All roads lead to Lechmere.

[The Baron]

Abby, you and I happen to be inside of someone else's echo chamber right now. And we're not welcome.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

This place was never meant for real discussion, just an endless loop of the same bla bla and personal bleeding. I do not bother arguing with the unhinged, it isn’t worth the effort.


The Baron

[Tom_Wescott]

Abby, you and I happen to be inside of someone else's echo chamber right now. And we're not welcome.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

Absolutely Abby. If people could just look at a suspect without treating it as if they were supporting their local football team. (That’s soccer to you btw Abby)

thanks and totally agree, great analogy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

no problem buddy. we just have to agree to disagree on lech. but yes it also drives me nuts that lechmerians dont admit the mistakes and misrepresentations.

Absolutely Abby. If people could just look at a suspect without treating it as if they were supporting their local football team. (That’s soccer to you btw Abby)

[Abby Normal]

That is my point, and you have repeated it twice now. Nobody knows his routes to work on any given day, they do not know what time he left home and they certainly do not know his walking speed. Thus it is impossible to know if he was near a murder site at the required time.

According to Steven Blomer in this very thread there are over 100 possible routes from Doveton Street to Broad Street. We do not even know which entrance out of the four (I believe) he used which would make a difference to his routes.

So to say 'It's well known that his route to work brings him through the heart of ripper territory' is a provable false statement and it adds bias against Cross. Of course his 'possible' routes to work might have taken him through Ripper Territory, of course they may of however this would apply to probably many hundreds if not more East End workers so it can't be used as circumstantial evidence against Cross.

So that is my point, that is why the theory is so strongly contested because it's obviously clear from your comments that the penny has not dropped so to speak, the speculation and fabrication are still repeated ad nauseum, but that is okay apparently, it's just wrong when the truth is repeated and repeated.

so now im a fabricator? lol ok. last post to you, now i see toms point about you loud and clear.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I’d put it this way. When Halle Rubenhold did a bit of selective ‘editing’ of the evidence on Nichols to try and give the impression that she didn’t engage in prostitution everyone was rightly angered. Yet when a word is deliberately left out from the documentary and a book so as to give the entirely false impression that Cross had been in Bucks Row for longer than he’d claimed there appeared to be a lot of embarrassed whistling, shuffling of feet and turning of blind eyes. Cross supporters, as far as I’m aware (I don’t do social media) have not, and will not address this point. Why do some find it necessary to turn ignore to this? The first reason is obvious but the second is that once you remove the falsely proven gap nothing remains for him as a candidate.

For me, Cross doesn’t deserve to be considered a suspect as the case against him is based on a fabrication. Apart from that there is absolutely zero reason for considering him as even possibly guilty. His action actually speak entirely of an innocent man and yet we get some people going weak at the knees over him as a candidate. It’s even been known for people to deliberately ditch their own long-held suspect just to jump on the Cross bandwagon for the fun of causing arguments. All that we get is ‘he was there, he was there,’ as if this means anything in terms of suspecthood.

So for me Abby it’s the way that his suspecthood is massively overstated by dishonest people (not all of course). It is impossible to read what we know about Cross and come away thinking that this guy makes a strong suspect.

no problem buddy. we just have to agree to disagree on lech. but yes it also drives me nuts that lechmerians dont admit the mistakes and misrepresentations.

[Geddy2112]

But isn't it the case that no matter what route he took, assuming that he would have taken a direct one, it would have taken him through the heart of Ripper territory?

Hi Lewis, yes if we assume, what I mean is we simply do not know but it's repeated we know where he was at a specific time, Holmgren states this in the video and so it's like a strange game of Chinses Whispers and before we know it we know exactly where he was at exactly what time.
Yes the likelihood is Cross walked to work through Ripper Territory but so what so did many others but it's taken, by some as to be another red flag, another sign of guilt when it's not because we can't be sure.
The other astonishing point about this is now Team Lechmere claim the victims took Cross to the murder sites, amazing how on Earth did the poor victims know Cross' routes to work, were they clairvoyant or something? Like I said astonishing.

[Lewis C]

That is my point, and you have repeated it twice now. Nobody knows his routes to work on any given day, they do not know what time he left home and they certainly do not know his walking speed. Thus it is impossible to know if he was near a murder site at the required time.

According to Steven Blomer in this very thread there are over 100 possible routes from Doveton Street to Broad Street. We do not even know which entrance out of the four (I believe) he used which would make a difference to his routes.

So to say 'It's well known that his route to work brings him through the heart of ripper territory' is a provable false statement and it adds bias against Cross. Of course his 'possible' routes to work might have taken him through Ripper Territory, of course they may of however this would apply to probably many hundreds if not more East End workers so it can't be used as circumstantial evidence against Cross.

So that is my point, that is why the theory is so strongly contested because it's obviously clear from your comments that the penny has not dropped so to speak, the speculation and fabrication are still repeated ad nauseum, but that is okay apparently, it's just wrong when the truth is repeated and repeated.

Hi Geddy,

But isn't it the case that no matter what route he took, assuming that he would have taken a direct one, it would have taken him through the heart of Ripper territory?

[Geddy2112]

re location, its well known that his route to work brings him through the heart of ripper territory and that eddowes was near his mom. now i said route to work, but i dont necessarily mean on his way to work. i think he might have killed on days off. for me its that he may have run into, seen, been accosted by the victims in the past, and went out hunting for them on days off under guise of going to work. but imho in terms of proximity and geographical considerations lech has that going for him more than any other suspect.

That is my point, and you have repeated it twice now. Nobody knows his routes to work on any given day, they do not know what time he left home and they certainly do not know his walking speed. Thus it is impossible to know if he was near a murder site at the required time.

According to Steven Blomer in this very thread there are over 100 possible routes from Doveton Street to Broad Street. We do not even know which entrance out of the four (I believe) he used which would make a difference to his routes.

So to say 'It's well known that his route to work brings him through the heart of ripper territory' is a provable false statement and it adds bias against Cross. Of course his 'possible' routes to work might have taken him through Ripper Territory, of course they may of however this would apply to probably many hundreds if not more East End workers so it can't be used as circumstantial evidence against Cross.

So that is my point, that is why the theory is so strongly contested because it's obviously clear from your comments that the penny has not dropped so to speak, the speculation and fabrication are still repeated ad nauseum, but that is okay apparently, it's just wrong when the truth is repeated and repeated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi Geddy. what makes maybrick and sickert beleivers worse than lech!?! because they are promoting suspects that place in the ridiculous category with the likes of van Gogh, royal conspiracy,lewis carol etc. they are def facto joke suspects. one level up for me is very long shots like hardiman, donston, francis thompson, feigenbaum, sadler. then viable candidates like barnett, tumblty, lech, legrand, puckridge richardson, then least weak suspects bury, hutch, chapman, kelly, koz druitt. all the suspects are weak to some extant. not nearly enough evidence to charge anyone.

re location, its well known that hisroute to work brings him through the heart of ripper territory and that eddowes was near his mom. now i said route to work, but i dont neccessarily mean on his way to work. i think he might have killed on days off. for me its that he may have run into, seen, been accosted by the victims in the past, and went out hunting for them on days off under guise of going to work. but imho in terms of proximity and geographical considerations lech has that going for him more than any other suspect.

but let me just finish by saying i dont think he was the ripper. probably just a dude who discovered a body and the discrepencies like the mizen scam are more than likely just a misunderstanding. but potential yellow flags are there and do need this kind of explaining away.

so i just dont understand the amount of vitriol his candidacy brings in terms of reaction against and sheer number of people who do so. its weird to me but i think that maybe the dislike for lechs main proponants might have something to do with it.

Hi Abby,

I’d put it this way. When Halle Rubenhold did a bit of selective ‘editing’ of the evidence on Nichols to try and give the impression that she didn’t engage in prostitution everyone was rightly angered. Yet when a word is deliberately left out from the documentary and a book so as to give the entirely false impression that Cross had been in Bucks Row for longer than he’d claimed there appeared to be a lot of embarrassed whistling, shuffling of feet and turning of blind eyes. Cross supporters, as far as I’m aware (I don’t do social media) have not, and will not address this point. Why do some find it necessary to turn ignore to this? The first reason is obvious but the second is that once you remove the falsely proven gap nothing remains for him as a candidate.

For me, Cross doesn’t deserve to be considered a suspect as the case against him is based on a fabrication. Apart from that there is absolutely zero reason for considering him as even possibly guilty. His action actually speak entirely of an innocent man and yet we get some people going weak at the knees over him as a candidate. It’s even been known for people to deliberately ditch their own long-held suspect just to jump on the Cross bandwagon for the fun of causing arguments. All that we get is ‘he was there, he was there,’ as if this means anything in terms of suspecthood.

So for me Abby it’s the way that his suspecthood is massively overstated by dishonest people (not all of course). It is impossible to read what we know about Cross and come away thinking that this guy makes a strong suspect.

[The Baron]

But you don't post theories or original research. That's why you don't have 'fans' (to use your word). You don't create or generate. You insult, attack, and demolish. Metaphorically speaking, you're a gadfly. But you have a brain in your head, so it doesn't have to be that way. Dig in and develop some real evidence against a suspect. Be CONSTRUCTIVE for a change. You'll feel better.

As for your accusation of defending Christer and Ed on Facebook, I don't defend them so much as I refuse to ban them to please others. I have an aversion to pack mentality. It's a quirk of mine. Should they commit bannable offenses, as you did, they'll be banned. As you were.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Great post! Very insightful and well explained!

Agree completely!


The Baron

[Abby Normal]

What makes the diary defenders worse than those who believe Cross was a murderer? What makes those who think it's Sickert worse? etc etc...

May I ask how you know his routes to work and if he was near the murder sites when the murders took place? If not you may have your answer to your post.

This goes to Tom regarding my spamming the internet as well. Nice to know I've got fans I've mentioned this here before, although not sure why I need to explain. I came back to these forums after a long lay off, I think Perrie was doing her thing when I was last here. I decided to try and catch up and the biggest 'story' of the day was Lechmere/Cross. That was about a year ago and basically I've not caught up. You know since Eddy keeps pumping out House of Tenuous links once a week. However in true fascist style he has manged to hide my comments and those of others who are not his YouTube gullible sheep. Similar as Tom (not fascist of course) I guess who won't let folk into his precious Ripper page on FB because 'we' might upset the mighty Swede. Even though I've heard reports of you can't get a word in edgeways because of the Holmgren and Stow show on said group. Ironically what you are complaining about in you post. Don't worry though we all know they are 'protected' there. Censorship, it's great and ironic at the same time.

So basically you get folk pumping out this rubbish week in week out but for some odd reason the people standing up for the truth are the ones that are fearing the ban hammer. And correct I do not have a suspect, why? Because for me to blame multiple murder on someone I'd have to be damn near 100% sure. And I can't be. However that makes me less biased towards defending other suspects of course but that point might have slipped by the wayside.

And of course I do not like Butler (still his 'real' name as he has a FB page using it) for his political views (and many other reasons) and yes it has something to do with it, politics has something to do with everything. Yes I can't stand his partner who seems to be rather educationally challenged and loves to call people 'paedophiles' on public forums and thinks she can get away with it. Also not a huge fan of Holmgren, he is not very honest so it seems, amongst other traits and bullies folk into his way of thinking or drops the petty insults, all under the protection of the FB group's admin so it seems and if you stand up against it you are 'obnoxious.' He is still an unbanned poster here so if he chooses he can reply.

'Tom protects Stow and Holmgren on his internet FB group but I've yet to see him put such an effort into protecting others and I'm curious why that is. Nobody is willing to give me an answer and that's perhaps because nobody has one. I personally can't imagine spending my time that way.' - touché.

If as advised in this very thread I believe they put their theory out and left it as that it would be fine. But they have not they keep pushing and pushing and pushing, so sorry but that means folk are going to push back.

There are a lot more recent posts about the diary and JFK then there are Cross.

hi Geddy. what makes maybrick and sickert beleivers worse than lech!?! because they are promoting suspects that place in the ridiculous category with the likes of van Gogh, royal conspiracy,lewis carol etc. they are def facto joke suspects. one level up for me is very long shots like hardiman, donston, francis thompson, feigenbaum, sadler. then viable candidates like barnett, tumblty, lech, legrand, puckridge richardson, then least weak suspects bury, hutch, chapman, kelly, koz druitt. all the suspects are weak to some extant. not nearly enough evidence to charge anyone.

re location, its well known that hisroute to work brings him through the heart of ripper territory and that eddowes was near his mom. now i said route to work, but i dont neccessarily mean on his way to work. i think he might have killed on days off. for me its that he may have run into, seen, been accosted by the victims in the past, and went out hunting for them on days off under guise of going to work. but imho in terms of proximity and geographical considerations lech has that going for him more than any other suspect.

but let me just finish by saying i dont think he was the ripper. probably just a dude who discovered a body and the discrepencies like the mizen scam are more than likely just a misunderstanding. but potential yellow flags are there and do need this kind of explaining away.

so i just dont understand the amount of vitriol his candidacy brings in terms of reaction against and sheer number of people who do so. its weird to me but i think that maybe the dislike for lechs main proponants might have something to do with it.

[Abby Normal]

yes fishs lech docu is bias and has alot of errors and mirepresentations . the one that sticks in my craw the worse is the video showing lech leaning over pollys body. one because its untrue and makes it look alot worse, two because it didnt need to be done, they could have just shown him standing in the middle of the road near her body how paul saw him, and imho its almost as bad. all they did by doing that was take away from strength of that situation. as tom said, the lech suspicion starts from a logical point, and for me its this. ive studied alot of true crime and i have never heard of an innocent witness being seen near a recently killed witness who could have been her killer and isnt in the act of looking for help or something else. its odd to me and yes, suspicious. i have seen alot of cases where the person who discovers the body is the killer though.

anyway just because they over egg the pudding and messed up their docu a bit i cant throw out the baby with the bath water. do we toss koz out because of andersons ridiculous claim that its a definitely ascertained fact it was him or claims he died in an asylum shortly thereafter? do we throw out druitt because all mistakes mcnaughton made about him or that he was playing cricket on the day of a murder many miles away? or any viable suspects because all the nonsense thats been said about them? of course not.

i would highly recommend his book cutting point though i think its not nearly as misleading as the docu. short concise and i found it to be fascinating. and a real page turner. and by the way, i debated fish hotly for years about hutchs viability and then lech in the beginning and one thing i learned about him, if you keep it civil he would too. i noticed he only started with insults if someone else was.
yes he would drive me and others crazy with his tenacity but thats fish lol.

*of course that should read" recently killed victim". see we all do it lol

[Abby Normal]

yes fishs lech docu is bias and has alot of errors and mirepresentations . the one that sticks in my craw the worse is the video showing lech leaning over pollys body. one because its untrue and makes it look alot worse, two because it didnt need to be done, they could have just shown him standing in the middle of the road near her body how paul saw him, and imho its almost as bad. all they did by doing that was take away from strength of that situation. as tom said, the lech suspicion starts from a logical point, and for me its this. ive studied alot of true crime and i have never heard of an innocent witness being seen near a recently killed witness who could have been her killer and isnt in the act of looking for help or something else. its odd to me and yes, suspicious. i have seen alot of cases where the person who discovers the body is the killer though.

anyway just because they over egg the pudding and messed up their docu a bit i cant throw out the baby with the bath water. do we toss koz out because of andersons ridiculous claim that its a definitely ascertained fact it was him or claims he died in an asylum shortly thereafter? do we throw out druitt because all mistakes mcnaughton made about him or that he was playing cricket on the day of a murder many miles away? or any viable suspects because all the nonsense thats been said about them? of course not.

i would highly recommend his book cutting point though i think its not nearly as misleading as the docu. short concise and i found it to be fascinating. and a real page turner. and by the way, i debated fish hotly for years about hutchs viability and then lech in the beginning and one thing i learned about him, if you keep it civil he would too. i noticed he only started with insults if someone else was.
yes he would drive me and others crazy with his tenacity but thats fish lol.

[Geddy2112]

But you don't post theories or original research. That's why you don't have 'fans' (to use your word). You don't create or generate. You insult, attack, and demolish. Metaphorically speaking, you're a gadfly. But you have a brain in your head, so it doesn't have to be that way. Dig in and develop some real evidence against a suspect. Be CONSTRUCTIVE for a change. You'll feel better.

Well that is simply not true. I posted theories about Robert Paul for example (and others) and Butler tried (and failed) to destroy them on YouTube. You have to research to 'demolish' as you put it. There is zero point me or anyone else trying to 'demolish' the Lechmere Theory without researching it. Researching comes in many forms. Just because I'm not all over here posting newspaper clippings or photos of Victorian Streets does not mean I have not researched anything. What percent of your JtR group or Casebook members do 'research' in the way you describe it? 1%, 2% maybe? Shame on them.

I don't know maybe I have found something that is quite possibly important but might be just sitting on it until the time is right. Or maybe I've even wrote a book that is just waiting the final edit before production. I'm sure a few members on here could verify this without spilling the beans so to speak. But keep jumping to the wrong conclusions, posting insults without any proof of course.

Demolishing liars and fraudsters so to speak is VERY CONSTRUCTIVE and it does make me feel better because I prefer people to learn the truth NOT be strung along to the point 'Ripperology' may get horribly impacted because of it. Or can you not see that?

'Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand...' as a wise man once wrote.

As for your accusation of defending Christer and Ed on Facebook, I don't defend them so much as I refuse to ban them to please others. I have an aversion to pack mentality. It's a quirk of mine. Should they commit bannable offenses, as you did, they'll be banned. As you were.

So they are protected then? The number of folk who (when I was a member) used to complain about Holmgren's petty insults and aggressive posting and bullying, but yes you did nothing because you are protecting him. By ignoring the other members you are protecting him, by refusing to take action you are protecting him. I don't want them banning, I'd rather post and show them up for what they are and challenge their point of view, however according to you that makes me 'obnoxious' which yes means you are protecting them. They are protected and not just on your Group.

So there is your answer to why people attack the Lechmere Theory so much, it's because they are 'allowed' to spout all sorts of rubbish and are protected. The people who defend the truth so to speak are obnoxious, insulting, attackers, demolishers and are people who poke the bear to get a reaction. The folk defending the truth and are trying to stop the bullies, and Holmgren certainly is an online bully are the ones being censored and silenced. Why is that?

This should be interesting, what offensive did I commit on your Facebook group to get banned? As far as I am aware I was never banned I left. Or are we telling porkie pies? I think you will find I was never banned and it's more a fact, as I've mentioned you won't let me back in. Again because as I suspect this is because you know I'll upset Captain Volvo. Don't suppose I'll get an apology for that false accusation will I?

Enjoy your weekend.