Evidence of innocence

[Duran duren]

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.

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.

[Sunny Delight]

Charles Cross is not the Whitechapel murderer and I think to any serious student of the case he must be totally exonerated based on what we know. Almost every facet of the 'evidence' against him is easily explained or is based on so many assumptions as to be meaningless.

I imagine the true killers name is within the Police files(probably long lost now), likely spoken to a few times and like the Yorkshire Ripper likely someone who slipped through the net. Cross was not that guy. An innocent witness who had the misfortune to find one of the murdrrers victims.

[Geddy2112]

I’m just surprised that Conan Doyle missed out on the opportunity of assigning that bit of deductive genius to you-know-who

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.

[Geddy2112]

There are plenty of other suspects for the murder of Polly Nichols. And if bodies bled out as fast as Christer claims, then PC Neil is the most likely killer.

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

While The Baron’s latest tactic for avoiding responding to current points is to only respond to posts by someone who cannot respond at the moment due to a ban then it’s worth pointing out some further examples of desperation.

Lechmere was spotted at a time that was extremely close to the woman death, he must have been lucky.

Really? In a quiet, straight, poorly-lit East End backstreet at around 3.40am our cunning killer allows Robert Paul to interrupt him in the act? ‘Lucky’ isn’t the adjective that I’d use. ‘Stupid’ comes easier to mind. If we just for a second put ourselves in that position can any of us imagine getting caught in the act? How the hell could it have happened? That a killer would remain in situ when he hears/sees a man approach in the distant gloom would have to attract the adjective ‘stupid’, although I’d have to add ‘staggeringly’ or ‘remarkably’, to give it full value.

Cross can be exonerated on this point alone.

. There is no other suspect for the murder of Mary Nichols, so he will stay

Here we get what I’ve christened Fisherman’s ‘Phantom Killer Fallacy,’ which states “ if you cannot put a name to someone then they are, at best, unlikely to have existed.”

Repeated here by Christer’s new pal The Baron it means that someone killing Nichols and fleeing (as a real killer would have done) before Cross arrived couldn’t really have happened because we can’t put a name to that person.

Cross though has the evidential weight of a name.

I’m just surprised that Conan Doyle missed out on the opportunity of assigning that bit of deductive genius to you-know-who

[Fiver]

Agree. Lechmere was spotted at a time that was extremely close to the woman death, he must have been lucky.


There is no other suspect for the murder of Mary Nichols, so he will stay.



The Baron

There are plenty of other suspects for the murder of Polly Nichols. And if bodies bled out as fast as Christer claims, then PC Neil is the most likely killer.

PC Thain saw a couple men on Brady Street shortly before he was alerted by PC Neil. Robert Paul, PC John Neil, Walter Purkiss, Patrick Mulshaw, James Green, Sergeant Henry Kirby, Mr Perkins, the watchman at Schnieder's factory, the watchman at the wool depot, and the watchman at Essex Wharf were all nearby at the time of Polly Nichols' murder and none have a known alibi.

[The Baron]

ive seen so much ink spilled trying to refute the blood flow argument and its such a weak counter argument. with the anti lechers conveniently leaving out the fact that she had also been gashed down the middle and paul thought he detected breathing. face it. polly nichols was either killed by lechmere or mere seconds/minutes beforehand. clearly putting him in the frame for her murder.

Agree. Lechmere was spotted at a time that was extremely close to the woman death, he must have been lucky.


There is no other suspect for the murder of Mary Nichols, so he will stay.



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

Lemmino is non-fiction. He covers the case and does not assume who the Ripper is. And he's getting a lot more views than the Missing Evidence "documentary".

Apologies I meant the Missing Evidence was tagged non-fiction but I was being rather sarcastic as it appears economical with the truth on occasions...

[John Wheat]

Lechmere is a complete non starter as a suspect. There is zero evidence whatsoever that he murdered anyone. The quest to frame the innocent Lechmere is both tiresome and annoying. It is also in bad taste. Im pretty sure I've said this before but its all worth repeating.

[Fiver]

Eeeek, I guess its because they tagged it as non-fiction

Lemmino is non-fiction. He covers the case and does not assume who the Ripper is. And he's getting a lot more views than the Missing Evidence "documentary".

[Fiver]

He didn't give his Lechmere name....

He said he was Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked for Pickfords for a couple decades and whose shift started at the Broad Street Station at 4am. Who would ever suspect that might be Thomas Cross' stepson, Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked for Pickfords for a couple decades and whose shift started at the Broad Street Station at 4am?

...he didn't dress up for the inquest....

Ah, the oft repeated myth about people wearing their Sunday best for the inquest.

Now lets try looking at the East London Observer, which provided a lot of description compared to the other newspapers.

"Before the coroner sat the woman who had identified the deceased as Martha Turner, with a baby in her arms, and accompanied by another woman - evidently her mother - dressed in an old, brown figured pompadour." - Tabram Inquest

"The first witness called was a Mrs. Elizabeth Mahoney - a young woman of some 25 or 26 years, plainly clad in a rusty-black dress, with a black woollen shawl pinned round her shoulders." - Tabram Inquest

"Alfred George Crow was the next witness. In appearance, he was a young man of about twenty-three or four, with closely cropped hair, and a beardless, but intelligent face, and wore a shabby green overcoat." - Tabram Inquest

"Mary Ann Connolly, otherwise known as "Pearly Poll", was next introduced, wearing simply an old green shawl and no hat, her face being reddened and soddened by drink." - Tabram Inquest

"Amelia Palmer, the next witness, a pale dark-haired woman, who was poorly clad, said: I live at 35, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, a common lodging-house." - Chapman Inquest

"The next witness was James Cable, a man from Shadwell. A youngish-looking man, with a bullet head and closely cropped hair, and a sandy close-cut moustache; he wore a long overcoat that had once been green, and into the pockets of which he persistently stuck his hands." - Chapman Inquest

"Her evidence was not very material, and she was soon replaced by John Richardson, a tall, stout man, with a very pale face - the result, doubtless, of the early hours he keeps as a market porter - a brown moustache, and dark brown hair. He was shabbily dressed in a ragged coat, and dark brown trousers." - Chapman Inquest

"Piser wore a dark overcoat, brown trousers, and a brown and very battered hat, and appeared somewhat splay-footed - at all events, he stood before the Coroner with his feet meeting at the heels, and then diverging almost at right angles." - Chapman Inquest

Charles Allen Cross was the height of sartorial splendor compared to a lot of witnesses.

...and possibly tried to hide his address....

An oft-repeated lie is still a lie. Charles Allen Cross could have requested to not give his address in open court. He publicly gave his address of 22 Doveton Street at the inquest.

...those things taken together can point to a Lechmere who didn't want to draw people attention, something a serial killer would certainly need to avoid, but doesn't mean of course he must have ben one.

If he wanted to avoid attention:
* He would have walked off into the darkness when he heard Robert Paul approaching.
* He wouldn't have tried to stop Robert Paul.
* When Paul tried to avoid him, Cross would have let Paul keep walking.
* He would have split up from Paul before encountering a police constable.
* He would have hung back and let Paul do all talking to PC Mizen.
* He wouldn't have come forward to give evidence.
* He would have said he heard another man in front of him shortly before he found the body.

[Geddy2112]

Checking Youtube

* Lemmino's JTR documentary 11 million views.
* Missing Evidence 2.1 million views.

Eeeek, I guess its because they tagged it as non-fiction

[Fiver]

Hi Lewis C, to people who know the case I completely agree, however this video through it's distribution is probably the most watched Ripper documentary so to the untrained eye it's very compelling and believable. You just have to read the YouTube comments about how convinced they now are and how it's been solved beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the newest breed of future Ripperoligists out there who now know not to bother because it's been solved. It's a sad state of affairs.

Checking Youtube

* Lemmino's JTR documentary 11 million views.
* Missing Evidence 2.1 million views.

[Geddy2112]

So, in this instance at least, he's passing the buck to Ed Stow.

Well yes, he would never admit to doing anything wrong. There was last night a huge uproar on Facebook involving too much posting on the Lechmere Theory. Wescott (biting lip) blamed the anti-Lechmere team for this and 'posting endless vitriol.' He was referring to me of course. Would you believe it Holmgren popped up with his victim post this morning claiming it's pointless debating the Lechmere Theory because -

'The main reason is that I am predisposing that no single sliver of fruitful debate is to be had in it. On the whole, the strange thing is that after all that has passed, as far as I can see, not a syllable of the case against Lechmere has been in any way affected. It has instead all been about personal remarks (for lack of using another terminology), and I have pointed that out on the boards: When somebody cannot debunk a theory in any way, some turn to instead trying to paint the person behind the theory out as a liar, as arrogant, as stupid, as misleading and so on. The aim should be clear enough - if this can be sold to the ones reading the thread, then there is no further need to deal with the theory itself. Those who lie and mislead intentionally should not be trusted, regardless of what they say, it can be discounted as wrong. - that seems to be the sole aim behind the reasoning.'

Of course none of the Lechmere theory has ever been successfully debunked, apart from the time gap, the Mizen scam, the name thing, the work wear at the inquest thing and the geography thing. Problem is Wescott is defending and protecting Christer and Stow (why?) allowing them to freely spread their crap. Went down hugely in my opinion of him last night, credibility now zero. Not that he will care.

Sorry, got side-tracked, apologies. I was saying if I remember correctly I'm sure Ed was approached to appear in the documentary but refused and suggested Christer, now I assume this is a little white lie and maybe more to do with his own 'name' change and all that entails.

[rjpalmer]

Oh yes so it does, however the narrator does not say many true things in that video, so in all fairness this might be another fib. Although in Christer style, it fits my theory so I'll keep it.

I had to go back and check my memory, and here is one of the exchanges from Christer that I was thinking of, but there are others scattered about the forums:


"I cannot say with certainty that Scobie was not given any material that could be used in Lechmere´s defense since I do not know what was compiled and given to him." -Christer Holmgren 6/26/2019.

"Christer, I was under the impression you did know. Or was it Ed, or another person or the program that complied the material?" -Scott Nelson 6/26/2019

"To put it simply, I don't know. But I always worked from the assumption that Edward guided these things; he advised the team in most questions, and none of the team had anywhere near as extensive knowledge of the case as he did. I didn't even know that Scobie would appear on the docu until the shooting had begun."

So, in this instance at least, he's passing the buck to Ed Stow.