Evidence of innocence

[Duran duren]

Agreed Geddy, i will stick to Whitechapel. Spent half of yesterday in the backyard of 27 n 29 Hanbury...more esp. that fence.

[Geddy2112]

Game over then Geddy.

So do we all move on to Bible John, the A6 or the Zodiac?

I'm scared to, in case I find lay lines, astronomical star patterns or animals of the kind that influence people..

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's one of Ed's House of Tenuous Links videos where, if I remember correctly a tiger escaped in the area when Cross was a kid and this could have influenced him to become Jack The Ripper.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/bizarre-animal-facts

Game over then Geddy.

So do we all move on to Bible John, the A6 or the Zodiac?

[Duran duren]

It's one of Ed's House of Tenuous Links videos where, if I remember correctly a tiger escaped in the area when Cross was a kid and this could have influenced him to become Jack The Ripper.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/bizarre-animal-facts

God i needed the laugh this morning! Reminded me of that funny scene from the movie "Apocalypse Now" where the chief is spooked by the tiger, freaks out, runs back to the boat, and starts saying "bye tiger bye tiger".
Hillarious, same as the idea of Cross as a suspect in the murders.

[Geddy2112]

The latest defence is a twist on one of the most used defences for guilt. We now have 'Lechmere was found alone with a freshly killed victim.'

Ok fair enough. We obviously have two points of bias here from Team Lechmere -

i) Found alone

ii) Freshly killed

I keep going over and over this statement and try to think of how it came about. However, and this is what I'm suggesting here. Was it more in line with the evidence that Cross 'found' Paul in Bucks Row?

Thoughts?

[Geddy2112]

Tiger?

It's one of Ed's House of Tenuous Links videos where, if I remember correctly a tiger escaped in the area when Cross was a kid and this could have influenced him to become Jack The Ripper.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/bizarre-animal-facts

[Herlock Sholmes]

Tiger?

[Fiver]

There is of course the Tiger if you listen to Ed, the tiger is vital in proving one's guilt.

The tiger escape is a new level of barrel scraping. Charles Lechmere wasn't a participant and almost certainly wasn't a witness. He was just one of about 3 million people living in London at the time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cross has no more going for him as a suspect than Hutchinson or Richardson. The only thing that he has that they don’t have is a fan club.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis, I wish I was as sure of winning the Lotto at the weekend as I am of Lechmere's innocence. If he is guilty then it certainly is not for the reasons Christer et al have mentioned because everyone one of their 'red flags' have been severely debunked to the point they are just making up stuff now. I mean they did then but it's got desperate.

Hi Geddy,

I wouldn't have used the Lotto example, because every Ripper suspect is much more likely to be innocent than you are to win the lottery. I think of it this way. Cross can't be proven innocent, it's just that there's almost no good reason to think he's guilty. I'd say there are only 4 people who have been named as Ripper suspects that can be proven innocent: Ostrog, Cream, Van Gogh, and Prince Albert Victor.

[Geddy2112]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Cross has been proven innocent, but if we were to randomly pick a man from the census record who lived in Whitechapel and was in his 20's or 30's at the time of the murders, chances are we wouldn't be able to prove that man innocent either.

Hi Lewis, I wish I was as sure of winning the Lotto at the weekend as I am of Lechmere's innocence. If he is guilty then it certainly is not for the reasons Christer et al have mentioned because everyone one of their 'red flags' have been severely debunked to the point they are just making up stuff now. I mean they did then but it's got desperate.

[Lewis C]

This is a frankly ridiculous thread. The idea that you have to prove someone innocent is the wrong way round. It's to prove someone guilty. However despite this Lechmere has been proven innocent to all but the most pigheaded Lechmerians.

Hi John,

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Cross has been proven innocent, but if we were to randomly pick a man from the census record who lived in Whitechapel and was in his 20's or 30's at the time of the murders, chances are we wouldn't be able to prove that man innocent either.

[Geddy2112]

Once you've been through that it tends to devolve into; cat meat, leaving bodies in the shape of a cross, and ley lines...

Or the convoluted blood evidence, the 'on his way to work when all the murders happened' and his mother's address. There is of course the Tiger if you listen to Ed, the tiger is vital in proving one's guilt.

[John Wheat]

This is a frankly ridiculous thread. The idea that you have to prove someone innocent is the wrong way round. It's to prove someone guilty. However despite this Lechmere has been proven innocent to all but the most pigheaded Lechmerians.

[A P Tomlinson]

Good to see an example from the modern era George. And the need not to lose a days work would have been far more important to an 19th century East Ender like Cross.

The point about the blood is also a good one. And how many of us, who have no medical training or who are a bit squeamish, wouldn’t have wanted to touch a body. I was recently reading about the Hanratty case where a horror had to be released from duty because he fainted every time someone mentioned blood.

These are non-suspicious incidents that everyone can see are non-suspicious but they are already woven into the narrative.

The point about him not touching the body, or "refusing to help a poor woman in distress" is one of the second tier of "evidence" they present, once you explain the stuff about "No he wasn't standing over the body, no he didn't lie to Mizen and nothing he said, did or wore at the inquest is either unusual or suggestive of nefarious intent..."

"He refused to touch the body..." and when you point out that a) HE was the one who brought that point up at the inquest, and that b) offering to help move her would have been the most logical and pragmatic thing to do (if he were the killer,) now that he has deliberately contrived this scenario where instead of simply... walking away... he has decided to "Bluff" a stranger in the night into spotting his murder victim and then joining him in the examination of it. There is no way on God's green Earth that he was standing there talking to Paul, so soon after eviscerating a human being with clean hands. Lifting her up would have given him the prefect excuse for having blood on his hands or sleeves. But he LETS Paul touch her, and doesn't suggest not doing so.

This is just another of the stupid risks he had to have taken. If Paul examines the body and pulls his hand away covered in blood, the casual walk to work DOES suddenly become a matter of urgency and the Police need to be called. Paul is not going to let Cross bugger off, because he would need corroboration that he hadn't done it. And if he just does a runner at that point, Paul has a decent description of him to give the Police.

Once you've been through that it tends to devolve into; cat meat, leaving bodies in the shape of a cross, and ley lines...