mean he was setting up a kind of alibi.

No.

M

[John Wheat]

Nor was it FISHY. You just misread his post. And Aethewulf followed your lead, so now we have the interesting idea of CAL/Charlie Cross being two elements of a split personality.

It’s Cross who wears his apron to an inquest and CAL who is described as ‘v. decent’ by Mr Dwane.

It's not an interesting idea it is pure fantasy in the usual quest by some idiots to try to turn a man that is clearly innocent to everyone else into a suspect for the Whitechapel murders.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

What I said is that they weren’t seen either with anybody in the last hour or so before they were murdered. Maybe that's what you missed, Abby.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't find it a bit odd - you're perfectly entitled to do so - just that I don't, for the reason I've given.

Hi frank
thanks. I didnt miss it-I just find it irrelevant. My point was that for all the other victims were seen with potential suspects before they were murdered, men that could very well have been the ripper. nichols wasnt, except for lech. no big wup.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Actually, no. An alibi is a confirmation that a person was elsewhere at the time concerned. 'Alibi' = Latin, literally ‘elsewhere’.

Why are people using the term to mean something different? Did I miss yet another triumphant act of logocide?

M.

People try and come up with an alibi all the time when they are guilty of a crime do they not ? So lech saying he heard footsteps scurrying away would immediately mean he was setting up a kind of alibi. he did not . His silence speaks volumes . See no evil etc , for your Latin -audivimus non loqui malum nec malum nec malum videre.
PS Hope my spelling is OK these days

[FrankO]

No, sorry, that was Dusty. But you replied to his post and didn’t challenge it. Do you think it’s accurate to say he ‘sought out a policeman’ or that in company with Paul he came across one?

Paul said they agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they'd meet, so, yes, "to seek out" is more active than "meet" and, therefore, more accurate if you're purely looking at the significance of the words.

[FrankO]

what?! tabram (and yes, I count her as a ripper victim) was seen with a soldier-both Pearly Poll and another cop actually coroberate that. Kelly was seen with blotchy, aman and we have hutch who himself admits he was hanging around.

Hi Abby,

What I said is that they weren’t seen either with anybody in the last hour or so before they were murdered. Maybe that's what you missed, Abby.

to me seems like theres quite a few people always up and about- but no suspects seen with nichols- except lech. so yes again I find that somewhat odd.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't find it a bit odd - you're perfectly entitled to do so - just that I don't, for the reason I've given.

[rjpalmer]

So if she’d been raped or assaulted and robbed what Lechmere had possibly seen wouldn’t have been relevant? Is that really what you’re saying RJ?

You discover a woman lying unconscious or dead in the street and before you reach her you see a man making a hasty departure from the scene. The man’s departure is of no significance to you or a passing PC until it’s determined that the woman was murdered?

You seem to be arguing from the perspective of hindsight, Gary. You referred to what CAL didn't report to PC Mizen.

When meeting up with Mizen, CAL, if innocent, didn't know that Polly had been raped, assaulted, or robbed. She may have been simply drunk. And CAL certainly didn't see any man "making a hasty departure" from Buck's Row.


So why on earth would CAL have felt the need to mention to Mizen the man he had not seen, involving a crime that he did not yet know had occurred?

Whether guilty or innocent, why mention any of that, since CAL hadn't seen anyone fleeing the scene and was ostensibly still ignorant to the fact that Polly had her throat cut?

People seem to be trying to glean some meaning from the non-disclosures of a man who didn't yet know what had happened.