The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[The Baron]

My view remains as it always does, that is Lechmere is a viable suspect, he's in the area, and the first to see the body of Mary Ann.
However, in my view, on present research, he's not a particularly strong candidate.

I see the issue somewhat differently to you, in that I see too many pro Lechmere people stating there is no other choice, some even state its been proven beyond reasonable doubt, such is clearly incorrect. Such comments, for me, is why some of those who don't support the Lechmere theory, respond as they do.
I dont think the case as presented bt either Mr Holmgren or Mr Stow, should shake the confidence of any who have seriously looked at the theory.

Steve

Agree completely, I don't consider Lechmere a strong suspect, he is for me a man of interest, I do believe that the whole Lechmere case could have been presented better and refuted better, and you did a great job at that.



The Baron

[Elamarna]

Lechmere/Cross theory V2.0 Servicepack 2.1

Updated basic points:




12- Paul didn't see or hear Lechmere walking in front of him before Lechmere appeared near the body of Nichols

That's simply an assumption, Paul is never asked when he was first aware of someone in front of him.
if he had been, maybe people would view it differently.

Inside Bucks Row contains some recent photos of Bucks Row after dark, even with the lighting from the newly openened underground entrance, and vast amounts of light pollution from the City, its still very difficult to make people out.


Steve

[The Baron]

That's simply an assumption, Paul is never asked when he was first aware of someone in front of him.
if he had been, maybe people would view it differently.

Inside Bucks Row contains some recent photos of Bucks Row after dark, even with the lighting from the newly openened underground entrance, and vast amounts of light pollution from the City, its still very difficult to make people out.


Steve

But when he says then I saw a man standing in the middle of the street, that dosn't in any way imply that he hold some extra information back, it indicates he didn't hear or see him walking in front of him until he saw him there.


Again, I am a Kosminski man, I don't believe in Lechmere's guilt, but thats how I see it.



The Baron

[Elamarna]

But when he says then I saw a man standing in the middle of the street, that dosn't in any way imply that he hold some extra information back, it indicates he didn't hear or see him walking in front of him until he saw him there.


Again, I am a Kosminski man, I don't believe in Lechmere's guilt, but thats how I see it.



The Baron

It may well be a well reasoned assumption, but it's still an assumption.

As you know, I am firmly in the Anderson's suspect camp, myself. The new Documentary with John Malcolm, Patricia Marshall, Adrian Morris and Myself is due out very soon

Steve

[The Baron]

It may well be a well reasoned assumption, but it's still an assumption.

As you know, I am firmly in the Anderson's suspect camp, myself. The new Documentary with John Malcolm, Patricia Marshall, Adrian Morris and Myself is due out very soon

Steve

Bless you Steve, Malcolm, Marshall, Morris!

Can't wait.



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

As you know, I am firmly in the Anderson's suspect camp, myself. The new Documentary with John Malcolm, Patricia Marshall, Adrian Morris and Myself is due out very soon

Very interesting, will it be on mainstream media or just YouTube etc?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As we can see from the response's (if you can call them that) to Roger from The Baron we can see exactly what is going on here. Let’s not beat around the bush. The Baron argues and debates for only 1 reason (apart from to irritate me) to try and clear the way for Kosminski as the ripper, a suspect that he strongly favours. So he begins by making absolutely nonsensical attempts to portray Bury as one of the weakest suspects which, as Bury consistently appears near the top of every single poll, is clearly pointless. His latest tactic is to ‘promote’ to some extent, Cross (who your average visually impaired toddler would see is an appalling weak suspect) merely to show that ‘even Cross is a better suspect than Bury.’ It’s a tactic and not a well concealed one.

And can I just point out, nothing….absolutely nothing has shaken my absolute confidence that Cross is a feeble suspect with not a single factor in his favour. Furthermore I am 100% convinced that the case for him has been accumulated by dishonestly. Utterly deliberate manipulation, falsehoods and fantasies. So I hope that Baron can see that there’s been no shaking of my confidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agree completely, I don't consider Lechmere a strong suspect, he is for me a man of interest, I do believe that the whole Lechmere case could have been presented better and refuted better, and you did a great job at that.



The Baron

The case for Cross doesn’t need refuting because it never existed in the first place. I’ve refuted it in detail btw. As have others. The whole theory is a joke.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's simply an assumption, Paul is never asked when he was first aware of someone in front of him.
if he had been, maybe people would view it differently.

Inside Bucks Row contains some recent photos of Bucks Row after dark, even with the lighting from the newly openened underground entrance, and vast amounts of light pollution from the City, its still very difficult to make people out.


Steve

A point relevant to other questions. Quite often people say “why didn’t x mention y,” never considering…”because they weren’t asked and it didn’t seem important to mention it.

[The Baron]

The case for Cross doesn’t need refuting because it never existed in the first place. I’ve refuted it in detail btw. As have others. The whole theory is a joke.

If the case for Cross doesn't need refuting,

Why did you refute it in detail?!



If the whole theory is a joke,

why do you need to assure that nothing has shaken your absolute confidence that Cross is a feeble suspect?



If the case for Cross never existed in the first place, then who wrote this

"I am now ‘convinced’ that he has to be taken seriously as a suspect; as the ripper and maybe the Torso Killer. I could be wrong. We can all be wrong. Lechmere might be our man though"

And who wrote this

"Fish, I take my hat off to you. I’m glad that I bought your book."


You speak about tactics?! Who needs tactics when arguments are so easy to win!



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the case for Cross doesn't need refuting,

Why did you refute it in detail?!



If the whole theory is a joke,

why do you need to assure that nothing has shaken your absolute confidence that Cross is a feeble suspect?



If the case for Cross never existed in the first place, then who wrote this

"I am now ‘convinced’ that he has to be taken seriously as a suspect; as the ripper and maybe the Torso Killer. I could be wrong. We can all be wrong. Lechmere might be our man though"

And who wrote this

"Fish, I take my hat off to you. I’m glad that I bought your book."


You speak about tactics?! Who needs tactics when arguments are so easy to win!



The Baron

The case doesn’t need refuting. It needs people to stop talking about Cross.

The other quotes are pointless Baron. I was being conciliatory at the time. Something that I’ll never do again. But if you want to trade quotes Baron, I’m happy to do it. Who said this:


“No, Cross is not a very good suggestion as the Ripper. To begin with, at the inquest Cross stated that he heard the approaching footsteps of Paul from around forty yards away - but still waited for him to come up to the spot where Nichols lay. It was pitch dark - so dark that the two men did not see the blood running from her neck - and there must have been every chance to leave the scene unseen had he been the Ripper.

Also, if he WAS the Ripper, it would be a very strange thing to go looking for a policeman carrying the knife that killed Nichols on his person - for it was not found at the murder site.”

I think that we can safely write off Cross as a contender.”

Im pretty sure you know who said this.



The Cross theory is for the gullible or the dishonest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

New depths are being plumbed.

[The Baron]

The Cross theory is for the gullible or the dishonest

You don't you like to study a man who was spotted alone near a freshly killed woman?!

Or you don't mind looking at him but on one condition, and one condition only, everyone must reach the same conclusion as yourself?

When you like it, we should like it

But when you change your mind, we should follow you..

Is that not the exact definition of gullibility you are fighting?



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

You don't you like to study a man who was spotted alone near a freshly killed woman?!

No. I’ve no wish to spend my life studying the hundreds of thousands of people who have found bodies whilst they were on their own over the years because not one of them has ever been found to have been te murderer.

Or you don't mind looking at him but on one condition, and one condition only, everyone must reach the same conclusion as yourself?

When you like it, we should like it.

I don’t care what you like or don’t like Baron. Cross is a rubbish suspect and that’s a fact. And you know it’s a fact. Which means that you are arguing for the sake of it purely in an attempt to annoy people. But if that’s your hobby then it’s up to you.


But when you change your mind, we should follow you..

I haven’t changed my mind. I was trying to be diplomatic after some heated arguments that I was tired of. So I tried the conciliatory approach. I won’t be doing it again.

Is that not the exact definition of gullibility you are fighting?

The gullibility isn’t the hard part to deal with. The dishonesty is the hard part to put up with.



The Baron

You wrongly believe that Chapman was killed earlier therefore, according to you, Richardson was alone with and much, much closer to a recently killed corpse that Cross was. I don’t see you spending much time on John Richardson.

[The Baron]

"The gullibility isn’t the hard part to deal with. The dishonesty is the hard part to put up with."


I don't agree, I am sure Fisherman was honest in his research, not perfect, and no one is, but I am sure he believes every word he writes


I didn't meet any lechmerian in this forum who was not honest, but I was not always there so..



The Baron