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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

I know.

You canīt.

It wonīt happen.

You would do better to try and read up on the case. It would be time better spent.

And you would be better taking your head out of the sand, and waking up to reality instead of being lost in this fantasy world of Lechmere that you have created.

I see you are still using the same old tactics to deflect posts that threaten your theory, oh dear

[Fisherman]

And you would be better taking your head out of the sand, and waking up to reality instead of being lost in this fantasy world of Lechmere that you have created.

I see you are still using the same old tactics to deflect posts that threaten your theory, oh dear

Whenever somebody has constructive criticism to offer, I am thorough and concise.

Not everybody is up to that level, however. And they are quickly provided with a verbal boot in the bottom. Anseers to their questions have been offered hundreds of times, but they are too lazy to look for it.

Do you want me to specify who goes where?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;379168]

Hi Fisherman,

I understand your thinking.

No you donīt.

But thatīs okay - your thinking is alienated to me.

[Trevor Marriott]

Whenever somebody has constructive criticism to offer, I am thorough and concise.

Not everybody is up to that level, however. And they are quickly provided with a verbal boot in the bottom. Anseers to their questions have been offered hundreds of times, but they are too lazy to look for it.

Do you want me to specify who goes where?

The only thing I would like you to do is to accept all of what I said in post #115

But as you have already chosen not to by not replying in the first instance I must take it that you do accept all?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

And you would be better taking your head out of the sand, and waking up to reality instead of being lost in this fantasy world of Lechmere that you have created.

I see you are still using the same old tactics to deflect posts that threaten your theory, oh dear

Fisherman canīt help it. It is he who does it. The vampire. Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

Fisherman canīt help it. It is he who does it. The vampire. Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

You are right, time and time again he has been done up like a `kipper` by posters on here. He wont accept that his theory is made up of red `herrings` His `bloated` ego is showing through. This is not the `plaice` for him to be now. All he is doing is making himslef look like a `pilchard`

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Azarna]

I actually think that Lechmere is a reasonable suspect for the murder of Polly Nichols. He was in the right place, at the right time, and there are things about his actions that certainly do look suspicious.

I have not yet seen or read enough evidence to feel is a reasonable suspect for any of the other murders though.

The business with the name is indeed odd.

If Lechmere really never used the name Cross, then this makes using it as a "subtle lie" all the more surprising. Had the police ever inquired they could have easily found that Charles Allen Cross did not live at the given address... but Charles Allen Lechmere did.. and of course Paul or PC Mizen could have then identified him as being the same man who called himself Cross.

If this happened (and it would have been a big potential risk) then Lechmere would, presumably, have said, "Oh, I didn't lie.. I am also called Cross, it is my step-father's name."

If he used this name SOMETIMES then this is going to sound a heck of a lot less suspicious than if he never ever used it and just happened to use it for this one time.

Christer, if you are right and he never used it other than this one time then that makes using it as a way to cover his guilt seem very unlikely as it just draws more attention if investigated. Saying Lechmere would have been safer (or going all out for a totally false name and address).

However if he used Cross sometimes, then using it would hopefully throw the police off enough for his purposes (as MAY have happened, of course)... but he could explain it if it was later investigated.

[Trevor Marriott]

I actually think that Lechmere is a reasonable suspect for the murder of Polly Nichols. He was in the right place, at the right time, and there are things about his actions that certainly do look suspicious.

How do you know it was the right time, as time of death cannot be firmly established? We know he found the body that`s all that is conclusive. What actions were suspicious ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Fisherman canīt help it. It is he who does it. The vampire. Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

Bravo, Pierre - very, very ethical of you!

[Fisherman]

The only thing I would like you to do is to accept all of what I said in post #115

But as you have already chosen not to by not replying in the first instance I must take it that you do accept all?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, you cannot appear here with the moronic approach that Lechmere should be dropped altogether, and then ask me to accept your drivel.

It is a clownish approach, which in itself does not surprise me. But that does not help your cause.

[Azarna]

How do you know it was the right time, as time of death cannot be firmly established? We know he found the body that`s all that is conclusive. What actions were suspicious ?

I am not being as specific as that. I am not convinced he did it, there is not enough evidence for that.

However he was in Bucks Row within a very short time of Polly Nichols death. This makes him somewhat more of a likely suspect for this particular murder than, say, Druitt or Ksominski.. simply because we have no idea where they were at the time.

The Lechmere/Cross name business is something that has caused much speculation. Whether this is deemed suspicious or curious depends on your point of view.

There are some suspects I consider "unreasonable" because we have strong evidence they could not have done it (Prince Eddy, for example), some who are "hmm, possible, but unlikely", some who are "well, maybe" and some who are "possible". I suspect that most of us have slightly different people in each category :-)

To my eyes Charles Cross is a possible suspect. Possible. Not probable.

[Fisherman]

Azarna: I actually think that Lechmere is a reasonable suspect for the murder of Polly Nichols. He was in the right place, at the right time, and there are things about his actions that certainly do look suspicious.

Of course he is a reasonable suspect for the Nichols murder. But to Trevor Marriott, he should be discarded. And thatīs coming from an ex-murder squad detective. Talk about shooting yourself through the foot!

I have not yet seen or read enough evidence to feel is a reasonable suspect for any of the other murders though.

All there is, is the correlation geographically, plus the fact that anybody who killed Nichols must be a very likely contender for the rest of the Ripper victims.

The business with the name is indeed odd.

It is - but not to some out here...

If Lechmere really never used the name Cross, then this makes using it as a "subtle lie" all the more surprising. Had the police ever inquired they could have easily found that Charles Allen Cross did not live at the given address... but Charles Allen Lechmere did.. and of course Paul or PC Mizen could have then identified him as being the same man who called himself Cross.

Yes. It entailed lots of danger, but the name Cross was a name for which he could produce an explanation. It seems that if he lied, he did so with a safety net.

If this happened (and it would have been a big potential risk) then Lechmere would, presumably, have said, "Oh, I didn't lie.. I am also called Cross, it is my step-father's name."

Yup, thatīs how I see it.

If he used this name SOMETIMES then this is going to sound a heck of a lot less suspicious than if he never ever used it and just happened to use it for this one time.

Perfectly true. Two times will suffice to dissolve much of the suspicions!

Christer, if you are right and he never used it other than this one time then that makes using it as a way to cover his guilt seem very unlikely as it just draws more attention if investigated. Saying Lechmere would have been safer (or going all out for a totally false name and address).

... and so I am reasoning that he wanted to keep the name from the public - for whatever reason, one of them perhaps being that he wanted to carry on his murderous carreer without some people knowing about it.

However if he used Cross sometimes, then using it would hopefully throw the police off enough for his purposes (as MAY have happened, of course)... but he could explain it if it was later investigated.

He could do that anyway. He could always say that he sometimes used the name, when he felt like it. Not all that often, but at times, and that it was his name to use. It would be pretty hard to disprove that.
At any rate, there was something odd going on when he chose Cross over Lechmere on that one and only occasion!

Thanks for that breath of fresh air, before I am submerged into the naysayer swamp again! Itīs good to see that people with no agenda are able to see clearly.

[Fisherman]

... he was in Bucks Row within a very short time of Polly Nichols death. This makes him somewhat more of a likely suspect for this particular murder than, say, Druitt or Ksominski.. simply because we have no idea where they were at the time.

Heureka!!!

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you cannot appear here with the moronic approach that Lechmere should be dropped altogether, and then ask me to accept your drivel.

It is a clownish approach, which in itself does not surprise me. But that does not help your cause.

I have no cause other than trying to seek the truth, and to try to prove or disprove this theory of yours.

It may be a clownish approach but what does it matter if it makes the point, and the point is that you have no answer to what I posted in that earlier thread.

Now all your huffing and puffing, and name calling isnt going to change that and you have no answer to it and you know you dont.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

However he was in Bucks Row within a very short time of Polly Nichols death. This makes him somewhat more of a likely suspect for this particular murder than, say, Druitt or Ksominski.. simply because we have no idea where they were at the time.

On that premise why not pour suspicion on all those other persons who found bodies? What makes Lechmere different from them. Because we know that the doctors times of death in 1888 were nothing more than guesswork.

Take Chapmans murder, if Cadosh`s timing is correct then it might fit in with the movements of Lechmere, but the doctor believes the time of death to be much earlier.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk