Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[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.

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

M.

Where else was he going?

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.’

[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'

[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]

It's time for you to prove your assertion.

I would love a member of Team Lechmere to prove to me beyond a reasonably doubt 'Lechmere dunnit' but alas here we are... tens of thousands of posts later over the various forums and Facebook pages, YouTube videos etc and still not one shred of evidence to prove Charles Allen Cross is a multiple murderer, not one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would love a member of Team Lechmere to prove to me beyond a reasonably doubt 'Lechmere dunnit' but alas here we are... tens of thousands of posts later over the various forums and Facebook pages, YouTube videos etc and still not one shred of evidence to prove Charles Allen Cross is a multiple murderer, not one.

Exactly Geddy. And they rely on stuff like…just because Paul spoke to Lloyd’s then this must have been the reason why Cross turned up at the inquest. It’s just an invention. Just because one thing happens before another it’s assumed that the one thing is the result of the other. Can we be sure that Paul would have showed up at the inquest if he hadn’t, by chance, run into the Lloyd’s reporter? No. Does this make Paul suspicious? No.