Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    I'm waiting for the day the Lechmerians substitute Lechmere for Netley in the Royal Conspiracy on the grounds he named a son Albert Edward.


    Originally posted by kjab3112 View Post

    Are you suggesting the “carriage” was in fact a Pickfords truck?
    You know that Ed is sitting there writing all this down, right?

    I hope he will cite his sources.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
      >>The best we can say is that, at some unknown point in time after having woken up, he (Llewellyn) learned the time from a certain timepiece (could also have been the 4 o'clock chime)<<

      It's a common, and understandable misconception that Llewellyn was quoting the time he was called.

      He wasn't.

      He was quoting the time he arrived in Buck's Row. How do we know this? P.C.Thain makes it clear in his testimony that he arrived back in Buck's Row 10 mins after leaving Neil. if he left Neil around 3:45, his return must have been around 3:55.

      "Witness ran for the doctor, and having called Dr. Llewellyn, accompanied him to the spot where deceased was lying. On his return with the doctor, Neil and two workmen were standing by the body. He did not know the workmen." Times

      "About ten minutes after he had fetched the surgeon he saw two workmen standing with Neale." Daily Telegraph
      Almost missed this, Dusty, but I'm with Kattrup on this. For me, the way Llewellyn's testimony reads that he was called at about 5 minutes to four and after that he went with Thain to the crime spot. Even though both Thain and Neil spoke of about 10 minutes between Thain leaving and returning with the doctor, neither give a time from which to count them. It would, obviously, have been a few minutes after the 3.45 they gave as their estimates.

      Cheers,
      Frank
      "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
      Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

      Comment


      • Good news 'Profiling Jack The Ripper' has just landed from the House of Lechmere...

        Originally posted by Stow
        ...probably imply he was single
        and after that bombshell at 3m20s I turned if off...

        Comment


        • Interesting new video from T.H.O.L... Ed has "Profiled" Jack the Ripper, and 3 guesses who it is!

          (EDIT to add) Ah! Damn... Geddy beat me to it!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
            They are what now? Evidence of guilt, send him to the gallows. I mean really with that statement alone Ed Stow should be stripped of any credibility he has. That has to be one of the biggest bits of, dare it stupidity I’ve heard on the internet for a long time. Does he mean, again with his psychology qualifications that every teenage boy within a square mile of these events should turn out to be a serial killer? That statement is absolutely absurd.
            As an example, as a teenage lad I was one of the first if not the first on the scene of a murder back in Nov 1985. I used to help deliver the poor ladies’ newspaper. I did not turn out to be her killer or indeed a killer later in life. I was not suspected of killing her and I did give my correct home address when interviewed.
            My father being from the North East and having to travel at least once a month to Bradford for work was interviewed many times in the Yorkshire Ripper case, again this did not make me turn out to be a serial killer or even a criminal, although I do recall stealing a sweet from Woolies Pick N Mix.
            So this statement by Stow claiming it’s ‘evidence’ of Lechmere’s guilt is unbelievable. I lost a mouth full of coffee over my computer screen when he said it. Another video with one point of ‘evidence’ out of over 20 mins just so he could get his face on the telly.
            Stow can be unintentionally hilarious. The previous cases of murder and the tiger mauling would have been very familiar to everyone who lived in that area. They would have had an impact in the subconscious of a few hundred thousand people, only one of which was Charles Lechmere. They aren't evidence, let alone evidence of anyone's guilt.
            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

            "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

              Stow can be unintentionally hilarious. The previous cases of murder and the tiger mauling would have been very familiar to everyone who lived in that area. They would have had an impact in the subconscious of a few hundred thousand people, only one of which was Charles Lechmere. They aren't evidence, let alone evidence of anyone's guilt.
              You have to grant him the fact that he is dangerously persuasive.
              If he picked the right ward/constituency, he could probably get elected to some degree of office.

              It's frightening how easily he convinces people that his theories are correct while never actually putting any sort of solid foundation beneath his statements.
              This new one goes through aspects of what I think is the FBI profile that Martin and Paul worked with in the late 80s, and using Stowic logic "debunks" anything that says "Loner" "Nutter" "Obvious psycho" "Sexual deviant" or anything else that would exclude Cross, and rather focuses on stuff like "Knew the area" "Working class" "Scruffy looking" as if those criteria ONLY apply to Cross/Lechmere.
              And these folk suck it up like mothers' milk.

              If I hadn't already lost faith in large parts of society's ability to form cogent thoughts, the comments on "The House of Lechmere" would be the final nail...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post
                You have to grant him the fact that he is dangerously persuasive.
                If he picked the right ward/constituency, he could probably get elected to some degree of office.
                Considering his political views, I'm glad he hasn't been particularly successful.
                "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  Considering his political views, I'm glad he hasn't been particularly successful.
                  Funnily enough he's reading this thread, as he puffed his cheeks out when he figured out that AP Tomlinson was the same guy who posted on his video as "Andrew Tomlinson"on his video comments.
                  He's SUCH a clever detective...
                  If only I'd tried to hide my TRUE identity... (like him...)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                    Considering his political views, I'm glad he hasn't been particularly successful.
                    It's the gift that keeps giving, accuses a man of murder with one of his main 'points of guilt' being a name change and erm... well... the irony is not lost on me for sure.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      That's like saying nobody else heard a voice say "No" and the "Thud" of something hitting the fence at Annie Chapmans murder so it didn't happen.

                      Did Albert Cadosch make that up ?
                      The weak underbelly of the Lechmere theory is that we need to believe that both Albert Cadosch and John Richardson should have been completely wrong about their statements. One witness (Mrs Long) being wrong about her timing or otherwise unreliable is a possibility, but three?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by IchabodCrane View Post
                        The weak underbelly of the Lechmere theory is that we need to believe that both Albert Cadosch and John Richardson should have been completely wrong about their statements. One witness (Mrs Long) being wrong about her timing or otherwise unreliable is a possibility, but three?
                        Chapman's ToD was being hotly disputed back when I was a child -- which is quite a few summers ago and ages before people even knew Lechmere's real name. The idea that a 'late' ToD is somehow 'established' is purely the product of anti-Lechmerian desperation, not any kind of objective reading.

                        'The weak underbelly'? I tell you: the anti-Lechmerian zealots have more weak underbellies than a ruminant has stomachs.

                        M.
                        Last edited by Mark J D; 04-05-2024, 10:53 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Now we have ‘anti-Lechmerian zealots.’ Unbelievable considering the way Cross crusade is promoted. Cross fanatics desperately want three witnesses to be wrong to avoid Cross being at work when Chapman was killed. So much so that they ask us to believe that John Richardson sat on a step, seeing the entirety of the yard according to him (and knowing exactly where the body was found) with an horrendously mutilated corpse lying no more than 12 inches (probably less) from his left boot; and with him saying that he couldn’t possibly have missed it. Yeah right.

                          Cross had been at work for 90 minutes when Annie was killed and any suggestion that Cross, with a schedule of deliveries to make, left a cart full of meat unattended in crime central full of people who didn’t know where their next meal was coming from, to kill and mutilate a woman and he then leapt back on his cart to carry on working is nothing more than a joke. Not to mention the risk of someone mentioning seeing a cart (even a Pickford’s one) near the scene. It can’t be taken seriously for a second.

                          Cross found a body and nothing more. As a suspect he’s a non-starter.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                            Good news 'Profiling Jack The Ripper' has just landed from the House of Lechmere...



                            and after that bombshell at 3m20s I turned if off...
                            Is he trying to brute force Lechmere into the 1988 FBI profile?
                            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                            "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by IchabodCrane View Post
                              The weak underbelly of the Lechmere theory is that we need to believe that both Albert Cadosch and John Richardson should have been completely wrong about their statements. One witness (Mrs Long) being wrong about her timing or otherwise unreliable is a possibility, but three?
                              I'm fairly certain you'll find most people here subscribe to the possibility that witnesses can be wrong ,mistaken and or lied . Whether that be in the case in Chapmans murder or Stride's.

                              The problem there being, their preferred witness/s Are often elevated ahead of others at the expense of ignoring the above, or at least accepting the equal possibility.
                              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post

                                Funnily enough he's reading this thread, as he puffed his cheeks out when he figured out that AP Tomlinson was the same guy who posted on his video as "Andrew Tomlinson"on his video comments.
                                He's SUCH a clever detective...
                                If only I'd tried to hide my TRUE identity... (like him...)
                                Well he does seem to think that it would be nigh-impossible that anyone could figure out that Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the past 20 years and whose shift started at 4AM might actually be the stepson of Thomas Cross, Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station for the past 20 years and whose shift started at 4AM?.

                                Perhaps that says more about his followers than the actual difficulty of making the connection.
                                "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                                "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X