Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just out of curiosity, when you have been banned/suspended does your name get removed from the members list even though you will return at some point?

[A P Tomlinson]

Tiger? TIGER???

Are they now saying that in addition to The Ripper murders and the Torso murders, Lechmere was also "Red John", and The Mentalist got the wrong guy???

[jmenges]

Just out of curiosity, when you have been banned/suspended does your name get removed from the members list even though you will return at some point?

Yes it does.

JM

[Geddy2112]

Tiger? TIGER???

Are they now saying that in addition to The Ripper murders and the Torso murders, Lechmere was also "Red John", and The Mentalist got the wrong guy???

Oh yeah I remember watching all of them, quite liked it but If I remember correctly 'Red John' was a bit of a let down in the end. Bit like H in Line Of Duty. I think that is why I stopped watching the Blacklist after four or so series, the list started to get silly and the 'is he her dad' lingered on. Jack the Ripper connection there of course since James was Jack in 'Jack's Back.'

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes it does.

JM

Thanks Jon. I wondered because I noticed that Fisherman’s name isn’t there but I was pretty confident that unlike over on JtRForums he will return at some point.

[Lewis C]

The latest defence is a twist on one of the most used defences for guilt. We now have 'Lechmere was found alone with a freshly killed victim.'

Ok fair enough. We obviously have two points of bias here from Team Lechmere -

i) Found alone

ii) Freshly killed

I keep going over and over this statement and try to think of how it came about. However, and this is what I'm suggesting here. Was it more in line with the evidence that Cross 'found' Paul in Bucks Row?

Thoughts?

Hi Geddy,

Lately we've been told that the "was found" part is of particular significance. Every victim's body is found by someone, and usually when that find is made, the finder is alone. However, apparently some think it makes a big difference that someone saw Cross while he was alone with the body despite the fact that we know that most others that discover bodies are also alone with them. We don't have to see them alone with the body to know that that's the case.

[John Wheat]

Hi Geddy,

Lately we've been told that the "was found" part is of particular significance. Every victim's body is found by someone, and usually when that find is made, the finder is alone. However, apparently some think it makes a big difference that someone saw Cross while he was alone with the body despite the fact that we know that most others that discover bodies are also alone with them. We don't have to see them alone with the body to know that that's the case.

But it's different rules for Lechmere. Apparently with Lechmere you can bend the rules of physics and logic doesn't matter either. He's clearly Jack the Ripper and the Torso Killer and also responsible for several other murders.

[Geddy2112]

Lately we've been told that the "was found" part is of particular significance. Every victim's body is found by someone, and usually when that find is made, the finder is alone. However, apparently some think it makes a big difference that someone saw Cross while he was alone with the body despite the fact that we know that most others that discover bodies are also alone with them. We don't have to see them alone with the body to know that that's the case.

Hi Lewis, that is correct and the whole point here. Paul's presence makes Cross guilty in the eyes of Team Lechmere. I'd actually go one step or two further and say he was not found alone with the body as he was in the middle of the road. So we have -

1) Paul saw Cross in the middle of the road.
2) Cross saw Paul approaching whilst in the middle of the road.

None of the evidence implies Paul 'found' Cross 'alone' with the body. None. However this is used now as the main point of guilt. We can maybe stretch to -

1) Cross found Paul approaching up Bucks Row.
2) Paul found Cross in the middle of the road.

However to find something surely you must have had to be looking for it in the first place. (I've read the Orsam posts about the word 'found.') It's another example of twisting the English Language to suit.

I very much doubt if Paul did not exist we would not be having any of this Team Lechmere carry on. So in essence the point Paul walked up Bucks Row that morning makes Lechmere guilty. As like you say all bodies have to be found by someone and more often than not it's by a lone finder. If Lechmere was a few minutes later would there be a Team Neil nowadays, a Neil Theory. As Lechmere would have found Neil alone with a freshly killed woman. That is how ridiculous this theory is...

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Geddy,

Lately we've been told that the "was found" part is of particular significance. Every victim's body is found by someone, and usually when that find is made, the finder is alone. However, apparently some think it makes a big difference that someone saw Cross while he was alone with the body despite the fact that we know that most others that discover bodies are also alone with them. We don't have to see them alone with the body to know that that's the case.

This is one the most ass-backward flaws in their argument though.
"He was found/seen/caught near the freshly killed body"
So he was the only one who discovered a body who actually has someone to corroborate that he wasn't doused in blood, out of breath, dishevelled, anxious, or any of the conditions someone who has LITERALLY moments earlier been savagely tearing a human being open in the middle of the street might expect to exhibit between the death, and them telling someone about it.

Unless the suggestion is that the other bodies were not "freshly killed" the freshness of the body is not relevent in pursuing his guilt, as that was the circumstance under which all the bodies in the open were discovered.
The condition HE was in immediatley after, IS important.

Paul finds nothing unusual in his appearance.
Remember, if we try to follow the Lechmere Did It theory, he has only moments ago "finished his work" there wasn't enough time to escape... (or he would have done so...) so is he anxious, out of breath, dissheveled, nervous? Does he have signs of blood on his hands or face, or appears to be trying to hide such possible stains? NO... He moves his hand toward Pauls shoulder, a gesture that 100% would have caused Pauls gaze to flit to the hand that was coming towards him. Blood? Nope... anything untoward about his attitude, appearance or behaviour?
No.

This was a witness who was pretty clear that he was on guard walking up that road. But notices nothing at all out of the ordinary about a man who we are told has literally JUST done to Polly, what we know was done...

But any of the other four had time to contrive any story they could have wanted to between finding the body and then finding someone else to show the body to,before someone fetched the police. Cleaned tehir hands, hidden the weapon, caught their breath, calmed themeselves down...

But despite "He should have sounded the alarm" being one of the other cornerstones of the claims of his aberrant behaviour, NONE of those others who discoevered bodies did anything other than find another civilian... show them the body and then either they, or someone else, fetched the police.

Cross literally has a better alibi than any of the others who discovered one of the bodies. (And before anyone starts, this is not an argument to suggest one of the others who discovered a body did it, just a point about how badly thought through I consider the Lechmere theory to be.)

[Geddy2112]

He moves his hand toward Pauls shoulder, a gesture that 100% would have caused Pauls gaze to flit to the hand that was coming towards him. Blood? Nope... anything untoward about his attitude, appearance or behaviour?

Indeed, why would he tap someone on the shoulder if he had wet blood on his hands? Paul get's to work, some geezer states 'hoy mate you've got blood on ya shoulder, how did that get there?'

Paul remembering Cross tapping him on the shoulder suddenly realises the gravity of this bloody shoulder so makes a mental note, I must go home via Bucks Row and tell the reporter there how the blood got there. I'll be a hero, I'll solve the crime...

Oh bugger that never happened did it...

But despite "He should have sounded the alarm" being one of the other cornerstones of the claims of his aberrant behaviour, NONE of those others who discovered bodies did anything other than find another civilian... show them the body and then either they, or someone else, fetched the police.

Cross did sound the alarm, he notified Paul and they both went for a copper. Exactly the same as you suggest the other four did, even a Policeman himself after finding Eddowes.

Cross literally has a better alibi than any of the others who discovered one of the bodies. (And before anyone starts, this is not an argument to suggest one of the others who discovered a body did it, just a point about how badly thought through I consider the Lechmere theory to be.)

He did yes, he has a witness that vouches for him, none of the other first finders do, unfortunately Dr Doolittle was not around until the 1920s so we can't ascertain what Diemschutz's horse would say about it all.

[Lewis C]

Cross did sound the alarm, he notified Paul and they both went for a copper. Exactly the same as you suggest the other four did, even a Policeman himself after finding Eddowes.

I don't know what people mean when they say that he should have sounded the alarm. Do they mean that as soon as he realized that he was looking at a woman, he should have screamed for help at the top of his lungs? When he didn't know that she had been murdered? I think that his approach of notifying the next PC that he came across was at least as sensible as the screaming approach. At least he notified someone. When Albert Crow found Martha Tabram's body, he was like, "a sleeping vagrant, what else is new?" and didn't notify anyone.

[Geddy2112]

I don't know what people mean when they say that he should have sounded the alarm. Do they mean that as soon as he realized that he was looking at a woman, he should have screamed for help at the top of his lungs? When he didn't know that she had been murdered? I think that his approach of notifying the next PC that he came across was at least as sensible as the screaming approach. At least he notified someone. When Albert Crow found Martha Tabram's body, he was like, "a sleeping vagrant, what else is new?" and didn't notify anyone.

The 'raising an alarm' is yet another none sign of guilt in a very long line of none signs of guilt that we are supposed to take as evidence of Cross being a multiple murderer...

[JeffHamm]

Just out of curiosity, when you have been banned/suspended does your name get removed from the members list even though you will return at some point?

Yes, and you cannot send them PM's either. Basically, it is almost as if they do not exist on the boards, other than existing posts by them are marked by an * instead of the fun labels like "Constable" or "Inspector" etc.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

The latest defence is a twist on one of the most used defences for guilt. We now have 'Lechmere was found alone with a freshly killed victim.'

Ok fair enough. We obviously have two points of bias here from Team Lechmere -

i) Found alone

ii) Freshly killed

I keep going over and over this statement and try to think of how it came about. However, and this is what I'm suggesting here. Was it more in line with the evidence that Cross 'found' Paul in Bucks Row?

Thoughts?

This is why one always needs to go back to source material. A lot of the time, the facts get coloured with adjectives selected to slant the facts in favour of a desired conclusion. All of the points made against Cross/Letchmere are found in the adjectives rather than in the facts.

Doesn't mean he isn't worth a look, but when looked at without all the decorative language, there is really nothing to see
- Jeff

[The Baron]

Doesn't mean he isn't worth a look

there is really nothing to see

The Baron