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

[Columbo]

Who knows? Trevor is not one to follow any sort of common logic, so anything can happen.

I am wondering about that or those questions he said I was unable to answer; he seems to have forgotten all about it...?

It seems that you're the victim of a lot of jealousy from Trevor. Keep pushing though back!

Columbo

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;379205]

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.


I am really very, very sorry to hear this.

It would have been great if you had found a source that pointed to Lechmere having killed at least one of the other victims.

Regards, Pierre

No, you are not sorry. Plus the geographical correlation IS a pointer.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;379184]

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.


I am really very, very sorry to hear this.

It would have been great if you had found a source that pointed to Lechmere having killed at least one of the other victims.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Yes, Fisherman. Thorough and concise, saying "We can not say it was so but we can not say it was not so" and "If...., if....and if".

Thank you for your efforts, honestly, but please tell me how Lechmere killed Mary Jane Kelly. At least, do you have an hypothesis?

Kind regards, Pierre

Yes, I do. I think I know when he killed her, I think I know why she was chosen for the kind of extreme deed it was, I think I know why he did the kind of damage he did, I think I know the exact inspiration for the deed, and I think I know how it relates to primarily the Chapman deed but also very clearly to the torso deeds.

But I am not going to tell you, Pierre.

How´s that?

By the way, Columbo is absolutely correct. It is not even the correct thread, but since you wondered...

[Columbo]

Yes, Fisherman. Thorough and concise, saying "We can not say it was so but we can not say it was not so" and "If...., if....and if".

Thank you for your efforts, honestly, but please tell me how Lechmere killed Mary Jane Kelly. At least, do you have an hypothesis?

Kind regards, Pierre

I think that's another thread. Unfortunately this one got hijacked by the naming issue (again!) and I personally have nothing else to say about the subject of the thread. I would love to discuss the other victims, as I suggested on another thread.

Columbo

[Pierre]

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?

Yes, Fisherman. Thorough and concise, saying "We can not say it was so but we can not say it was not so" and "If...., if....and if".

Thank you for your efforts, honestly, but please tell me how Lechmere killed Mary Jane Kelly. At least, do you have an hypothesis?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Azarna;379183]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.

No. The horse did it.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Are you gonna lay him right next to feighenbaum?

Who knows? Trevor is not one to follow any sort of common logic, so anything can happen.

I am wondering about that or those questions he said I was unable to answer; he seems to have forgotten all about it...?

[Columbo]

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

Are you gonna lay him right next to feighenbaum?

[Fisherman]

You know that the people who were with a person nearest to their time of death are of significant interest to the police. That is surely just a logical place to start inquiries.

So what do you say, Trevor? Have you heard about this approach before? Or is Azarna simply waffling?

[Fisherman]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Alright. I will play. Let´s see now, Trevor, what is it you perceive I have no answer to? Let´s dispell that false statement directly!

[Azarna]

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.

There is a vast number of people involved in the case who are "under suspicion" to some degree or another. That is what all this is about, trying to work out who is more suspicious than any other.

Again I repeat that I am not saying that Lechmere killed anyone.. because I do not have anything like enough evidence to make such a huge accusation.

And yes, anyone who found a body within a short time of death (she could not have been there for hours, it was a public road) is more of a possible suspect than people who were miles away at that moment, that is just basic logic. That is NOT to say that the person who found the body killed the body.

You know that the people who were with a person nearest to their time of death are of significant interest to the police. That is surely just a logical place to start inquiries.

[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

[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

[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!!!