Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Lewis C]

Do you have any ideas or thoughts about why the Lechmere theory provokes such a strong negative response? Some claim to be baffled by this reaction. I have a few ideas of my own, but I wouldn't mind hearing someone else's views.

It can't be merely the lack of conclusive evidence--because other theories suffer from that same defect. Why do you think it is?

HI RJ,

For me, part of it is that I don't think there is any other named suspect for whom there is as much twisting and misinterpreting of as many different facts as there is for those who promote Lechmere as a suspect.

[Fiver]

Furthermore, Ed in his video claims that Neil stated “These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete” and he makes it seem as though ‘these officers’ comprised of all the officers in the area. But, of course, Neil only spoke of Thain and Mizen there.

Exactly. We have no idea if Sergeant Kirby saw anyone "leaving the spot to attract attention:.

We also know that Lechmere and Paul left the spot and attracted PC Mizen's attention. Yet Mizen doesn't seem to have mentioned that to PC Neil. Which makes it quite possible that other men passed Mizen, but he didn't think they were worth mentioning either.

Pc Thain testified that " Shortly before he was called by Constable Neil" he saw "one or two working men going down Brady-Street" "in the direction of Whitechapel-road".

Butler appears to omit that PC Neil also said it would have been quite easy for Nichols' killer to escape undetected - "At that time anyone could have got
away." And that the coroner agreed with PC Neil.

[Paddy Goose]

Do you have any ideas or thoughts about why the Lechmere theory provokes such a strong negative response?

Yes because it has turned Casebook into Lechbook.

And here we all are on the top line discussing Lechmere.

This is how Christer's video happened in the first place. A decade ago the film company asked a poster 'is there a suspect being talked about a lot on Casebook?' The answer was of course "Yes, Lechmere." The answer today would be exactly the same if another film company is interested.

[FrankO]

A fair summing up.
AS I have said many times, I believe Mulshaw needs to be treated with a great deal of caution.

Steve

I agree, Steve.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

If we go by the notion that Lechmere disturbed the killer, as you and Richard Jones do in the video, then we’d also go by Lechmere seeing what he first thought to be a tarpaulin, then, on crossing the street, he saw it was the figure of a woman, then heard & saw Paul, waited for him, etc..

That would mean the killer would have had some 5 minutes, at least, before any alarm was raised. After all, the carmen only spoke to Mizen about 4 minutes after Paul ever laid eyes on Nichols. And Neil probably arrived at the crime spot around the same time that the carmen reached Mizen.

So, the question is: how much distance could the killer have covered in those 5 minutes or so? It’s not important that the killer couldn’t have known when an alarm would be raised, it’s important that he got as much distance between himself and Buck’s Row.

Let’s see how various walking speeds would work out.
Walking speed: 3 mph/4.8 kmph à 402 m/439 yards
Walking speed: 3.4 mph/5.5 kmph à 458 m/500 yards
Walking speed: 3.7 mph/6 kmph à 500 m/546 yards
Walking speed: 3.9 mph/6.3 kmph à 525 m/574 yards

Even the slow pace of 3 mph would get him over 400 m away from the crime spot, which would certainly seem more than enough distance to have gotten away.

Furthermore, Ed in his video claims that Neil stated “These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete” and he makes it seem as though ‘these officers’ comprised of all the officers in the area. But, of course, Neil only spoke of Thain and Mizen there.

Of course, these 2 officers may have meant by that: ‘anybody who could have come from Buck’s Row’, but it’s certainly not a given, as Ed seems to suggest.

Anyway, if the killer chose a northern escape route, via Queen Ann Street and Thomas Street, instead of going further west through Hanbury Street, he could easily have chosen Underwood Street, north of Hanbury. Mizen might very well not have seen him, as there’s no way of knowing where he would have been the moment the killer surfaced from the northern arm of Thomas Street onto Baker’s Row. And, if he did see him, there’s no reason to think that Mizen would have thought anything about the man, anything other than: just another man on his way to work/home.

So, that Ed is claiming in his video that Mizen would certainly have ‘blocked’ the killer fleeing, is indeed truly amazing, Steve. I guess he lost sight of the fact that you and Richard were talking about a killer who was disturbed by Lechmere and not about a guilty Lechmere fleeing. The only thing he rightly considered was Mulshaw possibly awake between 3 and 4, although it’s certainly not a given, as he suggests – regardless of whether he was Lechmere or not.

Cheers,
Frank

A fair summing up.
AS I have said many times, I believe Mulshaw needs to be treated with a great deal of caution.

Steve

[FrankO]

Do you have any ideas or thoughts about why the Lechmere theory provokes such a strong negative response? Some claim to be baffled by this reaction. I have a few ideas of my own, but I wouldn't mind hearing someone else's views.

It can't be merely the lack of conclusive evidence--because other theories suffer from that same defect. Why do you think it is?

Hi Roger,

For me, it's got more to do with the attitude of the yaesayers than the theory itself. The theory has some things going for it, but just not enough for me to believe it. Main thing for me, personally, would be that they can certainly come off as arrogant and stubborn, which regularly makes it uninviting to discuss things with them, but, at the same time, sometimes even makes you more eager to repay them in 'kind'.

Of course, I'm only speaking for myself.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

I assume you mean the escape route one I did,

https://youtu.be/_UMwreAbf10?si=2J9hJLLMSuMWqCE4

On the reply to the escape route video, on hose of Lechmere, Mr Stow went on about how anyone leaving by the northern arm of Thomas Street, should have been seen by Mizen, who was several dozens of yards south, on a different beat, but he should according to the video have been seen by Mizen, thus blocking off escaping by that route. Truly amazing stuff.

Hi Steve,

If we go by the notion that Lechmere disturbed the killer, as you and Richard Jones do in the video, then we’d also go by Lechmere seeing what he first thought to be a tarpaulin, then, on crossing the street, he saw it was the figure of a woman, then heard & saw Paul, waited for him, etc..

That would mean the killer would have had some 5 minutes, at least, before any alarm was raised. After all, the carmen only spoke to Mizen about 4 minutes after Paul ever laid eyes on Nichols. And Neil probably arrived at the crime spot around the same time that the carmen reached Mizen.

So, the question is: how much distance could the killer have covered in those 5 minutes or so? It’s not important that the killer couldn’t have known when an alarm would be raised, it’s important that he got as much distance between himself and Buck’s Row.

Let’s see how various walking speeds would work out.
Walking speed: 3 mph/4.8 kmph à 402 m/439 yards
Walking speed: 3.4 mph/5.5 kmph à 458 m/500 yards
Walking speed: 3.7 mph/6 kmph à 500 m/546 yards
Walking speed: 3.9 mph/6.3 kmph à 525 m/574 yards

Even the slow pace of 3 mph would get him over 400 m away from the crime spot, which would certainly seem more than enough distance to have gotten away.

Furthermore, Ed in his video claims that Neil stated “These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete” and he makes it seem as though ‘these officers’ comprised of all the officers in the area. But, of course, Neil only spoke of Thain and Mizen there.

Of course, these 2 officers may have meant by that: ‘anybody who could have come from Buck’s Row’, but it’s certainly not a given, as Ed seems to suggest.

Anyway, if the killer chose a northern escape route, via Queen Ann Street and Thomas Street, instead of going further west through Hanbury Street, he could easily have chosen Underwood Street, north of Hanbury. Mizen might very well not have seen him, as there’s no way of knowing where he would have been the moment the killer surfaced from the northern arm of Thomas Street onto Baker’s Row. And, if he did see him, there’s no reason to think that Mizen would have thought anything about the man, anything other than: just another man on his way to work/home.

So, that Ed is claiming in his video that Mizen would certainly have ‘blocked’ the killer fleeing, is indeed truly amazing, Steve. I guess he lost sight of the fact that you and Richard were talking about a killer who was disturbed by Lechmere and not about a guilty Lechmere fleeing. The only thing he rightly considered was Mulshaw possibly awake between 3 and 4, although it’s certainly not a given, as he suggests – regardless of whether he was Lechmere or not.

Cheers,
Frank

[John Wheat]

Do you have any ideas or thoughts about why the Lechmere theory provokes such a strong negative response? Some claim to be baffled by this reaction. I have a few ideas of my own, but I wouldn't mind hearing someone else's views.

It can't be merely the lack of conclusive evidence--because other theories suffer from that same defect. Why do you think it is?

It's the lack of evidence along with the insistence that Lechmere is guilty plus the general attitude of Lechmerians that anyone who disagrees with them is obviously wrong.

[rjpalmer]

My personal views which are entirely that, are maybe down with the ferocity they are defended. It seems no one can successfully point out 'errors' in the theory without it been shouted down by the two main perpetrators of the theory. I've tried myself and your words get twisted, you enter into a convoluted linguistic battle or even sometimes just generally abused in the way of petty name calling.

Thanks, Geddy.

I'm wondering, though, even if we set aside the personalities involved (which is no doubt part of it) is there still some inherent quality in the Lechmere theory that is particularly disconcerting or disagreeable?

I think there is, and it's not hard for me to imagine Ed Stow rubbing his hands together with delight as he looks at this forum; he's been banned for quite a long time, and his colleague is suspended, and yet there are three or four active threads at any given moment discussing his theory. He's successfully gotten under the skin.

I think part of it is because the theory is somewhat 'in your face.' The subliminal message is that the police were incompetent but by extension, historians of the case and students of the case are also incompetent. 'While you lot were mucking around with Kozminski and Druitt and Hutchinson, etc., the real murderer was standing right in front of you. You've been duped--you didn't even know the man's correct name. It's not Cross--it's Lechmere, and he done in Polly Nichols."

I suspect that this is why the Lechmere theory tends to me more repellant to those who have studied the case for a long time than to relative newcomers.

Of course, there have been other theories that have plucked some poor bastard from the case history and tried to implicate him--Hutchinson or Barnett, for instance---but it's not quite the same thing, because there was already a vague sense of suspicion lingering over those two. Even if one didn't quite suspect these men, one had questions and felt confident that the police had given them the 'once over.' It was understood or tacitly agreed upon that these suspicions were, on some level, valid.

By contrast, there is a feeling--at least among those of us who don't accept the theory--that similar suspicions against Lechmere are not valid. I think this is what goads us on.

That sounds odd to say, because one might feel exactly the same way about the Sickert and Maybrick theories, etc., but for me at least, the twisting of the 'evidence' doesn't seem to be quite as dangerous. Incidental irrelevancies are blatantly turned around and used against Crossmere--which is true of nearly every bogus Ripper theory--but here they are being used against someone who was actually at the scene of one of the murders, so there is a feeling that he is genuinely in jeopardy. There is more of a sense of urgency of a man possibly being fitted up. The misuse of the time gap or the blood evidence, for instance, takes on a more sinister aspect than some delusional discussion of anagrams hidden in a suspect's poetry.

Even Lechmere's utter normality is used against him, as if it is somehow evidence. "While you lot are mucking around with criminals and lunatics--Kozminski, Cutbush, Charle Le Grande, Tumblety, Grainger, etc.---you should be looking for someone entirely normal..."

I've seen one Lechmere theorist state that he must be considered the prime suspect because he is the only suspect that can be placed at a crime scene.

Let that rattle around in your head.

RP

[Geddy2112]

Do you have any ideas or thoughts about why the Lechmere theory provokes such a strong negative response? Some claim to be baffled by this reaction. I have a few ideas of my own, but I wouldn't mind hearing someone else's views.

It can't be merely the lack of conclusive evidence--because other theories suffer from that same defect. Why do you think it is?

My personal views which are entirely that, are maybe down with the ferocity they are defended. It seems no one can successfully point out 'errors' in the theory without it been shouted down by the two main perpetrators of the theory. I've tried myself and your words get twisted, you enter into a convoluted linguistic battle or even sometimes just generally abused in the way of petty name calling.

They will simply not accept the tiniest part of the theory to be wrong no matter what, and from what I've read it obviously does have even some major flaws.

I do not think the two main pushers of the theory help themselves, two rather 'volatile' characters. In once instance I certainly do not think his history or political beliefs help either, maybe they should not of course but it's always going to add some spice even if it's not required. I think the HOL videos do not help, they are getting more tenuous by every release with really nothing to add to the Lechmere Theory. For me it's Ed's way of making some cash and getting his face on the 'telly,' after all the whole HOL videos could be done without his mug all over them. Ego based as far as I can see. The more they push the more people are going to push back and with the near weekly videos it's keeping it current for longer and longer so hence it's keeping the pushing back going for longer and longer. If the HOL videos stopped the dying down of the theory would happen, the negative responses will cease and we will move onto the next one.. that is how it works I believe.

[Lewis C]

It doesn't.
I will attempt to give the argument made.

In short it's suggested that any mention of escape via Whitechapel Road, is pro Kosminski, because he lived to the south.

In essence it's said because I am pro Kosminski, any route suggested, that is not along the length of Bucks Row, to Bakers Row( with Paul) is bias.


Steve

I see. Thanks, Steve.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I don't understand why including the northern section strengthens the case against Kosminski.

It doesn't.
I will attempt to give the argument made.

In short it's suggested that any mention of escape via Whitechapel Road, is pro Kosminski, because he lived to the south.

In essence it's said because I am pro Kosminski, any route suggested, that is not along the length of Bucks Row, to Bakers Row( with Paul) is bias.


Steve

[Lewis C]

Hi Frank, the point of that video, and the early one on escape routes was to counter the video Richard Jones did with me.

The arguments that the northern section were left out, appear to be driven by making the evidence for the theory, rather than by a reasoned approach to the evidence.

The argument presented is that I included the northern section as part of a agenda to point at Kosminski, without my mentioning him.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I don't understand why including the northern section strengthens the case against Kosminski.

[rjpalmer]

So basically it all boils down to a bloke, on his way to work stubbled across a dead body and suddenly he is one of the worst if not the worst Serial Killers in British History. Case closed your honour… bang of the hammer… next.

Do you have any ideas or thoughts about why the Lechmere theory provokes such a strong negative response? Some claim to be baffled by this reaction. I have a few ideas of my own, but I wouldn't mind hearing someone else's views.

It can't be merely the lack of conclusive evidence--because other theories suffer from that same defect. Why do you think it is?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I never saw it. Is it possible to watch it somewhere. If so, could you point me to where could I watch it?

I assume you mean the escape route one I did,

https://youtu.be/_UMwreAbf10?si=2J9hJLLMSuMWqCE4

It indeed seems that way. Odd that people who believe/follow Ed don't seem to realize that he cut off more than half of Neil's beat suggesting Neil would have entered Buck's Row from the southern part of Thomas Street. I have to admit that I actually thought Neil might have done that, but that was before somebody posted his actual beat, as laid out in the Echo of 21st September 1888 (a find by Simon Wood).


Yes, in the video Ed said that suggesting that Neil enteried Buck's Row from the northern part of Thomas Street is 'an endeavour to create a favourable scenario for their suspect'. Well, I certainly don't have a suspect, but there you go...

Cheers,
Frank

On the reply to the escape route video, on hose of Lechmere, Mr Stow went on about how anyone leaving by the northern arm of Thomas Street, should have been seen by Mizen, who was several dozens of yards south, on a different beat, but he should according to the video have been seen by Mizen, thus blocking off escaping by that route. Truly amazing stuff.


Steve