All roads lead to Lechmere.

[caz]

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.

It's a good point, Geddy. Of all the scores of people on their way to work that morning, someone had to be unfortunate enough to stumble across Nichols first. Two unfortunates for the price of one. If it hadn't been Cross, it would have been Paul. If it hadn't been either of them, it would have been PC Neil.

Cross was as much in the wrong place at the wrong time as Nichols herself. He did what any innocent man on his way to work would have done, and possibly more than Robert Paul would have done, had he walked along Buck's Row first.

The 'heart of ripper territory' wasn't even a thing until later in the series, so I find it a bit misleading for anyone to use that description when Cross can only be connected with that one murder, and only then by virtue of his virtuous decision to risk being late for work, in order to engage with Paul and then Mizen.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fiver]

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.

It's not a thread it's a single poster.

The same goes for how Goulston Street lies between Mitre Square and Doveton Street. Fact.

The same goes for how the building site of the new church up at London Hospital lies between the Pinchin Stret railway arch and Doveton Street. Fact.

[caz]

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

Urrgh, most kinds of soup should be banned, with or without labels. Ghastly stuff.

Love,

Caz
X

[Geddy2112]

It's not a thread it's a single poster.

Ah it's actually this thread haha. Yes Goulston Street does lie between Mitre Square and Doveton Street but it's hardly a direct line... close but no cigar. It's like saying Manchester lies between London and Edinburgh...

[caz]

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...

Ah, but no 'conspiracy' has yet been proved to account for the diary's existence. The Barrett Hoax theory is just one more silly conspiracy theory, with very little going for it.

Most hoaxers, planning to market their own ripper hoax, would choose someone whose handwriting would at least be available, to afford them the ghost of a clue how to go about copying it, while disguising their own sufficiently well to avoid immediate identification. Nobody needed an expert to tell them the diary handwriting is not Mike Barrett's, and Lord knows who would have been stuck in the frame instead, if he hadn't had a wife. One of his sisters, presumably.

The diary continues to be 'defended' by anyone who accuses the wrong person or persons of creating and penning it. It's what will keep the bloody thing alive and kicking on the message boards, long after the last Maybrick 'believer' has buggered off to less hostile environments.

To me, accusing the Barretts is on a par with accusing Lechmere, simply because he was the unfortunate sod to have alerted Robert Paul to a murdered woman on the street and, in so doing, kicked off all the rubbish we still wade through today about the case. Mike Barrett was the unfortunate sod to have alerted a literary agent to the diary that passed into his hands. There is no more evidence for Mike being capable of conceiving Maybrick as Jack the Ripper, and then seeing it through to completion, than there is for Lechmere becoming Jack himself.

My interest in the diary has always been quite separate from the ripper murders, but I do see parallels in the way theorists work to push an agenda and denigrate those who won't lie down meekly and take their medicine.

[Lewis C]

Urrgh, most kinds of soup should be banned, with or without labels. Ghastly stuff.

Love,

Caz
X

I happened to be eating soup as I read this.

[Abby Normal]

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

kind of like your use of the label Barrett Believer? lol.

[Abby Normal]

Ah it's actually this thread haha. Yes Goulston Street does lie between Mitre Square and Doveton Street but it's hardly a direct line... close but no cigar. It's like saying Manchester lies between London and Edinburgh...

yes thats so far off his route to home from mitre square (sarcasm alert). so unless you think that humans can take tje same route of as the crow flies then yes it is not a direct path home.

[Abby Normal]

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.

well i guess you dont think much of my lech triangle theory either then? ; )

[Abby Normal]

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?

hi lewis
thanks for pointing out the obvious, which i got labelled a fabricator for saying. but i see he agreed with the statement in tje end, so i guess were all either fabricators or he was wrong, didnt admit as such and were not fabricators!

man the craziness lech inspires on both sides is extraordinary!

[Geddy2112]

thanks for pointing out the obvious, which i got labelled a fabricator for saying.

And again since it did not sink in the first time. I never labelled you a fabricator, I said you are repeating the fabrications. Huge difference. In other words you did not invent the lie but you are repeating it. However make of it what you will.

[Geddy2112]

yes thats so far off his route to home from mitre square (sarcasm alert). so unless you think that humans can take tje same route of as the crow flies then yes it is not a direct path home.

It's a huge detour off his direct route home like Holmgren was trying to sell us. For starters if he was killing near mumsies in Berner Street why did he not just go North to Whitechapel Road for another victim, like where he got Polly, he knows he can have success there, but no travels West and further away from home which means more opportunity to get seen, or caught. Another aspect of the Lechmere Theory that makes total sense... not.

[caz]

kind of like your use of the label Barrett Believer? lol.

Er, yes, for posters who believe Mike Barrett's forgery claims. In my experience, they are not exactly backwards in coming forwards, so they are relatively easy to spot.

How else am I meant to describe them? Are you suggesting they only pretend to believe Mike's claims?

I'm happy to be labelled a Barrett sceptic, because that neatly sums up what I am. But for some reason, possibly psychological, some Barrett believers can't help themselves using labels that don't apply.

Love,

Caz
X