Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Has anyone mentioned that Cross was found near a freshly killed corpse btw?

[Herlock Sholmes]

* The Ripper took trophies. Keeping those hidden in a house full of children would have been challenging.

I can just imagine on of his kids:

”Ugh Dad, what’s this?!”

”Oh, me and your mum were just having a game of ‘hide the uterus’ and she forgot to put it away when we’d finished”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes Sir there are. I have many that you thankfully posted to anyone else interested. Agreed, I still have my copy of "The Last SH Story" and hated it! BTW must be a Brett fan like myself...will never be another I'm afraid...

Absolutely love your posts HS, pray continue good sir...

Thank you DD. Yes, Brett is my favourite Holmes (although there have been some other excellent ones imo, and some poor ones.) I’m guessing that the avatar gave it away. I drew that a few years ago, I had a Rathbone and a Cushing too but sold them both.

[Geddy2112]

If someone said that to me, I would just tell them that there are at least 16 men that I think are better suspects than Lechmere.

But then you get 'prove it' and 'none of them were found alone with a freshly killed victim blah blah blah...' The small matter of course was neither was Cross.

IF Paul had not walked up that street tens of thousands of posts here would just vanish. The do not even realise Paul is actually giving Cross an alibi. That is what we are up against here. It's blind stubborn stupidity.

[Duran duren]

Hi DD, as you’d expect numerous have been written of varying standards. I’ve read quite a few but some where quite a while ago.

A Study In Terror by Ellery Queen and Murder By Decree by Robert Weverka are well known and have been made into movies which you’ve probably seen.

The Last Sherlock Holmes Story by Michael Dibdin is another well known one. I hate the ending though (you might guess who turns out to have been the ripper when you look at the title?)

Probably the best recent one imo is Dust And Shadow by Lindsay Faye.

Edward Hanna’s The Whitechapel Horror comes to mind as does the Mycroft Memorandum by Ray Walsh OI have it somewhere but I can’t remember its content.)

David Stuart Davies wrote The Ripper Legacy but if I remember correctly I don’t think that it’s actually specifically a Holmes v the ripper novel, there’s just some kind of link.

And finally one that I’ve had recommended to me as ‘enjoyable, well-written but with a few faults in the use of modernisms and Americanisms.’ - Sherlock Holmes and the Unmasking of the Whitechapel Horror by Frank Emerson.

Plenty of great pastiches out there DD.

Yes Sir there are. I have many that you thankfully posted to anyone else interested. Agreed, I still have my copy of "The Last SH Story" and hated it! BTW must be a Brett fan like myself...will never be another I'm afraid...

Absolutely love your posts HS, pray continue good sir...

[Fiver]

In my world, there can be no realistic chance that he was NOT guilty

Most of us live in the real world, not Fisherman's world.

* Neither Robert Paul nor PC Mizen saw anything suspicious about Charles Allen Cross' words, actions, or appearance.
* Everything that Cross is known to have done from the moment Robert Paul spotted him to the moment he finished testifying is either the actions of an innocent man or a stunningly stupid murderer.
* Tabram was killed before Cross would have left for work.
* Based on the testimony of three witnesses, Chapman was killed after Cross started work.
* Killing Stride and Eddowes would have required staying up 23+ hours or getting up 3+ hours early on his only day off.
* Killing Mackenzie would have required staying up 22+ hours or getting up 3+ hours early on a work day.
* The Ripper took trophies. Keeping those hidden in a house full of children would have been challenging.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman: True. It is only when the rest of the ingredients are added that he becomes a suspect. Then again, it must be noted that he was at the murder site at a time that is consistent with him being the killer, and that Nichols bled for many minutes after he left. Those are some of the ingredients I point to, that Do make him a suspect

Fisherman Mark One: No, Cross is not a very good suggestion as the Ripper.

Fisherman Mark One: I think that we can safely write off Cross as a contender.

Fisherman Mark One: Also, if he WAS the Ripper, it would be a very strange thing to go looking for a policeman carrying the knife that killed Nichols on his person - for it was not found at the murder site.

Fisherman Mark One: and there must have been every chance to leave the scene unseen had he been the Ripper.

The Baron: Agree, and a good suspect at that

The Baron before his ‘Conversion’: “I read some fairy tales that were much better than this.”

The Baron before his ‘Conversion.’: Lechmerians have failed to bring any single evidence or shred of a clue to justify their claims, they even went to the extreme phantasy and presented Lechmere as the solo ripper-torso murderer of his time, aka Lechmerianismus!”

The Baron before his ‘Conversion’: This whole theory is based upon the ignorance of all other parties involved, one has to be an imbecile to believe such nonsense”

Herlock: I couldn’t agree more Baron. I’m glad that you wouldn’t align yourself with such obviously childish nonsense.

Fisherman: No, I´d expect him to be halfway down Hanbury Street at 3.45 if he left home at 3.30

Herlock: At around 3.45 he and Paul were with PC Mizen. To try and claim that the body was found at 3.45 is just dishonest.

The Baron: Don't agree, if he left between 3:20-3:30 I expect him to be even further far away

Herlock: Or, we could take the unheard of step of reporting the evidence accurately in that Cross said that he left the house at about 3.30. Which, in English, means a time near to 3.30 but not necessarily 3.30 itself. So it could have been a bit before 3.30 or it could have been a bit after 3.30. Either way, we cannot know. It is impossible for us to know. Therefore we CANNOT make any claims.

Fisherman: Realistically no. If they did, they would have known his true name

The Baron: Agree, this is a good point.

Fisherman: It seems very likely that he gave no address at the inquest, although he did so with the police. Again, we do not know and nothing bears out the suggestion that he was known as Cross. As you say, it does not prove that he had something to hide, but it can NEVER be a good thing for the defense when their man gives a name by which he is not registered and that he otherwise never use in officialdom. That should be extremely and utterly clear to anybody.

The Baron: Agree, although it is not illegal, but that doesn't look very good for the man who was spotted alone in the dark near a freshly killed woman.

Herlock: It’s these are more very obviously dishonest points. Read the research on this subject. It might facilitate an escape from the kindergarten.

Fisherman: Jason Payne James, forensic physician extraordinaire, said that Lechmere need not have any blood on his person. What else of a "suspicious" character would there be to take part of? Nervous tics?

The Baron: Agree, and thanks to Dr. James, if Lechmere was the one who suggested to prop up the woman he can even go away with any traces there.

Herlock: Isn’t it nice just to be able to cherrypick evidence? Firstly, we don’t know who suggested ‘the prop’ because we have conflicting evidence so why do we keep wasting time with these ‘what if’s?’ If it was Cross who suggested it, it was so that he could explain any blood that he might have on him. If it was Paul, then Cross refused because he didn’t want the full extent of the injuries revealed. And they call Easter a ‘movable feast.’

Fisherman: Exactly how many of these people spent time alone with the freshly killed Polly Nichols? 3? 15? All of them? Or none?

The Baron: Lechmere and Neil, If the woman was cut when Paul arrived then it is Lechmere the prime suspect, if not then it must be Neil.

Herlock: And not Kosminski? Ok.

Fisherman: In my world, there can be no realistic chance that he was NOT guilty

Herlock: Thankfully most of us occupy the real world and have no desire to present an entirely fake case against someone that even a child could see was nothing more than a witness.

The Baron

The Baron: Don't agree, he is the only suspect for Nichols murder, but we still cannot prove he is guilty, without establishing his wehereabouts, as when the police dismissed Bury.

Herlock: Hold on! You mean that you disagree with your new mentor? Oh yes I see why…you need to keep Kosminski in the hunt of course. Can we establish Kosminski’s whereabouts or indeed any of the suspects? Didn’t think so. You continue with your strange obsession with dismissing Bury (an actual murderer) Very strange…you just seem to focus on suspects that you believe that people on here favour. What a coincidence. Every single point that you make expresses a clear agenda to everyone. All that you are doing is posting to cause annoyance with certain posters that you’ve singled out; nothing more. You are adding nothing to the debate on this subject…in fact you never have. I think that it begins with the letter ‘T’ but I can’t recall the word.

Why don’t you make some constructive points?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Very true

And he managed to get out of the murder spot with a company not rising any sort of suspicions for over a hundred years too!

Fascinating!



The Baron

I wonder where Kosminski was while Cross was murdering Nichols in Bucks Row? And to think that people actually suspected a man that wasn’t found near to a ‘freshly killed woman.’

[The Baron]

Fisherman:

True. It is only when the rest of the ingredients are added that he becomes a suspect. Then again, it must be noted that he was at the murder site at a time that is consistent with him being the killer, and that Nichols bled for many minutes after he left. Those are some of the ingredients I point to, that Do make him a suspect


Agree, and a good suspect at that


No, I´d expect him to be halfway down Hanbury Street at 3.45 if he left home at 3.30


Don't agree, if he left between 3:20-3:30 I expect him to be even further far away


Realistically no. If they did, they would have known his true name


Agree, this is a good point


It seems very likely that he gave no address at the inquest, although he did so with the police. Again, we do not know and nothing bears out the suggestion that he was known as Cross. As you say, it does not prove that he had something to hide, but it can NEVER be a good thing for the defense when their man gives a name by which he is not registered and that he otherwise never use in officialdom. That should be extremely and utterly clear to anybody.


Agree, although it is not illegal, but that doesn't look very good for the man who was spotted alone in the dark near a freshly killed woman.


Jason Payne James, forensic physician extraordinaire, said that Lechmere need not have any blood on his person. What else of a "suspicious" character would there be to take part of? Nervous tics?


Agree, and thanks to Dr. James, if Lechmere was the one who suggested to prop up the woman he can even go away with any traces there.


Exactly how many of these people spent time alone with the freshly killed Polly Nichols? 3? 15? All of them? Or none?


Lechmere and Neil, If the woman was cut when Paul arrived then it is Lechmere the prime suspect, if not then it must be Neil.


In my world, there can be no realistic chance that he was NOT guilty


Don't agree, he is the only suspect for Nichols murder, but we still cannot prove he is guilty, without establishing his wehereabouts, as when the police dismissed Bury.



The Baron

[Lewis C]

Amazing isn't it. I'm also sick to death of the Pro-Lechmere fans (not Christer or Ed) saying in Lechmere's guilt 'well who is your suspect.' Basically meaning I can't argue against Lechmere because I do not have a preferred suspect of my own. That is the logic we are dealing with here.

If someone said that to me, I would just tell them that there are at least 16 men that I think are better suspects than Lechmere.

[Geddy2112]

Very true
And he managed to get out of the murder spot with a company not rising any sort of suspicions for over a hundred years too!
Fascinating!

...because he was innocent. Or is that not obvious to you?

[The Baron]

Yet - if Lechmere was JtR - it worked!! He concealed his real name for over a hundred years - and didn't get caught!

Very true

And he managed to get out of the murder spot with a company not rising any sort of suspicions for over a hundred years too!

Fascinating!



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't have a suspect either and I see no logic with Cross as one.

Speaking of Doyle, while he may not have written a SH story on JtR, their are several pastiches on this subject. Have any read any of these and if so, any favorites? Mine would be "Moriarty" by Gardner which deals with the mystery briefly.

Hi DD, as you’d expect numerous have been written of varying standards. I’ve read quite a few but some where quite a while ago.

A Study In Terror by Ellery Queen and Murder By Decree by Robert Weverka are well known and have been made into movies which you’ve probably seen.

The Last Sherlock Holmes Story by Michael Dibdin is another well known one. I hate the ending though (you might guess who turns out to have been the ripper when you look at the title?)

Probably the best recent one imo is Dust And Shadow by Lindsay Faye.

Edward Hanna’s The Whitechapel Horror comes to mind as does the Mycroft Memorandum by Ray Walsh OI have it somewhere but I can’t remember its content.)

David Stuart Davies wrote The Ripper Legacy but if I remember correctly I don’t think that it’s actually specifically a Holmes v the ripper novel, there’s just some kind of link.

And finally one that I’ve had recommended to me as ‘enjoyable, well-written but with a few faults in the use of modernisms and Americanisms.’ - Sherlock Holmes and the Unmasking of the Whitechapel Horror by Frank Emerson.

Plenty of great pastiches out there DD.

[Geddy2112]

1:10 A.M.: Inspector Edmund Reid arrives only moments before Dr. George Bagster Phillips. Reid notices that blood continues to flow from the throat into the gutter (about 1:09 A.M.) but it begins to clot upon the arrival of Phillips (about 1:12 A.M.)[/I]

Oh dear, another one struck off the list of guilt...

[Fiver]

Very true, and was it a case that the report on Stride indicated a much longer 'bleeding' time that Christer was hoping for, thus contradicting his blood evidence?

Alice McKenzie

12:45 A.M.: It begins to rain in Whitechapel.

12:50 A.M.: Andrews returns to Castle Alley on his regular beat, about twenty-seven minutes having passed since he left the area. This time, however, he discovers the body of a woman lying on the pavement, her head angled toward the curb and her feet toward the wall. Blood flowed from two stabs in the left side of her neck and her skirts had been lifted, revealing blood across her abdomen, which had been mutilated.

The pavement beneath the body of Alice McKenzie was still dry, placing her death sometime after 12:25 A.M. and before 12:45 A.M., when it began to rain. In her possession were found a clay pipe often referred to as a 'nose warmer' and a bronze farthing. She was noticed to have been wearing some 'odd stockings.'

P.C. Andrews heard someone approaching the alley soon after, and ordered the man (Lewis Jacobs) to stay with the body while he went to fetch help.

1:10 A.M.: Inspector Edmund Reid arrives only moments before Dr. George Bagster Phillips. Reid notices that blood continues to flow from the throat into the gutter (about 1:09 A.M.) but it begins to clot upon the arrival of Phillips (about 1:12 A.M.)