The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Ok….he was the killer….not Kosminski.

[Herlock Sholmes]

""I am now ‘convinced’ that he has to be taken seriously as a suspect; as the ripper and maybe the Torso Killer"




The Baron

Something I’ve already explained…

compared to….

“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.”


I’d stop digging if I were you Baron.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Paul:

""It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was"


Yes that is not feet away, maybe even closer



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.

[The Baron]

Why is it so hard to squeeze a bit of truth out of some people.

Clearly innocent. Remove the fabrications and you have a better case against Gull. Cross is one of the worst suspects we have

""I am now ‘convinced’ that he has to be taken seriously as a suspect; as the ripper and maybe the Torso Killer"




The Baron

[Fiver]

Here, you put in a lot of time on something and the same crowd stumbles by without making any effort to understand the argument
and declares it more Lechmerite nonsense.

We understand the arguments. We have heard them dozens of time before. We reject the theory that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper because we have examined the evidence, which shows the case against Lechmere is a mix of irrelevancies, speculation, and outright falsehoods.

Charles Lechmere was found near a body. He lived in the area.

That's the whole case against him.

[The Baron]

There is zero evidence against Lechmere. The quest to find him guilty as Jack the Ripper is tiresome, annoying and in bad taste. Lechmere found a body so what?

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

[John Wheat]

There is zero evidence against Lechmere. The quest to find him guilty as Jack the Ripper is tiresome, annoying and in bad taste. Lechmere found a body so what?

[Fiver]

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

No one is questioning that alcoholism can result in violence. No one is questioning that abused children are more prone to become criminals.

We are questioning your analysis.

Thomas Cross' cause of death was Fatty degeneration (V, Dropsy and Uroemia. It does not mention what organ or organs were suffering from fatty degeneration, but steosis is not confined to the liver. In the liver it is caused by alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and hepatitis. In other organs it can be caused by obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and apnea.

Dropsy (edema) is caused by problems with the heart, liver, kidneys, or veins. There is no direct tie to alcoholism.

Uroemia is kidney falure. Causes are diabetes, high blood pressure, injuries to the kidney, and genetic defects. There is no direct tie to alcoholism.

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

[Fiver]

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

Quiet is not the same as deserted.

PC Thain saw a couple men "down Brady-Street shortly before I was called by Neale." Mulshaw was told of the murder by an unknown man. Mrs Lilley heard two people in Bucks Row around 3:30am. An unknown man passed by shortly after the body was found. Sergeant Henry Kirby, Walter Purkiss, Patrick Mulshaw, James Green, and the watchman at Essex Wharf were all nearby with no known alibi.

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.

There are whole threads showing there was no such obligation for him to use his birth name.

Here.

Here.

And Here.

These have been posted before.

[Geddy2112]

Paul:

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was"

Which of course could mean 'level' with where the woman was depending on how you interpret it. 'I saw a man in the middle of the street, standing where the lamp post was' does not mean the lamp post was in the middle of the street does it? No, it means the man was in the middle of the street level/adjacent to where the lamp post was. The lamp post is given as another 'identifier' to illustrate where the man was. It no way implies the lamp post and the man were close to each other.

[The Baron]

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.

Paul:

""It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was"


Yes that is not feet away, maybe even closer



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Newbie,

You have omitted one word, but a very vital word above, Paul saw him STANDING


Not walking, not running, not sitting, not squatting, not lying down.…



The Baron

And he’s left out the FACT that he WASN’T STANDING NEXT TO THE BODY!!!

How often can this falsehood keep getting repeated? 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.

Why is it so hard to squeeze a bit of truth out of some people.

And when Paul saw him he wasn’t walking back from the body either. He was stationary.

Would Cross really have lied to Paul about being near to the body if there was a chance that he might have seen him walking from the body to the middle of the road?

If he had moved from the body that would add even more obvious escape time which he neglected to use.

Clearly innocent. Remove the fabrications and you have a better case against Gull. Cross is one of the worst suspects we have.

[The Baron]

Paul doesn't mention Lechmere at all until seeing him next to the body.

Hi Newbie,

You have omitted one word, but a very vital word above, Paul saw him STANDING


Not walking, not running, not sitting, not squatting, not lying down...



The Baron

[The Baron]

Personally, I just write for myself to clarify what I'm thinking, and make it as logically consistent as possible.

There are others who are eagerly reading your posts Newbie, the long posts and the short posts, you have explained in details new aspects of the subject, very interesting ones indeed.


Keep up the great work.



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

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.

No they haven't.

If one is in the process of committing a crime and hears something or someone that spooks them their immediate reaction would be to stop and hide/run away. They most certainly would NOT wait and approach the passer by and tap them on the shoulder (with a bloody hand) and show them their crime. Then they most certainly would not go with said passer by and approach a policeman, still with blood on them and a weapon.

Unless you can provide another example from history of this kind of thing happening?