Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Ausgirl]

Furthermore, what exactly did Lechmere do to deflect attention away from himself? If he wanted to, he could've said that he witnessed someone else walking ahead of him up Buck's Row, or that he heard footsteps in the distance, anything. Lechmere neglects to do anything of the sort. He gives his stepfather's surname but yields other personal details and voluntarily attends the inquest. How exactly is any of this behaviour suspicious and how is any of it designed to cover up his alleged guilt?

This very neatly sums up my whole problem with this aspect of this theory. Not so much attending the inquest (which guilty persons have done, though I agree, it's hardly suspicious behaviour in itself), but the matter of "lying" about his name - which, really.. he didn't.

And I can think of several good, perfectly sound reasons as to why he might have done so.

I think making the name thing such a big deal to this theory actually weakens the entire premise of it.

[Fisherman]

That's not even true Fisherman. Even though I wanted to know whether you agreed or disagreed with the TV documentary voiceover, I ultimately 'accepted' your answer that you wanted to amend the wording of the TV documentary from "there is a major gap" to "it seems there is a major gap". On that basis, I asked you further questions (see #644) but you did not reply to those questions at all, in any way.

If you are saying that you did reply to those questions please let me know in which post you did so.

I am saying that I stopped answering your questions on account of your attitude. Surely that is rather obvious?
And it did not help one little bit when you decided that your attitude was just fine and that the reason I did not answer the rest of your questions was that I could not do so without losing the debate. What you sow, you reap.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Ausgirl;378089]This very neatly sums up my whole problem with this aspect of this theory. Not so much attending the inquest (which guilty persons have done, though I agree, it's hardly suspicious behaviour in itself), but the matter of "lying" about his name - which, really.. he didn't.
/QUOTE]

To know this, you need to know that he used the name Cross otherwise. If that applies, then he did not lie about his name.
If we cannot establish that he DID use the name Cross otherwise, then there was something odd going on, to say the very least.
One can of course argue that he had a right to use the name as such, but that is not the pertinent issue is it? If this was a one-off, and if he always called hiomself Lechmere otherwise, then we are going to need an explanation for his using the name Cross in combination with a murder case where he had been found alone with the freshly killed victim.

[wigngown]

Agree entirely,

Best regards

[wigngown]

Lest there be any doubt: my 'agree entirely' post was Directed to Mr. Barnet #780

[GUT]

If he wanted to, he could've said that he witnessed someone else walking ahead of him up Buck's Row, or that he heard footsteps in the distance, anything.

So easy isn't it.

I thought I heard someone a bit ahead of me before I saw the body. They were walking the same direction I was.

[GUT]

Lest there be any doubt: my 'agree entirely' post was Directed to Mr. Barnet #780

Thanks I was wondering about that.

[Ausgirl]

Omg, is that another one typing all in bold.

It's the conversational equivalent of this:

[GUT]

Omg, is that another one typing all in bold.

It's the conversational equivalent of this:

I've seen one particular bold poster asked a number of times not to. He says he won't but keeps doing it.

[Pcdunn]

Off-topic and on

Hey Pcdunn,

That's good to know about ancestory.com. I have friends who use it that seem to have difficulty because they don't know the info may be off.

Columbo

Hello, Columbo (loved your TV show, by the way!)-- Ancestry.com is great about allowing you to submit corrections, and making the changes in the clear transcription. I had to submit a change to a census record featuring my great-uncle, because the enumerator wrote down "father" for relationship to head of household, instead of "father-in-law"-- which threw off my own family line! Good old human error creeps in everywhere.

On topic-- Fisherman's theory only really works for Nichols, from what I've seen.

[David Orsam]

I am saying that I stopped answering your questions on account of your attitude. Surely that is rather obvious?

Not really, because back in #631 you said that if I could conclusively prove that you had claimed as a proven fact that there is a time gap you would continue the discussion. Now it is my "attitude" that supposedly prevents it going forward. It seems to me that it's any excuse for evading my questions. Like I've said, I can't force you to answer, you are entitled to plead the fifth if you think the answers will incriminate you, I'll just have to leave your silence to speak volumes.

[Ozzy]

You do know Stewart passed away?

So I if we get him in a Q&A we might have a name at last.

This was a surprise. Done a little searching and I can't find anything about it.
I'll add, for anybody wondering who I'm talking about, that Stewart is Stewart P. Evans.

[GUT]

This was a surprise. Done a little searching and I can't find anything about it.
I'll add, for anybody wondering who I'm talking about, that Stewart is Stewart P. Evans.

I did say later that it looked like the person who told me meant Chris Scott, but gave me the wrong name.

[Fisherman]

Not really, because back in #631 you said that if I could conclusively prove that you had claimed as a proven fact that there is a time gap you would continue the discussion. Now it is my "attitude" that supposedly prevents it going forward. It seems to me that it's any excuse for evading my questions. Like I've said, I can't force you to answer, you are entitled to plead the fifth if you think the answers will incriminate you, I'll just have to leave your silence to speak volumes.

Yes, keep chanting it and it may become true in the end, David! Why even your notion about how "X is" and "X seems to be" are the same thing may eventually be a dream fulfilled.
Up til then, I will merrily leave it to the posters to consider who got it right and who got it wrong.

[David Orsam]

Up til then, I will merrily leave it to the posters to consider who got it right and who got it wrong.

You certainly can't be said to have "got it wrong" Fisherman considering you have refused to provide the answers!