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

[Fisherman]

Maybe you should change the title to read "How to duck and dive and avoid awkward questions"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why would you write something like this after I have, step by step, answered each and every one of the questions you asked in your former post? How does that mind of yours work, Trevor?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

You say,

‘It would be suspicious if he gave a name he was not lawfully able to use but you dont know what name he worked under do you?’

What was the law at the time in respect of names given under oath?

It seems it was common for those using alternative names in their day-to-day lives to refer to both names when giving evidence in court. Do you imagine this didn’t occur to Lechmere?


Gary

Hi Gary
As you say we dont know what name he was employed as and the name he gave at the inquest and presumably in his [police statement clearly did not raise any supsicion wby the police at the time he gave his statement, or when he appeared at the inquest. So a proper inference must be drawn that his actions were not suspicious or done with any intent to mislead or deceive.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would you write something like this after I have, step by step, answered each and every one of the questions you asked in your former post? How does that mind of yours work, Trevor?

My mind works as an investigator with 40 years experience behind me. I wont ask how yours works because it is plain to see to one and all. You have invented this Cross as the killer of Nicholls scenario and him being the Ripper, Not with standing your misguided belief that the Ripper also murdered and dismemebered the torsos and according to you that was all down to Cross as well. PRICELESS

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

So, here we go again. This time I will answer in green, Trevor.

Christer
Lets look at what you seek to rely on to build a case against Cross

1. Cross finds the body on his way to work, he gets up at the same time every morning and travels the same way to work. He probably clocks in or signs in, so all of his movements could and presumably were later confirmed by the police, so nothing untowards there and nothing to show he shouldnt have been in that location at that time. So at this point are there any grounds for suspicion against him?

To begin with, the one thing the police could possibly have confirmed was the arrival at Pickfords. It is not as if they could confirm when Lechmere got up and when he started out for work, is it? And there are grounds for suspicion in combination with his morning trek and his "finding" Nichols, but they are certainly not linked to his arrival time at Pickfords!

Well it could be confirmed what time he clocked in, then it could be confirmed with his wife what time he got up for work and left the house on a daily basis, can you prove the police did not pursue those lines of enquiry?

Once again, the one thing the police could possibly have proven was when he arrived at Pickfords on that day, accepting that there were people who noted it. If he went to work with his family still asleep, there could be no checking when he left. The thing is we simply donīt know, and therefore it cannot be claimed that this was a factor the police were aware of. As you may be aware of yourself the police called him "Cross" as late as the 19:th of October, and that very clearly implicates that no investigation into his person had taken place, so the very obvious suggestion becomes that the police never spoke to his wife at all. Whether they spoke to his employer is open to question too. In essence, therefore, the point you tried to make is effectively nullified.

2. Now you say he was the killer and when he heard Paul coming down he road, he made a decision to front it out by making an excuse of just finding the body. But this wasnt an excuse because he had just found the body. You have clearly invented a scenario to show he decided to front it out.

Iīm afraid you cannot know that he had found the body instead of having killed Nichols. That is only an alternative scenario, nothing else, and it does not detract in any way from the possibility that he lied. Itīs just your suggestion, and your suggestions are not worth much in my book. Sorry.

But you cannot prove he lied can you, and you have invented the scenario of him fronting out to make him a suspect

I have SUGGESTED that he is the killer, just as you have SUGGESTED that Feigenbaum is. That is what a theory does, it SUGGESTS things. If you want to speak of inventing things, then get prepared for being pointed out as having invented the idea that Feigenbaum was in Britain when the canonicals died.
My theory leans to an extent against how Lechmere WAS in Britain when Nichols died. Not only that, he was in London. Not only that, he was in the East End. Not only that, he was in Bucks Row. Not only that, he was there, alongside Nichols, at the approximate time when she died. Alone, to begin with. And that is neither a suggestion nor an invention, it is a fact. And I did not make him a suspect, he took care of that himself by being in that position and by disagreeing with the police and by having logical routes to work that corresponded with the ensuing murders and so on. It is not something I suggest, it is facts. What I suggest is that these facts implicate him as the killer, and frankly, no other suggestion has had as much going for it as that suggestion when it comes to naming the probable killer. Feigenbaum is not a strong number second, by the way.

If he had been the killer he would have had the opportuntiy to make good his escape without being seen as soon as he heard footsteps coming towards him because it was still dark at that time. The scenario you have invented doesnt stand up to close scrutiny

Yes, he would have been able to run, but you see,Trevor, the thing is we donīt know if he wanted to run. It carries risks, you know, and as you may remember, Andy Griffiths ( a really good policeman) was of a polar opposite meaning to yours. He said that Lechmere would NOT run in the situation he was in. Of course, it would be nice if we were always better judges than others, but that is not the case. Least of all when it comes to you.

Opinions, ripperology is built on opinions I am sure if you surveyed 100 people asking the question what would they do, I doubt you would have many takers for staying and fronting it out especiall when Cross hed the time and the opportunity to run away.

I donīt care what you doubt and what you believe. It is obvious that you even doubt that the police should take an interest in people who disagree with them and who use aliases, for example, and so your judgment does not have the kind of quality required to make a fair assessment of things. Just like you say, though, ripperology is built on opinions. And once you find I hold an opinion that cannot correspond with the truth, you are welcome to challenge it. Before that, Iīm afraid all you can do is lament the fact that I disagree with you. Thatīs all.

3. He doesnt come forward immediatley but does subsequently go to the police and make a statement. If he had have been the killer why would he have come forward after all it seems that he had not given his name or work details to either Paul or any police officer at the time, and what was there for the police to suspect him? Paul was also tracked down and gave a statement.

Lechmere only came forward after he had been outed by Paul. If you do not see the possible relevance of that, itīs your problem, not mine. There were numerous inclusions in his story that should make the police suspect him, a disagreement with Mizen over what was said, a departing time that should have seen him way down Hanbury Street when he was still in Bucks Row etcetera.

But you cannot prove that he was ever a police suspect, do you not think the police did not bother to check his movements they were in a better position then than you are now. But you cannot prove the exact time he left his house. So for you to say by reason of his timings he should hav been further towards his work place in misleading.

Some passages further up, you eagerly claimed that the police would have been able to check the time he left his house. Now you tell me that I cannot prove when he did so. Thatīs Sterling work even by your standards! What I AM saying in this context is that Lechmere said that he left home at 3.30 on the murder morning. He apparently also mentioned 3.20, but as he said he was late, the logical explanation becomes one where he said that he NORMALLY left at 3.20, but that he was late that morning and left at 3.30. Iīm sure you can see how that works. Regardless of which time we check against, he should have been way out of Bucks Row at 3.45 and even at 3.40. If he left at another time than the one he suggested, itīs another matter, but we can only check against the given times.
We know that the police always called him Cross. That is quite, quite enough to suggest that they never checked him out.

4. However, having come forward and made a statement. You make a great play on the name he gave in the statement as Charles Cross. What cannot conclusivley be proved is why he gave that name, and at the same time gave his correct address, and his place of work, and it seems we do not know under what name he was registered with Pickfords, But you still make a great play of this name difference. But both names were technically his to use, without the suggestion that he was deleiberately trying to hide his identity. If he had have been the killer he would not have provided Pc Mizen or Paul with sufficient detail about himself for him to be traced.

And indeed, he didnīt give Paul or Mizen any such information. The fact that he used Cross is and remains an anomaly, and anomalies are what - talented - policemen look for.

But any anomaly would have been identified by the police back then they were on the spot they had access to all the facts and evidence, why do you think you have carried out an investigation much better than the whole Met Police force in 1888?

Thatīs convenient! "They would have checked him out thoroughly, and they could not possibly have missed him" And "why do you think you are better than the contemporary police?"
Why do YOU think YOU are better than them, identifying Feigenbaum as the killer? Hm?
I think that I am better suited to find the killer than the police were back then for a number of reasons, actually. I do not believe in criminal anthropology, for example, the way they did to a large extent. I arguably am much less prejudiced than they were. I am checking Lechmere against the full tally of murders in retrospect, something that they very likely never did. I have much greater insights about serial murder than they did. For starters. Plus, of course, we know that history is full of cases that have been cleared up in retrospect, sometimes by latter-day colleagues to the policemen who originally made an investigation and failed, other times by people outside the police ranks. Apparently it can be done, Trevor. So why does my trying make me wrong?

5. You also make great play of the fact that all the murders were in the same location and Cross would have had easy access to those locations on his way to work or to visit a relative who you mention. But of course do you need reminding that Chapman Stride and Eddowes were murdered on weekend dates when Cross would not have been working, and Tabrams body was found at 4.45am and was seen as early as 3.30am long before Cross was up and about for work.

Chapman was murdered on a working morning, Iīm afraid. And Stride and Eddowes were not killed in sync with his morning work trek times. Maybe you do not see how it fits with him returning to where he had spent most of his life on that Sunday, but I do. If Stride and Eddowes had been killed at 1.00 AM and 1.45 AM on a working day morning, it would have been out of sync with the theory. The same goes for if Nichols, Chapman and Kelly had been killed at 1.00 or 1.45 on working day mornings. But for some reason, they ALL fit the expected working schedule/day off. Itīs totally and utterly lost on you, but not on me.
You are also welcome to tell me how you know that Lechmere could not have been in George Yard at an hour earlier than 3.30. Are you saying that he must always have left home at 3.20-3.30? Taking bhis word for it, as it were? If so, think again (or for the first time). There is every possibility that he left earlier on days when he sought for victims. Killers are actually sometimes liars.

Because if the police had any suspicion against him they would have gone back and checked his work record as well as asking his wife if he ever went out in the dead of night to go supposedly to work on his days off

They would have checked his name too, while they were at it.
But if they did NOT have suspicions against him? And, to do a Marriott: You cannot prove that they did, can you?

The murders all happened very close to one another, so it's no coincidence at all that they also happened within easy walking distance of where most witnesses you care to name would either have lived, lodged or worked. On top of that, literally thousands of potential witnesses could have been walking the same teeming streets as the killer while he was active, so it is wrongto use this against Cross when it could so easily have been Paul, or PC Neil, or someone else entirely who reached that part of Buck's Row first and found a body there.

The odds for another killer coincidentally choosing to strike on streets that were logical working trek routes for Lechmere, and at times that corresponded with that working trek, are astronomical, Trevor. Similarly, if we have a suspect for murder 1 (Nichols), who then proceeds to have all the other canonical murders perpetrated along his working trek at roughly his working trek hours, and who has the remaining two murders perpetrated at earlier times on his night off, and in the exact quarters where he used to live for twenty-odd years as well as along his old working trek route, then we have one of criminal historyīs most confounding set of coincidences - or very clear evidence of who the killer was. As an ex-copper, one would expect you to understand all of this (or at least some of it), but instead you actively propagate against all sense AND common police procedure and thinking. It is farcical.

But the exact times of all the murders cannot be ascertained, anyone could have walked the streets where the murders took place, they were areas not just limited to him. Again one simple question to his wife did he ever go out on his own on his nights off, and if he did did he come home late?

I am not ascertaining the exact times. I am saying that they roughly agree with Lechmere being the killer. If you can prove that he passed 29 Hanbury Street ten minutes before Chapman was there, then do so. If not, the timings roughly agree with Lechmere being the killer. End of story.
Once more, he was seemingly not looked into, so the wife argument - as always - falls flat to the ground. And the "anyone could have walked those streets"-argument fails to recognize that "not anyone was found with the body of Nichols". A crafty policeman does not start his investigation by looking at all Eastenders who COULD have walked these streets by wayof having two good legs, he identifies a suspect and checks him against the streets.
Does that ring a bell with you, officer?

All in order Cross`s suspect status if poorly deserved, you have simply created a suspect out of nothing more than wild speculation.

Since when is it "wild speculation" to check out people who are found at a murder scene at a time that is consistent with having killed them?

There is nothing wrong in checking out people, but what is wrong is to make somone a suspect without having any evidence other than wild speculation on your part

See my former post, and explain why the points I listed are wild speculation, please. Once you have cleared that hurdle, explain to all of us why it is NOT wild speculation to name Feigenbaum the killer - a man who you cannot even prove was in Britain at the times of the killings!
Do you even understand what wild speculation is? Silly question, of course you donīt.

Since when is it "wild speculation" to check the logical routes of such a suspect?

Well it is not in doubt about which route he took to work on a daily basis is it? So what is there to check? Can you prove he ever changed his route to work?

I can prove that the two by far quickest routes to work were the Hanbury Street trail and the Old Montague Street trail. That makes them the logical choices, based on the logic that people normally donīt make detours when going to work. If you can prove that Lechmere was an exception to that rule, then be my guest and go ahead and do so.

Since when is it "wild speculation" to say that it is suspicious if ALL the other murders in a series can be logically linked to the suspect?

There is no logic in your linking, his route to work is a route many others could have taken there is nothing that makes his journey to work supsicious, it is you creating suspicion when there is none to create

See the above, and make an effort to understand it. He was at the murder site at a time that is consistent with him being the killer. He was alone with the victim for an unestablished period of time. He disagreed with the police over what was said, and the version Mizen gave was one that seemed tailor-made to take Lechmere past the police. His logical routes to work corresponded with numerous murder spots at roughly the relevant times.
If that is not enough to create suspicion, than nothing is.

Since when is it "wild speculation" to reason that it is suspicious when a man does not give the name he otherwise ALWAYS gives to the authorities once he is caught up in a case of violent murder?

It would be suspicious if he gave a name he was not lawfully able to use but you dont know what name he worked under do you?

Please read Mr Barnetts excellent and effective debunking of your "thinking", Trevor. See and learn.

Since when is it "wild speculation" to say that a suspect who disagrees with the police over what was said on a murder night in a manner that suggests that the suspect tried to circumnavigate the police is worthy of suspicion?

All evidence is there to be challenged, Can you prove the police officer made notes at the time or was it later when got back to the station when his memory might have been hard to recall exacty verabatim what was said.

I canīt even prove that Mizen had not decided on that morning to try and frame an innocent person, regardless of who, for murder. Or that Mizen was not on drugs. Maybe Mizen disliked his looks and wanted to give him hell?
The thing is, though, all we can say is that Mizen stated that Lechmere had spoken of another policeman at the scene. And since we normally understand what we are told and do not misconstruct or forget it, the likelihood is that Charles Lechmere told Mizen that another policeman was in place in Bucks Row.
And to boot, that is not the only thing where Mizen was supposedly given information that lends itself to pointing a finger at Lechmere.
Mizen was not told that Lechmere himself was the finder of the body.
Mizen was not told that the woman was possibly dead.
Maybe he misheard these things too? Maybe he should never have walked the streets without a hearing aid?
Of course, Trevor, I cannot prove that Mizen was told what he said he was told. And that is the one lifeline you have here. But that lifeline does not save Lechmere from suspicion - and a very relevant suspicion too!

To claim that these things are "wild speculation" is in itself stupid speculation. Estupido. Whacky. Korkat.

And very obviously endlessly flawed.

The only flaws are the ones pointed out to you but you are so blinkered and immersed in your own misguided theory that you cannot see them

Generic bullshit ā la Trevor.

I donīt think I will postpone the book after all, Trevor. Nor do I think that I will seek your advice about how to write it.

Thereīs your answer to that post. Maybe you should not have asked for it...?
Maybe you should have not replied as your replies only highlight the fact that your theory is based on wild speculation and lacking in evidential facts which might point to him being a suspect

I think we should leave it to the readers of these posts to say who is lacking in evidence and who is wildly speculating. I am fine with that. You should be much less fine with it.

[Fisherman]

The evidence that suggests Cross was innocent was given by Cross himself,and that evidence,unless it can be proven to be false evidence,and it hasn't been,is more convincing than any maybe's or could be's.Nothing in the form of evidence of any kind,has shown that Cross was in the company of Nicholl's when she was killed.

Thatīs an economic way of looking at things: If somebody says he didnīt do it, then letīs believe him.

Next, please.

[Fisherman]

Of course he wasn’t.

On his father’s side he was recently descended from Herefordshire gentry, the Lechmeres of Fownhope. His mother was the daughter of a butler to the Clive family of the same county, who had been born and brought up in a lodge on the Clive family’s estate. His stepfather, or rather his mother’s bigamous husband, Thomas Cross, was a Met police officer.

Come on! - even if he had been known as Cross at work, the man knew it was appropriate to give his ‘real’ name to officialdom. But he didn’t when he appeared as a witness at the Nichols inquest and there must have been a reason for him not doing so.

Did he temporarily forget his real name was Lechmere? Highly unlikely.

Did it not occur to him that when giving evidence under oath in a coroner’s court he should mention that his real name was Lechmere? Highly unlikely.

Did he consciously decide not to disclose the name Lechmere? Highly likely, I’d say.

But you canīt prove it. YOU CANīT PROVE IT!!!

[Fisherman]

My mind works as an investigator with 40 years experience behind me. I wont ask how yours works because it is plain to see to one and all. You have invented this Cross as the killer of Nicholls scenario and him being the Ripper, Not with standing your misguided belief that the Ripper also murdered and dismemebered the torsos and according to you that was all down to Cross as well. PRICELESS

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But if you have forty years of experience of asking questions, then why do you claim that I am ducking your questions after I have answered them all, one by one? That is what I am curious of.

[Fisherman]

Hi Gary
As you say we dont know what name he was employed as and the name he gave at the inquest and presumably in his [police statement clearly did not raise any supsicion wby the police at the time he gave his statement, or when he appeared at the inquest. So a proper inference must be drawn that his actions were not suspicious or done with any intent to mislead or deceive.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Aha - so when somebody gives an alias and nobody picks up on it, we must conclude that there was no intent to mislead? Is that correct?

[Trevor Marriott]

So, here we go again. This time I will answer in green, Trevor.

Christer
Lets look at what you seek to rely on to build a case against Cross

1. Cross finds the body on his way to work, he gets up at the same time every morning and travels the same way to work. He probably clocks in or signs in, so all of his movements could and presumably were later confirmed by the police, so nothing untowards there and nothing to show he shouldnt have been in that location at that time. So at this point are there any grounds for suspicion against him?

To begin with, the one thing the police could possibly have confirmed was the arrival at Pickfords. It is not as if they could confirm when Lechmere got up and when he started out for work, is it? And there are grounds for suspicion in combination with his morning trek and his "finding" Nichols, but they are certainly not linked to his arrival time at Pickfords!

Well it could be confirmed what time he clocked in, then it could be confirmed with his wife what time he got up for work and left the house on a daily basis, can you prove the police did not pursue those lines of enquiry?

Once again, the one thing the police could possibly have proven was when he arrived at Pickfords on that day, accepting that there were people who noted it. If he went to work with his family still asleep, there could be no checking when he left. The thing is we simply donīt know, and therefore it cannot be claimed that this was a factor the police were aware of. As you may be aware of yourself the police called him "Cross" as late as the 19:th of October, and that very clearly implicates that no investigation into his person had taken place, so the very obvious suggestion becomes that the police never spoke to his wife at all. Whether they spoke to his employer is open to question too. In essence, therefore, the point you tried to make is effectively nullified.

2. Now you say he was the killer and when he heard Paul coming down he road, he made a decision to front it out by making an excuse of just finding the body. But this wasnt an excuse because he had just found the body. You have clearly invented a scenario to show he decided to front it out.

Iīm afraid you cannot know that he had found the body instead of having killed Nichols. That is only an alternative scenario, nothing else, and it does not detract in any way from the possibility that he lied. Itīs just your suggestion, and your suggestions are not worth much in my book. Sorry.

But you cannot prove he lied can you, and you have invented the scenario of him fronting out to make him a suspect

I have SUGGESTED that he is the killer, just as you have SUGGESTED that Feigenbaum is. That is what a theory does, it SUGGESTS things. If you want to speak of inventing things, then get prepared for being pointed out as having invented the idea that Feigenbaum was in Britain when the canonicals died.
My theory leans to an extent against how Lechmere WAS in Britain when Nichols died. Not only that, he was in London. Not only that, he was in the East End. Not only that, he was in Bucks Row. Not only that, he was there, alongside Nichols, at the approximate time when she died. Alone, to begin with. And that is neither a suggestion nor an invention, it is a fact. And I did not make him a suspect, he took care of that himself by being in that position and by disagreeing with the police and by having logical routes to work that corresponded with the ensuing murders and so on. It is not something I suggest, it is facts. What I suggest is that these facts implicate him as the killer, and frankly, no other suggestion has had as much going for it as that suggestion when it comes to naming the probable killer. Feigenbaum is not a strong number second, by the way.

If he had been the killer he would have had the opportuntiy to make good his escape without being seen as soon as he heard footsteps coming towards him because it was still dark at that time. The scenario you have invented doesnt stand up to close scrutiny

Yes, he would have been able to run, but you see,Trevor, the thing is we donīt know if he wanted to run. It carries risks, you know, and as you may remember, Andy Griffiths ( a really good policeman) was of a polar opposite meaning to yours. He said that Lechmere would NOT run in the situation he was in. Of course, it would be nice if we were always better judges than others, but that is not the case. Least of all when it comes to you.

Opinions, ripperology is built on opinions I am sure if you surveyed 100 people asking the question what would they do, I doubt you would have many takers for staying and fronting it out especiall when Cross hed the time and the opportunity to run away.

I donīt care what you doubt and what you believe. It is obvious that you even doubt that the police should take an interest in people who disagree with them and who use aliases, for example, and so your judgment does not have the kind of quality required to make a fair assessment of things. Just like you say, though, ripperology is built on opinions. And once you find I hold an opinion that cannot correspond with the truth, you are welcome to challenge it. Before that, Iīm afraid all you can do is lament the fact that I disagree with you. Thatīs all.

3. He doesnt come forward immediatley but does subsequently go to the police and make a statement. If he had have been the killer why would he have come forward after all it seems that he had not given his name or work details to either Paul or any police officer at the time, and what was there for the police to suspect him? Paul was also tracked down and gave a statement.

Lechmere only came forward after he had been outed by Paul. If you do not see the possible relevance of that, itīs your problem, not mine. There were numerous inclusions in his story that should make the police suspect him, a disagreement with Mizen over what was said, a departing time that should have seen him way down Hanbury Street when he was still in Bucks Row etcetera.

But you cannot prove that he was ever a police suspect, do you not think the police did not bother to check his movements they were in a better position then than you are now. But you cannot prove the exact time he left his house. So for you to say by reason of his timings he should hav been further towards his work place in misleading.

Some passages further up, you eagerly claimed that the police would have been able to check the time he left his house. Now you tell me that I cannot prove when he did so. Thatīs Sterling work even by your standards! What I AM saying in this context is that Lechmere said that he left home at 3.30 on the murder morning. He apparently also mentioned 3.20, but as he said he was late, the logical explanation becomes one where he said that he NORMALLY left at 3.20, but that he was late that morning and left at 3.30. Iīm sure you can see how that works. Regardless of which time we check against, he should have been way out of Bucks Row at 3.45 and even at 3.40. If he left at another time than the one he suggested, itīs another matter, but we can only check against the given times.
We know that the police always called him Cross. That is quite, quite enough to suggest that they never checked him out.

4. However, having come forward and made a statement. You make a great play on the name he gave in the statement as Charles Cross. What cannot conclusivley be proved is why he gave that name, and at the same time gave his correct address, and his place of work, and it seems we do not know under what name he was registered with Pickfords, But you still make a great play of this name difference. But both names were technically his to use, without the suggestion that he was deleiberately trying to hide his identity. If he had have been the killer he would not have provided Pc Mizen or Paul with sufficient detail about himself for him to be traced.

And indeed, he didnīt give Paul or Mizen any such information. The fact that he used Cross is and remains an anomaly, and anomalies are what - talented - policemen look for.

But any anomaly would have been identified by the police back then they were on the spot they had access to all the facts and evidence, why do you think you have carried out an investigation much better than the whole Met Police force in 1888?

Thatīs convenient! "They would have checked him out thoroughly, and they could not possibly have missed him" And "why do you think you are better than the contemporary police?"
Why do YOU think YOU are better than them, identifying Feigenbaum as the killer? Hm?
I think that I am better suited to find the killer than the police were back then for a number of reasons, actually. I do not believe in criminal anthropology, for example, the way they did to a large extent. I arguably am much less prejudiced than they were. I am checking Lechmere against the full tally of murders in retrospect, something that they very likely never did. I have much greater insights about serial murder than they did. For starters. Plus, of course, we know that history is full of cases that have been cleared up in retrospect, sometimes by latter-day colleagues to the policemen who originally made an investigation and failed, other times by people outside the police ranks. Apparently it can be done, Trevor. So why does my trying make me wrong?

5. You also make great play of the fact that all the murders were in the same location and Cross would have had easy access to those locations on his way to work or to visit a relative who you mention. But of course do you need reminding that Chapman Stride and Eddowes were murdered on weekend dates when Cross would not have been working, and Tabrams body was found at 4.45am and was seen as early as 3.30am long before Cross was up and about for work.

Chapman was murdered on a working morning, Iīm afraid. And Stride and Eddowes were not killed in sync with his morning work trek times. Maybe you do not see how it fits with him returning to where he had spent most of his life on that Sunday, but I do. If Stride and Eddowes had been killed at 1.00 AM and 1.45 AM on a working day morning, it would have been out of sync with the theory. The same goes for if Nichols, Chapman and Kelly had been killed at 1.00 or 1.45 on working day mornings. But for some reason, they ALL fit the expected working schedule/day off. Itīs totally and utterly lost on you, but not on me.
You are also welcome to tell me how you know that Lechmere could not have been in George Yard at an hour earlier than 3.30. Are you saying that he must always have left home at 3.20-3.30? Taking bhis word for it, as it were? If so, think again (or for the first time). There is every possibility that he left earlier on days when he sought for victims. Killers are actually sometimes liars.

Because if the police had any suspicion against him they would have gone back and checked his work record as well as asking his wife if he ever went out in the dead of night to go supposedly to work on his days off

They would have checked his name too, while they were at it.
But if they did NOT have suspicions against him? And, to do a Marriott: You cannot prove that they did, can you?

The murders all happened very close to one another, so it's no coincidence at all that they also happened within easy walking distance of where most witnesses you care to name would either have lived, lodged or worked. On top of that, literally thousands of potential witnesses could have been walking the same teeming streets as the killer while he was active, so it is wrongto use this against Cross when it could so easily have been Paul, or PC Neil, or someone else entirely who reached that part of Buck's Row first and found a body there.

The odds for another killer coincidentally choosing to strike on streets that were logical working trek routes for Lechmere, and at times that corresponded with that working trek, are astronomical, Trevor. Similarly, if we have a suspect for murder 1 (Nichols), who then proceeds to have all the other canonical murders perpetrated along his working trek at roughly his working trek hours, and who has the remaining two murders perpetrated at earlier times on his night off, and in the exact quarters where he used to live for twenty-odd years as well as along his old working trek route, then we have one of criminal historyīs most confounding set of coincidences - or very clear evidence of who the killer was. As an ex-copper, one would expect you to understand all of this (or at least some of it), but instead you actively propagate against all sense AND common police procedure and thinking. It is farcical.

But the exact times of all the murders cannot be ascertained, anyone could have walked the streets where the murders took place, they were areas not just limited to him. Again one simple question to his wife did he ever go out on his own on his nights off, and if he did did he come home late?

I am not ascertaining the exact times. I am saying that they roughly agree with Lechmere being the killer. If you can prove that he passed 29 Hanbury Street ten minutes before Chapman was there, then do so. If not, the timings roughly agree with Lechmere being the killer. End of story.
Once more, he was seemingly not looked into, so the wife argument - as always - falls flat to the ground. And the "anyone could have walked those streets"-argument fails to recognize that "not anyone was found with the body of Nichols". A crafty policeman does not start his investigation by looking at all Eastenders who COULD have walked these streets by wayof having two good legs, he identifies a suspect and checks him against the streets.
Does that ring a bell with you, officer?

All in order Cross`s suspect status if poorly deserved, you have simply created a suspect out of nothing more than wild speculation.

Since when is it "wild speculation" to check out people who are found at a murder scene at a time that is consistent with having killed them?

There is nothing wrong in checking out people, but what is wrong is to make somone a suspect without having any evidence other than wild speculation on your part

See my former post, and explain why the points I listed are wild speculation, please. Once you have cleared that hurdle, explain to all of us why it is NOT wild speculation to name Feigenbaum the killer - a man who you cannot even prove was in Britain at the times of the killings!
Do you even understand what wild speculation is? Silly question, of course you donīt.

Since when is it "wild speculation" to check the logical routes of such a suspect?

Well it is not in doubt about which route he took to work on a daily basis is it? So what is there to check? Can you prove he ever changed his route to work?

I can prove that the two by far quickest routes to work were the Hanbury Street trail and the Old Montague Street trail. That makes them the logical choices, based on the logic that people normally donīt make detours when going to work. If you can prove that Lechmere was an exception to that rule, then be my guest and go ahead and do so.

Since when is it "wild speculation" to say that it is suspicious if ALL the other murders in a series can be logically linked to the suspect?

There is no logic in your linking, his route to work is a route many others could have taken there is nothing that makes his journey to work supsicious, it is you creating suspicion when there is none to create

See the above, and make an effort to understand it. He was at the murder site at a time that is consistent with him being the killer. He was alone with the victim for an unestablished period of time. He disagreed with the police over what was said, and the version Mizen gave was one that seemed tailor-made to take Lechmere past the police. His logical routes to work corresponded with numerous murder spots at roughly the relevant times.
If that is not enough to create suspicion, than nothing is.

Since when is it "wild speculation" to reason that it is suspicious when a man does not give the name he otherwise ALWAYS gives to the authorities once he is caught up in a case of violent murder?

It would be suspicious if he gave a name he was not lawfully able to use but you dont know what name he worked under do you?

Please read Mr Barnetts excellent and effective debunking of your "thinking", Trevor. See and learn.

Since when is it "wild speculation" to say that a suspect who disagrees with the police over what was said on a murder night in a manner that suggests that the suspect tried to circumnavigate the police is worthy of suspicion?

All evidence is there to be challenged, Can you prove the police officer made notes at the time or was it later when got back to the station when his memory might have been hard to recall exacty verabatim what was said.

I canīt even prove that Mizen had not decided on that morning to try and frame an innocent person, regardless of who, for murder. Or that Mizen was not on drugs. Maybe Mizen disliked his looks and wanted to give him hell?
The thing is, though, all we can say is that Mizen stated that Lechmere had spoken of another policeman at the scene. And since we normally understand what we are told and do not misconstruct or forget it, the likelihood is that Charles Lechmere told Mizen that another policeman was in place in Bucks Row.
And to boot, that is not the only thing where Mizen was supposedly given information that lends itself to pointing a finger at Lechmere.
Mizen was not told that Lechmere himself was the finder of the body.
Mizen was not told that the woman was possibly dead.
Maybe he misheard these things too? Maybe he should never have walked the streets without a hearing aid?
Of course, Trevor, I cannot prove that Mizen was told what he said he was told. And that is the one lifeline you have here. But that lifeline does not save Lechmere from suspicion - and a very relevant suspicion too!

To claim that these things are "wild speculation" is in itself stupid speculation. Estupido. Whacky. Korkat.

And very obviously endlessly flawed.

The only flaws are the ones pointed out to you but you are so blinkered and immersed in your own misguided theory that you cannot see them

Generic bullshit ā la Trevor.

I donīt think I will postpone the book after all, Trevor. Nor do I think that I will seek your advice about how to write it.

Thereīs your answer to that post. Maybe you should not have asked for it...?
Maybe you should have not replied as your replies only highlight the fact that your theory is based on wild speculation and lacking in evidential facts which might point to him being a suspect

I think we should leave it to the readers of these posts to say who is lacking in evidence and who is wildly speculating. I am fine with that. You should be much less fine with it.

There is no point in arguing with you when you have you head buried in the sand, and will not accept anything that goes against your wild speculative theory which has no foundation, and nothing to show he was ever considered as a suspect then, and nothing in the way evidence or facts to show he should be regarded as one now.

Enjoy your Sunday

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Aha - so when somebody gives an alias and nobody picks up on it, we must conclude that there was no intent to mislead? Is that correct?

But the whole of Whitecchapel and the police would have picked up on it if he had deliberatly misled, He was the son of a local policeman for god sake. As sopn as the police contaced him he would have know the game was up if he had misled anyone. The police managed to find him didnt they to take his statement? You are careting another mystery when there is not one to be created.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But the whole of Whitecchapel and the police would have picked up on it if he had deliberatly misled, He was the son of a local policeman for god sake. As sopn as the police contaced him he would have know the game was up if he had misled anyone. The police managed to find him didnt they to take his statement? You are careting another mystery when there is not one to be created.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The police managed to find him...? No, Trevor, he seemingly called in by himself. The police did not believe in Pauls story, so they would not look for Lechmere. And no, the whole of Whitechapel would not disclose him for giving an alias. That is a silly suggestion. If they had, we would have had the name Lechmere all along. That was never the case.
Thomas Cross, by the way, had been dead for nineteen years in 1888. For Gods sake. If you think that being the son of a lowly PC resonated with Whitechapel for decades, you may need to think again.

[Fisherman]

There is no point in arguing with you when you have you head buried in the sand, and will not accept anything that goes against your wild speculative theory which has no foundation, and nothing to show he was ever considered as a suspect then, and nothing in the way evidence or facts to show he should be regarded as one now.

Enjoy your Sunday

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are correct for once. There really is no point for you to argue with me.

[Trevor Marriott]

The police managed to find him...? No, Trevor, he seemingly called in by himself. The police did not believe in Pauls story, so they would not look for Lechmere. And no, the whole of Whitechapel would not disclose him for giving an alias. That is a silly suggestion. If they had, we would have had the name Lechmere all along. That was never the case.
Thomas Cross, by the way, had been dead for nineteen years in 1888. For Gods sake. If you think that being the son of a lowly PC resonated with Whitechapel for decades, you may need to think again.

Once again I am forced to interrupt my Sunday routine to put you right

where is the evidence to show the police did not believe PAUL?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

If he had been the killer he would have had the opportuntiy to make good his escape without being seen as soon as he heard footsteps coming towards him because it was still dark at that time. The scenario you have invented doesnt stand up to close scrutiny

Yes, he would have been able to run, but you see,Trevor, the thing is we donīt know if he wanted to run. It carries risks, you know, and as you may remember, Andy Griffiths ( a really good policeman) was of a polar opposite meaning to yours. He said that Lechmere would NOT run in the situation he was in. Of course, it would be nice if we were always better judges than others, but that is not the case. Least of all when it comes to you.

Opinions, ripperology is built on opinions I am sure if you surveyed 100 people asking the question what would they do, I doubt you would have many takers for staying and fronting it out especiall when Cross hed the time and the opportunity to run away.

I donīt care what you doubt and what you believe. It is obvious that you even doubt that the police should take an interest in people who disagree with them and who use aliases, for example, and so your judgment does not have the kind of quality required to make a fair assessment of things. Just like you say, though, ripperology is built on opinions. And once you find I hold an opinion that cannot correspond with the truth, you are welcome to challenge it. Before that, Iīm afraid all you can do is lament the fact that I disagree with you. Thatīs all.

Ok, I’ll play Devil’s Advocate on this one. What if Lechmere didn’t have particularly good hearing? It’s not impossible of course. We also can’t be certain exactly how loud Paul’s footsteps were. We only have his word for how far away Paul was when heard him approach. What if he lied and that Paul was actually closer and maybe he could even see him approaching and he’d panicked and decided that Paul was too close for him to run? Maybe he felt that Paul might have been able to have given at least some kind of description to the police? Maybe he feared that Paul might have been a have-a-go-hero type that would have given chase? Then later, by saying that Paul was actually further away and out of sight when he’d first heard him Lechmere paints himself more like a discoverer than a murderer because the police would assume that a guilty man that had heard Paul from a distance he would have run away.

[Fisherman]

Once again I am forced to interrupt my Sunday routine to put you right

where is the evidence to show the police did not believe PAUL?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In the papers of the 3:rd. Like the Daily News, for example. There was a sort of press conference in the evening of the 2:nd, where PC Neil commented on the rumurs of two men inolved in the business, as per Lloyds Weekly of the same day, where Pauls interview was published. At that press conference, this was said:

"It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street."

So at this stage, the police still believed that Neil was the finder, they did not believe in the story told by Paul and they would consequently not go looking for Lechmere.

I thought you were aware of these things?