The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[Herlock Sholmes]

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



The Baron

Ladies and Gents, a final post of the evening for me.

Isn’t it noble how The Baron is now so open minded about the possibility of Cross being the ripper? And how respectful he is of Fisherman? So much so that he goes on the defensive against those that doubt the Cross theory. And of course he’d never simply change positions just to provoke an argument would he? No, of course not…just for scholarly, open-minded debate.
Or would he?


Isn't it hard to believe that The Baron is the same person that wrote this..


“How could you give a certain TOD ?! She could have been dead for 30 Minutes or more

Don't tell me you swallowed the blood 'evidence' of Fisherman?!”


or this..


“Lechmerians want us to believe anything they say, they are the leaders when it comes to masterminds, one of many ridicolous things they want us to believe is that Paul was the most stupid and imbecile person in Whitechapel!

It must be Lechmere's magic, I saw a photo of him, I think his eyes are very deep and sharp, he has that look........oh”


or this..


“And I will keep the bloody knife on myself, I am the smartest guy ever been created, no one, and I mean no one ever will search me, no one will stop me, I can make my way out of hell when I want.

I will go to the inquest, and stand in front of the coroner and the whole jury, I will tell everone that Mizen was a liar and that I didn't tell him there was another Policeman in Buck's row, I will contradict him freely, openly, explicitly, and go to kill again in only 5 days, no one ever will be watching my ass after this, no one will suspect me, they all will know Mizen is the bad guy here, they all are just a bunch of imbecile detectives....

I will tell the jury that the other man thought the woman might be still breathing, freshly killed!, and that I didn't hear any footsteps whatsoever and didn't see anyone there!, but no one from those lunatic detectives will ever suspect me of killing her, I am so smart!

I have a family, a dozen of kids, but who cares, my lust to kill on my route to work is at most important to me.... I like to start my daywork by killing cutting and mutilating someone around”


or this..


“After Caz brilliant post above, I can declare from my position, that the Mizen Scam Era has come to an end!”


or this..


“Fisherman is selling the idea that if Mizen went to the body and found no policeman there, that will rise no alarm whatsoever and the police forces will not be all over the place looking for him! he can lie as he want to the Police and no one will be on his door!

And look how the Lechmerians contradict themselves! Fisherman says Cross gave another name to protect his family, to keep them away from the murder, but by lying to the police and risking to be the most wanted Police suspect in Whitechapel is no problem at all.

This whole theory is based ubon the ignorance of all other parties involved, one has to be an imbecile to believe such nonsense

No Fish, that will not work, try harder!”


or this


“Caz post has set an end to this fishy tunnel under logic and facts that you are trying to escape through”


or this..


“Cross stood in front of the jury freely, gave a false name, contardicted Mizen and denied saying anything about another policeman in Buck's row, he was so confident that he went killing again and on his way to work again and at the same time again in 5 days!!!

I read some fairy tales that were much better than this.

Sophistry: the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”


or this..


“Lechmere wouldn't have lied to Mizen, then he is risking finding the police over his shoulder.

He could have run away, but the Lechmerians want us to believe he injected himself intentionally in the events after killing Nichols, to then again change their reasoning to show another Lechmere whose solo purpose is to get out of the situation, he didn't even let Paul help the woman up so that he can enjoy the chock effects on Paul's face, as they falsley always claim.

A very disturbed theory, with zero consistency.”


or this..


”Lechmerians have failed to bring any single evidence or shred of a clue to justify their claims, they even went to the extreme phantasy and presented Lechmere as the solo ripper-torso murderer of his time, aka Lechmerianismus!”


or this..


“And one important thing that Lechmerians always don't consider:

Rising the alarm for what exactly?!

If a man hardly recognised in the dark there is a woman laying on the ground, should he immediately and before even looking closely or examining her go mad shouting and knocking on the doors and screaming and pulling his hair: hey people come here all of you to me hey hey come here , there seems to be a woman laying here, come everyone all of you to me damn it...”


or this..


“If a lechmerian told me: look at Lechmere, all of his actions whithout any single exception were very normal, doesn't that seem suspicious to you? Then I would say he has a better argument than anything was ever produced by Fisherman and his company.”


or this..


“If he chose to run away no one ever will be talking now about him, and Paul could have very likely missed the body.

It was Lechmere's choice to stand and look and give the Attention to the woman laying on the ground to the first one he saw who could have been anyone even a constable, and he went with him looking for a policeman”


or this..


“Thats why this is a very weak theory, one has first to believe of Lechmere guilt then try to find excuses to keep the flame on:


-Maybe he didn't hear Paul coming

-Maybe he wanted to inject himself in the investigations

-Maybe Cross was not the name he was known as at work

-Maybe he was a psychopath

-Maybe he didn't panic

-Maybe he had a dominant mother

-Maybe he didn't care he had the murder's weapon on himself

-Maybe he convinced Paul to tell a white lie

-Maybe he lied to Mizen within an earshot and Paul didn't hear a thing

-Maybe he didn't care of being watched by the police after the inquest, in spite of him contradicting a policeman and went killing in 5 days

-Maybe he don't care he had a dozen of children and their mother to feed

-Maybe he was sure he wouldn't be search and has no blood on himself whatsoever

-Maybe the blood was ozzing as flowing!

-Maybe she was killed within minutes of Paul arriving

-Maybe she was already in Buck's row with a client before

Maybe he was the Torso Killer!!!!!

-Maybe he liked killing pregnant women! and playing with their fetus! (I wounder why he didn't killed his wife she was pregnant all the time!)”


or this..


“Endless excuses to fit Lechmere in.

I will add one 'Maybe' to the festival:

-Maybe because it is too damn difficult to admit you were wrong all the time”


or this


“But the Lechmerians remained in their subzero state of denial.”





There’s more where that came from but I’ll leave it at that.

[The Baron]

Bravo, you have proved that I don't think Lechmere was the ripper, and that I don't buy Fisherman's theory.


If you asked, I would have told you, but it doesn't really bother me to see you engaged in studying my posts.

And Fisherman was honest



The Baron

[The Baron]

"And how respectful he is of Fisherman"


I have been taught to be always respectful, even of those who I disagree with.

You should try this.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

"And how respectful he is of Fisherman"


I have been taught to be always respectful, even of those who I disagree with.

You should try this.



The Baron

I’ve never noticed any. All that I’ve seen are a stream of disrespectful, usually Druitt-relate posts wherever I’m posting Baron to be honest. But I’m not going to get into a debate on that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bravo, you have proved that I don't think Lechmere was the ripper, and that I don't buy Fisherman's theory.


If you asked, I would have told you, but it doesn't really bother me to see you engaged in studying my posts.

And Fisherman was honest



The Baron

I’ve posted this before so I’ll just cut and paste:





In Cutting Point on page 92 he says:


“Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper.”


No mention of the word ‘around’ which was ‘coincidentally’ left out of the documentary too.


And yet on here he says:

“We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.”


So what changed between then and now? What newspapers are available to him now that weren’t available when he wasn’t researching the book or for the documentary ? How could this ‘absolute bulk’ not only have escaped his attention at the time that he was researching then writing his book but they were so well hidden that it led him to state the exact opposite?! He apparently had no problem finding and counting the one newspaper that mentioned 3.20 and was keen to mention it though. But this ‘absolute bulk’ apparently and very mysteriously eluded him.

This cannot be explained away Baron. Just like the fact that, with all of those quotes, I’ve proven that you are arguing just for the sake of it.

…

Oh, and this quote seems a very strange way of pointing out his honesty:

“Sophistry: the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”

I could think of better ways of saying that someone is honest Baron.

Keep digging.

[Geddy2112]

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.”

I'm pretty sure you know who said this.

Me me me me, I know, I know... me me... it was - drum roll Christer in 2008.

I've said this before I do not mind people changing their minds, in fact it's admirable at times however the 'evidence' given in that quote is the same now, it's never changed. Nothing has been added to it either. That is the strange thing here. How can one completely change their mind with the circumstances have not altered?

[Elamarna]

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

Just YouTube, it's around 135 minutes in length .

Steve

[Duran duren]

Just YouTube, it's around 135 minutes in length .

Steve

Looking forward to watching it Steve

[The Baron]

Lechmere/Cross theory V2.0 Servicepack 2.2

Updated basic points:


1- Lechmere was seen alone in the dark near a freshly killed woman

2- The victim was last seen alive about half past two, she was alone, there was no sighting of her in company with another man

3- Lechmere didn't notify Mizen that the victim looked as if she had been outraged

4- Lechmere gave just the name Cross at the inquest

5- Lechmere was involved in an accident that killed a boy

6- In one account Lechmere refused to prop the woman up

7- Three constables didn't notice anything unusual and nothing attracted their attention that night

8- Lechmere might have got a chance to get rid of a knife

9- The true murderer of Nichols hadn't been convicted

10- Neither Lechmere nor Paul noticed a pool of blood under the woman's head or blood oozing from a throat cut, there is a chance that one of them might have been lying

11- According to detective inspector Dew, Lechmere went to the woman, shaked her, and noticed there was something strange about the position of the woman's head (it was almost severed from the body) before meeting with Paul, he failed to notice any blood or cut, and failed to mention this to Mizen or to the Jury

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

13- Lechmere was local, certainly knew the different routes and the streets in Whitechapel, it is even possible that he had a general idea of the constables beats

14- Paul said "there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot" He was afraid and tried to avoid Lechmere.




The Baron

[Geddy2112]

13- Lechmere was local, certainly knew the different routes and the streets in Whitechapel, it is even possible that he had a general idea of the constables beats

So much so he killed someone about 50 yards away from PC81 GER... behave yourself...

14- Paul said "there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot" He was afraid and tried to avoid Lechmere.

So afraid he walked that road most mornings every week it appears. Avoiding Lechmere makes Lechmere guilty how?

Can I ask a question at this juncture. If you do not think Lechmere was the killer why are you coming out with all this nonsense?

[Fiver]

So much so he killed someone about 50 yards away from PC81 GER... behave yourself...

This is one of the many problems with the theory that Lechmere and Paul's bootseps would have sounded like a marching band in an echo chamber.

PC81 GER, the night watchman didn't hear Lechmere, Paul, Neil, or Mizen. Neither did Emma Green, Walter Purkis, or Harriet Lilley.

[Newbie]

Not posted recently, but sometimes one needs to , in an attempt to offer clarification.



It's what's left out here that's important.
He is apparently 30-40 yards ahead of Paul when he hears him, having stopped, suggesting he might have been 50 or so yards ahead before he slowed and stopped.
He's walking on his own yes, but he's not really alone, Paul being only 30 seconds or so at most behind, nor is he with the body, but in the middle of the road.
If Paul had seen him crouching over the body, as shown on in a certain Documentary, or had seen him move from the body then there would be a case to say he could be the killer, but the evidence simply says he was walking ahead of Paul.

We could once again go over the timings, but I have covered the issues involved many times before and there is a talk I have at the 2022 East End Conference on this site too

https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=329

Of course all of this is covered in great detail in Inside Bucks Row, but it seems so few who support Lechmere have bothered to read it.



Which is really irrelvant, such does not pinpoint her who killer was.
She almost certainly met her killer close to, if not at the spot she was found. The area behind Whitechapel Station was a known area used by prostitues, this is documented by the police, the number of brothels in the surrounding roads as commented on , by Mrs Green at the inquest, indeed she almost objects too much at the attention to Brown's Yard, and says the police should be looking at the disorderly houses in other nearby streets. Then we have the comments of Tomkins in response to questions by Baxter with regards to girls coming to the slaughter house. Again all this is documented with supporting sources in Inside Bucks Row.



Exactly what was Said is unclear, but he did say she was dead or drunk, and that Mizen should attend. I don't see not explicitly saying she had been attacked as being at all suspicious.



Yes, a name he was entitled to use, and which he probably used at work.



First point, you seem to accept the driver was Lechmere, if so this means he almost certainly used the name Cross at Pickfords.
Many RTA's occurred, and the inquest concluded he was not to blame. , that does not make someone a killer.



Again, this is not significant, many people would not want to so, it's human nature.



What is the significance of this statement, the attack took only minutes, Neil was only in Bucks Row for approximately 5 minutes out of every 30. Mizen and Thain passed the ends of the street once every 30 minutes.
Mizen apparently did not count the exchange with Lechmere and Paul as attracting attention.



Just when and where would he do this?
The area was searched and no knife was found.



Again the significance? Such does not make Lechmere her killer.
Indeed in the following days, the authorities took a very close look at the 3 slaughter men.



It was dark, blood in the dark looks black, Neil only saw the blood with the aid of his lamp



Dew was not even present, he was in H division, thus was J. This is the man who also claimed that Paul was never located. His comments on the case should be treated with a great deal of caution.


Mary Ann Nichols was far from being nearly decapitated, the descriptions of her neck wounds make this very clear.
Annie was indeed close, but even then the spinal column was basically intact.
What we have is myth repeated over and over.

I don't mean to push this, but maybe pro Lechmere people could read the sourced to counter arguments given Inside Bucks Row

Steve

Hi Elarmana,

Just a few comments.

I. If there was any evidence that Lechmere was just ahead of Paul, then the case is closed.

Unfortunately, there is zero evidence. It's implied in Lechmere's testimony ......
Paul doesn't mention Lechmere at all until seeing him next to the body.

There is no evidence unless you want to accept Leachmere's inquest statements as facts.

II. Not that it matters much, but its very much up in the air as to how Polly Nichols arrived at Brown's stable yard.

Tomkins did not say that there were "ladies" on Winthrop street ..... he said that there was none of them there that night
and that the prostitutes were all up on White Chapel road.

The Coroner - I don't ask you whether you like them. I ask whether there were any about that night?

The Witness - I did not see any.

The Coroner - Not in Whitechapel road? The Witness - Oh, yes, there, of all sorts and sizes. It's a rough neighbourhood, I can tell you.

The witnesses on Buck's row and Winthrop street all said that it was very quiet that morning.

And further, all the witnesses on Buck's road and Winthrop street said that it was very quiet that morning.

III. As for synchronization, no one is attempting to synchronize Nei'ls time with that of Lechmere or Paul.
But we don't need to synchronize the clocks of the participants to derive some very basic information.

Accept the notion that Lechmere's own stated departure time of around 3:30 am gave him an indication of how fast he needed to go to get to work on time
Accept the notion that Paul's 3:45 am time gave him an indication of how fast he needed to go.

We can then do the math, and compare the two heading up Buck's row, using Lechmere's testimony to see if things fit.
I think it shows that they definitely do not.

As for accuracy, Pickford's, next to Broad street station, probably was not far off of Greenwich time.
If Lechmere had a clock at home, he would attempt to synchronize it with his employer's, and it would probably be more accurate than Paul's.

If Paul's time was most accurate, Lechmere was going to arrive at work at around 4:07 am ... which casts a bit of doubt on the accuracy of Paul's time; Paul's time was in disagreement with 4 others, so I tend to imagine it was off .... along with the smaller operation of his employers.


IV. As for using the name Cross at Pickfords, I doubt it , outside of being known administratively as Charles Cross.
But that point doesn't really matter.

The name the British legal system expected him to use is what is important..... and in all cases where individuals had
duel surnames that I reviewed, even when they preferred their adopted surname derived from a step dad, they always went by their birth name when representing themselves in legal matters and before tribunals.

Lechmere was expected to use Lechmere, not Cross.

[Newbie]

And here we go. As soon as you run out of content (which was a while ago) the personal insults come out.

His background isn’t relevant because we know that he wasn’t the killer. My uncle was an alcoholic, the Foreman at the first job that I had was an alcoholic, a guy that ran a fish and chip shop near to my school was an alcoholic. Between them they had 10 or 11 kids, none of whom turned out to be serial killers.

I didn't insult you mate.

I just opined on how your construction of an argument is laughable,
and its always the same damn thing:

Step A: Lechmere's innocence is a fact that is self evident

Step B: therefore his being only 40 - 50 yards ahead of Paul is a fact

Step C: therefore, rat-a-tat-tat, all this malarkey about hearing sounds is just a devious ploy

Step D: the wing flapping and the outrage and what a joke Lechmerites are.


Go ahead and re-read your furious scribblings directed towards me to refresh your memory on how you go about things.
If you were a nice guy, I wouldn't be a rude jerk ... but you aren't. And you talk about people insulting you .... the nerve!


A 2nd problem I have with how you go about things is that you try to isolate every fact and argue against them one at a time.
And then you go into your how absurd it is that he's considered a serial killer just because his step dad was an alcoholic;
or that he merely discovered the body; or that he failed to use his christian name .....

Its annoying. Its like you don't read what people type or quickly expunge your memory of it.
And then when I ask that people consider a combination of facts and try to give some acceptable motive for themas a collective,
you go into your wing flapping routine ...again, and again, and again. Its tiring.

No, alcoholism in a parent doesnt' doom a kid to commit murder, much less become a serial killer.
There however exists a strong correlation between kids subjected to an alcoholic dad and violence.
And many serial killers have had alcoholic parents.

No, failing to provide your Christian name at an inquest is not proof that someone is a serial killer.

No, even by arriving earlier than he suggested, that does not prove that Lechmere is JtR.

But to lock down and deny what is odd about him is just someone so emotionally wrapped up in his own ego,
that it really is pointless to engage you in anything sensible.

When I got here the argument was that Lechmere would have run if was the killer, upon hearing Paul's footsteps;
that he wouldn't kill on his way to work because he'd get all that blood on his clothes;
that Lechmere was married and there is no history indicating that there was anything unpleasant about his family life.

Now, personally, I think those arguments have been weakened.

[Newbie]

I commented on your analysis, nothing more. Please stop making false statements about what I said.

Here is what you typed.

"Yet you ignore all other possibilities and assume Thomas Cross was not just an alcoholic, but a violent one.

Which says a lot more about you than it does about Thomas Cross."

Oh, I see .... you meant my intense personal bias, and not that I'm violent and prone to drink .... okay.


As for alcoholism being irrelevant to this case, and mentioning associated violence inappropriate:

Alcohol and Domestic Abuse/Violence


There is a strong evidence linking alcohol with domestic abuse or domestic violence (Gadd et al., 2019). A study conducted within the metropolitan area of Melbourne, Australia found that alcohol outlet density was significantly associated with domestic violence rates over time (Livingston, 2011). In Australia, alcohol-related domestic violence is twice more likely to involve physical violence including life-threatening injuries

[Mike J. G.]

The mental gymnastics that Lechmere fanatics will contort their imaginations to perform in order to try and make him seem more sinister and suspicious than he ever was is frankly pretty funny, imo.

Hey, don't forget, he was basically crouching over Polly's Corpse, he gave a totally false name for himself and his photograph just seems spooky!

If he'd have given the name "Chuck Jones" at the inquest, that might have been a tad more suspicious, but he didn't. He was never found crouching over Polly's Corpse, was he? Paul stated at the inquest that he met Charles in the middle of a 25 foot wide road.

Chapman is an infinitely better suspect than Chuck, erm, Charles, and was an actual killer of women, can be placed around the Whitechapel area and was at least suspected by officials at one point or another.

Now, I'm not a Chapman advocate, I'm merely pointing out how weak the points against Lechmere as Ripper truly are.