Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[chubbs]

Good point Chubbs. It’s amazing isn’t it that someone could go for Cross before Bury. As I’ve said before, it’s like saying “Mohammed Ali wasn’t the greatest heavyweight ever…Frank Bruno was.”

Cross wasn't even the cuts man. He was a just member of the audience who got into the ring after the fight was over.

[Geddy2112]

The words 'at work' are doing some incredibly heavy lifting here...

Maybe just like 'Inquest' 'Wearing' 'Apron' 'Mizen' 'Scam' 'Time' 'Gap' 'False' 'Name' 'Routes' 'To' 'Work' 'Freshly' 'Killed'

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's time for you to prove your assertion. You're stating it as being a fact. So prove it. And don't ask me to prove it's not a fact; I am not the one making the assertion.

Of note is that you won't accept my example that upends your assertion: Shipman, who "discovered" multiple bodies, because doctors don't count. And I see that you've added that the bodies have to be outside now. Any other rules that need to be made clear?

I’ve added nothing. If you read back on other threads (and this one) going back you will see this.

I’ll quote myself from February of last year in the very first post of the Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent thread that I started:

”We have no instance so far from crime history of a person who found a body in the street turning out to have been not only a killer but a serial killer.”

It needn’t have been the street of course, I could, and no doubt have, used ‘outdoors’ elsewhere. To try and compare a Doctor who poisoned his victims over time is bizarre and shows the level of desperation when it comes to Cross. I made the statement originally by saying that ‘I can think of no serial killer who did this, which would make Cross entirely true. Even if someone did produce one example this would only change Cross from ‘unique’ to ‘vanishingly rare.’

[TopHat]

In the entire history of serial murder, with all of those thousands of people who discovered those thousands of poor victims outdoors, not a single, solitary one of them ever turned out to be the killer.

It's time for you to prove your assertion. You're stating it as being a fact. So prove it. And don't ask me to prove it's not a fact; I am not the one making the assertion.

Of note is that you won't accept my example that upends your assertion: Shipman, who "discovered" multiple bodies, because doctors don't count. And I see that you've added that the bodies have to be outside now. Any other rules that need to be made clear?

[JeffHamm]

We have to allow that Cross was exceptional though Jeff. And not just exception…he appears to have been entirely unique.

In the entire history of serial murder, with all of those thousands of people who discovered those thousands of poor victims outdoors, not a single, solitary one of them ever turned out to be the killer. Cross is a complete one off. And as we all know Jeff, we are on the very thinnest of thin ice if we rely on an explanation which requires something entirely unique.

And on top of that…if that wasn’t enough…no one can name a single example…not one…of a serial killer murdering and mutilating a victim just 20 minutes or so before he was due at work.

So Cross wouldn’t have to have been entirely unique he’d have had to have been doubly unique.

You’re my ‘stats man’ Jeff…care to put odds on that one? And how much of your ‘hard earned’ would you put on it being the case?

PS..and if there’s a Mrs Hamm and she had found out that you had put money on it what method would she have used to kill you?

The Cross/Lechmere theory is one based on arguing that "it is possible that ..." while completely ignoring whether or not the possible is probable. There is simple nothing that makes it at all probable that Cross/Lechmere had anything at all to do with any of the murders.

And clearly Baron is having a bit of fun and his recent posts are not just uncharacteristically long and flowery, but obviously are tongue in cheek.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another point on this question of why Cross and Paul never saw each other before: Maybe one did see the other a time or two but didn't remember it, because people don't remember every stranger that they see briefly that they have little reason to pay attention to.

They may have heard each other or seen each other ‘up ahead,’ Lewis.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The words 'at work' are doing some incredibly heavy lifting here...

M.

Where else was he going?

[Mark J D]

… no one can name a single example…not one…of a serial killer murdering and mutilating a victim just 20 minutes or so before he was due at work...

The words 'at work' are doing some incredibly heavy lifting here...

M.

[Lewis C]

Another point on this question of why Cross and Paul never saw each other before: Maybe one did see the other a time or two but didn't remember it, because people don't remember every stranger that they see briefly that they have little reason to pay attention to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

...not forgetting that he'd been given the clap by these low-life prostitutes and he'd passed it onto his wife. That really counts him out. Why on earth would an evil character like Bury want to get revenge on the people he blamed for giving him the bad disease? I dare say he forgave them and prayed for them daily.

Good point Chubbs. It’s amazing isn’t it that someone could go for Cross before Bury. As I’ve said before, it’s like saying “Mohammed Ali wasn’t the greatest heavyweight ever…Frank Bruno was.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Twists are quite popular in fiction. A good twist is "I didn't see that coming." A bad twist is "Where did that come from?"

Your flowery language doesn't hide the fact that you have just repackaged the standard Lechmerian nonsense. You have yet to provide any evidence against Charles Cross. Most of your posts deliberately ignore, and in many cases, directly contradict the evidence.

* There is no physical evidence against Cross.
* There is no eyewitness evidence against Cross.
* There is no evidence of violence or criminal behavior by Cross.
* Cross had no knowledge of anatomy.
* The idea of hiding bloodstained clothing and trophy organs in a house full of small children is laughable.
* The timing of the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders make it wildly unlikely that Cross killed them.
* Cross lived for over three decades after the murders ended.

Well summed up Fiver.

Cross is a big zero as a suspect. Someone that requires invention and manipulation to be made to ‘look’ suspicious.

[John Wheat]

That’s not an argument, John. That’s denial dressed up as confidence.


Sit down, breathe, and let the truth do its work. It’ll break through eventually... just try not to fight it too hard. Reality has a way of winning in the end.



The Baron

There is no denial. Bury could have been the Ripper. Lechmere wasn't.

[chubbs]

If Cross was the ripper John at least we can eliminate Kosminski and the others

I mean, Bury couldn’t have been the killer really because he has too much going for him..

Right age, local man, childhood trauma, early criminal behaviour, drunkard, consorted with prostitutes, known to be violent to women, carried a knife, murdered and mutilated a woman and the murders stopped when he left London. Who would be suspicious of all that when you have…family man, no history of violence, no connection to prostitutes, no insanity, no examples of violence, lived a long and fruitful life, continued to provide well for his family and like thousands of others throughout history…found a body on his way to work.

...not forgetting that he'd been given the clap by these low-life prostitutes and he'd passed it onto his wife. That really counts him out. Why on earth would an evil character like Bury want to get revenge on the people he blamed for giving him the bad disease? I dare say he forgave them and prayed for them daily.

[Fiver]

What if I told you there's a twist you could never see coming? Something that completely shatters everything you think you know?

You ready? You sure?

BOOM

William Bury? Innocent.

And Lechmere? That 'innocent witness'... Yeah, he’s the Ripper.

I'll let you process the shock, don’t worry, it’s a lot to unpack. Take your time... I’m sure you’ll come around eventually!


The Baron

Twists are quite popular in fiction. A good twist is "I didn't see that coming." A bad twist is "Where did that come from?"

Your flowery language doesn't hide the fact that you have just repackaged the standard Lechmerian nonsense. You have yet to provide any evidence against Charles Cross. Most of your posts deliberately ignore, and in many cases, directly contradict the evidence.

* There is no physical evidence against Cross.
* There is no eyewitness evidence against Cross.
* There is no evidence of violence or criminal behavior by Cross.
* Cross had no knowledge of anatomy.
* The idea of hiding bloodstained clothing and trophy organs in a house full of small children is laughable.
* The timing of the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders make it wildly unlikely that Cross killed them.
* Cross lived for over three decades after the murders ended.

[Fiver]

Make yer mind up, Mr Baron. Which was it? Was he evolving or was he interrupted. Or are you just desperately trying to cover all the bases, to make your theory fit all eventualities?

It's standard Lechmerian Schrodinger's suspect - have him be two contradictory things at the same time to prop up the theory and hope that no one notices the contradiction..