The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[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.

Read my last post.

The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s nothing more to explore on Cross. He’s a rubbish suspect. Created, proposed and perpetuated using dishonesty, the editing and manipulation of evidence, the distortion of the English language and blatant self-interest. The whole thing embarrassment to the subject.

[The Baron]

There’s nothing more to explore on Cross. He’s a rubbish suspect. Created, proposed and perpetuated using dishonesty, the editing and manipulation of evidence, the distortion of the English language and blatant self-interest. The whole thing embarrassment to the subject.

All the more reason why we should analyse the situation and the persons involved further.

I remember Neil saying there was not a soul about, Mizen, Thail, Neil, no one saw anybody around that night, Nichols was not seen with anyone either, in Whitechapel street Neil just saw women going back home, it was a very narrow space for the Killer, and yet we have a person who was seen standing near the victim alone in the dark.


The Baron

[Lewis C]

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.

Hi Herlock,

Cross is also a better suspect than William Gull. At least Cross was less than 70 years old.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All the more reason why we should analyse the situation and the persons involved further.

I remember Neil saying there was not a soul about, Mizen, Thail, Neil, no one saw anybody around that night, Nichols was not seen with anyone either, in Whitechapel street Neil just saw women going back home, it was a very narrow space for the Killer, and yet we have a person who was seen standing near the victim alone in the dark.


The Baron

The killer escaped before Cross arrived. We’re talking about three police officers so it’s not as if the streets were teeming with Constable’s. How difficult could it be to avoid a Constable in the dark? No police officer saw the killer anywhere as far as we know. And do we really think that those three Constable’s didn’t see a single person in the streets?

I’ll go there again Baron….you favour an earlier ToD for Chapman (fine, it’s your opinion) So let’s speculate that she was killed earlier. Then we have Richardson sitting a foot from the body but claiming that he could see the whole yard and there was nothing there. If it was indeed an earlier ToD then Richardson is a better suspect that Cross by a country mile. I have heard you insisting that we look into Richardson though.

Being next to a recently killed body isn’t suspicious.

A man who as just brutally murdered a woman in the street, who had a bloodied knife on him and who can’t be completely sure that he hasn’t gotten blood on him, stands waiting for a completely stranger to arrive.

Now that’s suspicious. It’s the textbook action of a completely innocent man.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Cross is also a better suspect than William Gull. At least Cross was less than 70 years old.

Hi Lewis,

True. We can move him up to 193 on the list

[Lewis C]

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

As has recently been explained, maybe in this thread, Cross being seen discovering a body makes him less suspicious than those that discovered a body without being seen doing it, because with Cross, there's independent verification for what he did. The man who saw him, Robert Paul, didn't think he was suspicious.

[The Baron]

Cross being seen discovering a body

The Baron

[Fiver]

All the more reason why we should analyse the situation and the persons involved further.

I remember Neil saying there was not a soul about, Mizen, Thail, Neil, no one saw anybody around that night, Nichols was not seen with anyone either, in Whitechapel street Neil just saw women going back home, it was a very narrow space for the Killer, and yet we have a person who was seen standing near the victim alone in the dark.

This is incorrect. PC Thain saw a couple men "down Brady-Street shortly before I was called by Neale." Mulshaw was told of the murder by an unknown man. Mrs Lilley heard two people in Bucks Row around 3:30am. An unknown man passed by shortly after the body was found. Sergeant Henry Kirby, Walter Purkiss, Patrick Mulshawy, James Green, and the watchman at Essex Wharf were all nearby with no known alibi.

[The Baron]

Emma Green:
heard no unusual sound during the night

Walter Purkess
had heard no sound, neither had his wife

Henry Tomkins
Nobody passed except the policeman

John Neil
There was not a soul about

Alfred Malshaw
had also heard no cries or noise

Robert Baul
Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away

John Thail
nothing attracted his attention until 3.45 a.m


The Baron

[The Baron]

Mrs Lilley heard two people in Bucks Row around 3:30am

That was Lechmere and Nichols, prove it is not.



The Baron

[Paddy Goose]

That's easy to prove. Charles Cross was just leaving home then. He wasn't in Buck's Row.

It's your word against Charles Cross and I believe him, not you. He was there, you weren't.

[The Baron]

That's easy to prove. Charles Cross was just leaving home then. He wasn't in Buck's Row.

It's your word against Charles Cross and I believe him, not you. He was there, you weren't.

I don't want you to believe me, believe Cross, you wont regret it.

This is the fundamental error again, trying to prove someone innocent by using his own words for it.

And if you bothered to read carefully she said around 3:30


The Baron

[Paddy Goose]

I don't want you to believe me...

Good.

[The Baron]

What I would like to know is this:

Is there any drain or a place that a guilty Lechmere might be able to throw the knife to, from Buck's Row to Court street ?


Can you forget for a moment that the Lechmere/Cross theory is rubbish, and try to think with me?



The Baron