All roads lead to Lechmere.

[Geddy2112]

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

You are welcome to apologise for misstating I'd been banned from you group if you like.

[Geddy2112]

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.

Bit of a Was not Was going on here I think... Talk about pack mentality.

[John Wheat]

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

I disagree. Besides Lechmere is an appalling Ripper suspect. And the more people who state that the better.

[Fiver]

However, most have a suspect or theory agenda, so I find it hard to separate out Missing Evidence from the rest, except that it had superior production values to most and was quite impactful when it came out in 2009. Still is to those seeing it for the first time. Is that perhaps why it's so hated?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I have never watched Missing Evidence, so this is a guess on my part. Like virtually all suspect videos, it has an agenda. The difference is the amount of push it has been given by Lechmerians online. This is usually accompanied by appeals to authority, but minimal research shows that the experts quoted in ME were fed a mix of falsehoods and opinions masquerading as fact, while being given none of the information that undermines the theory.

[Fiver]

It must be said there's also some bad blood against the Lechmerians on these boards and forums, and not for no reason, because for YEARS they stalked the threads and turned any subject you'd like into a Lechmere thread. I found it obnoxious as hell myself and often said so. I used to tell Christer to stop arguing and go write a damn book. Eventually, he did just that. But Ed and Christer have long been gone from the boards and yet the most active threads on Casebook are anti-Lechmere and Diary (!!!!) threads.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I think this is a key point. The sheer volume of Lechmerian posts drowned out all other suspects. I have argued against Gull, Sutton, Sickert, Bury, and others as suspects. I have argued against Trevor's theories such as the Socialist Club conspiring to change the time of Stride's death. I suspect I have argued against Lechmere as a suspect more than all of those combined because I am responding to what is posted and that theory has been pushed more than any of those other theories, possibly more than all of those other theories combined.

[Lewis C]

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.

Yes, my only point is that he almost certainly did walk through Ripper territory on the way to work. I don't think that that fact is of any great significance. As you said, many others did as well, and I would add that in addition to those, many others lived in the heart of Ripper territory, which to me is at least as significant as merely passing through it on a regular basis, and probably more so.

I think that whoever the Ripper was, it is likely that his victims led him to the murder sites. I haven't seen the arguments that you're referring to, but I would guess that they would allow for the possibility of the victims looking for customers, and they just happened to cross Lechmere's path.

[Geddy2112]

I think that whoever the Ripper was, it is likely that his victims led him to the murder sites. I haven't seen the arguments that you're referring to, but I would guess that they would allow for the possibility of the victims looking for customers, and they just happened to cross Lechmere's path.

Of course he walked through Ripper Territory unless he took a very large detour to get to work. My point always has been that Team Lechmere claim to know his exact routes, the time he was there and the time he left home. In the case of Bucks Row they take three unknown factors, leaving home time, exact route and of course walking speed add them all together to get a 'fact' he was in Bucks Row at X time.

There are thousands and thousands of streets in the East End. Lechmere could have had logical routes that excluded one or more of the killings. Instead he seemingly matches them all. Coincidence or not?

Lechmere’s early route to work coincided with locations of other Ripper killings that year in Hanbury Street, Dorset Street and Mitre Square at roughly the times he would have been passing.

Lechmere always had the habit of passing by those streets when someone was killed.

if it wasn't Lechmere who was Jack the Ripper then he was the most unluckiest man in Whitechapel who had a habit of always passing by one of the murder sites at the same time they were being committed.

So now we have Holmgren arguing that the victims took the killer to the murder spots as I suggested it's amazing the poor ladies had such knowledge of Cross' routes to work as illustrated in the above Team Lechmere quotes.

To back up Holmgren's point we have another post (from the above thread at JtR Forums) which is rather odd...

If the killer was in the habit of traversing the area by means of using these smaller streets off the prostitution street, would it not be extremely likely that he was well aware of where this business took place? And is it not quite possible that he decided to make use of it - once the opportunity surfaced? A punter does the business with a prostitute, and then he leaves her to straighten out her clothing while he walks off and turns the next corner.
Then the killer comes down the street and finds one of these women he feels an urge to kill, alone in a secluded spot. Just how unrealistic is that perspective? To me, it is a very feasible one.

Now of course I slightly digress but the bold, italic, underlined section is rather interesting. Is Holmgren actually now saying it was possible for the killer to murder poor Polly and flee moments because Cross arrived on the scene. It appears so.

And I would also say that much as he could have had his hatred for these unfortunates (or his appetite for killing them) fed by seeing them striking deals in Whitechapel Road, it is perhaps a lot more likely that seeing and hearing them performing in Bucks Row would make his blood boil a lot more.

Holmgren then adds the above which appears to strengthen the possibility that Holmgren’s ‘Phantom Killer’ could have existed. Astonishing.

Sorry to sum up then yes Team Lechmere believes of course that the victims died on Cross' routes to work at a time he would have been there. However there is evidence from my 'research' that also shows Team Lechmere believe the victims took the killer to the murder spot, hence the obvious conclusion how did the victims know Cross' routes to work AND why would Cross allow a prostitute to take him back to his routes he walked six days a week where he might have easily been identified.

Apologies for the longish post with quotes etc in I was trying to 'dig in and develop some real evidence against a suspect.'

[Herlock Sholmes]

“Never in the field of Ripperology has so much nonsense been said by so many gullible people in favour of such a lame duck suspect as Charles Cross.”



They have to edit the evidence to manufacture a mysterious gap to fool a Barrister into giving this non-suspect the time of day.
They have to manufacture insane, nonsensical waffle like the Mizen Scam to try and shoehorn a theory in between the actual facts.
They have to blatantly invent things like Cross ‘standing over the freshly killed corpse.’ This is a lie so we know how to describe anyone using it.
They have to snuffle around in the undergrowth for desperation points to try and point the finger at this obvious witness. A man who acted exactly as a man would who found a body on his way to work.
They hand out the ‘Cross Goggles’ so that they can even view things like the clothes that Cross wore at the inquest as indicative of guilt.

Have we had the alignment of the planets yet? If not it’s probably just a matter of time.

This isn’t just a suspect with people ‘looking into him,’ like other suspects. This is a bandwagon with its own propagandists. This is a witness that some people are deliberately trying to fit up while the others are a mixture of those wanting to be on the side of a ‘team’ and those who think that shouting ‘he was there’ is enough to prove guilt.

There is no evidence of Cross being guilty because it’s about as obvious as it can be that he wasn’t.

[John Wheat]

“Never in the field of Ripperology has so much nonsense been said by so many gullible people in favour of such a lame duck suspect as Charles Cross.”



They have to edit the evidence to manufacture a mysterious gap to fool a Barrister into giving this non-suspect the time of day.
They have to manufacture insane, nonsensical waffle like the Mizen Scam to try and shoehorn a theory in between the actual facts.
They have to blatantly invent things like Cross ‘standing over the freshly killed corpse.’ This is a lie so we know how to describe anyone using it.
They have to snuffle around in the undergrowth for desperation points to try and point the finger at this obvious witness. A man who acted exactly as a man would who found a body on his way to work.
They hand out the ‘Cross Goggles’ so that they can even view things like the clothes that Cross wore at the inquest as indicative of guilt.

Have we had the alignment of the planets yet? If not it’s probably just a matter of time.

This isn’t just a suspect with people ‘looking into him,’ like other suspects. This is a bandwagon with its own propagandists. This is a witness that some people are deliberately trying to fit up while the others are a mixture of those wanting to be on the side of a ‘team’ and those who think that shouting ‘he was there’ is enough to prove guilt.

There is no evidence of Cross being guilty because it’s about as obvious as it can be that he wasn’t.

I agree with all of this Herlock.

Cheers John

[Fiver]

Have we had the alignment of the planets yet? If not it’s probably just a matter of time.

Have you forgotten the Ley Line theory? The one that has Rippermere dropping apron bits on a direct line halfway between murder sites and his home.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Have you forgotten the Ley Line theory? The one that has Rippermere dropping apron bits on a direct line halfway between murder sites and his home.

I had. The result of proper research no doubt.

[caz]

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.

Afternoon Geddy,

Actually, there have always been very few active 'diary defenders' on the message boards, if the description is used honestly. You get called a 'diary defender' even if you have always said the handwriting is not Maybrick's. All you have to do is to suggest that the Barretts will never be exposed as the diary's creators for the same reason - the handwriting is not theirs - and you will be labelled a 'diary defender', by posters who must either have very little imagination, or feel somehow threatened by those of us who are openly sceptical of any Barrett Hoax Conspiracy theory.

There is no evidence that Lechmere, or Maybrick, ever murdered anyone or came close to doing so.

But labels are useful for the hard of thinking and tend to stick.

Love,

Caz
X

[Geddy2112]

But labels are useful for the hard of thinking and tend to stick.

Hi Caz, 'labels are for soup tins' according to someone great somewhere at sometime

[Geddy2112]

Have you forgotten the Ley Line theory? The one that has Rippermere dropping apron bits on a direct line halfway between murder sites and his home.

Which thread was that in, I've tried before to find it but not been too successful. I presume these lay lines actually cut through buildings and warehouses and the likes.

[rjpalmer]

All you have to do is to suggest that the Barretts will never be exposed as the diary's creators for the same reason - the handwriting is not theirs - and you will be labelled a 'diary defender'

Perhaps such 'logic' leaves the lingering whiff of diary defending because it contains such an obvious non sequitur?

If the handwriting is not Maybrick's, then by definition the diary is a forgery. A fake. A fraud.

But even if the handwriting is proven not to be Graham's or Barrett's (and neither of their handwriting was ever examined by a professional) it hardly exonerates either from involvement in the 'conspiracy.'

It's a silly comparison.

Maybrick had no credible reason to disguise his handwriting or employ an amanuensis in a secret diary that drops more than enough clues to identify him, whereas a hoaxer would have all the reason in the world to do either of those two things.

Q.E.D.

Back to Lechmere...