The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[rjpalmer]

Imagine a guy killing in the morning, and then seeking out the press in the afternoon to declare he was a witness!

Rule #1 of Lechmerean thought: state speculation as a proven fact.

Paul 'sought out the press.'

Not proven. One can just as easily read it as Paul told people at the market what he had seen that morning, or even told a constable, and the Lloyd's reporter chased him down in Forster Street. In fact, it makes a lot more sense than the reporter randomly stopping everyone walking up Buck's Row later that night.

Further, there are any number of cases where murderers talked to the press as if they relish the publicity.

Here's ten examples, but there are better ones than these.

10 Convicted Murderers Who Gave TV Interviews Before Being Arrested - Listverse

I don't think Paul was the Ripper, but bad arguments are bad arguments.

[The Baron]

He's preferable to Paul, Baron.

The air certainly went out of the balloon rapidly on that one.

Imagine a guy killing in the morning, and then seeking out the press in the afternoon to declare he was a witness!

Paul the ripper was almost always an attempt to undermine the Lechmere theory, I agree that the case against Paul the talkative and attention seeker is very lean.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

And Herlock with his usual auto response isn't shutting down debate.

I don't understand why?

How do you come up with phrases like ‘usual auto response?’ I’ve gone over events in Bucks Row in as much detail as anyone and over as long a period of time, so to try and portray me as someone that just jumps in with the occasional meaningless comment stands for little Newbie. I made the comment because Cross is close to unique in my opinion in that he’s the first ripper suspect that has a publicity campaign and a team of spin doctors, all of whom are willing to plumb any depth and scrape the bottom of any barrel in an attempt to shoehorn this clearly innocent man into the ripper’s shoes. How much time, effort is wasted on this man. I’m bored with it but I haven’t tried to stop anyone else talking about him. You are clearly a convert to the cause so you are free to fill your boots for as long as you like but I prefer reality to the Waco Compound of the Church of Cross.

There isn’t a single piece of evidence to suggest that Charles Cross was ever alone at close quarters with Mary Nichols. Absolutely nothing. He could have been alone with her for a time just as John Davis could have been alone with Annie Chapman or George Morris could have been alone with Catherine Eddowes or Louis Diemschitz could have been alone with Liz Stride or Thomas Bowyer could have been alone with Mary Kelly. Nothing about the nature of the injuries or the location suggests that he was ever alone with her, so we are left with nothing more than a possibility that applies just as much to other witnesses too. Nothing to make Cross stand out though except for an ongoing publicity campaign. So why is he of interest?

The supposed time gap which has got numerous people rubbing their chins and saying ‘aha!’ Built on a piece of evidence editing of course. Cross said that he left the house at ‘around’ 3.30. And, as per 3 Constable’s, it looks like Paul met Cross at around 3.40/1 ish then Cross could easily have left the house at 3.32 or 3.33. Go gap can be proven or implied. It should never be mentioned again.

The name thing has been refuted in so much detail that comment is superfluous on his use of the name Cross and as he clearly didn’t benefit from it then there’s nothing remotely suspicious. It’s simply another example of dishonesty. It should never be mentioned again.

We have no record of violence or any kind of mental health issue from Cross so there’s nothing in that area that might raise an eyebrow…so I’m struggling to see the attraction of this man as a suspect?

We can’t find a single example from history of a serial killer killing on the way to work and so close to being nearly there.

We can’t really find a person who found a butchered body in the street who turned out to be the killer.

We can’t find a killer who refused a clear opportunity of escape to stand around for a chat with a complete stranger whilst in possession of a bloodied knife.

And if the witnesses were correct (and they almost certainly were) then Cross was at work when Chapman was killed.

We have a man who worked for the same company for years, was married for years and left his family well-provided for.

So….what makes this man a person of interest? Absolutely zero. He’s of no more interest than Morris or Hutchinson or Richardson or any number of ‘well they were vertical at the time’ candidates. He’s a rubbish suspect who has had far too much time wasted on him by the biased preaching to the gullible.

And what’s rich, and a perfect example of ‘thinking’ in some quarters, is that here we have The Baron discussing the possibilities of this non-suspect when he’s recently made post after post trying to eliminate a man living nearby who consorted with prostitutes and murdered and mutilated a women before fleeing London a couple of months after the Kelly murder! And he considers him a non-suspect.

I’ve said it before but where has the sense of balance gone on this subject?

[The Baron]

Certain people couldn't live without me

Both Bury and Lechmere are persons of interests.

But in the case of the man who was spotted standing close to the freshly killed woman, here we have a person of most interest, who should thoroughly be investigated and cleared.

Personally I think Lechmere if a suspects stands heads and shoulders above Bury.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cross is an awful suspect. The simple fact that he was there makes him massively unlikely. In an empty, echoing street how could Paul have sneaked up to get so close to Cross that he couldn’t escape? It’s clearly nonsense. Cross heard him coming and waited for him. The killer would undoubtedly have escaped into the darkness.

Cross doesn’t deserve to be classed as a suspect. Normal bloke, going to work, finds a body, tells a Constable, goes to work, lives a normal life as far as we can tell.

Bury, father killed in a horrible accident when he was young, consorted with prostitutes, violent, murdered and mutilated his wife, left London a couple of months after Kelly.

How can the two be compared? Cross is a non-starter.

oh yeah….he was there, he was there, he was there! That’s it.

[The Baron]

How can the two be compared? Cross is a non-starter.

oh yeah….he was there, he was there, he was there! That’s it.

See, you are getting it lastly, it was not that difficult was it..

Now go put Bury at any of the murder's spots and we promise to look at him for you.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

See, you are getting it lastly, it was not that difficult was it..

Now go put Bury at any of the murder's spots and we promise to look at him for you.


The Baron

People that find bodies never turn out to be the killer.

You favour Kosminski…..place him at any of the murder sites and we promise to look at him.

If you can’t then Cross is a better suspect than Kosminski. According to you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Paul the ripper was almost always an attempt to undermine the Lechmere theory, I agree that the case against Paul the talkative and attention seeker is very lean.


The Baron

Paul is a poor suspect but he acts more suspiciously than Cross does.

[The Baron]

You favour Kosminski…..place him at any of the murder sites and we promise to look at him.

Why should I, the Police at the time already did.

And please don't look at Kosminski.


The Baron

[The Baron]

Paul is a poor suspect but he acts more suspiciously than Cross does.

Did you spotted Paul alone near a freshly killed woman?!


The Baron

[The Baron]

People that find bodies never turn out to be the killer.

People that kill their wives don't usually turn out to be serial killers

People That commit suicide don't usually turn out to be serial killers.

But certain people already support those kind of 'suspects'



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why should I, the Police at the time already did.

And please don't look at Kosminski.


The Baron

The police didn’t place Kosminski at the scene of any of the murder sites as you well know. And I’ll keep on mentioning Kosminski until you stop applying different criteria for different suspects. If it goes for Cross it goes for Kosminski. You MUST feel that Cross is a better suspect than Kosminski. If you don’t then what you’ve said about Cross is nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

People that kill their wives don't usually turn out to be serial killers

People That commit suicide don't usually turn out to be serial killers.

But certain people already support those kind of 'suspects'



The Baron

Not worth a comment.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Did you spotted Paul alone near a freshly killed woman?!


The Baron

Irrelevant.

You could at least try to raise the standard a little Baron.

[Geddy2112]

Just a hypothesis of course.


Thoughts?

Great post, thanks. Only issue I have with that is the point Cross says he never saw/heard anyone else. However that does not rule out your theory as the Ripper might have had rubber soled shoes, the Ripper was on alert, Cross was not so the Ripper might have seen/heard Cross prior to Cross doing so vice versa. After all that is, I assume what most people who discount Cross believe what happened - maybe apart from the second visit of the Ripper.