The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[The Baron]

That’s the worst ‘gotcha’ ever Baron. You need to think clearly.

I haven’t said that I suspect Paul of being the killer. I have simply suggested that there is more that is strange about him than there is about Cross. By that I mean the Lloyd’s interview where he virtually airbrushes Cross out of the story.

As for what Cross might or might not have done or said…Paul is irrelevant because if Cross killed her it was before Paul arrived on the scene (I’m absolutely amazed that I’m having to explain this)

Cross said that he found the body and nothing contradicts that.
Paul saw Cross standing away from the body in the middle of the road and nothing contradicts that.

Therefore, nothing suggests that Cross was the killer. Absolutely nothing apart from the pathetically weak ‘well, he might have done it.’ Just as John Davis ‘might have done it.’ Or George Morris ‘might have done it.’

All that we have for Cross as a suspect is - we cannot categorically prove that he didn’t kill her. That’s it (if we eliminate the inventions of course)

And as that applies to 99.5% of suspects it means absolutely nothing.

Oh….gotcha

So you know that Lechmere was a finder and not a killer because:

you think he was the finder and not the killer..


Great!


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

I wonder if we are allowing our personal feelings towards Fisherman's theory take the best of our judgment.


The Baron

That wins the 2024 Ironic Comment of the Year Award.

My congratulations.

[Fiver]

So, if Lechmere was the killer, Paul would have cut off escape route #1.

I imagine dozens of people would brow beat us severely if we suggested Jack the Ripper panicked.

Baron's scenario requires that the Ripper panic upon seeing a police officer a few blocks away from the crime scene.

If Lechmere was the killer, Paul was approaching down the worst possible route for getting away. It was by far the longest route until a corner could be turned and every step would have taken Lechmere further away from work.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gotcha


How do you know that Lechmere is a body finder and not a killer?!


We have Mizen who was approached by two carmen at that early morning telling him there is a woman in Buck's Row that might be dead.

You and Geddy consider Paul suspicious, and Geddy stated that Paul blatantly lies.

Who's words are we going to take?!

Do we take Lechmere's own words that he was just the finder and not the killer?

Or do we take Paul's the liar words (only this time) who wouldn't have known what Lechmere might have done to the woman?!



The Baron

That’s the worst ‘gotcha’ ever Baron. You need to think clearly.

I haven’t said that I suspect Paul of being the killer. I have simply suggested that there is more that is strange about him than there is about Cross. By that I mean the Lloyd’s interview where he virtually airbrushes Cross out of the story.

As for what Cross might or might not have done or said…Paul is irrelevant because if Cross killed her it was before Paul arrived on the scene (I’m absolutely amazed that I’m having to explain this)

Cross said that he found the body and nothing contradicts that.
Paul saw Cross standing away from the body in the middle of the road and nothing contradicts that.

Therefore, nothing suggests that Cross was the killer. Absolutely nothing apart from the pathetically weak ‘well, he might have done it.’ Just as John Davis ‘might have done it.’ Or George Morris ‘might have done it.’

All that we have for Cross as a suspect is - we cannot categorically prove that he didn’t kill her. That’s it (if we eliminate the inventions of course)

And as that applies to 99.5% of suspects it means absolutely nothing.

Oh….gotcha

[Geddy2112]

And here exactly where the bug lies..

Here we have the third unsolved murder in Whitechapel and you see no reason to suspect a man spotted alone in the dark near the recently cut open woman.

Person of interest whom will have been questioned and cleared, obviously. Suspect him, me, absolutely not. Like I said he did exactly what any innocent man would do after discovering a body. In fact to be nit-picking here he did not find the body, Paul AND Cross found the body together.

I wonder if we are allowing our personal feelings towards Fisherman's theory take the best of our judgment.

No I'm allowing common sense, logic and the evidence to form my judgement. I've asked Christer, I've asked Ed Stow, I've asked a whole Facebook group to give me one single FACT Cross/Lechmere is guilty and to this day nothing has been forthcoming, not one single fact. Can you oblige?

[The Baron]

Why not there is no reason to suspect him of any foul play

And here exactly where the bug lies..

Here we have the third unsolved murder in Whitechapel and you see no reason to suspect a man spotted alone in the dark near the recently cut open woman.

I will suspect inspector Gadget and his dog if I am against a serie of unsolved murders.

I wonder if we are allowing our personal feelings towards Fisherman's theory take the best of our judgment.


The Baron

[Geddy2112]

Gotcha

I doubt it

How do you know that Lechmere is a body finder and not a killer?!

How many reasons do you want? He said so, he did not bugger off like ALL other killers in history have done, no other killer has killed on a familiar route on his way to work close to the due time of being there. No other killer has stopped the first passer by to alert them to 'their' crime. No other killer has ever gone to alert a PC of his 'crime.' Do you want more?

We have Mizen who was approached by two carmen at that early morning telling him there is a woman in Buck's Row that might be dead.

Yes and?

You and Geddy consider Paul suspicious, and Geddy stated that Paul blatantly lies.

I'm not speaking for Herlock but I said he was MORE suspicious than Cross because of his lies. I have given some examples of his lies as well.

Who's words are we going to take?!

Do we take Lechmere's own words that he was just the finder and not the killer?

Why not there is no reason to suspect him of any foul play, let alone judge him to be a liar, Jack The Ripper, The Torso Killer and no doubt the killer of most women in the late 1800s.

Or do we take Paul's the liar words (only this time) who wouldn't have known what Lechmere might have done to the woman?!

He would have known if he had done it.

[The Baron]

Finding a body isn’t an indication of guilt. It’s an indication of finding a body.

Gotcha


How do you know that Lechmere is a body finder and not a killer?!


We have Mizen who was approached by two carmen at that early morning telling him there is a woman in Buck's Row that might be dead.

You and Geddy consider Paul suspicious, and Geddy stated that Paul blatantly lies.

Who's words are we going to take?!

Do we take Lechmere's own words that he was just the finder and not the killer?

Or do we take Paul's the liar words (only this time) who wouldn't have known what Lechmere might have done to the woman?!



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

So in your view, if a murderer committed a crime, all he needs to do is to stay near the freshly killed victim and wait for someone to notify him, that would be seen totally normal (someone has to find the body) and enough not to suspect him.

You know as well as I do it is not that simple and I'm not saying that at all. However can you name a serial killer who has done just that? I know I can't. Finding a dead body is not suspicious, like I said I've done it. Killing someone and running away is suspicious and that is what killers do. They do not do what Cross did. Hence Cross is not JtR. It's that simple to be fair.

[The Baron]

So in your view, if a murderer committed a crime, all he needs to do is to stay near the freshly killed victim and wait for someone to notify him, that would be seen totally normal (someone has to find the body) and enough not to suspect him.


Well I just don't agree.


The Baron

[Geddy2112]

So Lechmere who was spotted alone near the freshly killed woman at that early morning in that dark road remains less likely to be the Ripper than Paul who kept changing his mind and words.

In my view yes. Cross did nothing suspicious, Paul did. Finding a body is not a suspicious act, I've done it. Even though I do not for one minute think Paul is the Ripper I think he is more plausible than Cross. Stating 'exactly' in his interview as he know PC Neil would be there then giving him an alibi. Stating he suggested propping up the body when Cross said he did. Stating he went alone to fetch Mizen which is obviously not true. Having to be sought out by the Police for the inquest. Working close to the second murder scene. Red Flags all over the place as Ed would say.

Do we need to see Lechmere in the act of cutting the woman's throat and slashing her abdomen open in order to consider Lechmere a better suspect than Paul?!

Just about yes as there is nothing suspicious at all about Cross. He acted the way a normal human would on finding a dead body in the street. Paul did not.

What else would be closer to capturing the Ripper red handed than spotting someone standing alone in the dark near a freshly killed woman?!

Or disturbing him so he escaped before you could make out he was there...

Cross/Lechmere was not Jack The Ripper. It's a baseless theory with no facts, featuring 100% speculation and twisting of evidence. A sham.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is Cross a better suspect than John Davis? Both found bodies. Both ‘could’ have been there earlier than claimed. Both ‘could’ have lied. Finding a body isn’t an indication of guilt. It’s an indication of finding a body. The police always look into the ‘finder’ of course but the ‘finder’ is never the killer. The killer has always scarpered because you would have to be a colossal moron to stand around with a bloodied knife in your pocket knowing that a police officer will make an appearance soon.

Cross is a rubbish suspect. Not only that but he’s an obviously rubbish suspect.

He's better than Van Gogh though. At least he was in the same country as the victims.

[The Baron]

However you state 'No, I didn't say Paul cannot be Jack the Ripper.'

So you are having Cross by comparison more likely than Paul because Paul spotted him near Polly? Fair enough. I still say reading Paul's various account I have him more suspicious than Cross because he keeps changing his mind and blatantly lies but each to their own I guess.

So Lechmere who was spotted alone near the freshly killed woman at that early morning in that dark road remains less likely to be the Ripper than Paul who kept changing his mind and words.

I see.

Do we need to see Lechmere in the act of cutting the woman's throat and slashing her abdomen open in order to consider Lechmere a better suspect than Paul?!


What else would be closer to capturing the Ripper red handed than spotting someone standing alone in the dark near a freshly killed woman?!



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

Correct, I consider Lechmere more suspicious than Paul since Lechmere is the one who was spotted alone near the freshly killed woman that early morning and not Paul.

However you state 'No, I didn't say Paul cannot be Jack the Ripper.'

So you are having Cross by comparison more likely than Paul because Paul spotted him near Polly? Fair enough. I still say reading Paul's various account I have him more suspicious than Cross because he keeps changing his mind and blatantly lies but each to their own I guess.

[The Baron]

Then I'm not sure what you are saying then unless you mean Paul is less suspicious than Cross...

Correct, I consider Lechmere more suspicious than Paul since Lechmere is the one who was spotted alone near the freshly killed woman that early morning and not Paul.


The Baron