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

[FrankO]

I really have not given the idea of closing the eyes much thought, Frank. Of course, there would have been limited time to fix the body, and so perhaps that is the reason for it. I think priority one must have been covering up the wounds, stashing the weapon and moving away from the body. Maybe it only struck him as he had done so that he realized that he could have closed the eyes too - and then it was too late? I really donīt know.

Was that the expected answer? Iīm curious too!

Big picture? Yes, that was the expected answer, Christer. I expected that, one way or another, you’d not find it an issue that Lechmere didn’t close the eyes, whilst he found it important to cover the wounds.

[Fisherman]

Big picture? Yes, that was the expected answer, Christer. I expected that, one way or another, you’d not find it an issue that Lechmere didn’t close the eyes, whilst he found it important to cover the wounds.

Hold your horses, Frank; I am not saying that he would not have found it an issue, I am saying that other issues would have been overshadowing the eye issue, perhaps to an extent where he simply did not reflect upon it until it was too late. If he reflected upon it at all, that is. Maybe he was not even aware that here eyes were open.

As an aside, I believe that the killer we are searching for possibly had a thing for wide open eyes, but thatīs another matter entirely...

[Fisherman]

First of all: best wishes for the new year!

I have more than a little faith, Christer! I see that “made up your mind” wasn’t the best term I could use, so, sorry for that, but what I meant to say is exactly what you’ve written: that, with the evidence we have today - or as you say, as things stand today - you’ll not change your mind. That, of course, isn’t saying that you can’t or won’t change your mind if some day new evidence will surface. Perhaps I used the term “made up your mind” because I don’t think that any new evidence will surface in the near future, but by that I wasn’t suggesting that you’re holding your hands over your ears, whilst you keep your eyes closed. You've already thought out everything that you see as evidence against Lechmere very well and, as there are so many unknowns, little, if anything, remains to reflect upon and address.

I’m curious now as to what (kind of) new surfacing evidence would change your mind then, if you now think it’s beyond reasonable doubt?

All the best,
Frank

First of all, thank you for understanding the issue I have with the term "made up mind". I have seen myself described too many times as somebody wearing blinkers and being totally unable to process any ideas that go against the one of Lechmere being the culprit. I am not saying that he must have done it because I think he must have done it, I am saying that there are way too many pointers in his direction for him NOT to have done it. We need a whole bunch of innocent alternative explanations to clear him, and it is simply not reasonable to work from the assumption that all of the pointers are flukes or coincidences. It becomes one coincidence too many at some stage, and that stage has been reached with quite some margin the way I look upon things.

You ask what kind of evidence would make me change my mind, and the answer should be obvious: any evidence that either proves another manīs guilt or that puts Lechmere in a position meaning that he could not have been the killer. Of course, conclusive evidence for guilt on another manīs behalf will not be easy to come by, but one cannot exclude the possibility that some sort of documentation could crop up that places Lechmere in a hospital, visiting some relative in Austria or harvesting grapes in France during the murders following the Nichols murder.

Of course my prediction is that such a thing will never happen either. But if it does, I must and will reconsider.

[FrankO]

Hold your horses, Frank; I am not saying that he would not have found it an issue, I am saying that other issues would have been overshadowing the eye issue, perhaps to an extent where he simply did not reflect upon it until it was too late. If he reflected upon it at all, that is.

What I said is that I expected that you wouldn't find it an issue, not Lechmere himself, which isn't necessarily the same thing. And, reading the above and especially the last sentence, it still seems to me that you don't find it an issue (which is no issue for me, mind you), but correct me if I'm wrong.

Maybe he was not even aware that here eyes were open.

If that would be because it was too dark, then I'd agree. If that would be because he simply didn't look at her face, then I'd be inclined to disagree. After all, we know Nichols's throat wasn't cut while he stood behind her with his hand over her mouth. Her killer cut it while she was on her back and the evidence supports the notion that he put his left hand over her mouth (from a position to the right of her body) to steady her head (eyes towards the sky) while cutting her throat to the spine and injuring it with his right hand.

As an aside, I believe that the killer we are searching for possibly had a thing for wide open eyes, but thatīs another matter entirely...

That's an interesting thought, Christer. What makes you believe that?

[FrankO]

You ask what kind of evidence would make me change my mind, and the answer should be obvious: any evidence that either proves another manīs guilt or that puts Lechmere in a position meaning that he could not have been the killer. Of course, conclusive evidence for guilt on another manīs behalf will not be easy to come by, but one cannot exclude the possibility that some sort of documentation could crop up that places Lechmere in a hospital, visiting some relative in Austria or harvesting grapes in France during the murders following the Nichols murder.

Thanks for that, Christer. You're thinking about evidence that puts him out of London/order after the Nichols murder, so I take it you can't think of anything regarding that case that would put his candidacy as a suspect within reasonable doubt (as opposed to beyond)?

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that, Christer. You're thinking about evidence that puts him out of London/order after the Nichols murder, so I take it you can't think of anything regarding that case that would put his candidacy as a suspect within reasonable doubt (as opposed to beyond)?

The reason I spoke of how it may be possible to put him elsewhere from murder 2-5 involves the certainty that we cannot do so in murder 1, nothing else. As such, it is of course possible that he did not kill Nichols. Possible, but not in any way likely, in my view.
Of course, it is the Nichols murder that puts him in the frame as such. If his candidacy was not strong in that case, then it would be hard to build a case against him in the instances where his presence on the murder spots is not proven. My case against him builds on the idea that the bulk of the cases or all of them have the same originator, as you are aware.

[Fisherman]

What I said is that I expected that you wouldn't find it an issue, not Lechmere himself, which isn't necessarily the same thing. And, reading the above and especially the last sentence, it still seems to me that you don't find it an issue (which is no issue for me, mind you), but correct me if I'm wrong.

It is not an issue weighty enough to outweigh the other factors, the way I look on things. There are many other issues that are in many ways similar; the idea that he would have run, the notion that he would not have gone to the police, the conviction that nobody would kill en route to work etcetera. These are reflections that do not have much of an impact on the overall picture in my world, although each and everyone of them is of course worthy of discussion.

If that would be because it was too dark, then I'd agree. If that would be because he simply didn't look at her face, then I'd be inclined to disagree. After all, we know Nichols's throat wasn't cut while he stood behind her with his hand over her mouth. Her killer cut it while she was on her back and the evidence supports the notion that he put his left hand over her mouth (from a position to the right of her body) to steady her head (eyes towards the sky) while cutting her throat to the spine and injuring it with his right hand.

I have no problems agreeing about how I think he would probably have been able to see her open eyes. But I have a lot more problems saying that it must have been so. And even more problems accepting that we can establish that he must have closed her eyes if he covered her gash in the neck. It really is not that easy, although one may sometimes wish it were.

That's an interesting thought, Christer. What makes you believe that?

Itīs in the book, Frank, so for now, Iīll leave it uncommented upon. And to be fair, even if I am correct, I am very uncertain about whether it played a role in the Nichols case.

[Trevor Marriott]

Iīll do it your very own way, Trevor: Read my book and all will be revealed.

You might want to read my post again then you might put your book release on hold on the basis you haveno evidence to support your supects status

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You might want to read my post again then you might put your book release on hold on the basis you haveno evidence to support your supects status

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But of course, Trevor! here is that post of yours, my comments in bold.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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?

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

And very obviously endlessly flawed.

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...?

[Trevor Marriott]

But of course, Trevor! here is that post of yours, my comments in bold.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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?

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

And very obviously endlessly flawed.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But of course, Trevor! here is that post of yours, my comments in bold.

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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

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?

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

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?

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.

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

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

[MrBarnett]

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

[MrBarnett]

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

Perhaps he didn’t. After all he was just a East End guttersnipe who probably had no idea of his real name. Wasn’t he?

[MrBarnett]

Perhaps he didn’t. After all he was just a East End guttersnipe who probably had no idea of his real name. Wasn’t he?

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.