Evidence of innocence

[Paddy Goose]

Hi Newb, this is where you said it was an encumbrance.

An image I have of Lechmere, upon hearing Paul's footsteps after having stabbed Polly Nichols' multiple times,

has trouble getting that damn apron back on in the dark. Which is the sleeve and which is the opening for the head?

Don't you hate it when that happens?

If you believe in Lechmere's innocence...

I believe him.

[Geddy2112]

Perhaps not .... sleeveless does make it much easier for an arduous carman to put it on in a dark recess after having shagged a lady of the evening. Still, I can see some problems with potentially putting your arm over the strap and then having to correct that.
The idea of hearing footsteps and instantly heading on off isn't quite so seemless.

However, taking it off beforehand and then putting it back on would have a tendency to hide those nasty blood stains.

According to the doctors there was no sign of sexual intercourse. I doubt Jack even attempted to go with the ladies, he probably said he would got them to a dark place then strangled them. He will have got his sexual thrills from the cutting no doubt. Even if going with your idea it would have been easy enough to lift the apron out the way surely....

[Geddy2112]

Home was a 7 minute walk from the Working Ladds institute, a normal person would fetch their apron afterwards and he'd than go to work .... which would be to do what?

In the opposite direction of course. I'm really struggling to see how wearing work clothes at the inquest was in any way suspicious. It's clutching at straws of the highest order. Why does the Lechmere theory rely so heavily on clutching at ever lengthening straws? Never have I seen natural behaviour been made to look so suspicious. Like I said it's a complete sham.

[Geddy2112]

If you believe in Lechmere's innocence, then there are about 4 - 5 things that you'll have to swallow ... I'll list them tomorrow.

Oooo goody. I hope they are new things from what Ed and Christer have been saying for years as all of that has been debunked many times.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A carman who was a serial killer and had the urge.

There is obviously one big advantage to having an apron and committing a murder with a knife,
when you have to continue on your way to work.

It also makes it easier for any witness that might see you leaving the seen or moving around in nearby streets.

[A P Tomlinson]

Why did he take that damn thing to court? It still astonishes me that no one is the least bit interested in rendering some at least half way decent explanation.

There was a time when the anti Lechmerites tried ... and here is what they came up with:

Elizabeth Lechmere was a delicate flower, either pregnant or with an infant who ended up dying in his 2nd year.
To spare her added concern, Lechmere feigned going to work, so that she would not know of the incident and his involvement.

And that is also why he gave the name of Cross and most likely did not mention his address to the inquest,
although he did give it to the police.

It seems that he kept this secret to his grave, or if he did ever share it with his wife, they chose to not pass it along to their children.
Very un east ender like ..... but okay.

Two fairly straight forward reasons leap to mind.
1 - that's what he was wearing at work that day, since he would have had to go in as normal and get time off to attend the inquest, and would be expected back on his route when it finished.
2 - that's what he was wearing when he met Mizen on the Friday morning and part of the reason he was at the inquest at the same time as Mizen was so that Mizen could identify him for the record.

If there were any sort of impropriety over not giving his address to the inquest, someone at the inquest, (such as... maybe the coroner,) would have said, "And can we have your address for the record." Not left it for over 100 years for the insight of Eddie Butler and his mates to realise it was the work of a criminal genius manipulating proceedings with his guile and cunning.

Tying yourself and others up in knots trying to create confusion and misdirection from the slightest aspect that you can't make immediate sense of won't make him a better suspect.

And I've never heard or read anything about Cross using that name to save his wife stress. "Delicate flower"? Where's that been pulled from?
If there are people who do say that, then they are as daft as the people who say Lechmere did it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Paddy Goose,

where did I say it was an encumbrance?
Frankly, I never really thought about it.

Did Carmen pull up the apron when paying a street prostitute for sex? I didn't want to think about it ... a bit of a prude, quite frankly.

Just read about a guy who stabbed to death a woman in her house, and then fled stealing a jacket to cover the blood on his clothing.

All the conversation about the blood soaked Lech walking into Pickfords .... that pretty much can be put to rest.

Why didn't Lechmere immediately head west to flee the sound of Paul's footsteps? I'm starting to see some real sound reasons as to why this would not be at all unusual.

My problem with Lechmere always started with his testimony .... too me, its weird.

If you believe in Lechmere's innocence, then there are about 4 - 5 things that you'll have to swallow ... I'll list them tomorrow.
I started out about 50 % convinced that Lech is Jack the Ripper, and now I'm at 80 %.

Some here have to raise their game ..... the nothing to see here, move on tone won't work.
I tried to hand fiver a bone on this account and got it thrown back in my face.

We have to raise OUR game just to convince the gullible. You sound like a fully paid up cult member. You are 80% convinced of the guilt of a man for whom there is zero evidence. Not a scintilla. No one is just saying ‘nothing to see here.’ There’s a tone of weariness because all of the work has been done. It’s all on here. The white flag should have been waved years ago but it’s like debating with flat-earthers.

A killer would not, under any circumstances, have allowed a complete stranger to come clumping along the street in the we-small-hours so that he could have a chat knowing full well that it was an absolute certainty that he would be confronted with a Constable in a short time.

The gap has been shown, with 100% certainty, to have been a very deliberate fabrication of the evidence (and yet you’re fine with it)

The so called name issue has been kicked into the long grass by proper research and in great detail.

A killer strolling to work murders and mutilates a woman around 20 minutes before being due to clock on with 15 minutes or so of walking still to do….yeah right.

Whats left….oh yeah… he was there….next to a recently killed woman….pieces of eight, pieces of eight.


Im 90% convinced that 90% of those that support Cross don’t actually believe it themselves. I think it’s all a game to them. I think it’s part of an anti-Ripperologist agenda to perpetuate the tired old theory that ripperologists are all stuck in the mud. There’s no way that the level of complete clownishness that we see at various locations online can be real. I’m not saying that no one is genuine but…are they? How can anyone read about Cross and come away thinking ‘doh, that’s the killer?’ It’s baffling and sad.

[Fiver]

Home was a 7 minute walk from the Working Ladds institute,
a normal person would fetch their apron afterwards and he'd than go to work ..... which would be to do what?
Intercept and kick out of the cart the guy you had to pay for the day?

Apparently you did not understand what I actually said.

* He hoped to work a part day either before or after testifying.

If Cross worked a partial shift before attending the inquest, going home to drop his apron off would have been a pointless waste of 15 minutes.

If Cross hoped to worked a partial shift after attending the inquest, going home to drop his apron off would have been a pointless waste of 15 minutes.

No one suggested that would mean intercepting and kicking out of the cart the guy Cross had to pay for the day. That just an illogical strawman created by you. Pickfords carmen worked 14 to 18 hour days. That would involve multiple trips from Broad Street Station and then returning with goods that had been picked up, If he was able to finish testifying early enough, Cross might have been able to get to Broad Street soon enough to wait for his cart to return and then take it out for later deliveries. Getting paid for half-a-day is better than getting no pay for the day.

And the second reason, that the police demanded Cross to wear his apron .... you're joking, right?

Apparently you did not understand what I actually said.

* The police wanted him to wear the carman's outfit to make it easier for PC Mizen to identify Cross.

The police had PC Mizen identify Cross at the inquest. Something that would help that identification would be for Cross to dress like he did when Mizen previously saw him.

[Fiver]

As for my own family history:
My paternal great grand dad, James McCoy, was spirited away to Ohio during the feud with the child killing Hatfields in the 1880s.
He had a business in Coffeeville Kansas.
He had a backhand that he would use to hit his children with when he was displeased
He died at home.

All you need is one person in the family to have these stories handed down.

You appear to have completely missed my point.

How many events of your great grand-father's life do you know about? If I was able to find one that you did not know, would that prove your great-grandfather deliberately kept that knowledge from his descendants?

Is your ancestor James Lyons McCoy (1862 - 1948)? His father William appears to have owned McCoy's hardware, which is where the Dalton gang wanted to hitch their horses when they tried unsuccessfully to rob two banks at the same time in 1892 in Coffeyville, Kansas. That McCoy family had been in Ohio since at least 1809 and had no connection with the Hatfield-McCoy feud in Kentucky. James Lyons McCoy was 18 years old by the time the feud started, not a child. His home in Coffeyville caught fire in 1917. James Lyons McCoy did not die at home, he died at a hospital in Texarkana, Texas.

[Fiver]

All you need is one person in the family to have these stories handed down.

And there are evidently oral stories handed down about Lech, in the family memory bank:

Ed Stow was told by one of Lechmere's descendants, a Lechmere, that Charles Lechmere had a reputation for violence... so some things were passed down. I got this second hand from Fisherman; unlike the historian Ed Stowe, I'm not predisposed to hold onto something like that.

Another descendant said that CAL was an odd duck, but very intelligent.

Butler is far from an unbiased source.

[A P Tomlinson]

...

Ed Stow was told by one of Lechmere's descendants, a Lechmere, that Charles Lechmere had a reputation for violence... so some things were passed down. I got this second hand from Fisherman; unlike the historian Ed Stowe, I'm not predisposed to hold onto something like that.

...

Would that be the same descendant who the historian Ed Stowe would bring along to pub meets, wearing a "Lechemere did it!" T shirt?
Was it THAT unbiased and clearly not in it for money and attention descendant?

And I thought using a false name was supposed to be a key indicator of guilt? Is "historian Ed Stowe" really the "Barking Strangler???" (You can't prove he isn't!)

[Geddy2112]

Ed Stow was told by one of Lechmere's descendants, a Lechmere, that Charles Lechmere had a reputation for violence... so some things were passed down. I got this second hand from Fisherman; unlike the historian Ed Stowe, I'm not predisposed to hold onto something like that.

Another descendant said that CAL was an odd duck, but very intelligent.

Oh from Ed Stow, second hand from Christer... mmm sounds legit, let's get the noose out. There is no evidence of violence on behalf of Cross, none. Remember those straws I was mentioning?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I bet if you stand next to Cross’s grave you get a genuine sense of evil.

There’s something a little strange about a family’s real commitment to getting their ancestor named as JtR but there are parallels with Jeff Mudgett and his embarrassingly, desperate attempt to get HH Holmes names as the ripper. I’d never realised how strong the pull of ‘fame’ could be in that any subject will do to achieve it.

It doesn’t explain why those that aren’t related to the man get caught up in it though. To the extent that they can look at events of 31st of August (with alleged impartiality) and arrive at the conclusion that they are pretty certain that this man was the killer. Roger pointed out a while ago that a major factor was that he appears more tangible than most other suspects because we can actually place him at the scene and this is an appealing factor. It’s why we keep getting the same mantra repeated: found by a freshly killed body (or variations of that phrase.) I wonder how many times in the history of crime has Mr X been found next to a recently killed body by Mr Y, and Mr X turned out to have been the killer? I’m not saying that it’s never happened but we have asked the question numerous times and no example has been found so far, so how unique are we willing to assume Cross was as a killer? We’ve also asked how many killers can we find in the annals of crime that murdered someone on the way to work and so close to being due there? As yet, none have been found so we can add that to already massive level of unlikeliness. And then we can ask…how many killers, when presented with an obvious opportunity of fleeing to safety, decided to stand and wait for a complete stranger to arrive whilst being in possession of a bloodied knife? Unsurprisingly we have so far found no other example so we can add that to our list of unlikelihoods.

So how can we have those three points ignored? Unlikelihood on unlikelihood on unlikelihood. But they are totally impervious. The blindest of eyes and the deafest of ears. So desperate are they that they will deliberately leave out an important word from the inquest testimony so that they can manufacture a suspicious gap of time. That, after the research that was done by David and Kattrup and other showing categorically that the ‘name thing’ was not an issue and despite the obvious fact that Cross didn’t benefit none of them have the integrity to hold their hands up and admit their error.

But yes, Cross was there.

[Geddy2112]

none of them have the integrity to hold their hands up and admit their error.

This is it in a nutshell for me. No matter how many times they are presented with a better fit for their arguments they still will never admit to being wrong. Worse than that they will go on the attack and twist those reasons and attempt to debunk them in a HoL video. The issue is and you rightly point it out the gullibility is strong, especially with the Facebook and YouTube crowds, the level of ignorance on some posters on those two venues is off the charts. A 'YouTuber' says it's so, so it must be so. That sets an alarming precedent for our society in the bigger picture.

[A P Tomlinson]

This is it in a nutshell for me. No matter how many times they are presented with a better fit for their arguments they still will never admit to being wrong. Worse than that they will go on the attack and twist those reasons and attempt to debunk them in a HoL video. The issue is and you rightly point it out the gullibility is strong, especially with the Facebook and YouTube crowds, the level of ignorance on some posters on those two venues is off the charts. A 'YouTuber' says it's so, so it must be so. That sets an alarming precedent for our society in the bigger picture.

It's all about "winning".
It's why so often when you show that a point being made about him is false or inaccurate, they will simply revert to "Ah, but what about..."

What I really want to see from them, and Ed wouldn't do this when I asked, he told me to simply watch his videos, which I have... God help me... is to just put down in basic bullet points what they think the "Lechmere theory IS. Without all the flowery fairytale of "But what f he had set off eralier... and once we assume that, then he had plenty of time to killher, clean his blade and in a dsiplay of ego and..." Get rid of all that bollocks and just say, Here you go... this is the theory.
This is the guy they think was responsible for half the murders in London. Ripper Whitechapel murders, non Ripper Whitchapel murders, body parts and torso murders... all that needs tying together with some strands of strong reality.
So just go through the basics, what happened, how and when. Back it up with something that corroborates the accusation.

You see it all keeps morphing and changing. First he wore an apron because it would be horribly bloodstained and he could walk around with impunity, now I hear it might have been worn OVER the blood stains, or not have any blood stains at all, and that now the relevence of the apron is that.. he wore it to court which suggests... something or other.
The point is it all keeps changing and I can;t be botheredto keep up with every theory that each on their own think they prove he was the killer.

At the moment there is no actual theory beyond, "It was him, he did it. It's obvious..." If your approach is to just think "He did it" and go out and defend that mantra with no concern over the value of the information other researchers offer to contradict your baseless theory and amend your stance only to rail AGAINST the information being presented... you ARE in a cult.

It's weird, because I've never come across a suspect advocate group so reluctant to share their theries while demanding their theories are right. All the others are ready to point at all the evidence their suspect has acquired overtime... Jesus... try getting one of the Tumblety or Holmes lot to shut up for a minute if they get going. Maybrick, Bury, Kosminski, all have advocates willing to talk you through the evidence, even Sickert, Druitt and the Masons/Gull/Royal Consipracy lot will go on and on about the "evidence".
But the group who claim that they have solved the case?
"No... if you can't work it out yourself why should we tell you..." that's what I get told when I ask on Ed's channel. Ed prefers to get into the "What about x,y,z suspect, and blowing holes in them than explaining the actualLechmere theory... so he's no good.

But those people who believe him... surely ONE of them can articulate how and why they have cause to say that beyond any reasonable doubt Lechmere killed alll those people. And when they can't produce the evidence to back any of it up (because it doesn't exist) PLEASE... explain WHY that lack of any evidence doesn't bother them when it's a matter of identifying a killer.

Or is it just about "Winning"?