The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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..

[The Baron]

No it isn't. Lechmere found a body that's it.

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

[Geddy2112]

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

By whom? Just asking because Paul said he saw him in the middle of the road. He never mentioned a 'near a freshly killed woman.'

You see it's this misrepresentation of the facts that has lead to all this bollocks in the first place...

[John Wheat]

No John, that is a supposition on your behalf.


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



The Baron

No it isn't. Lechmere found a body that's it.

[The Baron]

but near isn’t a distance. I realise that English isn’t The Baron’s first language so maybe this explains his confusion

Cambridge Dictionary:

"not far away in distance"



Collins Dictionary:

"If something is near a place, thing, or person, it is a short distance from them"



Longman Dictionary:

"near only a short distance from something or someone"


Your claim that "near" is not a distance has been shown to be false.


I bet today is not your day, two times in a row!!

Some are ready to change the meaning of their own language if they needed to.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

I believe that Buck's Row was 25 feet wide, so in the middle must roughly be around ten feet or so, give or take.

It's certainly not the case that Lechmere was crouching over the body. But standing in the middle of the road isn't as tasty as crouching over a freshly killed woman.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does any other suspect have such a cult following? Maybrick tends to involve debate over the diary itself but I’m talking about a suspect on his own. One where the supporters will go to any length…and I do mean any length. I get the impression that if someone came up with proof that Cross was in Edinburgh on the night of the Kelly murder then Cross supporters would claim “well, that proves he was the killer.”

[Mike J. G.]

Oh grow up Baron. The two inquest reports have Paul saying the Cross was standing in the middle of the road. It wasn’t a wide road so he couldn’t have been that far. I don’t know if your ‘spotted near..’ is an actual quote but if it is then it’s just general phrase. Cross couldn’t have been anything other than ‘near’ in a narrow street.

Please stop arguing.

I believe that Buck's Row was 25 feet wide, so in the middle must roughly be around ten feet or so, give or take.

It's certainly not the case that Lechmere was crouching over the body. But standing in the middle of the road isn't as tasty as crouching over a freshly killed woman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You wont go away with it this time

You claimed

"We don’t have one single piece of evidence or even a hint of a piece of evidence that Cross was ever any closer than feet away from the body"


That claim has been shown to be false.


It is rich! coming from the one who is right and left accusing Lechmerians of fabrications and falsifications.



The Baron

Oh grow up Baron. The two inquest reports have Paul saying the Cross was standing in the middle of the road. It wasn’t a wide road so he couldn’t have been that far. I don’t know if your ‘spotted near..’ is an actual quote but if it is then it’s just general phrase. Cross couldn’t have been anything other than ‘near’ in a narrow street.

Please stop arguing.

[The Baron]

You can’t help yourself can you?

From The Telegraph.

Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road


or from The Times

Robert Baul [sic – Paul], a carman of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel, stated he went to work at Cobbett’s-court, Spitalfields. He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning, and as he was passing up Buck’s-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road.

You wont go away with it this time

You claimed

"We don’t have one single piece of evidence or even a hint of a piece of evidence that Cross was ever any closer than feet away from the body"


That claim has been shown to be false.


It is rich! coming from the one who is right and left accusing Lechmerians of fabrications and falsifications.



The Baron