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

[MrBarnett]

>>So who is claiming he had a split personality, is
that something I missed?<<

What an odd thing to write when it was you, who implied it!

Post #471
Originally posted by John Wheat -Ridiculous. There is zero evidence Lechmere killed anyone let alone had a split personality.

Mr Barnett - Yeah, it’s not like he used two names or anything.

Was Aethelwulf responding to my comment or to John Wheat’s misunderstanding of Abby’s post?

[MrBarnett]

So what either name is so easily traceable it is a non issue.

What has the name’s traceability got to do with anything? He used two names, and that could be evidence of a split personality. Which, despite Dusty’s spin to the contrary, is not me saying he had a split personality. But it’s an interesting idea, so thanks for misunderstanding Abby’s post, John, and thanks Aethewulf for compounding the misunderstanding.

But thanks most of all to Dusty (the man with at least two names) for his lame attempt at point scoring.

I had always believed the use of the name Cross was an attempt to conceal something, but perhaps there was more to it than that.

[drstrange169]

>>that could be evidence of a split personality<<

But that's

>> not me saying he had a split personality<<

However

>>>But it’s an interesting idea ... perhaps there was more to it <<<

No point scoring, just genuine confusion at what you are trying to post.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Michael Ostrog must be deemed Num 1 suspect to be Jack then with the multiple aliases he used

[John Wheat]

What has the name’s traceability got to do with anything? He used two names, and that could be evidence of a split personality. Which, despite Dusty’s spin to the contrary, is not me saying he had a split personality. But it’s an interesting idea, so thanks for misunderstanding Abby’s post, John, and thanks Aethewulf for compounding the misunderstanding.

But thanks most of all to Dusty (the man with at least two names) for his lame attempt at point scoring.

I had always believed the use of the name Cross was an attempt to conceal something, but perhaps there was more to it than that.

It wasn't Abby that suggested Lechmere had a split personality. The name Cross could so easily be traced back to Lechmere so the point is why use that name if Lechmere was up to something sinister?

[FrankO]

hi frank
thanks. all the other victims we have various sightings of potential suspects. none with polly. i do find that a bit odd.

Hi Abby,

I think there are other things that might be found a bit odd, whether you’re looking at things with a guilty or innocent Lechmere in mind, but this isn’t one for me, at least. I mean, Tabram (if you count her as a Ripper victim) and Kelly weren’t seen either with anybody in the last hour or so before they were murdered and the Nichols inquest, just like all the others except Stride’s, produced not even a handful of witnesses that were up & about around the time of the murder. To me, it just means that there were very few people up and about when/where they were all killed, except in Stride’s case.

Cheers,
Frank

[MrBarnett]

It wasn't Abby that suggested Lechmere had a split personality. The name Cross could so easily be traced back to Lechmere so the point is why use that name if Lechmere was up to something sinister?

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.

[MrBarnett]

>>that could be evidence of a split personality<<

But that's

>> not me saying he had a split personality<<

However

>>>But it’s an interesting idea ... perhaps there was more to it <<<

No point scoring, just genuine confusion at what you are trying to post.

Let’s make it easy for you.

There is zero evidence Lechmere…had a split personality.

Well perhaps there is, because using two names might be evidence of a split personality. So saying unequivocally that there isn’t is merely an opinion that chooses to ignore inconvenient evidence.

Why is it that you hold ‘Lechmerians’ to a higher standard than ‘antis’? Could it be bias?

[FrankO]

Three questions about Lechmere finding the body;

Why did he stay, why did he seek out a policeman and given the chance to alibi himself, why did he say he didn't see or hear anyone?

If he's innocent, these questions need no answers. If he's guilty, explanations need to be manufactured.

I especially wonder about the last of the 3 questions, Dusty.

[MrBarnett]

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’.

[MrBarnett]

I especially wonder about the last of the 3 questions, Dusty.

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

[MrBarnett]

I especially wonder about the last of the 3 questions, Dusty.

‘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?

[Mark J D]

‘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?

-- Or, to put it another way, which statement is going to have plod refusing to let go of the bone you have just obligingly given him to chew on...?

"You said 'standing over her'. Did he seem tall to you? Was he thin or fat? Earlier, you seemed to think he had a hat -- but now you don't? Did he run fast, like a healthy person, or with difficulty? Did you see which way he turned at the end of the road? Tell us again about that hat you may have seen. Did you get an impression of his age? Did he turn to look at you as you approached? Did you see his face at all? You must have been able to see his silhouette at least. Did you see a long coat? Did he make a noise as he ran? Let's go back to how tall he was. Can you estimate his height? You are sure it was a man, rather than another woman?"

By contrast, simply saying 'I didn't see a soul...' shuts everything down right away, and you have nothing to remember...

"Thank you for your time, sir. Sorry to have troubled you."

M.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Let’s make it easy for you.

There is zero evidence Lechmere…had a split personality.

Well perhaps there is, because using two names might be evidence of a split personality. So saying unequivocally that there isn’t is merely an opinion that chooses to ignore inconvenient evidence.

Why is it that you hold ‘Lechmerians’ to a higher standard than ‘antis’? Could it be bias?

Except that the police would want to clear things up as you say yourself in a previous post Gary. Which to my mind means at the very least they would have dispatched a police officer to Pickfords to check they had an employee who started work at 6 am on the morning of Polly's murder with the surname Cross.

Regards Darryl

[MrBarnett]

-- Or, to put it another way, which statement is going to have plod refusing to let go of the bone you have just obligingly given him to chew on...?

"You said 'standing over her'. Did he seem tall to you? Was he thin or fat? Earlier, you seemed to think he had a hat -- but now you don't? Did he run fast, like a healthy person, or with difficulty? Did you see which way he turned at the end of the road? Tell us again about that hat you may have seen. Did you get an impression of his age? Did he turn to look at you as you approached? Did you see his face at all? You must have been able to see his silhouette at least. Did you see a long coat? Did he make a noise as he ran? Let's go back to how tall he was. Can you estimate his height? You are sure it was a man, rather than another woman?"

By contrast, simply saying 'I didn't see a soul...' shuts everything down right away, and you have nothing to remember...

"Thank you for your time, sir. Sorry to have troubled you."

M.

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.

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