Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Herlock Sholmes]

But there's no evidence Cross murdered anyone.

No evidence at all John. Not even the tiniest of hints. Cross was 100% innocent. It has been proven. He can and now should be dismissed. Cross supporters should now concede and admit that they got it embarrassingly wrong.

That he didn’t flee when he had the chance is proof of his innocence. Would a guilty man have stood around. Absolutely not. Cross falls on that point alone. That should be conceded as game over.

Throughout the entire history of crime we haven’t found one single example, not one, of a serial killer stopping off 20 minutes before being due to clock in at work. So we are being asked to believe that he was entirely unique in the annals of crime. Yeah right.

Throughout the entire history of crime we haven’t found a single example, not one, of the person finding a serial killers victims outdoors turning out to have been the killer. So we are being asked to believe that he was entirely unique in the annals of crime. Yeah right.

So not just one, Cross is unique in the annals of crime in two ways. Could he really be less likely?

And we could ask, how many serial killers can we name who murdered a victim at a location and at time that he would have expected to have been at 6 days a week? I’d say again…none. How vanishingly rare does this man have to be before it’s conceded that it’s way, way, way past unlikely?

Added to this - no violence, no insanity, no interest by the police, no issue with women, no connection to prostitutes, no anatomical knowledge, no history of carrying a knife and still around after the murders ceased. And he seems like a killer because….?

And of course we know that Cross would have had to have killed Chapman by jumping off his cart during work hours and leaving a cart marked ‘Pickford’s’ full of meat in the street in an area where most people didn’t know where the next meal was coming from. And at a time when employers were hardly likely to take a sympathetic outlook on missing stock due to an employee disappearing.

He walked to work at his usual time. Found a body just as every body is found by someone. He doesn’t scarper like a guilty man. They go for a Constable. He turns up at the inquest. And there’s nothing suspicious in his background.

And he’s guilty because…..he was there.

Time to move the discussion away from this distraction.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What do you make of this?

"He touched her face, which felt warm" -- Charles Cross, Daily Telegraph, 4 September.

"He felt her hand and face, and they were cold." Robert Paul, Daily Telegraph, 18 September.

Why would a guilty Charles Cross state that the victim's face was warm, which would tend to indicate that the murder had been recently committed? Since he had been seen somewhat near the victim in a darkened street, wouldn't it have been to his advantage to describe her as cold as a well digger's backside?

Yet it was Robert Paul who insisted how deathly cold Polly Nichols had been in his interview with Lloyd's, published 2 September. If the journalist can be believed, Paul went so far as to claim Polly was so cold that the beat constable must have been slacking.

It seems a little backwards to me. In the general scheme of things, wouldn't the killer be the one stressing the coldness of the body?

Hi Roger,

You’ll probably find that some have already tried to find a way of twisting this to make Cross guilty.

Clearly a guilty Cross wouldn’t have said this. It’s another example of requiring a suspect to be unbelievably stupid.

[Fiver]

Lechmere:


"She looks to me to be either dead or drunk"

"In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon"


This is inconsistency, Lechmere didn't tell Mizen that the woman looked as if she had been outraged! Finding a woman laying dead in the street through drink or a fall from having been drunk is not the same as her having been outraged!

Lechmere didn't mention this crucial detail that he thought she had been outraged to Mizen, misleading him on what happened.


The Baron

"I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle." - Robert Paul

Paul didn''t tell this to PC Mizen, either. Your double standard is noted.

[The Baron]

Serial killers don’t need endless hours to plan and execute their heinous acts. In fact, many thrive in the narrowest windows of opportunity, often committing their murders during brief, seemingly mundane moments in their daily lives. The rush, the thrill of danger, all of these factors contribute to their need for a quick, efficient, and often opportunistic killing spree. This is not only about their ability to seize the moment but the psychological need to feel empowered in such fleeting instances.

Some of the most notorious killers in history have operated under immense time constraints. They weren’t sitting in dark alleys waiting for hours for the perfect moment, they acted fast, usually while on the move, under the guise of normality, and within a tight time window. These killers don’t always need hours, they need seconds, minutes, the very narrowest slivers of time where they can strike without being seen or caught. The thrill is in the risk, the immediacy of the kill.

So why does this matter for someone like Lechmere?

Let’s face it: Lechmere fits the profile perfectly. He was a man on his way to work, just another pedestrian going about his routine. But that routine, that time-bound, monotonous walk was exactly what a killer could use to conceal his monstrous actions. A brief 20-minute window just enough to kill, The thrill of murder in that small, narrow space of time becomes addictive. The killer’s compulsion grows in direct proportion to their ability to act quickly, something Lechmere could have done easily within his daily schedule.

People often make the mistake of assuming that serial killers need hours of unaccounted time to act. This is a naive and simplistic view. Lechmere could have easily killed in that narrow window between leaving his home and reporting to his job. A quick, blitz strike, a brief, shocking murder, and then back to his routine. It’s not just feasible, it’s exactly what serial killers do. The rush of knowing he could be caught at any second, that's what gives them the high, the power, the thrill.

So before we start dismissing Lechmere as a non-suspect based on his daily commute, let’s remember this: serial killers thrive in these narrow timeframes, using their ordinary lives as a cover for their extraordinary crimes. Lechmere had the perfect cover, and anyone who dismisses this possibility outright is failing to grasp the opportunistic nature of many serial killers.

Don’t let the illusion of time constraints fool you. These killers thrive on them.


The Baron

[JeffHamm]

Serial killers don’t need endless hours to plan and execute their heinous acts. In fact, many thrive in the narrowest windows of opportunity, often committing their murders during brief, seemingly mundane moments in their daily lives. The rush, the thrill of danger, all of these factors contribute to their need for a quick, efficient, and often opportunistic killing spree. This is not only about their ability to seize the moment but the psychological need to feel empowered in such fleeting instances.

Some of the most notorious killers in history have operated under immense time constraints. They weren’t sitting in dark alleys waiting for hours for the perfect moment, they acted fast, usually while on the move, under the guise of normality, and within a tight time window. These killers don’t always need hours, they need seconds, minutes, the very narrowest slivers of time where they can strike without being seen or caught. The thrill is in the risk, the immediacy of the kill.

So why does this matter for someone like Lechmere?

Let’s face it: Lechmere fits the profile perfectly. He was a man on his way to work, just another pedestrian going about his routine. But that routine, that time-bound, monotonous walk was exactly what a killer could use to conceal his monstrous actions. A brief 20-minute window just enough to kill, The thrill of murder in that small, narrow space of time becomes addictive. The killer’s compulsion grows in direct proportion to their ability to act quickly, something Lechmere could have done easily within his daily schedule.

People often make the mistake of assuming that serial killers need hours of unaccounted time to act. This is a naive and simplistic view. Lechmere could have easily killed in that narrow window between leaving his home and reporting to his job. A quick, blitz strike, a brief, shocking murder, and then back to his routine. It’s not just feasible, it’s exactly what serial killers do. The rush of knowing he could be caught at any second, that's what gives them the high, the power, the thrill.

So before we start dismissing Lechmere as a non-suspect based on his daily commute, let’s remember this: serial killers thrive in these narrow timeframes, using their ordinary lives as a cover for their extraordinary crimes. Lechmere had the perfect cover, and anyone who dismisses this possibility outright is failing to grasp the opportunistic nature of many serial killers.

Don’t let the illusion of time constraints fool you. These killers thrive on them.


The Baron

Cross/Lechmere is not dismissed solely because of his walk to work, but rather, after people have gathered together all of the evidence, including news reports, inquest testimony, and so forth, poured over it, examined it, considered various ideas, etc, it has been shown that there is not even a tiny hint of him being involved. I know there are those who try to make him look guilty by describing all sorts of odd intentions to Cross/Lechmere's otherwise innocent actions, but as there is no possible way to know what Cross/Lechmere's intentions were, that just means the entire case against him rests solely on what someone makes up. That's not a case, that's fiction, it's like children playing make believe.

We are well beyond the point of having to get him "off the hook" and the responsibility really lies with those who propose him as a suspect to demonstrate there is at least a hook in his vicinity. So far, they have failed to do even that.

- Jeff