Evidence of innocence

[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?

[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.

[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

[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.’

[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?

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[Geddy2112]

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

Interesting to note that the blood evidence comes from in the main Policemen who are not qualified to make such assessments. Also Prof Thiblin and Payne-James contradict each other on the blood evidence and when asked for examples to back up their comments they answer with such comments as 'no' 'I guess..' and 'no empirical data.' One says 5 mins one 7-10 mins to bleed out. They can't even agree on that. We also of course have Dr Michael Biggs' comments which extend the bleeding out time more. Of course the evidence does not mention bleeding out at all, the only unambiguous word mentioned regarding blood is 'oozing.' Thiblin and Payne-James were never asked about 'oozing.'
Oh crud we also have the McKenzie case were it was mentioned blood was still running for at least 25 mins after death with similar injuries to Nichols. Now lets look at Holmgren's ToD, he claims 3:45, so back at least 25 mins from then gives you a time of death of 3:20. Which is very possible since PC Neil passed at 3:15. Where was Lechmere at 3:20 am then? Case dismissed. next.

Fisherman: 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

Oh is that Holmgren forgetting to put the 'about' in again. I'm not an expert by any means but I'm fairly sure the leaving out of the 'about' is paramount to 'reasonable doubt.'

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

Agree, this is a good point

Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the little donkey. Read here The Baron and then answer the point again...

https://deedpolloffice.com/change-name/law/case-law

In all parts of the U.K., your legal name is the name you are generally known by. This is something which has been established by case law, going back hundreds of years. Over the years — whenever a dispute about someone’s name (or surname) has been brought before a court of law — the court (and in particular, the judges who were there) have interpreted and defined where exactly the law stands. There has never been any statute, in any part of the U.K., which formally defines what your name is in law (or how you can change it)

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?

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.

Now since I know Payne-James was not answering Holmgren's questions directly regarding the blood evidence here I'll make a point or two. Since Holmgren believes the abdominal cuts came first we can assume the body had it's full blood content. Ok, right Baron I challenge you to go fill a balloon to the brim with red paint. Secure it on the floor, I don't know between two planks of wood or two bricks or whatever and stab at it. I can safely say you will not be able to do it without getting paint on your hands. So let's forgot 'experts' just for one moment here and go with common sense.

Fisherman: 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.

Answer only Neil was alone with the freshly killed Polly Nichols and of course Jack The Ripper but we do not know who that was.

[Geddy2112]

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

They have and he wasn't...

[Fiver]

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?

That is Jason Payne-James stating that Nichols' killer could have done it without getting any blood on themselves, not a statement that the killer had no blood on themselves. We also don't know how accurate a description of the victim's wounds was given to Dr. Payne-James.

This also ignores some key points.
* There is no way to avoid getting blood on the knife. There is no way to clean the knife without getting blood on the cloth used to clean it. Doing this risks getting blood on hands and clothing. Concealing the knife and the cleaning cloth almost certainly gets blood on the killer's clothing.

* The killer would have no idea whether or not they had visible blood on their hands or clothing until they had access to a light source and a mirror. They would know they had gotten all blood off of the knife. They would know they had a bloody cloth in their pocket and that blood might have oozed into the cloth of the pocket.

Speaking of blood oozing, Dr. Jason Payne-James is one of four authors of the 13th edition of Simpson’s Forensic Medicine. Nowhere in it do he and his coauthors even suggest determining time of death by the blood ceasing to ooze from the body.

Here are some things he does say.

"The pathologist is often asked for an opinion on PMI (the ‘time since death’) based on the pathological findings. While none of the changes after death is capable of providing a precise ‘marker’ of PMI, the most reliable would appear to be related to the cool-ing of the body after death."

"Sometimes the perceived warmth of the body to touch is mentioned in court as an indicator of the time of death; this assessment is so unreliable as to be useless and is even more so if the pathologist is asked to comment upon the reported perceptions of another person."

[Geddy2112]

"Sometimes the perceived warmth of the body to touch is mentioned in court as an indicator of the time of death; this assessment is so unreliable as to be useless and is even more so if the pathologist is asked to comment upon the reported perceptions of another person."

Hang on a cotton picking moment. So the expert Holmgren relies on in the Nichols case he would reject in the Chapman case since the doctor's ToD was done via touch. Say it isn't so.

Also Holmgren relies, and often bloody states he believes the Coroner, Baxter regarding ToD in the Nichols case but again does not believe Baxter (late ToD) in the Chapman case?

Why does anyone still believe this crackpot theory?