Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[ChrisGeorge]

Like I said, I'm new. But, am I getting this right?

All you well-informed, superior intellect group are standing in a circle, openly teasing and laughing at the fat kid on the playground who happens to stand by his belief that Lechmere is likely the killer and you're getting super duper mad and therefore more sarcastic and snitty because he won't admit he's just the dumb old fat kid who believes in a theory the lot of you think has now become too stupid to even talk about?

You gang of people seem to use the argument that you have finally resorted to ridicule and laughing at him because he's just so stubborn and you've been driven to this level because HE'S just shouldn't believe in his conclusions so much and he's just so ridiculous and won't admit it. Wow.

I still don't know who super-intellectual Pierre offers up as the killer, but I know who he knows isn't the killer. The final blow for Lechmere NOT being the killer seems to be "nobody agrees with you anyway! So nah!"

Lechmere has so many factors pointing to him that ANY investigation into the JtR case is stopped in its tracks until it can rule him out. The idea that you are so willing to dismiss each and every point of the theory (one after another) simply because it could be some other vague explanation is downright weird.

Using the name Cross could very well have been a quick decision that he wanted to get the benefits of being close to a cop in a world where cops trust their own and he's not known at all. About 100 times in my life I've made a split-second decision which, upon later pondering, I've realized was a stupid decision and could've been much worse for me than it ultimately was.

Lechmere always acted as though he had little to hide. That does not point to his innocence. True, that Lechmere's family and professional life cannot necessarily support him as the killer. But, other than this board's clear mob mentality that the Lechmere theory is laughably stoopid, I'm still not seeing any significant points to show he can confidently be ruled out.

As I've said before, I have no interest in one suspect being proven over another. I still don't know who I believe is the killer, only that ruling Lechmere out is not that obvious.

Hi there

Please dial your hostility down a few notches, if you would. Although we have a few people here who can get hot under the collar, most of us don't have a suspect and are just trying to look at the "evidence" -- such as it is, pretty poor, as you probably already realize. I for one don't have a suspect except to say that the Ripper was more likely to have been a local man than not. On the other hand, I don't think that Lechmere makes a good candidate although some are adamant that he did the murders. The evidence is lacking that says he committed the crimes, as it is for all the other suspects as well. Stick a pin in the pinboard, but first turn round three times, and make your best guess. That's the way it is, and anyone who has studied the crimes should be aware of that situation.

Best regards

Chris

[caz]

Back to Lechmere...
Being alone with the body when it was recently killed is pretty monumental.

Happens pretty much every time a person is killed and left on a public street in a busy town to be found by the next person to come along. The finder will have 'been alone' with the body, whether anyone else sees them there or not.

And, he stated he did not see anybody near the body even though she was reportedly still bleeding.

Too bad no bleeding was reported by Paul when he was with Lechmere. If guilty, Lechmere could easily have claimed to see or hear someone else but chose to tell the truth.

...since Lechmere claimed he saw no one, it would again point directly at Lechmere.

Only if you believe the ripper would have been daft enough to risk incriminating himself so needlessly.

...And I've certainly never known anyone (or even known anyone who's known anyone) who's discovered any dead body, much less a still-warm and bleeding dead body.

Most dead bodies get discovered by someone at some point - and very quickly when left in a public street just as people are on their way to work. Too bad Paul - the only witness with Lechmere during the crucial time - described the body as cold and saw no bleeding. Too bad the first person to see any blood or injuries was PC Neil, making it impossible to know whether the actual murder occurred before, during or after Lechmere's presence.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Fish and Ed actually enjoy these sparring bouts. There is no cruelty involved - except perhaps to the amazing quantities of cod which Ed consumes at dinner time.

[Fisherman]

Fish and Ed actually enjoy these sparring bouts. There is no cruelty involved - except perhaps to the amazing quantities of cod which Ed consumes at dinner time.

I would enjoy a more sane debate a lot more. If I may be so bold as to myself express a view on what I think...?

And, of course, Edward enjoyed the debating climate out here so much as to leave Casebook.

[ChrisGeorge]

I would enjoy a more sane debate a lot more. If I may be so bold as to myself express a view on what I think...?

Let me may say this: Here and elsewhere, I don't bother with any thread that descends into personal name calling which happens all too often on the forums. I am not singling you out, Fish. It's just that too frequently a thread becomes poisoned and useless for constructive discussion.

Best regards

Chris

[Fisherman]

Let me may say this: Here and elsewhere, I don't bother with any thread that descends into personal name calling which happens all too often on the forums. I am not singling you out, Fish. It's just that too frequently a thread becomes poisoned and useless for constructive discussion.

Best regards

Chris

I´m not singling me out either. I´d be very disappointed with myself for being unfair if I did.

I could single others out, though. But I won´t. It is what it is, and sometimes people will see the madness of it all, the underlying reasons included.
That just happened, as a matter of fact. And guess what happens...? Anyone can see for themselves.

[Fisherman]

Yes, and Lechmere wasn't, as someone else has stated in this thread, "caught over the body"-- he was standing in the street looking at it, according to Paul, who came along on his way to work.

Paul, aware of the area's bad name for muggings, tried to step around Lechmere, who stopped him and asked him to look at the woman, which is when they BOTH were "over the body."

I don't know about anyone else, but when I see something unexpected when I'm out walking, I stop still and stare at it.

Me too. So we both know how that works. The thing is, if Lechmere ALSO knew, and was the killer, then that knowledge would be very useful to take advantage of.

You need to weigh ALL the factors in. When I speak to the police, I call myself by my registered, correct name, for example. I don´t know about you, but there you are.

[ChrisGeorge]

Let me may say this: Here and elsewhere, I don't bother with any thread that descends into personal name calling which happens all too often on the forums. I am not singling you out, Fish. It's just that too frequently a thread becomes poisoned and useless for constructive discussion.

Best regards

Chris

I´m not singling me out either. I´d be very disappointed with myself for being unfair if I did.

I could single others out, though. But I won´t. It is what it is, and sometimes people will see the madness of it all, the underlying reasons included.
That just happened, as a matter of fact. And guess what happens...? Anyone can see for themselves.

It comes to something when one has to single one's self out.

Carry on, Fish.

Cheers

Chris

[Fisherman]

It comes to something when one has to single one's self out.

Carry on, Fish.

Cheers

Chris

I will, Chris!

[Columbo]

Yes, and Lechmere wasn't, as someone else has stated in this thread, "caught over the body"-- he was standing in the street looking at it, according to Paul, who came along on his way to work.

Paul, aware of the area's bad name for muggings, tried to step around Lechmere, who stopped him and asked him to look at the woman, which is when they BOTH were "over the body."

I don't know about anyone else, but when I see something unexpected when I'm out walking, I stop still and stare at it.

My mistake. I did say caught over the body. I apologize for the wording.

[Columbo]

Happens pretty much every time a person is killed and left on a public street in a busy town to be found by the next person to come along. The finder will have 'been alone' with the body, whether anyone else sees them there or not.

I think this is a strange generalization. Most people who find a dead body don't stand around staring at it. Most would start looking for a cop and even before that they would want to get a closer look.

Too bad no bleeding was reported by Paul when he was with Lechmere. If guilty, Lechmere could easily have claimed to see or hear someone else but chose to tell the truth.

Well, since it was very dark and the bleeding had probably been going on for only a few minutes, I'm sure they wouldn't have seen it unless they slipped in it. But since Cross wouldn't touch her and there were no outward appearing wounds, they only gave Polly a cursory glance and not a full inspection.

Only if you believe the ripper would have been daft enough to risk incriminating himself so needlessly.

If you believe Hutchinson, Astrakhan man incriminated himself for MJK's murder by engaging in a staring contest with Hutchinson. You give JTR too much credit.

Most dead bodies get discovered by someone at some point - and very quickly when left in a public street just as people are on their way to work. Too bad Paul - the only witness with Lechmere during the crucial time - described the body as cold and saw no bleeding. Too bad the first person to see any blood or injuries was PC Neil, making it impossible to know whether the actual murder occurred before, during or after Lechmere's presence.

PC Neil had a lantern so of course he would see wounds. The murder could only occur before or during Lechmere's presence at the scene since we know she wasn't alive when Paul came by. Not sure what you meant by after his presence.

Love,

Caz
X

It's very interesting that we have a very strong person of interest and so many people are positive he's innocent when there is stronger proof against him then there is against Druitt! Very interesting.

[GUT]

It's very interesting that we have a very strong person of interest and so many people are positive he's innocent when there is stronger proof against him then there is against Druitt! Very interesting.

And not many here are Druittists either.

[Rosella]

There's no 'proof' really, against any of the main suspects discussed here. We can say that (a) was found near a body and gave a false name to the police (b) was homicidal and killed his wife (c) wrote an ambiguous suicide note and was suspected by his family of being the Ripper (d) was hanged for wife poisonings and was in Whitechapel at the time of the earlier killings and so on, but actual proof of any of them being Jack is mighty thin on the ground.

[GUT]

And not many here are Druittists either.

The supporters of any named suspect are in a minority here, and most of those theories get the same scrutiny as Cross.

Go read a Maybrick thread as just one example.

[GUT]

There's no 'proof' really, against any of the main suspects discussed here. We can say that (a) was found near a body and gave a false name to the police (b) was homicidal and killed his wife (c) wrote an ambiguous suicide note and was suspected by his family of being the Ripper (d) was hanged for wife poisonings and was in Whitechapel at the time of the earlier killings and so on, but actual proof of any of them being Jack is mighty thin on the ground.

I wish I was half as thin as REAL evidence against anyone.