Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Hercule Poirot]

I have to agree with this. If you look at the entire Cross/Lechmere theory, most of what Mr. Holmgrem says would put Charles Cross at the very top of the suspect list only because he was caught over the body. I believe we can all agree that Cross being with the body is a pretty absolute fact.

I do agree that there is probably a lot of information missing and a lot of UN-substantiated information as well. I remember Martin Fido, in a documentary saying Charles Cross jumped into the shadows when Robert Paul came by and this made Paul suspicious. I believe this was in a Timewatch episode. Is that true? what was Fido's source? I don't know but that made me first suspicious about Cross.

Cross is also a more substantial suspect then Lewis Carrol, William Gull, Walter Sickert, Tumblety, Eddie, Cream or Chapman. Why? because he was alone with the body of the first victim. Was he JTR? Unknown, but he's still a great suspect.

I really like your comment.

JTR forums such as this one are facing a serious problem when it comes to defining who is a suspect, a person of interest, against whom charges could have been brought up and found guilty.

There's no commun understanding of these terms. Many observations are based on a vague comprehension of the penal system at the time of the JTR crimes, a basic knowledge of the penal system in the country of the commentator which is often different from the one found in another country even if many of them refer to the rules of common law. In other cases, it's just that an argument or two against someone are rejected and the whole case is considered as having failed the test. What test?

If one comes up with the name of a person who lived at the time of the JTR murders, what are the 'requirements' for this person to be accepted by forum communities as a valid suspect? There's over 30 suspects appearing on the suspect page here on Casebook. How or why did they made it into the 'Hall of Shame'? Did they had a stronger case than Coss? I don't think so. Am I wrong in saying that 'Vox Populi' seems to be the rule!!

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot

P.S. Sorry for my poor English.

[GUT]

While defending Lechmere against a perceived character smear campaign seems a noble enough stated endeavor, I don't see wild accusations flying around that aren't backed up, however circumstantially. If direct physical evidence is what thread posters have as a standard of proof, then it seems pointless to engage in discussions at all. If the posters on this thread don't rule Lechmere out (even though the thread is called Lechmere-Cross bye bye) they clearly deny the theory that focuses on him, and flat out ridicule the theorist who is willing to stick to that belief.

Back to Lechmere...
Being alone with the body when it was recently killed is pretty monumental. And, he stated he did not see anybody near the body even though she was reportedly still bleeding. Did later JtR victims have more extensive cutting? That would point to the killer being interrupted, and since Lechmere claimed he saw no one, it would again point directly at Lechmere. I know there's nothing new in that point.

Had the police known there would be more victims, Lechmere's presence with the body may have been under greater scrutiny when he first presented. Had law enforcement and society in general known then what we know now about serial killers and their seeming innocuousness, Lechmere may very well have been hanged on the mere circumstantial evidence pointing to him.

Granted, I'm an average woman who doesn't live in a poor, crowded community. But, even so, I've never known anyone who has ever been murdered, known anyone who's been within 5 miles of a murder (much less several), or had murders repeatedly and contemporaneously committed on what could be their routine routes of travel. 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.

I'd love to see the ridicule of which you talk.

Clearly you don't live un a city if you have never been within five miles of a murder.

[CertainSum1]

While defending Lechmere against a perceived character smear campaign seems a noble enough stated endeavor, I don't see wild accusations flying around that aren't backed up, however circumstantially. If direct physical evidence is what thread posters have as a standard of proof, then it seems pointless to engage in discussions at all. If the posters on this thread don't rule Lechmere out (even though the thread is called Lechmere-Cross bye bye) they clearly deny the theory that focuses on him, and flat out ridicule the theorist who is willing to stick to that belief.

Back to Lechmere...
Being alone with the body when it was recently killed is pretty monumental. And, he stated he did not see anybody near the body even though she was reportedly still bleeding. Did later JtR victims have more extensive cutting? That would point to the killer being interrupted, and since Lechmere claimed he saw no one, it would again point directly at Lechmere. I know there's nothing new in that point.

Had the police known there would be more victims, Lechmere's presence with the body may have been under greater scrutiny when he first presented. Had law enforcement and society in general known then what we know now about serial killers and their seeming innocuousness, Lechmere may very well have been hanged on the mere circumstantial evidence pointing to him.

Granted, I'm an average woman who doesn't live in a poor, crowded community. But, even so, I've never known anyone who has ever been murdered, known anyone who's been within 5 miles of a murder (much less several), or had murders repeatedly and contemporaneously committed on what could be their routine routes of travel. 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.

[Columbo]

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.

I have to agree with this. If you look at the entire Cross/Lechmere theory, most of what Mr. Holmgrem says would put Charles Cross at the very top of the suspect list only because he was caught over the body. I believe we can all agree that Cross being with the body is a pretty absolute fact.

I do agree that there is probably a lot of information missing and a lot of UN-substantiated information as well. I remember Martin Fido, in a documentary saying Charles Cross jumped into the shadows when Robert Paul came by and this made Paul suspicious. I believe this was in a Timewatch episode. Is that true? what was Fido's source? I don't know but that made me first suspicious about Cross.

Cross is also a more substantial suspect then Lewis Carrol, William Gull, Walter Sickert, Tumblety, Eddie, Cream or Chapman. Why? because he was alone with the body of the first victim. Was he JTR? Unknown, but he's still a great suspect.

[drstrange169]

Hello CertainSum1,

Welcome to the boards.

It was certainly an evocative analogy you used, the masses against the minority.
I would keep the theme of masses v minority but, offer very different analogies.

The mass of the Egyptian people against the minority of Mubarak's regime.
The mass of the Philippino people versus the minority of the Marcos regime.
Perestroika etc.

These analogies have the advantage of the same core issue, human rights.
Charles Allen Lechmere's right to the presumption of innocence.
The right not to be branded on worldwide television as the worlds most notorious serial killer,
with not a word in his defence being raised in the show (think, the show trials of the regimes mentioned above).

Re ruling Xmere out.

Perhaps because you are new here, you may not be aware that most of us do not rule Xmere out.
He is and will probably remain a person of interest. He is well worth investigating but as yet, not one shred of actual evidence has been found.
And what of the quality of evidence that has been put forward to condemn his man to supposed prime suspect ?
He wore an apron to the inquest, the bastards got to be guilty hasn't he!

No bullying here, just people leaping to defend those that cannot defend themselves. Just people giving Charles Allen Lechmere his right of reply.