So Cross the Ripper got involved in the investigation. Why did he stop?

[DJA]

Well I am sure with your shown ability to asses

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Seems to have you nailed

[Fisherman]

You're correct. Other than your own deceptively biased documentary and reading through other forums, I'm very ill informed on Fieghnbaum. But when the time is right and if I get so bored that I want to amuse myself with yet another JTR fantasy I'll be back on the Fieghnbaum boards, unless I decide to do something more interesting, like watching grass grow first.

Columbo

I find it interesting that Trevor says that a "simple carman" could not be the killer.

Apparently, though, a simple sailor could...?

I am looking forward to the explanation.

[Harry D]

I am actually suggesting that he was MORE than a hardworking family man.

Tomato, tomahto. I would quantify a serial killer as a step-down from family man but hey ho.

And I am suggesting that it is ridiculous to feign moral indignation on his behalf.

Nothing fake about it. I wouldn't be amused if some armchair detectives tried to sully my ancestor and my family name on such weak grounds.

He is a suspect on much more legitimate grounds when it comes to the case details than a man like Bury who cannot be tied to the murder series in any shape or form at all.

Keep telling yourself that. Like I said before, it takes less assumptions to place Bury in Whitechapel than it does to take Lechmere for a serial killer.

[Fisherman]

You keep making suggestions, but they are nothing more than that, and you keep using them to prop up your theory. The people want hard proven facts !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We, the people...?

Come on now, and ask those questions you said I could not answer. And hurry up, I haven´t got all day.

[Trevor Marriott]

You're correct. Other than your own deceptively biased documentary and reading through other forums, I'm very ill informed on Fieghnbaum. But when the time is right and if I get so bored that I want to amuse myself with yet another JTR fantasy I'll be back on the Fieghnbaum boards, unless I decide to do something more interesting, like watching grass grow first.

Columbo

Well I am sure with your shown ability to asses and evaluate facts in unbiased fashion, watching the grass grow would seem best for you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Columbo]

Make sure read fully up on him before you go there, because at this time you seem ill informed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You're correct. Other than your own deceptively biased documentary and reading through other forums, I'm very ill informed on Fieghnbaum. But when the time is right and if I get so bored that I want to amuse myself with yet another JTR fantasy I'll be back on the Fieghnbaum boards, unless I decide to do something more interesting, like watching grass grow first.

Columbo

[Trevor Marriott]

I am actually suggesting that he was MORE than a hardworking family man. And I am suggesting that it is ridiculous to feign moral indignation on his behalf. He is a suspect on much more legitimate grounds when it comes to the case details than a man like Bury who cannot be tied to the murder series in any shape or form at all.

You keep making suggestions, but they are nothing more than that, and you keep using them to prop up your theory. The people want hard proven facts !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Not really. All of those men named have legitimate grounds for suspicion, either because they were suspected by senior policeman at the time or because they were actual murderers. Lechmere was neither of those things. He didn't have a criminal record and despite Christer's best efforts there's nothing to suggest he was anything less than a hardworking family man.

I am actually suggesting that he was MORE than a hardworking family man. And I am suggesting that it is ridiculous to feign moral indignation on his behalf. He is a suspect on much more legitimate grounds when it comes to the case details than a man like Bury who cannot be tied to the murder series in any shape or form at all.

[Trevor Marriott]

"The suggestion that a simple carman was able to outfox the police not only on one occasion with the Nicholls murder but he then went onto commit other murders in and around the same location all within a short space of time of each murder, without drawing further attention to himself is incomprehensible."

A "simple" carman? Were all carmen "simple"? That is a pertinent question. Any answers?

Well he wasn't the brightest spark in the fire because, if he were the killer he had ample time to run away and never be identified, and to then to give a name which would positively identify him. Those reasons really show he was a cool calculated killer, and to then go on and kill again in the same area a week later. Yes I can see why he fooled the police

A "simple carpainter" like Gary Ridgway was able to outfox the police for many years and he was up against a technically superior force, compared to the victorian police. A "simple alarm installer" like Dennis Rader did the same. They both worked in limited area surroundings. Of course, they did not kill all their victims "in the same location", but then again, such a claim ion behalf of the Ripper is not true either.

Isnt Whitechapel a location ? Were they not all killed in an around Whitechape

Ridgway, Rader and the Ripper ALL drew a lot of attention, but neither man was caught until many years after surfacing.

But none of them were found with a freshly killed body were they, which might have aroused suspicion? And they were all caught after becoming suspects based on evidence gathered. What evidence have you gathered? Nothing other than him finding the body.

I will not yield, you say. Do you want me to accept that the Ripper could not do what he did, in spite of the many later examples there are to show the exact opposite?

I am saying that Lechmere could not have gone onto do all the other things if he had been regarded as a viable suspect at the time, for the reasons stated in my post. Again I say there is nothing to suggest he was ever looked upon as a suspect

Is that what you want me to do? Say that you are right although you are demonstrably wrong? After all, I am only a "simple journalist".

A simple journalist ah, then it has become clear, they are renown for embellishing facts on matters to which they report on, and will never admit they got it wrong !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

It's no different. They were only suspects and only one can be guilty. So we're all essentially dragging all these names through the mud, no matter if they killed before or not.

Not really. All of those men named have legitimate grounds for suspicion, either because they were suspected by senior policeman at the time or because they were actual murderers. Lechmere was neither of those things. He didn't have a criminal record and despite Christer's best efforts there's nothing to suggest he was anything less than a hardworking family man.

[Fisherman]

A strange interview with Mrs Lechmere has emerged :

CONSTABLE : I'd just like to ask you about your husband Charles.

MRS L : Charles? Is that his name?

CONSTABLE : Well, isn't it?

MRS L : I don't know. I don't ask him his name. I mind my own business.

CONSTABLE : Oh! Do you know if he's in?

MRS L (CALLS OUT) : Charles, or whoever you are. Are you in?.........I think he's probably out.

CONSTABLE : I see. Well, doubtless you've heard about the murder -

MRS L : Oh, if he's been murdered he won't be in. Not for a while, anyway.

CONSTABLE : Madam, can you help us in any way at all?

MRS L : I don't think so. But maybe you could help me.

CONSTABLE : Yes?

MRS L : Do you know if Tottenham are playing Stow up front in the big match on Saturday? He's a great header of the ball. If he can get on the end of one of Holmgren's crosses.......

Great stuff, Robert - for once you are factually to the point, and not just your own whimsical you.

I knew you were going to get there.

[Fisherman]

And that comment again shows how you react when your theory is shown to be flawed,as it has been many times on here, not just by me but other posters as well.

You have no answers, and rely on insults towards those who show you the flaws. The sad thing is that you are not even prepared to accept a single flaw in your theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have all the answers I need to, Trevor. Where are the questions? What is it you want a "reaction" to? Shall I choose one thing only? Okay, here goes:

"The suggestion that a simple carman was able to outfox the police not only on one occasion with the Nicholls murder but he then went onto commit other murders in and around the same location all within a short space of time of each murder, without drawing further attention to himself is incomprehensible."

A "simple" carman? Were all carmen "simple"? That is a pertinent question. Any answers?

A "simple carpainter" like Gary Ridgway was able to outfox the police for many years and he was up against a technically superior force, compared to the victorian police. A "simple alarm installer" like Dennis Rader did the same. They both worked in limited area surroundings. Of course, they doid not kill all their victims "in the same location", but then again, such a claim ion behalf of the Ripper is not true either.
Ridgway, Rader and the Ripper ALL drew a lot of attention, but neither man was caught until many years after surfacing.

So this argument of yours is not viable.

Shall I go through the rest of your "points" in the same manner?

I will not yield, you say. Do you want me to accept that the Ripper could not do what he did, in spite of the many later examples there are to show the exact opposite?

Is that what you want me to do? Say that you are right although you are demonstrably wrong? After all, I am only a "simple journalist".

[Robert]

A strange interview with Mrs Lechmere has emerged :

CONSTABLE : I'd just like to ask you about your husband Charles.

MRS L : Charles? Is that his name?

CONSTABLE : Well, isn't it?

MRS L : I don't know. I don't ask him his name. I mind my own business.

CONSTABLE : Oh! Do you know if he's in?

MRS L (CALLS OUT) : Charles, or whoever you are. Are you in?.........I think he's probably out.

CONSTABLE : I see. Well, doubtless you've heard about the murder -

MRS L : Oh, if he's been murdered he won't be in. Not for a while, anyway.

CONSTABLE : Madam, can you help us in any way at all?

MRS L : I don't think so. But maybe you could help me.

CONSTABLE : Yes?

MRS L : Do you know if Tottenham are playing Stow up front in the big match on Saturday? He's a great header of the ball. If he can get on the end of one of Holmgren's crosses.......

[Trevor Marriott]

Then I can only conclude that it is of little interest to you.

Otherwise, here is your post - please highlight exactly what it is you want me to comment on. Otherwise my comment may be a very shortish one, like, say "rubbish".

"I think this whole issue of Cross/Lechmere being a suspect should be put to bed once and for all.

Forgetting all the ifs and buts raised by all those for and against, let’s look at it sensibly and without blinkers, and put all the real facts into perspective.
Firstly, it is accepted that Cross/Lechmere was legally entitled to use either or both of his names.

He did just that in this case, but was it to deliberately mislead the police, and in turn the coroner? Or was there an explanation for his actions? Well there is no mention of anything to suggest the police or the coroner had grounds to suspect they were being misled. Clearly we don’t have the full details of the police investigation or the details of the inquest where this ambiguity would have been raised, but clearly whatever explanation was given by him was accepted by both the police and the coroner. So why is this still being discussed? If they were all happy then why shouldn’t we be, they were there we were not.

As to him being looked upon as a suspect at the time, or anytime thereafter there is no written record to suggest he was ever regarded as a suspect by anyone. When we look at other named suspects, named by police officers of the day, in most cases there is nothing more than those officers opinions as to the naming those suspects, so again if he were suspected I would have expected to see a comment or quote from a police officer appearing somewhere, but there is nothing!

If he ever was ever regarded as a suspect then I would have expected the police to have watched him, and his movements, and again such an operation would have been recorded, or someone would have spoken about it, especially with the double event happening a week later. There is nothing, so what does that tell us?

It tells us that the question of him being the killer of Nicholls and others has been blown up out of all proportion by Christer and Ed. The term being found with a freshly killed body is used to suggest he was the killer; well firstly someone has to find a body. In this case it was Cross/Lechmere and I would guess that anyone finding a body in these circumstances, it would be a traumatic experience and would certainly unnerve most people.

Secondly, the time of death cannot be firmly established, and all the disputed conversations that followed, coupled with the discovery. and the attendance of the police are in my opinion nothing more than a smokescreen in the grand scheme of things, clearly lies were told and it would seem the main culprits were the police at the scene, and we have to ask why? I would suggest that it could have been that one or more of them, was not where they should have been or had deliberately left their beat for a time. If that be the case clearly they are not going to admit to that, and that is why we have these ambiguities regarding the conversations that took place and the evidence given at the inquest. But did any of this cause the coroner concern? No it didn’t.

Finally as to the checking of Cross story by the police if they suspected him, then the likelihood is that they did check his story and his movements with his wife and the timings appertaining to both and seemingly if they did they were happy with it.

The suggestion that a simple carman was able to outfox the police not only on one occasion with the Nicholls murder but he then went onto commit other murders in and around the same location all within a short space of time of each murder, without drawing further attention to himself is incomprehensible.

So I for one now will delete Cross from the suspect list and would urge everyone else to do the same, for to keep arguing with Christer and Ed on this issue is pointless. Neither are going to relent despite all that is put before them, which shatters their theory and they are never going to accept that Cross/Lechmere is an innocent man."

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And that comment again shows how you react when your theory is shown to be flawed,as it has been many times on here, not just by me but other posters as well.

You have no answers, and rely on insults towards those who show you the flaws. The sad thing is that you are not even prepared to accept a single flaw in your theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

.... aaaaand nothing from dear old Trevor.

Makes sense.