Originally posted by Newbie
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by The Baron View PostWhat has Sutcliffe to do with a comparison between Cross the ripper vs Paul the ripper ?!
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
You stated 'Did you spotted Paul alone near a freshly killed woman?!' in relation to Paul can't be JtR because he was not spotted near a freshly killed woman. I used the Peter Sutcliffe example to point out that not all killers are spotted next to a freshly killed victims.
No, I didn't say Paul cannot be Jack the Ripper.
The Baron
Comment
-
Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
Correct, I consider Lechmere more suspicious than Paul since Lechmere is the one who was spotted alone near the freshly killed woman that early morning and not Paul.
The Baron
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Baron View PostCorrect, I consider Lechmere more suspicious than Paul since Lechmere is the one who was spotted alone near the freshly killed woman that early morning and not Paul.
So you are having Cross by comparison more likely than Paul because Paul spotted him near Polly? Fair enough. I still say reading Paul's various account I have him more suspicious than Cross because he keeps changing his mind and blatantly lies but each to their own I guess.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
However you state 'No, I didn't say Paul cannot be Jack the Ripper.'
So you are having Cross by comparison more likely than Paul because Paul spotted him near Polly? Fair enough. I still say reading Paul's various account I have him more suspicious than Cross because he keeps changing his mind and blatantly lies but each to their own I guess.
So Lechmere who was spotted alone near the freshly killed woman at that early morning in that dark road remains less likely to be the Ripper than Paul who kept changing his mind and words.
I see.
Do we need to see Lechmere in the act of cutting the woman's throat and slashing her abdomen open in order to consider Lechmere a better suspect than Paul?!
What else would be closer to capturing the Ripper red handed than spotting someone standing alone in the dark near a freshly killed woman?!
The Baron
Comment
-
Why is Cross a better suspect than John Davis? Both found bodies. Both ‘could’ have been there earlier than claimed. Both ‘could’ have lied. Finding a body isn’t an indication of guilt. It’s an indication of finding a body. The police always look into the ‘finder’ of course but the ‘finder’ is never the killer. The killer has always scarpered because you would have to be a colossal moron to stand around with a bloodied knife in your pocket knowing that a police officer will make an appearance soon.
Cross is a rubbish suspect. Not only that but he’s an obviously rubbish suspect.
He's better than Van Gogh though. At least he was in the same country as the victims.Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Baron View Post
So Lechmere who was spotted alone near the freshly killed woman at that early morning in that dark road remains less likely to be the Ripper than Paul who kept changing his mind and words.
Originally posted by The Baron View PostDo we need to see Lechmere in the act of cutting the woman's throat and slashing her abdomen open in order to consider Lechmere a better suspect than Paul?!
Originally posted by The Baron View PostWhat else would be closer to capturing the Ripper red handed than spotting someone standing alone in the dark near a freshly killed woman?!
Cross/Lechmere was not Jack The Ripper. It's a baseless theory with no facts, featuring 100% speculation and twisting of evidence. A sham.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
So in your view, if a murderer committed a crime, all he needs to do is to stay near the freshly killed victim and wait for someone to notify him, that would be seen totally normal (someone has to find the body) and enough not to suspect him.
Well I just don't agree.
The Baron
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Baron View PostSo in your view, if a murderer committed a crime, all he needs to do is to stay near the freshly killed victim and wait for someone to notify him, that would be seen totally normal (someone has to find the body) and enough not to suspect him.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Finding a body isn’t an indication of guilt. It’s an indication of finding a body.
Gotcha
How do you know that Lechmere is a body finder and not a killer?!
We have Mizen who was approached by two carmen at that early morning telling him there is a woman in Buck's Row that might be dead.
You and Geddy consider Paul suspicious, and Geddy stated that Paul blatantly lies.
Who's words are we going to take?!
Do we take Lechmere's own words that he was just the finder and not the killer?
Or do we take Paul's the liar words (only this time) who wouldn't have known what Lechmere might have done to the woman?!
The Baron
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Baron View PostGotcha
Originally posted by The Baron View PostHow do you know that Lechmere is a body finder and not a killer?!
Originally posted by The Baron View PostWe have Mizen who was approached by two carmen at that early morning telling him there is a woman in Buck's Row that might be dead.
Originally posted by The Baron View PostYou and Geddy consider Paul suspicious, and Geddy stated that Paul blatantly lies.
Originally posted by The Baron View PostWho's words are we going to take?!
Do we take Lechmere's own words that he was just the finder and not the killer?
Originally posted by The Baron View PostOr do we take Paul's the liar words (only this time) who wouldn't have known what Lechmere might have done to the woman?!
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment