The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[Herlock Sholmes]

So you know that Lechmere was a finder and not a killer because:

you think he was the finder and not the killer..


Great!


The Baron

You could at least try and look at this logically. I’ve said numerous times that we cannot categorically prove that Cross wasn’t the killer. The chance exists however tiny. But that’s the case for every suspect apart from a minute few like Dr. Cream, Prince Eddy and Van Gogh to name three. We know that they couldn’t have been the killer. Reason, sense, evidence all experience go toward pointing out how likely it might have been for someone to have been the killer.

In the case of all suspects we have to ask the question - what is it that makes someone think that Cross might have been the killer? (And there’s no point in just saying ‘well, he was there and you can’t prove that he wasn’t the killer,’ because that just isn’t enough to make someone a good suspect. More is needed.

So what is the answer?

[Herlock Sholmes]

* I am not Geddy.

* Robert Paul was never asked and end never said what distance he saw or heard Lechmere at.

* I never said what you claim I said.

Requires that Robert Paul neither see nor hear Lechmere clean and put away a knife, move from facing west crouched over the body on the south pavement to standing in the middle of the road facing east. Some versions also throw in Lechmere lifting up the body to try to pull the skirts down. If Paul noticed any of this, then Lechmere's story would have been an obvious lie to Paul. By Paul's own testimony, he was initially afraid of Lechmere, which to any killer smarter than a paving stone, would have been interpreted as Paul knows he is the murderer and must be silenced.

Note the word "seeing". Cleaning a knife would require movement of a light colored object to wipe off a reflective object. Movement draws attention. Color contrast draws attention. Reflected light draws attention.

You also ignore the rest of what I said. If Lechmere was the killer he had to move from facing west crouched over the body on the south pavement to standing in the middle of the road facing east without being seen or heard by Paul.

You’re dealing with enough ‘straw man’ stuff to have fed Red Rum for a year Fiver.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I bet you didn't know I am team earlier TOD for this one.



The Baron

Team wrong.

And you only go for an earlier ToD because I go for a later one. If I said that the killer was Kosminski you’d jump to another suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We look at all of the murders, since this was the work of a serial killer. Three witnesses put Chapman's death after Lechmere would have started work. Killing Stride and Eddowes would have required staying up 23+ hours or getting up 3+ hours on his only day off.

But some people prefer the Wizard of Whitechapel Dr. Gandalf Phillips who, by the mere touch of his hand could predict a ToD with a greater level of reliability and accuracy than a Doctor in 2024 can do.

Yes…some adults actually believe that. This is how desperate some are to fit up Cross for the murder. It’s both embarrassing and sad.

[The Baron]

You could at least try and look at this logically. I’ve said numerous times that we cannot categorically prove that Cross wasn’t the killer. The chance exists however tiny. But that’s the case for every suspect apart from a minute few like Dr. Cream, Prince Eddy and Van Gogh to name three. We know that they couldn’t have been the killer. Reason, sense, evidence all experience go toward pointing out how likely it might have been for someone to have been the killer.

In the case of all suspects we have to ask the question - what is it that makes someone think that Cross might have been the killer? (And there’s no point in just saying ‘well, he was there and you can’t prove that he wasn’t the killer,’ because that just isn’t enough to make someone a good suspect. More is needed.

So what is the answer?

I will tell you the answe, so hear me now:


We are not just saying Lechmere was there, we are saying
... do you hear me .... we are saying...



He was SPOTTED standing near a freshly killed woman.


If it is not clear enough I still can make the font bigger.


Has Paul never come that road, we wouldn't know what Lechmere might have done.


Spotted



The Baron

[Paddy Goose]

Good afternoon Hurley,

He's better than Van Gogh though.

I beg to disagree. They were both bearded.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good afternoon Hurley,



I beg to disagree. They were both bearded.

Hello Paddy,

As you can see, I’m doing a poor job of avoiding talk about Cross.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I will tell you the answe, so hear me now:


We are not just saying Lechmere was there, we are saying
... do you hear me .... we are saying...



He was SPOTTED standing near a freshly killed woman.


If it is not clear enough I still can make the font bigger.


Has Paul never come that road, we wouldn't know what Lechmere might have done.


Spotted



The Baron

Give it a rest Baron. That’s just another way of saying he was there!!

Why was he there?

Because he was there every day at that time.

Because he was on his way to work.

Because he was acting as he did for 6 days a week.


So why is that behaviour suddenly suspicious because on that day there was a body there? Was his behaviour suspicious the previous day when there wasn’t a body there?

So what makes Cross any more suspicious than every single person in human history that found a body? And don’t just quote the ‘recently killed’ crap because this was a police patrolled street so whenever a body is found it’s going to be recently killed.

[The Baron]

So what makes Cross any more suspicious than every single person in human history that found a body?

Because he was spotted near a recently killed woman, we don't know if he was the killer, or as you wish to think he was the finder.



The Baron

[Paddy Goose]

Hello Paddy,

As you can see, I’m doing a poor job of avoiding talk about Cross.

Not to worry Hurley, the good news is we can all stop this Lechmere silliness because on his Beard thread The Baron has proclaimed the bearded Lechmere innocent. "Once bearded always bearded."

So I say - Congratulations to us all !

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not to worry Hurley, the good news is we can all stop this Lechmere silliness because on his Beard thread The Baron has proclaimed the bearded Lechmere innocent. "Once bearded always bearded."

So I say - Congratulations to us all !

I’d forgotten about that point Paddy. Of course.

So what about the beard Baron?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because he was spotted near a recently killed woman, we don't know if he was the killer, or as you wish to think he was the finder.



The Baron

But again, that goes for thousands. It’s not a good enough reason to suggest Cross as a good suspect.

There are very good reasons to make him unlikely - on his way to work, didn’t flee when he had the chance, no suspicious behaviour….but not one that makes him likely. Not one.

[The Baron]

But again, that goes for thousands. It’s not a good enough reason to suggest Cross as a good suspect.

I understand, it must be difficult for you to blatantly admit, no problem

At least we have a progression, you now know the difference!!!


Bravo!


The Baron

[The Baron]

Again, Lechmere for me is NOT a great suspect, the old theory has some bugs, this is an exercise to test different scenarios, I do believe that this man should be explored further, the way Fisherman and Co. prestented the case against the carman is not convincing, for me at least, and I welcome any suggestion where a guilty Lechmere might have a chance to get rid of the bloody knife before talking to Mizen.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

I understand, it must be difficult for you to blatantly admit, no problem

At least we have a progression, you now know the difference!!!


Bravo!


The Baron

Ok, it’s back to waffle is it? I thought for a minute that you were actually going to answer a question sensibly. I should have known better.