The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Lechmere Theory gets the reaction it does largely because of how the Lechmereians are and have been on this site for years. Also the Theory is extremely weak.

Exactly. A complete absence of balance and a willingness to try anything to make a case against him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

If a hoard of posters came down on your favorite suspect in droves, acting like they do here,
see how you would like it.

Thank you for posting this because it illustrates absolutely perfectly what I’ve been saying for a considerable time. You feel the need to defend the honour of your suspect. This is what happens when suspects are treated like football teams.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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!

Can you be so lacking in self-awareness or are you simply incapable of being honest? Surely you realise that your previous posts don’t disappear?

“This is the typical witless response I expect from you Herlock.”

Insulting in anyone’s language.

“A mentally adept poster would consider the health items on Thomas Cross's death certificate:”

And to suggest that I have some kind of mental issue is really the actions of the ‘nice guy’ that you are but apparently I’m not.

This is just hypocrisy.


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 .....

Turn the gaze around and look at the people (like yourself) who quite deliberately, as a mission, try to isolate and shape every single detail of the case to try and make them point to guilt. Fiver, in think, once produced a list of the things that Cross supporters had brought up over the years.

Its annoying. Its like you don't read what people type or quickly expunge your memory of it.

An ironic statement considering to ‘forgetting’ of insulting comments.

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.

Meaningless if you have no reason to suspect that person in the first place and the case against Cross is built on dishonesty.

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

So it’s not worth being repeatedly mentioned as if it was. It’s not proof of anything. Cross didn’t benefit from it then it’s not an issue. Yet it keeps getting mentioned. Every time it’s mentioned it’s an example of dishonesty.

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

And here we are again with the propaganda. Your statement implies that he arrived earlier. We have no reason to suspect that he did. It’s more fabrication.

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.

There isn’t one single thing odd about him and, as you may have noticed, many other people agree with me. The points that you made against him were childish and follow an agenda. There is no such thing as honest debate with a Cross supporter because it’s become a deeply’ held belief. Reason has flown out of the window.

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.

They clearly haven’t. That a man holding a bloodied knife, in a street where no one could have caught him unawares, would have stood around waiting for a stranger to arrive isn’t worthy of adult discussion.

That Cross, whatever time he left his house, leaves it until 20 minutes before his clocking on time and with walking still to do to murder and mutilate a woman on the street (before hanging around for a chat)

The fact that he had no history of violence means nothing more than that. It doesn’t prevent anyone from being a killer.

You’ve clearly taken the personal, rather than the evidential route. You have allowed a dislike of me to affect your judgment as evidence by these, and recent other comments. You should try to avoid this approach.

Whatever suspects are favoured by individuals is largely unimportant but sadly the Cross/Lechmere promotion is now polluting the subject as a whole because its adherents and converts simply cannot discuss the subject objectively. We have seen a book and a documentary where a vital word was provable, deliberately left out so as to give the entirely false impression of a gap. This disgrace seems not to bother Cross supporters one iota but most of us would be ashamed if we had resorted to those tactics. We’ve also seen a quite cynical and deliberate attempt to move the discovery time back (in spite of the evidence) again, to fabricate this imaginary gap. Is it important? Yes, of course it is, in the post abound you made casual mention of it, as if it’s proven.

When looking at evidence you should always read the lines before you start reading between them. The evidence that we have tells us that there isn’t one single thing suspicious about Cross. Not one. He behave exactly as I would have expected a normal man of his time who found a body on the way to work. All else is a combination of wild speculation, fabrication, editing, misuse of language and obsession.

[Geddy2112]

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.

Sorry it does not. It's that simple. He was NOT expected to use 'Lechmere' at all. If you are going to argue a point at least get the facts correct.

In all parts of the U.K., your legal name is the name you are generally known by. This is something which has been established by case law, going back hundreds of years.
Over the years — whenever a dispute about someone’s name (or surname) has been brought before a court of law — the court (and in particular, the judges who were there) have interpreted and defined where exactly the law stands. There has never been any statute, in any part of the U.K., which formally defines what your name is in law (or how you can change it.)

[John Wheat]

I'm fine with others voicing a different preference.

When I go to other suspects I rarely post because I just end up not being interested.

Sometimes, its because there isn't much of a chance of making any head way .... so difficult is it to go beyond a certain point.
And when there is a suspect I just do not like, I don't say anyting, because I know people put a lot of effort into it.

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.

If you are too long, it mostly won't be read - but you'll still get a long list of counter responses; if its too short, it will be mostly misunderstood, and then you have to deal with things you did not advocate, clarifying a position, which will be ignored.

Or its treated as a grammar exercise, underlining every sentence to make a rebuttal everywhere.

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

If a hoard of posters came down on your favorite suspect in droves, acting like they do here,
see how you would like it.

The Lechmere Theory gets the reaction it does largely because of how the Lechmereians are and have been on this site for years. Also the Theory is extremely weak.

[Newbie]

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

I'm fine with others voicing a different preference.

When I go to other suspects I rarely post because I just end up not being interested.

Sometimes, its because there isn't much of a chance of making any head way .... so difficult is it to go beyond a certain point.
And when there is a suspect I just do not like, I don't say anyting, because I know people put a lot of effort into it.

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.

If you are too long, it mostly won't be read - but you'll still get a long list of counter responses; if its too short, it will be mostly misunderstood, and then you have to deal with things you did not advocate, clarifying a position, which will be ignored.

Or its treated as a grammar exercise, underlining every sentence to make a rebuttal everywhere.

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

If a hoard of posters came down on your favorite suspect in droves, acting like they do here,
see how you would like it.

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[Duran duren]

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

Steve

Looking forward to watching it Steve

[Elamarna]

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

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

Steve