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

[drstrange169]

It wasn't just me you deceived it was the whole list.

When I make mistakes I have the decency to apologise and they have always been honest mistakes.

Whilst I certainly indulge in sarcasm I've never descended the kind of personal abuse you have unleashed on myself recently and various other listers in the past.

I have no responsibility to inform you about the facts of the case.

Which makes us wonder why you are here, because for the rest of us, we come here to share information. I note you have done a similar thing with poster David Orsam. You demand others to quote and explain their sources, which we all freely do, but you for some reason just play sly games avoiding committing your claims to peer review.

Apologies cost nothing but a good reputation is, to use your favourite word of the moment, priceless.

[Fisherman]

Not a chance, at least Feigenbaum is a genuine suspect. He did kill, and he did carry a long knife, which he used to kill, and he can be linked to London at the time of the murders. He was even seen to kill, now that`s even better than being found near a "Freshly killed body"
http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/?page_id=191

And this comes from a man who has worked as a member of a murder investigation team! This experience has led said man to deduce that it is more kilely that a man with a record of killing, but who cannot be tied to the murder site in any shape or form, is a more likely killer than somebody who has been found alone with a freshy killed murder victim, and who has probably no previous criminal record.

A-ma-zingggg!

[drstrange169]

I have no desire to turn this list into a slanging match and you clearly have no desire to be conciliatory. For better or worse I have formed my opinion of you as a person and am done with the subject.

If you want to start discussing issues related to Jtr openly and honestly, like the rest of us, I’m happy to do so.

[Trevor Marriott]

Gob off?

Anyway I won't get into a Feigenbaum argument because I really have no opinion or interest in him, just as I don't have an opinion on Lechmere being JTR.

I don't have a favorite suspect, I just look at the most viable ones from the group and try to find out more about them.

I examined the info against Feigenbaum and found it sorely lacking in evidence. Just alot of conjecture. Much like all the other suspects. So he's not on my radar at the moment.

But here's something you may not have considered: How come all of the suspects who were caught or confessed to murder, i.e. Feigenbuam, Bury, Kelly, Deeming etc, none of them confessed to the Whitechapel murders?
They confess to everything else, why not that?

Because they didn't do it.

Did lechmere do it? I don't know.

Was he on site at one of the murders? Yes

Does he have descrepancies in his story? Absolutely. Good ones too.

So for now he's on my radar.

I don't read JTR books based exclusively on one suspect. It's a general waste of time as the author is usually biased and not always forthcoming with all the information. I'll check it out none the less to see if it's worth my money.

I'll catch you on the Feigenbaum threads when I revisit him later.

Columbo

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

And this comes from a man who has worked as a member of a murder investigation team! This experience has led said man to deduce that it is more kilely that a man with a record of killing, but who cannot be tied to the murder site in any shape or form, is a more likely killer than somebody who has been found alone with a freshy killed murder victim, and who has probably no previous criminal record.

A-ma-zingggg!

Well nice of you to realise my qualities !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

And this comes from a man who has worked as a member of a murder investigation team! This experience has led said man to deduce that it is more kilely that a man with a record of killing, but who cannot be tied to the murder site in any shape or form, is a more likely killer than somebody who has been found alone with a freshy killed murder victim, and who has probably no previous criminal record.

A-ma-zingggg!

Well nice of you to realise my qualities ! and again you haven't read the post correctly before putting pen to paper, and again you have evaded commenting on my previous post #115

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I have no desire to turn this list into a slanging match and you clearly have no desire to be conciliatory. For better or worse I have formed my opinion of you as a person and am done with the subject.

If you want to start discussing issues related to Jtr openly and honestly, like the rest of us, I’m happy to do so.

You have accused me of deception. That says a lot about you, my friend!

There is only one matter where deception may have ocurred: the question about whether Emily Lechmere was alive in 1888.

You are trying to lead on that I have decived you to think that this was so.

But the truth of the matter is that you yourself managed to deceive yourself into thinking so. I had nothing at all to do with that. It was your own unfamiliarity with the subject - and we are all free to inform ourselves about the facts - that made you think that she was alive.

So I have not deceived you in any way. You made the call all by yourself.

Am I guilty of anything at all? Yes, in a sense: I am guilty of not having turned the other cheek. I missed out on that particular christian bid. I could have told you from the outset that Emily Lechmere was dead in 1888. And I would have done so, if I had been met with any form of respect myself.

Have you met my posts with respect, Dusty? Or have you met them with scorn and mocking? May I remind you that you sign off all your posts by quoting me mockingly? And to boot, you do so without understanding the issue as such, but that´s another matter.

And here you are, crying your heart out about having been "deceived" by me. Two days after having gleefully spoken about how I had "a bad week"! After tons of irony and sarcasm. After having done your very best to try and tarnish me in any way you could, for years on end.

Now, should I start finishing off MY posts with your ignorance about Emily Lechmere? Or should I use your whopper about the distances in Bucks Row?

That´s not going to happen. I consider such things puerile and immature and a huge insult to people I am supposed to debate with. So you don´t need to worry about that.

You are willing to debate in a friendly and honest climate, you say? Then by all means, bring it on, Dusty. It´s all up to you.

[Fisherman]

Well nice of you to realise my qualities ! and again you haven't read the post correctly before putting pen to paper, and again you have evaded commenting on my previous post #115

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I am not going looking for your points, Trevor. Post them right here, right now, list them, and I will answer them, each and every one. There is not a question you can ask that I cannot provide with an answer. But I won´t go looking for them, so you will have to put that extra effort in. An exact list of questions, please!

PS. I have known your qualities for the longest time...

[Ben]

All these "near certainties" of yours and "epically unlikelies" and whatnot is getting a bit tedious. Sorry.

Oh, near certainties can be tedious, I agree.

Fortunately, it's an actual certainty that if he was known as Lechmere at work, the police would have discovered as much eventually. Your only options, therefore, are:

a) He was known as Cross at work.

b) He was known as Lechmere, but told the police he wished to be recorded as Cross.

Anything else is impossible. Not just "nearly" impossible, but actually so.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben: Oh, near certainties can be tedious, I agree.

Then why do you use that term on such a frequent basis?

Fortunately, it's an actual certainty that if he was known as Lechmere at work, the police would have discovered as much eventually.

No, that is not a certainty at all. It only applies if the police themselves would visit Pickfords and inform themselves about it. Otherwise, there can be no certainty at all about it.

Your only options, therefore, are:

a) He was known as Cross at work.

b) He was known as Lechmere, but told the police he wished to be recorded as Cross.

Anything else is impossible. Not just "nearly" impossible, but actually so.

Well, that´s as clear a positioning as one could ask for as regards your familiarity with the case - and the real world.
No further comments needed.

[Trevor Marriott]

I am not going looking for your points, Trevor. Post them right here, right now, list them, and I will answer them, each and every one. There is not a question you can ask that I cannot provide with an answer. But I won´t go looking for them, so you will have to put that extra effort in. An exact list of questions, please!

PS. I have known your qualities for the longest time...

I do not have the time to keep posting repeat posts. I have asked you three times now to read and comment on post #115 and so far you have deliberately ducked that issue. I wonder why ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I do not have the time to keep posting repeat posts. www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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."

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

.... aaaaand nothing from dear old Trevor.

Makes sense.

[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

[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.......