Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[GUT]

I'm sure I saw "Mr Charles Cross" but thank you I will re-check my information on the subject and let you know what I find

Regards
Mr Holmes

Maybe check his age too.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Will do

Regards
Mr Holmes

[Varqm]

By the way how do people who discovered a dead body act? Do they act perfect? Responds to all questions perfectly.Recollect everything perfectly.Or they act like, despite all, the most important thing on their minds is working,making money and make sure bills get paid?

[Harry D]

If Lechmere was the killer, he would've fled. Not necessarily in a hurry but he would've tried to put as much distance as he could between himself and the murder scene. Oh, but what if Paul had raised the alarm and Lechmere was stopped a copper? What then!? Yes... what then? Lechmere could just give the story that he thought it was a tarpaulin and walked straight past it. The police might suspect him but they'd still have absolutely no reason to charge him with anything, assuming he'd already ditched the murder weapon.

[kookingpot]

If Lechmere was the killer, he would've fled. Not necessarily in a hurry but he would've tried to put as much distance as he could between himself and the murder scene.

Honestly, this is a stupid statement. There is no possible way to prove anything you just said to be true. You could say the exact opposite with the exact same conviction, and have exactly as much truth to it. We have absolutely no way of knowing what any one person would do as the killer. You just can't know anything about what people would do in any given situation. This is an unproveable argument, and should be dropped like the mic in a rap battle.

[Harry D]

Honestly, this is a stupid statement. There is no possible way to prove anything you just said to be true. You could say the exact opposite with the exact same conviction, and have exactly as much truth to it. We have absolutely no way of knowing what any one person would do as the killer. You just can't know anything about what people would do in any given situation. This is an unproveable argument, and should be dropped like the mic in a rap battle.

Sure we can. Human behaviour is predictable.

If you've just freshly slain a woman, you don't hail the first witness who comes along and then take a jaunt to find a policeman. Your survival instincts would tell you to haul ass and not become a factor.

[kookingpot]

Sure we can. Human behaviour is predictable.

If you've just freshly slain a woman, you don't hail the first witness who comes along and then take a jaunt to find a policeman. Your survival instincts would tell you to haul ass and not become a factor.

Maybe that's what you'd do, but you can't make that statement about other people. It may even be a logical thing to do, but serial killers aren't always logical people. My point is, it's an extreme overgeneralization that you can't prove.

[Errata]

Sure we can. Human behaviour is predictable.

If you've just freshly slain a woman, you don't hail the first witness who comes along and then take a jaunt to find a policeman. Your survival instincts would tell you to haul ass and not become a factor.

Assuming you don't have a drive to be involved in the discovery or the investigation maybe... some people really like to see the effect of their work, and serial killers have stuck around. A few have even been first responders. It's not the norm, but it happens often enough that law enforcement is now told to seriously look at the first reporter and the crowd.

Survival instincts in a psychopath can be seriously altered from what we would consider the norm. Studies have shown some seriously compromised survival instincts, like not ducking projectiles or ignoring imminent threats in some subjects. A guy who cuts up a woman cannot be assumed to have normal reactions to threat. He might have them, but he might not.

[Fisherman]

Human behaviour is predictable.

You are predictable, Harry, Iīll give you that.

Do you find it was "predictable" that he should use the name Cross too? Given that he never did otherwise, when speaking to authorities?

Of course you do - human behaviour is predictable.

The Texas eyeball killer gouged out his victimīs eyes. Well, of course he did - it was a predictable thing to do.

In a panicking crowd of a hundred people, with one thoroughbred psychopath, ninetynine people will act predictably. The hundredth will not, since he is physically unable to panick.

If the Ripper killed both Stride and Eddowes, then he predictably doubled back into Whitechapel afterwards.

When the police were called to the spot where a naked Asian boy was running terrified in Milwaukee, they could not make sense of what he wanted. Then Jeffrey Dahmer predictably joined the party, told the police that the Asian boy was his boyfriend, bid the police farewell and returned the boy to his apartment where he killed him.
All very predictable.

Your argument is the kind of argument one oftentimes hear from really ignorant teens with a talent for selfdeception, a totally miscalculated level of knowledge and a wish to impress others. It is a cadre of people you do not wish to join.
Nor do I think that you will do so. I feel certain that you only want to provoke.
That was why I said you are predictable.

[Patrick S]

You are predictable, Harry, Iīll give you that.

Do you find it was "predictable" that he should use the name Cross too? Given that he never did otherwise, when speaking to authorities?

Of course you do - human behaviour is predictable.

The Texas eyeball killer gouged out his victimīs eyes. Well, of course he did - it was a predictable thing to do.

In a panicking crowd of a hundred people, with one thoroughbred psychopath, ninetynine people will act predictably. The hundredth will not, since he is physically unable to panick.

If the Ripper killed both Stride and Eddowes, then he predictably doubled back into Whitechapel afterwards.

When the police were called to the spot where a naked Asian boy was running terrified in Milwaukee, they could not make sense of what he wanted. Then Jeffrey Dahmer predictably joined the party, told the police that the Asian boy was his boyfriend, bid the police farewell and returned the boy to his apartment where he killed him.
All very predictable.

Your argument is the kind of argument one oftentimes hear from really ignorant teens with a talent for selfdeception, a totally miscalculated level of knowledge and a wish to impress others. It is a cadre of people you do not wish to join.
Nor do I think that you will do so. I feel certain that you only want to provoke.
That was why I said you are predictable.

That's quite a speech! It's the same predictiable speech you've made some 10,000 times in response to anyone who challenges your invented, nonsensical, baseless attempt at a money-grab.

I no longer even believe that YOU believe that Lechmere WAS 'Jack the Ripper'. Let's return to Occam's Razor, shall we? All things being equal, the obvious answer is the correct one, right? Thus, we are left to consider that after researching this thing, presenting it to this community for consideration, seeing it reduced to rubble, exposed as the ridiculous tall-tale that it so clearly is you either:

A. Still believe that Lechmere was "Jack the Ripper" (and several other serial killers of lesser renoun) because you do not posess simple deductive reasoning skills and/or common sense.

B. You've become a raving, obsessed, self-deluded wreck who will consider no other option other than that Lechmere was "Jack the Ripper" (and several other serial killers of lesser renoun).

C. You continue to post these absurdities in order to keep this Lechmere "the Ripper" foolishness afloat long enough for you and your little minion Ed to make a buck or two off of your theory that Lechmere was "Jack the Ripper" (and several other serial killers of lesser renoun).

Occam's Razor tells us that a willingness to exploit for profit is a more common trait among the general population than raving, self-deluded wrecks, or individuals with a complete lack of sense and/or reasoning skills. So, I'll go with C. It's the obvious answer.

Of course, you could show-up in Baltimore and debate me on this issue, prove me wrong and all that. I see you posting far more insulting trash on these boards, directed at people who have been far more respectful toward you then you've ever been toward anyone in this space. Yet, you continue to hide behind this "Patrick S was mean to me so I won't acknowledge him" pretense. Grow up.

As I've said. I haven't called you a coward, as you've tried to allege. But I will call you immature.

Again, I'll let you post this drivel unchallenged between now your public shaming in April, in Baltimore. All you must do is agree to show up at the appointed time and place. I'll pay for the venue and allow you to keep any admission fees you want to charge (Even though any expense comes out of my pocket, I'll vote to make this event free to any and all interested in attending - alas, as you seem quite motivated by money, I'll cede all of that to you).

If you truly belive what you say, why not? I think we both know why not. And I think the readers of this forum know why not. Because you don't believe this ROT any more than the rest of us do.

[Pierre]

That's quite a speech! It's the same predictiable speech you've made some 10,000 times in response to anyone who challenges your invented, nonsensical, baseless attempt at a money-grab.

I no longer even believe that YOU believe that Lechmere WAS 'Jack the Ripper'. Let's return to Occam's Razor, shall we? All things being equal, the obvious answer is the correct one, right? Thus, we are left to consider that after researching this thing, presenting it to this community for consideration, seeing it reduced to rubble, exposed as the ridiculous tall-tale that it so clearly is you either:

A. Still believe that Lechmere was "Jack the Ripper" (and several other serial killers of lesser renoun) because you do not posess simple deductive reasoning skills and/or common sense.

B. You've become a raving, obsessed, self-deluded wreck who will consider no other option other than that Lechmere was "Jack the Ripper" (and several other serial killers of lesser renoun).

C. You continue to post these absurdities in order to keep this Lechmere "the Ripper" foolishness afloat long enough for you and your little minion Ed to make a buck or two off of your theory that Lechmere was "Jack the Ripper" (and several other serial killers of lesser renoun).

Occam's Razor tells us that a willingness to exploit for profit is a more common trait among the general population than raving, self-deluded wrecks, or individuals with a complete lack of sense and/or reasoning skills. So, I'll go with C. It's the obvious answer.

Of course, you could show-up in Baltimore and debate me on this issue, prove me wrong and all that. I see you posting far more insulting trash on these boards, directed at people who have been far more respectful toward you then you've ever been toward anyone in this space. Yet, you continue to hide behind this "Patrick S was mean to me so I won't acknowledge him" pretense. Grow up.

As I've said. I haven't called you a coward, as you've tried to allege. But I will call you immature.

Again, I'll let you post this drivel unchallenged between now your public shaming in April, in Baltimore. All you must do is agree to show up at the appointed time and place. I'll pay for the venue and allow you to keep any admission fees you want to charge (Even though any expense comes out of my pocket, I'll vote to make this event free to any and all interested in attending - alas, as you seem quite motivated by money, I'll cede all of that to you).

If you truly belive what you say, why not? I think we both know why not. And I think the readers of this forum know why not. Because you don't believe this ROT any more than the rest of us do.

Hi Patrick (and Fisherman),

I wish I could reduce Fishermans purpose to a pure money making interest. But given the answers he has come up with to my questions and given the way he discusses his case, I think that he actually believes that Lechmere-Cross was the Whitechapel killer.

But I also think that the word "believe" is relative when it comes to ripperology. Fisherman seem to believe in his suspect in his own way. His belief isnīt founded on solid evidence but only on one very interpretable source. And therefore his belief is somewhat unimportant, at least from a scientific point of view.

I donīt mean that Fishermans thoughts are unimportant or that he is an unimportant person - only that his theory has no scientific significance. And in the case of ripperology, lack of scientific significance seem to be common in the so called theories.

So there is a lot of garbage in - garbage out.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi Patrick (and Fisherman),

I wish I could reduce Fishermans purpose to a pure money making interest. But given the answers he has come up with to my questions and given the way he discusses his case, I think that he actually believes that Lechmere-Cross was the Whitechapel killer.

But I also think that the word "believe" is relative when it comes to ripperology. Fisherman seem to believe in his suspect in his own way. His belief isnīt founded on solid evidence but only on one very interpretable source. And therefore his belief is somewhat unimportant, at least from a scientific point of view.

I donīt mean that Fishermans thoughts are unimportant or that he is an unimportant person - only that his theory has no scientific significance. And in the case of ripperology, lack of scientific significance seem to be common in the so called theories.

So there is a lot of garbage in - garbage out.

Regards Pierre

Swopped names - no scientific significance.

Disagreed with the police about a number of very prudent things - no scientific significance.

Had a home and a job that meant that he would pass right through the killing zone at the relevant hours - no scientific significance.

Was found alone with a freshly killed victim - no scientific significance.

Was at the killing site at a remove in time that fits the blood evidence - no scientific significance.

Was described by a QC as a prima faciae case that suggested that he was the killer - no scientific significance.

Claimed to have walked 30-40 yards in front of Robert Paul, who said nothing about hearing or seeing Lechmere - no scientific significance.

Shall I tell you where I think your "scientific significance" belongs, Pierre? No, I shall not - we are not supposed to do such things.

You write that you wish that you could reduce my purpose to a pure money making interest.

Iīm sure you do.

I wish I could ascribe your interest in the case to an openminded will to see results.

[drstrange169]

>>Swopped names - no scientific significance.<<

Certainly worth investigating

>>Disagreed with the police about a number of very prudent things - no scientific significance.<<

Police accepted Xmere's version, so, no significance.

>>Had a home and a job that meant that he would pass right through the killing zone at the relevant hours - no scientific significance.<<

Timings in doubt, routes in doubt.

>>Was found alone with a freshly killed victim - no scientific significance.<<

Definitely of interest.

>>Was at the killing site at a remove in time that fits the blood evidence - no scientific significance.<<

Manufactured blood beat up, definitely of no interest.

>>Was described by a QC as a prima faciae case that suggested that he was the killer - no scientific significance.<<

No interest

>>Claimed to have walked 30-40 yards in front of Robert Paul, who said nothing about hearing or seeing Lechmere - no scientific significance.<<

Xmere NEVER claimed to have walked 30-40 yards in front of Paul, so definitely. no interest

[Sherlock Holmes]

Maybe check his age too.

I am not sure what I have found when checking for his name or even if I found right person

Regards
Mr Holmes

[Barnaby]

I'm left shaking my head. Fisherman advocates his suspect fiercely and logically. Why should this generate scorn? We need more people advocating their preferred suspects with as much passion and level-headedness (and the two can coexist) as Fish.

To me, Lechmere, Hutchinson, and Richardson are all men placed at the scene who may be the Ripper. Of these it is debatable who is the strongest. The weakest would be Richardson so he probably did it.