The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[Newbie]

My view remains as it always does, that is Lechmere is a viable suspect, he's in the area, and the first to see the body of Mary Ann.
However, in my view, on present research, he's not a particularly strong candidate.

I see the issue somewhat differently to you, in that I see too many pro Lechmere people stating there is no other choice, some even state its been proven beyond reasonable doubt, such is clearly incorrect. Such comments, for me, is why some of those who don't support the Lechmere theory, respond as they do.
I dont think the case as presented bt either Mr Holmgren or Mr Stow, should shake the confidence of any who have seriously looked at the theory.

Steve

I'm fine with others voicing a different preference.

When I go to other suspects I rarely post because I just end up not being interested.

Sometimes, its because there isn't much of a chance of making any head way .... so difficult is it to go beyond a certain point.
And when there is a suspect I just do not like, I don't say anyting, because I know people put a lot of effort into it.

Here, you put in a lot of time on something and the same crowd stumbles by without making any effort to understand the argument
and declares it more Lechmerite nonsense.

If you are too long, it mostly won't be read - but you'll still get a long list of counter responses; if its too short, it will be mostly misunderstood, and then you have to deal with things you did not advocate, clarifying a position, which will be ignored.

Or its treated as a grammar exercise, underlining every sentence to make a rebuttal everywhere.

Personally, I just write for myself to clarify what I'm thinking, and make it as logically consistent as possible.

If a hoard of posters came down on your favorite suspect in droves, acting like they do here,
see how you would like it.

[John Wheat]

I'm fine with others voicing a different preference.

When I go to other suspects I rarely post because I just end up not being interested.

Sometimes, its because there isn't much of a chance of making any head way .... so difficult is it to go beyond a certain point.
And when there is a suspect I just do not like, I don't say anyting, because I know people put a lot of effort into it.

Here, you put in a lot of time on something and the same crowd stumbles by without making any effort to understand the argument
and declares it more Lechmerite nonsense.

If you are too long, it mostly won't be read - but you'll still get a long list of counter responses; if its too short, it will be mostly misunderstood, and then you have to deal with things you did not advocate, clarifying a position, which will be ignored.

Or its treated as a grammar exercise, underlining every sentence to make a rebuttal everywhere.

Personally, I just write for myself to clarify what I'm thinking, and make it as logically consistent as possible.

If a hoard of posters came down on your favorite suspect in droves, acting like they do here,
see how you would like it.

The Lechmere Theory gets the reaction it does largely because of how the Lechmereians are and have been on this site for years. Also the Theory is extremely weak.

[Geddy2112]

The name the British legal system expected him to use is what is important..... and in all cases where individuals had
duel surnames that I reviewed, even when they preferred their adopted surname derived from a step dad, they always went by their birth name when representing themselves in legal matters and before tribunals.

Lechmere was expected to use Lechmere, not Cross.

Sorry it does not. It's that simple. He was NOT expected to use 'Lechmere' at all. If you are going to argue a point at least get the facts correct.

In all parts of the U.K., your legal name is the name you are generally known by. This is something which has been established by case law, going back hundreds of years.
Over the years — whenever a dispute about someone’s name (or surname) has been brought before a court of law — the court (and in particular, the judges who were there) have interpreted and defined where exactly the law stands. There has never been any statute, in any part of the U.K., which formally defines what your name is in law (or how you can change it.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didn't insult you mate.

I just opined on how your construction of an argument is laughable,
and its always the same damn thing:

Step A: Lechmere's innocence is a fact that is self evident

Step B: therefore his being only 40 - 50 yards ahead of Paul is a fact

Step C: therefore, rat-a-tat-tat, all this malarkey about hearing sounds is just a devious ploy

Step D: the wing flapping and the outrage and what a joke Lechmerites are.


Go ahead and re-read your furious scribblings directed towards me to refresh your memory on how you go about things.
If you were a nice guy, I wouldn't be a rude jerk ... but you aren't. And you talk about people insulting you .... the nerve!

Can you be so lacking in self-awareness or are you simply incapable of being honest? Surely you realise that your previous posts don’t disappear?

“This is the typical witless response I expect from you Herlock.”

Insulting in anyone’s language.

“A mentally adept poster would consider the health items on Thomas Cross's death certificate:”

And to suggest that I have some kind of mental issue is really the actions of the ‘nice guy’ that you are but apparently I’m not.

This is just hypocrisy.


A 2nd problem I have with how you go about things is that you try to isolate every fact and argue against them one at a time.
And then you go into your how absurd it is that he's considered a serial killer just because his step dad was an alcoholic;
or that he merely discovered the body; or that he failed to use his christian name .....

Turn the gaze around and look at the people (like yourself) who quite deliberately, as a mission, try to isolate and shape every single detail of the case to try and make them point to guilt. Fiver, in think, once produced a list of the things that Cross supporters had brought up over the years.

Its annoying. Its like you don't read what people type or quickly expunge your memory of it.

An ironic statement considering to ‘forgetting’ of insulting comments.

And then when I ask that people consider a combination of facts and try to give some acceptable motive for themas a collective,
you go into your wing flapping routine ...again, and again, and again. Its tiring.

No, alcoholism in a parent doesnt' doom a kid to commit murder, much less become a serial killer.
There however exists a strong correlation between kids subjected to an alcoholic dad and violence.
And many serial killers have had alcoholic parents.

Meaningless if you have no reason to suspect that person in the first place and the case against Cross is built on dishonesty.

No, failing to provide your Christian name at an inquest is not proof that someone is a serial killer.

So it’s not worth being repeatedly mentioned as if it was. It’s not proof of anything. Cross didn’t benefit from it then it’s not an issue. Yet it keeps getting mentioned. Every time it’s mentioned it’s an example of dishonesty.

No, even by arriving earlier than he suggested, that does not prove that Lechmere is JtR.

And here we are again with the propaganda. Your statement implies that he arrived earlier. We have no reason to suspect that he did. It’s more fabrication.

But to lock down and deny what is odd about him is just someone so emotionally wrapped up in his own ego,
that it really is pointless to engage you in anything sensible.

There isn’t one single thing odd about him and, as you may have noticed, many other people agree with me. The points that you made against him were childish and follow an agenda. There is no such thing as honest debate with a Cross supporter because it’s become a deeply’ held belief. Reason has flown out of the window.

When I got here the argument was that Lechmere would have run if was the killer, upon hearing Paul's footsteps;
that he wouldn't kill on his way to work because he'd get all that blood on his clothes;
that Lechmere was married and there is no history indicating that there was anything unpleasant about his family life.

Now, personally, I think those arguments have been weakened.

They clearly haven’t. That a man holding a bloodied knife, in a street where no one could have caught him unawares, would have stood around waiting for a stranger to arrive isn’t worthy of adult discussion.

That Cross, whatever time he left his house, leaves it until 20 minutes before his clocking on time and with walking still to do to murder and mutilate a woman on the street (before hanging around for a chat)

The fact that he had no history of violence means nothing more than that. It doesn’t prevent anyone from being a killer.

You’ve clearly taken the personal, rather than the evidential route. You have allowed a dislike of me to affect your judgment as evidence by these, and recent other comments. You should try to avoid this approach.

Whatever suspects are favoured by individuals is largely unimportant but sadly the Cross/Lechmere promotion is now polluting the subject as a whole because its adherents and converts simply cannot discuss the subject objectively. We have seen a book and a documentary where a vital word was provable, deliberately left out so as to give the entirely false impression of a gap. This disgrace seems not to bother Cross supporters one iota but most of us would be ashamed if we had resorted to those tactics. We’ve also seen a quite cynical and deliberate attempt to move the discovery time back (in spite of the evidence) again, to fabricate this imaginary gap. Is it important? Yes, of course it is, in the post abound you made casual mention of it, as if it’s proven.

When looking at evidence you should always read the lines before you start reading between them. The evidence that we have tells us that there isn’t one single thing suspicious about Cross. Not one. He behave exactly as I would have expected a normal man of his time who found a body on the way to work. All else is a combination of wild speculation, fabrication, editing, misuse of language and obsession.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

If a hoard of posters came down on your favorite suspect in droves, acting like they do here,
see how you would like it.

Thank you for posting this because it illustrates absolutely perfectly what I’ve been saying for a considerable time. You feel the need to defend the honour of your suspect. This is what happens when suspects are treated like football teams.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Lechmere Theory gets the reaction it does largely because of how the Lechmereians are and have been on this site for years. Also the Theory is extremely weak.

Exactly. A complete absence of balance and a willingness to try anything to make a case against him.

[Geddy2112]

When I got here the argument was that Lechmere would have run if was the killer, upon hearing Paul's footsteps;
that he wouldn't kill on his way to work because he'd get all that blood on his clothes;
that Lechmere was married and there is no history indicating that there was anything unpleasant about his family life.

Now, personally, I think those arguments have been weakened.

No they haven't.

If one is in the process of committing a crime and hears something or someone that spooks them their immediate reaction would be to stop and hide/run away. They most certainly would NOT wait and approach the passer by and tap them on the shoulder (with a bloody hand) and show them their crime. Then they most certainly would not go with said passer by and approach a policeman, still with blood on them and a weapon.

Unless you can provide another example from history of this kind of thing happening?

[The Baron]

Personally, I just write for myself to clarify what I'm thinking, and make it as logically consistent as possible.

There are others who are eagerly reading your posts Newbie, the long posts and the short posts, you have explained in details new aspects of the subject, very interesting ones indeed.


Keep up the great work.



The Baron

[The Baron]

Paul doesn't mention Lechmere at all until seeing him next to the body.

Hi Newbie,

You have omitted one word, but a very vital word above, Paul saw him STANDING


Not walking, not running, not sitting, not squatting, not lying down...



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Newbie,

You have omitted one word, but a very vital word above, Paul saw him STANDING


Not walking, not running, not sitting, not squatting, not lying down.…



The Baron

And he’s left out the FACT that he WASN’T STANDING NEXT TO THE BODY!!!

How often can this falsehood keep getting repeated? We don’t have one single piece of evidence or even a hint of a piece of evidence that Cross was ever any closer than feet away from the body.

Why is it so hard to squeeze a bit of truth out of some people.

And when Paul saw him he wasn’t walking back from the body either. He was stationary.

Would Cross really have lied to Paul about being near to the body if there was a chance that he might have seen him walking from the body to the middle of the road?

If he had moved from the body that would add even more obvious escape time which he neglected to use.

Clearly innocent. Remove the fabrications and you have a better case against Gull. Cross is one of the worst suspects we have.

[The Baron]

We don’t have one single piece of evidence or even a hint of a piece of evidence that Cross was ever any closer than feet away from the body.

Paul:

""It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was"


Yes that is not feet away, maybe even closer



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

Paul:

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was"

Which of course could mean 'level' with where the woman was depending on how you interpret it. 'I saw a man in the middle of the street, standing where the lamp post was' does not mean the lamp post was in the middle of the street does it? No, it means the man was in the middle of the street level/adjacent to where the lamp post was. The lamp post is given as another 'identifier' to illustrate where the man was. It no way implies the lamp post and the man were close to each other.

[Fiver]

The witnesses on Buck's row and Winthrop street all said that it was very quiet that morning.

Quiet is not the same as deserted.

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 Mulshaw, James Green, and the watchman at Essex Wharf were all nearby with no known alibi.

The name the British legal system expected him to use is what is important..... and in all cases where individuals had
duel surnames that I reviewed, even when they preferred their adopted surname derived from a step dad, they always went by their birth name when representing themselves in legal matters and before tribunals.

Lechmere was expected to use Lechmere, not Cross.

There are whole threads showing there was no such obligation for him to use his birth name.

Here.

Here.

And Here.

These have been posted before.

[Fiver]

As for alcoholism being irrelevant to this case, and mentioning associated violence inappropriate:

Alcohol and Domestic Abuse/Violence


There is a strong evidence linking alcohol with domestic abuse or domestic violence (Gadd et al., 2019). A study conducted within the metropolitan area of Melbourne, Australia found that alcohol outlet density was significantly associated with domestic violence rates over time (Livingston, 2011). In Australia, alcohol-related domestic violence is twice more likely to involve physical violence including life-threatening injuries

No one is questioning that alcoholism can result in violence. No one is questioning that abused children are more prone to become criminals.

We are questioning your analysis.

Thomas Cross' cause of death was Fatty degeneration (V, Dropsy and Uroemia. It does not mention what organ or organs were suffering from fatty degeneration, but steosis is not confined to the liver. In the liver it is caused by alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and hepatitis. In other organs it can be caused by obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and apnea.

Dropsy (edema) is caused by problems with the heart, liver, kidneys, or veins. There is no direct tie to alcoholism.

Uroemia is kidney falure. Causes are diabetes, high blood pressure, injuries to the kidney, and genetic defects. There is no direct tie to alcoholism.

Yet you ignore all other possibilities and assume Thomas Cross was not just an alcoholic, but a violent one.

[John Wheat]

There is zero evidence against Lechmere. The quest to find him guilty as Jack the Ripper is tiresome, annoying and in bad taste. Lechmere found a body so what?