Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[The Rookie Detective]

How did Lechmere Avenue in Chigwell get its name?

Not forgetting Lechmere Avenue, in Woodford Green, which is located directly parallel to the southern end of the M11 motorway.

Driven passed it many times

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your posts continue to have no resemblance to reality or to what other people are saying.

You are the one claiming that the smartest thing for a man with a bloody knife in his pocket and no way of knowing if he has blood on his hands or clothes is to wait at the crime scene. You are the one claiming that is the best way to be cleared of all suspicion. You are mocking your own position and pretending it is everyone else's.

Nobody has said that only guilty people run. Nobody has said that the Ripper ran at all. They said that the smart thing for the Ripper to do would be to walk off into the darkness. You claimed that only an amateur certain to get caught would leave the crime scene instead of waiting, yet that is exactly what the Ripper did in the Stride and Eddowes murders.

The man who murdered Nichols was not in the same situation as Grant's Roger Thornhill. No one saw the Ripper with a knife in his hand. No one saw hm touching the body. No one took the Ripper's photograph. There was no way of knowing the Ripper's identity if he just walked off into the darkness.

So Lechmere not walking off into the darkness is either the actions if an innocent man or of a stunningly stupid murderer. It is only by luck that Robert Paul doesn't see Rippermere trying to clean his hands and knife, put the knife away, and move from crouching over the body to standing in the street. It is only by luck that Rippermere touching Robert Paul does not leave an unexplainable bloodstain on Paul's clothing. It is only by luck that neither Robert Paul nor PC Mizen notice blood on Rippermere's hands or clothing. It is only by luck that neither Paul nor Mizen ask for Rippermere's name.

No one knows Rippermere's identity. He has merely to change his route to work, a trivial thing for a carman with 20 years in the job, and he has virtually no chance of ever seeing Paul or Mizen again.

But Rippermere, showing the brains of a cobblestone, goes to the police and identifies himself as the man who found the body. It's laughably inept if he was the Ripper.

Excellent post. Perfectly summed up.

[Fiver]

If Thornhill had just stayed calmly at the scene, holding the bloody knife with a polite shrug, then, according to the Lechmere Defense, he’d surely have been cleared of all suspicion! After all, only guilty people run, right?

The Baron

Your posts continue to have no resemblance to reality or to what other people are saying.

You are the one claiming that the smartest thing for a man with a bloody knife in his pocket and no way of knowing if he has blood on his hands or clothes is to wait at the crime scene. You are the one claiming that is the best way to be cleared of all suspicion. You are mocking your own position and pretending it is everyone else's.

Nobody has said that only guilty people run. Nobody has said that the Ripper ran at all. They said that the smart thing for the Ripper to do would be to walk off into the darkness. You claimed that only an amateur certain to get caught would leave the crime scene instead of waiting, yet that is exactly what the Ripper did in the Stride and Eddowes murders.

The man who murdered Nichols was not in the same situation as Grant's Roger Thornhill. No one saw the Ripper with a knife in his hand. No one saw hm touching the body. No one took the Ripper's photograph. There was no way of knowing the Ripper's identity if he just walked off into the darkness.

So Lechmere not walking off into the darkness is either the actions if an innocent man or of a stunningly stupid murderer. It is only by luck that Robert Paul doesn't see Rippermere trying to clean his hands and knife, put the knife away, and move from crouching over the body to standing in the street. It is only by luck that Rippermere touching Robert Paul does not leave an unexplainable bloodstain on Paul's clothing. It is only by luck that neither Robert Paul nor PC Mizen notice blood on Rippermere's hands or clothing. It is only by luck that neither Paul nor Mizen ask for Rippermere's name.

No one knows Rippermere's identity. He has merely to change his route to work, a trivial thing for a carman with 20 years in the job, and he has virtually no chance of ever seeing Paul or Mizen again.

But Rippermere, showing the brains of a cobblestone, goes to the police and identifies himself as the man who found the body. It's laughably inept if he was the Ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sarcasm at its finest??

My wife and I watched "North by Northwest" last night (again). The Cary Grant character is talking to a man in the UN building when a glove wearing assassin throws a knife into the man's back. Grant attempts to support the man as he falls and in the process grasps the knife and pulls it from his back. At this moment he is photographed, clutching a body, bloody knife in hand and fingerprints all over the knife, and Grant runs away. We apparently have an open and shut case. Or do we??

I'm not sure this is even relevant, but there it is.

Cheers, George

It is relevant George because it’s a very clear pointer to the laughability of the suggestion of Cross’s guilt.

We have Roger Thornhill an innocent man in a crowded room. He knows that he didn’t kill the man but because he cradled him and instinctively removed the knife he looked guilty and even though there might have been people in the room who actually saw the man get a knife thrown into his back (and not by Thornhill) he still ran away. So even a man who merely looked guilty fled the scene.

And yet, according to the True Believers we have a man who was actually guilty and who actually had no one to potentially exonerate him and who actually had the murder weapon on him (hidden about his person) but this guy stood around waiting for a stranger, over whom he would have had no influence or control, to show up. Could anything be less believable?

Charles Cross moves further into the comedy section of the suspect list every day. Let’s hope that the few that have fallen for this non-starter of a theory realise their obvious error soon.

[The Baron]

Sarcasm at its finest??

My wife and I watched "North by Northwest" last night (again). The Cary Grant character is talking to a man in the UN building when a glove wearing assassin throws a knife into the man's back. Grant attempts to support the man as he falls and in the process grasps the knife and pulls it from his back. At this moment he is photographed, clutching a body, bloody knife in hand and fingerprints all over the knife, and Grant runs away. We apparently have an open and shut case. Or do we??

I'm not sure this is even relevant, but there it is.

Cheers, George

If Thornhill had just stayed calmly at the scene, holding the bloody knife with a polite shrug, then, according to the Lechmere Defense, he’d surely have been cleared of all suspicion! After all, only guilty people run, right?

Hitchcock might have had to rename it ‘North by Staying Put’, and it would’ve been a very short movie.

Cheers to you and your wife for bringing up such a classic, Hitchcock’s ability to turn ordinary situations into chaos is unmatched. Perhaps he would’ve enjoyed the irony of a murderer strolling around the crime scene offering coffee to witnesses to prove their innocence. A true master of suspense!



The Baron

[GBinOz]

Obviously Innocent. A Revolutionary Guide for Criminals

The world of criminal justice has finally cracked the code! Forget forensics, motive, or evidence, if you’re ever caught near a crime scene, just stand there when someone else shows up. Voilą! Instant innocence!

Seriously, folks, why didn’t every criminal in history think of this sooner? Imagine
the great train robbers waving to passersby while loading up sacks of cash..

Police: “Carry on, gentlemen. If you were guilty, you’d definitely be sprinting by now!”

This is genius level strategy. Everyone knows that only guilty people run away. People running? Suspicious. Standing around? Honorable citizen.

Did you know that’s why we don’t suspect statues of murder? THEY DON’T RUN AWAY.

Oh, but wait! What if the victim’s blood is on your hands? No worries.. just look confused when someone walks by. “Oh, hey! I found this person already dead, crazy right?” Works every time!

It’s not like criminals might, I don’t know, think ahead or realize that calmly staying at the scene might make them look less suspicious. No way. Criminals are way too dumb for that, right?

Better yet, let’s rewrite the justice system around this groundbreaking theory.

Caught with a weapon in your hand? Stay still! No one will suspect you.

Discovered digging a hole in the woods? Smile and wave, it’s just gardening!

Literally covered in blood? Relax, it’s not like standing there makes you look guilty or anything.

A man is found standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in his hand. A crowd gathers, staring at him in horror.
Someone shouts, “Did you kill him?”
The man calmly replies, “If I did, would I still be standing here?”
The crowd collectively nods, “Fair point” and walks away.

Moral of the story.. Confidence is the best alibi!

This logic is so bulletproof it makes me wonder why anyone runs from a crime scene anymore. Why flee when you can just vibe next to your victim and let everyone assume you’re innocent because you didn’t bother breaking a sweat? Genius.

But wait, it gets better, If standing around clears you of suspicion, why stop there?

Criminals can host meet and greets at their crime scenes:

“Welcome to the Lechmere Lounge™. Murder tours start at noon, refreshments provided!”

Honestly, if this is the standard of logic, the entire justice system might as well pack it up. Who needs trials when you’ve got the Lechmere Defense™ ?

Just exist confidently near a murder scene, and no one will suspect a thing.

So there you have it, the ultimate criminal cheat code. Don’t flee, don’t panic, and for God sake, don’t look guilty. Just stand there and act like you belong, maybe offer snacks to the next guy who stumbles upon you.

Because apparently, not running away is all the proof anyone needs that you couldn’t possibly have done anything wrong.

Justice? Solved.


The Baron

Sarcasm at its finest??

My wife and I watched "North by Northwest" last night (again). The Cary Grant character is talking to a man in the UN building when a glove wearing assassin throws a knife into the man's back. Grant attempts to support the man as he falls and in the process grasps the knife and pulls it from his back. At this moment he is photographed, clutching a body, bloody knife in hand and fingerprints all over the knife, and Grant runs away. We apparently have an open and shut case. Or do we??

I'm not sure this is even relevant, but there it is.

Cheers, George

[chubbs]

Obviously Innocent. A Revolutionary Guide for Criminals

The world of criminal justice has finally cracked the code! Forget forensics, motive, or evidence, if you’re ever caught near a crime scene, just stand there when someone else shows up. VoilĆ ! Instant innocence!

Seriously, folks, why didn’t every criminal in history think of this sooner? Imagine
the great train robbers waving to passersby while loading up sacks of cash..

Police: “Carry on, gentlemen. If you were guilty, you’d definitely be sprinting by now!”

This is genius level strategy. Everyone knows that only guilty people run away. People running? Suspicious. Standing around? Honorable citizen.

Did you know that’s why we don’t suspect statues of murder? THEY DON’T RUN AWAY.

Oh, but wait! What if the victim’s blood is on your hands? No worries.. just look confused when someone walks by. “Oh, hey! I found this person already dead, crazy right?” Works every time!

It’s not like criminals might, I don’t know, think ahead or realize that calmly staying at the scene might make them look less suspicious. No way. Criminals are way too dumb for that, right?

Better yet, let’s rewrite the justice system around this groundbreaking theory.

Caught with a weapon in your hand? Stay still! No one will suspect you.

Discovered digging a hole in the woods? Smile and wave, it’s just gardening!

Literally covered in blood? Relax, it’s not like standing there makes you look guilty or anything.

A man is found standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in his hand. A crowd gathers, staring at him in horror.
Someone shouts, “Did you kill him?”
The man calmly replies, “If I did, would I still be standing here?”
The crowd collectively nods, “Fair point” and walks away.

Moral of the story.. Confidence is the best alibi!

This logic is so bulletproof it makes me wonder why anyone runs from a crime scene anymore. Why flee when you can just vibe next to your victim and let everyone assume you’re innocent because you didn’t bother breaking a sweat? Genius.

But wait, it gets better, If standing around clears you of suspicion, why stop there?

Criminals can host meet and greets at their crime scenes:

“Welcome to the Lechmere Lounge™. Murder tours start at noon, refreshments provided!”

Honestly, if this is the standard of logic, the entire justice system might as well pack it up. Who needs trials when you’ve got the Lechmere Defense™ ?

Just exist confidently near a murder scene, and no one will suspect a thing.

So there you have it, the ultimate criminal cheat code. Don’t flee, don’t panic, and for God sake, don’t look guilty. Just stand there and act like you belong, maybe offer snacks to the next guy who stumbles upon you.

Because apparently, not running away is all the proof anyone needs that you couldn’t possibly have done anything wrong.

Justice? Solved.


The Baron

Silly old Peter Sutcliffe. If only he'd have stayed at the scene of all 13 of his murders he'd have got away with the lot.

[rjpalmer]

How did Lechmere Avenue in Chigwell get its name?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only one who has claimed that staying at the crime scene was the best way to appear innocent is you.

Your stawman has no resemblance to reality, nor to what anyone else is actually saying.

Forensic evidence that points to Cross being guilty - none.
Eyewitness evidence that points to Cross being guilty - none.
Motive for Cross committing the murders - none.

The Ripper escaped undetected from the other murders. The police said that Nichols' murderer could have easily escaped undetected. Cross staying was either the act of an innocent man or of a stunningly stupid killer.

I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of people over the years have discovered the body of a serial killers victim outdoors? How many of those turned out to have been the serial killer himself? Not one.

I wonder what kind of figure a statistician would place on the chances of Cross being the first serial killer in the entirety of crime history to do this. 10,000,000-1, 20,000,000-1, or even longer odds.

Then, how many serial killers in history ever killed and mutilated a victim on his walk to work and 20 minutes before being due to clock in. Not one. So what are the odds? Again, who knowns, 10,000,000-1?

So now we have to pile one unlikeliness onto the other because both apply to Cross.

This means that it would be more likely that the killer was a blind Amazonian tribesman wearing a Bugs Bunny costume than Charles Cross.

Cross is a joke suspect. I suspect that no one genuinely believes in his guilt Fiver. Some have just backed this horse for so long that they are now too embarrassed to admit how wrong they are, some ‘support’ him just because they like to cause arguments, some support them because they stand to benefit.

I mean, whoever heard of a serial killer escaping? Obviously they always prefer to stand around for a chat with a complete stranger.

[Fiver]

Obviously Innocent. A Revolutionary Guide for Criminals

The world of criminal justice has finally cracked the code! Forget forensics, motive, or evidence, if you’re ever caught near a crime scene, just stand there when someone else shows up. Voilą! Instant innocence!

The Baron

The only one who has claimed that staying at the crime scene was the best way to appear innocent is you.

Your stawman has no resemblance to reality, nor to what anyone else is actually saying.

Forensic evidence that points to Cross being guilty - none.
Eyewitness evidence that points to Cross being guilty - none.
Motive for Cross committing the murders - none.

The Ripper escaped undetected from the other murders. The police said that Nichols' murderer could have easily escaped undetected. Cross staying was either the act of an innocent man or of a stunningly stupid killer.

[The Baron]

Obviously Innocent. A Revolutionary Guide for Criminals

The world of criminal justice has finally cracked the code! Forget forensics, motive, or evidence, if you’re ever caught near a crime scene, just stand there when someone else shows up. Voilą! Instant innocence!

Seriously, folks, why didn’t every criminal in history think of this sooner? Imagine
the great train robbers waving to passersby while loading up sacks of cash..

Police: “Carry on, gentlemen. If you were guilty, you’d definitely be sprinting by now!”

This is genius level strategy. Everyone knows that only guilty people run away. People running? Suspicious. Standing around? Honorable citizen.

Did you know that’s why we don’t suspect statues of murder? THEY DON’T RUN AWAY.

Oh, but wait! What if the victim’s blood is on your hands? No worries.. just look confused when someone walks by. “Oh, hey! I found this person already dead, crazy right?” Works every time!

It’s not like criminals might, I don’t know, think ahead or realize that calmly staying at the scene might make them look less suspicious. No way. Criminals are way too dumb for that, right?

Better yet, let’s rewrite the justice system around this groundbreaking theory.

Caught with a weapon in your hand? Stay still! No one will suspect you.

Discovered digging a hole in the woods? Smile and wave, it’s just gardening!

Literally covered in blood? Relax, it’s not like standing there makes you look guilty or anything.

A man is found standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in his hand. A crowd gathers, staring at him in horror.
Someone shouts, “Did you kill him?”
The man calmly replies, “If I did, would I still be standing here?”
The crowd collectively nods, “Fair point” and walks away.

Moral of the story.. Confidence is the best alibi!

This logic is so bulletproof it makes me wonder why anyone runs from a crime scene anymore. Why flee when you can just vibe next to your victim and let everyone assume you’re innocent because you didn’t bother breaking a sweat? Genius.

But wait, it gets better, If standing around clears you of suspicion, why stop there?

Criminals can host meet and greets at their crime scenes:

“Welcome to the Lechmere Lounge™. Murder tours start at noon, refreshments provided!”

Honestly, if this is the standard of logic, the entire justice system might as well pack it up. Who needs trials when you’ve got the Lechmere Defense™ ?

Just exist confidently near a murder scene, and no one will suspect a thing.

So there you have it, the ultimate criminal cheat code. Don’t flee, don’t panic, and for God sake, don’t look guilty. Just stand there and act like you belong, maybe offer snacks to the next guy who stumbles upon you.

Because apparently, not running away is all the proof anyone needs that you couldn’t possibly have done anything wrong.

Justice? Solved.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Guilty until proven innocent.

You couldn’t make it up.

[Lewis C]

Saw this today from a descendent of Charles Cross. I mean this is what we have to deal with here.

Wow. By that reasoning, everyone is guilty, since no one was tried for the murders. Or at least, everyone who discovered a body is guilty.

[Geddy2112]

You are forgetting Lechmere never stood before a real court of law with real people to decide guilty or not guilty. And untill then in the real world he remains GUILTY.

Saw this today from a descendent of Charles Cross. I mean this is what we have to deal with here.

[chubbs]

Nothing

The streets are quiet tonight, an unnatural stillness hanging in the air, broken only by the muffled footsteps of those whose lives are shaped by the darkness. He walks through this world, through this endless cycle, feeling as if he, too, is just another shadow. A blur in the night, unnoticed.

His life is a series of motions, each task, each word, each step a repetition of the last. Is he just a body passing through time, a figure seen by no one? Is his life, too, like the mist that rises from the cobblestones, here for a moment and then gone, leaving nothing behind but the memory of emptiness?

He notices her from the corner of his eye standing at the edge of the street, waiting. A woman in the shadows. Her figure leans against the wall, the faint light casting her features in an almost ghostly glow. Her posture is heavy, tired, as though the weight of the world has settled on her shoulders.

What is she? he thinks, as his eyes linger. She is not unlike him, not really. She moves through the world unnoticed, just as he does. Both of them, drifting from one meaningless task to the next, their lives devoid of anything that might make them significant. She is a figure, an object caught in a world that has stripped her of her identity, her worth.

He sees the emptiness in her eyes, the vacancy in her stance. It is the same emptiness he feels, the same hollow space that gnaws at his insides when he looks at his own reflection and sees only a stranger staring back. The world has made her invisible, the same way it has made him, and when the night ends, she will be gone, like the rest of them. Forgotten.

Her life is as expendable as his feels. She, too, wears the cloak of invisibility, one he knows all too well. A cloak that shields her from the gaze of society, that renders her faceless, nameless. Nothing.

He thinks, that is the way of the world for those like them, those without identity, without worth, when the question of her name had been asked, her words come back to him like a sharp echo:
“Nothing.”

The simplicity of it. The finality. It had struck him, too, in that strange, fleeting moment, a woman who felt no more important than the very air she breathed, a woman whose very name had been stripped away. She had been caught in that same web, bound by the same invisible chains of her existence.

And now, standing in front of this woman in the shadows, he realizes, with a chill, that in this moment, they are both the same. Both of them, defined by that absence. He is the man who walks through the streets unseen, and she is the woman whose name was “Nothing”.

She had claimed to know him. Could it be that she, too, had felt the same alienation, the same emptiness that defined her life as his? Had she, too, understood the kind of man who could create chaos, who could murder and leave no trace but a body in the night? Perhaps, in her own way, she knew exactly what it felt like to be reduced to nothing just like the killer she spoke of.

The connection is undeniable now. She, too, was a part of this strange, twisted world where nothing matters. Where violence, too, is an expression of the same emptiness, the same invisibility. She is a shadow, just like him. Just like the man who haunts these streets, hiding in plain sight.

He steps away, leaving her behind in the dark, and for a brief moment, he wonders if she, too, will ever escape the grip of nothingness.



The Baron

Feedback

This is a lovely piece of prose, but if you're trying to evoke The Ripper I think it lacks anger. Without anger, he's not The Ripper, he's just another lost soul.