The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[Geddy2112]

Exactly Mike. Baron had the word ‘near’ in his quote (if it was a quote) but near isn’t a distance. I realise that English isn’t The Baron’s first language so maybe this explains his confusion. ‘Near’ when discussing two towns can be a couple of miles. In a street it’s a few feet. In Russia or Australia it can be 200 miles. There’s a lot of evidence missing so I don’t see the need to twist what’s left.

Near is only important if you are standing 'near' a bomb..

[Geddy2112]

Lechmere was spotted near a freshly killed woman, we don't know if he was the finder or if he was the killer.

As I've just said he wasn't spotted near a freshly killed woman at all, this is a blatant falsehood.

[rjpalmer]

Lechmere was spotted near a freshly killed woman, we don't know if he was the finder or if he was the killer.

"Freshly killed" is vague, subjective, unproven, and inflammatory. Even Holmgren's own forensic consultant was vague about how long she might have been dead.

'Spotted' is also inflammatory, as if he has been caught doing something nasty.

This is the Lechmerian way. He was 'spotted' 'hovering' while 'alone' in a 'dark' street near a 'freshly' killed woman.

The Lechmerians (or Lechmerian apologists) always make it sound like this is Peter Tobin who has been 'spotted' behind a dark, disused factory in the Epping Forrest where he wasn't supposed to be, with his trousers around his ankles.

It was dark because Victorian laborers were forced to work before the sun came up.

He was alone because the vast majority of people are alone when they commute to work.

He was in a back street because it was his route to work.

The lameness of Lechmere theory is that any initial suspicion aimed in his direction immediately evaporates because when Paul saw him he was exactly where he would have been--and at the time he would have been there--if he was simply an innocent man walking to work.


In fifteen years of trying, the Lechmere theorists haven't been able to convincingly shake Lechmere's account--they can't prove that things didn't happen exactly the way he described them.

To believe Lechmere is the murderer, one must embrace a third-rate Agatha Christie scenario where he leads a woman back the exact spot of his own commute, pocket watch in hand, and then times his murderous act so he kills her at the exact moment that he would have been commuting to work anyway, on the off-chance that some other bloke might come along and "spot" him.

If one really thinks it through rationally, it come across as a really bad late-night movie plot.

[John Wheat]

How do you know? Were you with him?

Lechmere was spotted near a freshly killed woman, we don't know if he was the finder or if he was the killer.

I say we go 50% 50%, all good John?



The Baron

It's not 50 50. In the absence of anything that proves Lechmere guilty it's nothing. He found a body so what? No semantics will change that.

[The Baron]

"Freshly killed" is vague, subjective, unproven, and inflammatory. Even Holmgren's own forensic consultant was vague about how long she might have been dead.

'Spotted' is also inflammatory, as if he has been caught doing something nasty.

This is the Lechmerian way. He was 'spotted' 'hovering' while 'alone' in a 'dark' street near a 'freshly' killed woman.

The Lechmerians (or Lechmerian apologists) always make it sound like this is Peter Tobin who has been 'spotted' behind a dark, disused factory in the Epping Forrest where he wasn't supposed to be, with his trousers around his ankles.

It was dark because Victorian laborers were forced to work before the sun came up.

He was alone because the vast majority of people are alone when they commute to work.

He was in a back street because it was his route to work.

The lameness of Lechmere theory is that any initial suspicion aimed in his direction immediately evaporates because when Paul saw him he was exactly where he would have been--and at the time he would have been there--if he was simply an innocent man walking to work.


In fifteen years of trying, the Lechmere theorists haven't been able to convincingly shake Lechmere's account--they can't prove that things didn't happen exactly the way he described them.

To believe Lechmere is the murderer, one must embrace a third-rate Agatha Christie scenario where he leads a woman back the exact spot of his own commute, pocket watch in hand, and then times his murderous act so he kills her at the exact moment that he would have been commuting to work anyway, on the off-chance that some other bloke might come along and "spot" him.

If one really thinks it through rationally, it come across as a really bad late-night movie plot.

Very good post Roger (that I personally agree with)

But as you already know, this is not conclusive, you are repeating the old arguments in different words, that he would have run away, that he wouldn't have killed on his route to work, that there was not enough time for him to kill...

We don't know, what seems difficult or impossible for you and me, shouldn't be the same for a serial killer who worths his salt and never been caught, we don't even know what would have happened that night and led to the sighting of Lechmere near the freshly killed woman.

That is your opinion, not a fact, if Lechmerians faild to convince you, you too didn't convince them, because that is the exact nature of the problem.



The Baron

[The Baron]

It's not 50 50. In the absence of anything that proves Lechmere guilty it's nothing. He found a body so what? No semantics will change that.

Well John, if Lechmerians have anything that proves Lechmere guilty, they wouldn't then bother to give you a 50% piece of the cake.


I say you accept their offer!



The Baron

[John Wheat]

Well John, if Lechmerians have anything that proves Lechmere guilty, they wouldn't then bother to give you a 50% piece of the cake.


I say you accept their offer!



The Baron

Ridiculous post. Lechmere found a body that's it. I think you are doing this just to annoy other posters as you think Kosminski the Ripper. Or now are you saying Lechmere was the Ripper?

[The Baron]

Ridiculous post. Lechmere found a body that's it. I think you are doing this just to annoy other posters as you think Kosminski the Ripper. Or now are you saying Lechmere was the Ripper?

I am not you John, you believe in Bury's guilt, full stop.

I want to explore those who I consider persons of interest further.

And John, don't believe and repeat everything you read, be independent.



The Baron

[John Wheat]

I am not you John, you believe in Bury's guilt, full stop.

I want to explore those who I consider persons of interest further.

And John, don't believe and repeat everything you read, be independent.



The Baron

I am independent. The circumstantial evidence suggests Bury is the strongest suspect at the very least.

[John Wheat]

I am not you John, you believe in Bury's guilt, full stop.

I want to explore those who I consider persons of interest further.

And John, don't believe and repeat everything you read, be independent.



The Baron

If I believed all I read I would believe Lechmere the Ripper. But I know the case against Lechmere is all bullshit, lies and semantics.

[The Baron]

If I believed all I read I would believe Lechmere the Ripper. But I know the case against Lechmere is all bullshit, lies and semantics.

And John, why wasn't you annoyed when a druittist was defending Bury? And now when you see a Kosminiskis defending Lechmere you get troubled??

Double standards? When it suits you?!



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

And John, why wasn't you annoyed when a druittist was defending Bury? And now when you see a Kosminiskis defending Lechmere you get troubled??

Double standards? When it suits you?!



The Baron

You can’t help yourself can you? If I were a ‘Druittist’ it would mean that I believe that Druitt was the ripper. I don’t. So you aren’t telling the truth. Again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not you John, you believe in Bury's guilt, full stop.

I want to explore those who I consider persons of interest further.

And John, don't believe and repeat everything you read, be independent.



The Baron

Not true.

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.”


….


You are arguing purely for the sake of it just because you wish to annoy and not because you wish to explore a person of interest. You have added no content to this thread. All of this occurred because of you desperate, failed attempt to dismiss Bury as a suspect on the issue of beards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not you John, you believe in Bury's guilt, full stop.


The Baron

An allergy to truth might be the issue. John has stated numerous times on here that he feels that Bury is the strongest suspect. Ask him if he’d bet his house on it and he’d say no. The problem is that you see everything in terms of black and white, of good guys v bad guys. Or in your case it’s Kosminski vs the rest.

You have no sense of balance. Everything that you do is based on personal grudges.

[John Wheat]

And John, why wasn't you annoyed when a druittist was defending Bury? And now when you see a Kosminiskis defending Lechmere you get troubled??

Double standards? When it suits you?!



The Baron

Herlock's not a Druittist so you're wrong for a start. Also why would I be annoyed when someone defends the strongest suspect there is?