Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[John Wheat]

The same ever repeated, eternal question, Why didn’t he run?

Because, apparently, in the world of anti-Lechmere logic, murderers are either Olympic sprinters or cartoon villains who vanish in a puff of smoke the second things go south.

They conveniently forget, or perhaps deliberately ignore that the Ripper, the emotionally engaged killer of the night, wasn’t some stealthy ninja plotting an escape route, he was deep in his “work” when the unexpected happened, someone in a hurry approached, who could ruin everything.

A shadowy figure, entirely lost in the twisted emotional release of his actions, he wasn’t scanning the horizon for witnesses, he was fully absorbed. And then... BAM! Footsteps. Heart racing, mind spinning, he suddenly realized he’d been caught mid act.

By the time he realized this, it was far too late to sprint without looking guilty as sin.

What’s the play here? Run and practically shout, “Yes, I’m guilty!” to everyone nearby?

He might as well have screamed “Don’t mind the body! I was just leaving!” if he’d tried to run..

Might as well throw in a loud “Catch me if you can!” while he's at it, just to really drive the point home.

Nothing screams innocence like bolting from a murder scene at full speed, right? He’d have been better off waving his arms wildly and yelling “Don’t look over here! Mind your business!” to the first constable he ran into.

He might as well have hung a sign around his neck reading “Ask me about my recent stabbing spree!” Running would’ve been like signing a confession letter, complete with a detailed map of the crime scene, it wasn’t just risky.. it was basically self incrimination.

Staying put, on the other hand, gave him the only chance to save the night, It was the only play he had left after losing track of his surroundings and the best option that didn’t end with him looking like a suspect caught red handed, or, well, red everythinged, considering the situation..

So he stayed, pivoting to his “friendly neighborhood passerby” routine with the precision of someone who’s no stranger to improvising. Bluffing was the only move left in his playbook, and he executed it like a seasoned actor in a life or death performance.

By the time the passerby arrived, Lechmere had no choice but to switch to Plan B, rope him into the situation and drag him into his alibi web.

Leaving with company.. what a stroke of cunning! Suddenly, he was now a guy who stumbled across the scene with someone else. If a constable showed up, he’d have a built in witness to back up his story. That’s not innocence, that’s survival instinct.

Dismissing the idea that the Ripper was emotionally invested in his actions is naive. He was completely absorbed in his twisted mission and certainly wasn’t waiting for a passerby with a PowerPoint presentation titled “Why I’m Definitely Not Jack the Ripper.”

He was cornered, improvising, and relying on his ability to smooth talk his way out of trouble.

For those clinging to the idea that running wouldn’t have made him look guilty, I’d suggest you go stand near a body.. alone.. in a dark alley.. and see how fast you think running feels like a viable option. It doesn’t.

Real life isn’t a gothic novel where killers dissolve into the mist whenever someone inconveniently appears...

He didn’t run... But don’t mistake that for innocence. It’s just the only play he had left. And frankly, it’s a pretty convincing one, if you ignore the glaring trail of suspicion he left behind.



The Baron

More rubbish. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest Cross murdered anyone.

[John Wheat]

...and it's so disrespectful to the poor, innocent victims. I have the impression he thinks he's participating in some harmless online parlour game, where you get points for being witty. No, these cruel, horrendous murders were committed quite recently (within the lifetime of my Grandparents). Real, poverty-stricken, harmless women (mothers/daughters) were targetted, killed and their bodies were then horribly abused by mutilation. This is no place for 'gallows humour', creative or otherwise.

Hi Chubbs

It's not exactly great to try to frame a clearly innocent man either.

Cheers John

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Chubbs

It's not exactly great to try to frame a clearly innocent man either.

Cheers John

I wonder how many who profess to support his candidacy actually do John? I think it’s a question worth asking because of the mystery involved. How can a man without one single thing to make him remotely suspicious be considered for a second. Someone in fact whose actions scream innocent. How can you call someone suspicious who was exactly where one would have expected to find him at that time of morning? A man carrying a bloodied knife and possibly with blood on him turns down a childishly obvious and easy chance to escape in favour of loitering around for a chat with a completely unknown quality! Yeah right.

These people are so embarrassingly desperate that they think that a man is going to fool the police by using his Charles Allen Cross of Pickford’s - 22 Doveton Street instead of Charles Allen Lechmere of Pickford’s - 22 Doveton Street. What a fiendishly clever criminal he was.

Cross - no record of violence, steady job, long marriage with kids, no known mental health issues, no known childhood trauma, no links to prostitutes, no police interest, still around when the murders ended.

Bury - murderer, mutilator, unsteady lifestyle, father died in traumatic circumstances, violent, knife carrier, heavy drinker, link to prostitutes, left London just after Kelly.

Just look at the two. Everyone. Just look with open eyes. There are people on this planet who think Cross a better suspect than Bury. It’s such an embarrassments. It’s like saying Banksy is a better painter than Caravaggio was.

But ‘he was there.’

So was every other person in history who found a body.

But ‘he was there,’ ‘he was there.’

It’s come to this John, sadly. Basically the whole theory is

[etenguy]

It’s come to this John, sadly. Basically the whole theory is

Hi Herlock

I'm not normally good with emojis - but kinda got this one.

[John Wheat]

I wonder how many who profess to support his candidacy actually do John? I think it’s a question worth asking because of the mystery involved. How can a man without one single thing to make him remotely suspicious be considered for a second. Someone in fact whose actions scream innocent. How can you call someone suspicious who was exactly where one would have expected to find him at that time of morning? A man carrying a bloodied knife and possibly with blood on him turns down a childishly obvious and easy chance to escape in favour of loitering around for a chat with a completely unknown quality! Yeah right.

These people are so embarrassingly desperate that they think that a man is going to fool the police by using his Charles Allen Cross of Pickford’s - 22 Doveton Street instead of Charles Allen Lechmere of Pickford’s - 22 Doveton Street. What a fiendishly clever criminal he was.

Cross - no record of violence, steady job, long marriage with kids, no known mental health issues, no known childhood trauma, no links to prostitutes, no police interest, still around when the murders ended.

Bury - murderer, mutilator, unsteady lifestyle, father died in traumatic circumstances, violent, knife carrier, heavy drinker, link to prostitutes, left London just after Kelly.

Just look at the two. Everyone. Just look with open eyes. There are people on this planet who think Cross a better suspect than Bury. It’s such an embarrassments. It’s like saying Banksy is a better painter than Caravaggio was.

But ‘he was there.’

So was every other person in history who found a body.

But ‘he was there,’ ‘he was there.’

It’s come to this John, sadly. Basically the whole theory is

Great post Herlock you've highlighted the whole absurdity of the idea that Cross was the Ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Great post Herlock you've highlighted the whole absurdity of the idea that Cross was the Ripper.

I’d say with total confidence John that we have easily achieved the very simple task that Fisherman set when he began the thread. We’ve got Cross ‘off the hook.’ And it was simplicity itself because it was obvious that he should never have been on the hook in the first place. For someone to be considered a valid suspect he needs something to give us pause and think…hold on Charles Cross doesn’t achieve this. He was exactly where he should have been at exactly the time that he should have been there. So his presence, regularly spouted as suspicious, couldn’t be less suspicious as he has a cast-iron reason for being on that spot at that time. He uses Cross instead of his birth name. Any use of a different name would only be suspicious if it in any way allowed the ‘suspect’ to avoid police attention. Clearly the use of Cross doesn’t come close to fulfilling that criteria so the ‘name thing’ is less than nothing. That he wouldn’t prop up the woman is perfectly normal behaviour and we have name at least three perfectly normal reasons, a) many people don’t want to handle a corpse, b) as they weren’t certain that she was did he wouldn’t have wanted her waking up and screaming the place down when she found two complete strangers manhandling her, and c) both men were quite open in stating that there priority was getting to work on time. The issue with Mizen is silliness itself. Mizen was a human being who was also otherwise engaged - how can it be unlikely that he simply misheard or misinterpreted what was said to him? In addition to that Cross had corroboration in that he couldn’t have lied because he had a complete strangers manhandling her who he had no control over standing next to him. Finally the medical evidence (freshly killed etc) all this can tell us is that she hadn’t been dead long. This means just that and no more. Cross’s footsteps could have disturbed the killer or he could simply have fled 5 minutes earlier because that’s what serial killers do…every one of them….they kill and flee.

Cross can safely be dismissed. He should now be ignored. He’s continued with by agenda only. Continued by a social media fan club.

One of the worst suspects that we have encountered. Shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath as suspects like Bury and a few others.

[Geddy2112]

Something I'm not sure I read too many times if any in regards to the murder of Polly. Strangulation.

"Strangulation can result in loss of consciousness within about 10 seconds and death within 4-5 minutes."

So if death is within 4-5 mins then surely the heart is still beating which means if the throat was cut directly after loss of consciousness then there should have been arterial spray or if the abdominal wounds come first then some spray or quantities of blood on the killer. Since in the case of Cross and this murder we see NO arterial spray or blood reported on Cross it's simple to deduce that poor Polly was murdered at least 7 mins before Cross got there. 4-5 mins for the strangulation and a couple of mins for the cutting. Funny that would take us back to 3:30am ish when the witness heard the mumblings and the train.

Or am I wrong?

[The Baron]

A Tale of Two Mice

Two mice, Cheddar and Gouda, were feasting on a glorious block of cheese in the kitchen. Cheddar, with his usual flair for drama, bit into the cheese and immediately froze.

“Do you hear that?” he whispered.

Gouda, mid-bite, didn’t even glance up.
“Nah, keep eating. It's fine.”

“No, no! I swear I heard footsteps. We’re gonna get caught!” Cheddar panicked, his tiny paws trembling.

Gouda chewed thoughtfully. “Yeah, but if we get caught, I’m just gonna act like I’m not eating cheese.”

Cheddar’s eyes widened. “What?”

“You know, I’ll just sit here, look innocent, like I’m casually... grooming my whiskers.” Gouda said, licking a paw.

“But what if we get caught while we’re just sitting here?” Cheddar gasped, his eyes wide with panic. “What if we look too guilty, just hanging around like this?”

“I dunno, man,” Gouda shrugged, “but running looks way more suspicious.”

Cheddar wasn’t convinced. He grabbed a chunk of cheese and bolted, right into the broom! The broom tipped over with a clatter.
Suddenly, the kitchen door creaked open.

“Uh oh!” Cheddar yelped, trying to hide behind a jar. The human spotted him immediately.

“Gotcha!” the human said, trapping him with a paper towel.

Meanwhile, Gouda calmly sat in the middle of the floor. When the human looked over, Gouda gave a little squeak, then casually licked his paw.

The human blinked, staring at Gouda for a moment. “Wait... was there another mouse? Nah, this one’s too calm. Just stay out of trouble, alright? There are some bad mice around here, you know. You don’t wanna be mixing with them.”

The human, still distracted by Cheddar’s chaotic capture, gave Gouda a half hearted look. “You’re alright, little guy,” they muttered, then walked off.

And with that, Gouda was left alone to finish his cheese. He savored each bite, glancing around with a satisfied smirk. "Running... what a rookie move," he chuckled to himself, nibbling away in peaceful delight.



The Baron

[John Wheat]

There is nothing whatsoever to suggest Cross murdered anyone.

[Doctored Whatsit]

There is nothing whatsoever to suggest Cross murdered anyone.

He knows!

[John Wheat]

He knows!

Wouldn't that make him a troll?

[Geddy2112]

*FREE* A nice tool for working out if you have a viable suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s strange that we have to keep repeating such an obvious point Geddy. How do they make 3 unknowns into a known? Yet they do.

No gap can be inferred - behaved like a witness rather than a serial killer - made no attempt to hide his identity - went for a Constable - turned up at the inquest - help pull the victims skirts down for the sake of decency - married for years - same job for years - died in old age - no history of violence - no history of crime - no history of insanity - no known link to prostitutes - no known hatred of anyone.

Have i missed anything? Guilty or not? It’s not even close is it. Completely innocent.