The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

"The gullibility isn’t the hard part to deal with. The dishonesty is the hard part to put up with."


I don't agree, I am sure Fisherman was honest in his research, not perfect, and no one is, but I am sure he believes every word he writes


I didn't meet any lechmerian in this forum who was not honest, but I was not always there so..



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

No. I’ve no wish to spend my life studying the hundreds of thousands of people who have found bodies whilst they were on their own over the years because not one of them has ever been found to have been te murderer.

Or you don't mind looking at him but on one condition, and one condition only, everyone must reach the same conclusion as yourself?

When you like it, we should like it.

I don’t care what you like or don’t like Baron. Cross is a rubbish suspect and that’s a fact. And you know it’s a fact. Which means that you are arguing for the sake of it purely in an attempt to annoy people. But if that’s your hobby then it’s up to you.


But when you change your mind, we should follow you..

I haven’t changed my mind. I was trying to be diplomatic after some heated arguments that I was tired of. So I tried the conciliatory approach. I won’t be doing it again.

Is that not the exact definition of gullibility you are fighting?

The gullibility isn’t the hard part to deal with. The dishonesty is the hard part to put up with.



The Baron

You wrongly believe that Chapman was killed earlier therefore, according to you, Richardson was alone with and much, much closer to a recently killed corpse that Cross was. I don’t see you spending much time on John Richardson.

[The Baron]

The Cross theory is for the gullible or the dishonest

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

Or you don't mind looking at him but on one condition, and one condition only, everyone must reach the same conclusion as yourself?

When you like it, we should like it

But when you change your mind, we should follow you..

Is that not the exact definition of gullibility you are fighting?



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

New depths are being plumbed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the case for Cross doesn't need refuting,

Why did you refute it in detail?!



If the whole theory is a joke,

why do you need to assure that nothing has shaken your absolute confidence that Cross is a feeble suspect?



If the case for Cross never existed in the first place, then who wrote this

"I am now ‘convinced’ that he has to be taken seriously as a suspect; as the ripper and maybe the Torso Killer. I could be wrong. We can all be wrong. Lechmere might be our man though"

And who wrote this

"Fish, I take my hat off to you. I’m glad that I bought your book."


You speak about tactics?! Who needs tactics when arguments are so easy to win!



The Baron

The case doesn’t need refuting. It needs people to stop talking about Cross.

The other quotes are pointless Baron. I was being conciliatory at the time. Something that I’ll never do again. But if you want to trade quotes Baron, I’m happy to do it. 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.”

Im pretty sure you know who said this.



The Cross theory is for the gullible or the dishonest.

[The Baron]

The case for Cross doesn’t need refuting because it never existed in the first place. I’ve refuted it in detail btw. As have others. The whole theory is a joke.

If the case for Cross doesn't need refuting,

Why did you refute it in detail?!



If the whole theory is a joke,

why do you need to assure that nothing has shaken your absolute confidence that Cross is a feeble suspect?



If the case for Cross never existed in the first place, then who wrote this

"I am now ‘convinced’ that he has to be taken seriously as a suspect; as the ripper and maybe the Torso Killer. I could be wrong. We can all be wrong. Lechmere might be our man though"

And who wrote this

"Fish, I take my hat off to you. I’m glad that I bought your book."


You speak about tactics?! Who needs tactics when arguments are so easy to win!



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's simply an assumption, Paul is never asked when he was first aware of someone in front of him.
if he had been, maybe people would view it differently.

Inside Bucks Row contains some recent photos of Bucks Row after dark, even with the lighting from the newly openened underground entrance, and vast amounts of light pollution from the City, its still very difficult to make people out.


Steve

A point relevant to other questions. Quite often people say “why didn’t x mention y,” never considering…”because they weren’t asked and it didn’t seem important to mention it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agree completely, I don't consider Lechmere a strong suspect, he is for me a man of interest, I do believe that the whole Lechmere case could have been presented better and refuted better, and you did a great job at that.



The Baron

The case for Cross doesn’t need refuting because it never existed in the first place. I’ve refuted it in detail btw. As have others. The whole theory is a joke.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As we can see from the response's (if you can call them that) to Roger from The Baron we can see exactly what is going on here. Let’s not beat around the bush. The Baron argues and debates for only 1 reason (apart from to irritate me) to try and clear the way for Kosminski as the ripper, a suspect that he strongly favours. So he begins by making absolutely nonsensical attempts to portray Bury as one of the weakest suspects which, as Bury consistently appears near the top of every single poll, is clearly pointless. His latest tactic is to ‘promote’ to some extent, Cross (who your average visually impaired toddler would see is an appalling weak suspect) merely to show that ‘even Cross is a better suspect than Bury.’ It’s a tactic and not a well concealed one.

And can I just point out, nothing….absolutely nothing has shaken my absolute confidence that Cross is a feeble suspect with not a single factor in his favour. Furthermore I am 100% convinced that the case for him has been accumulated by dishonestly. Utterly deliberate manipulation, falsehoods and fantasies. So I hope that Baron can see that there’s been no shaking of my confidence.