Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[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

[FrankO]

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

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?

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.

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).

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

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

[FrankO]

Quality piece of work there FrankO.

Thanks, Geddy.

He does tend to be selective with the evidence he uses to condemn.

He certainly gives that impression, yes.

The comments are one thing yes but then in the latest House of Tenuous Links video he even has a dig at the admin here.

I think all the negative energy is just a waste of time, that's all I'm going to say about it. It's gotten no one any further, ever.

Cheers,
Frank

[Geddy2112]

This trend appears to have increased since the recent High Profile documentary featuring, Tracy I'anson, Rob House and Mike Hawley

Since Tracy is from near me, if anyone needs her words translating I'm available for a small donation to charity. Thanks.

[Geddy2112]

I wonder if its more complicated Fiver? Watching recent videos and posts by others on FB, there is a distinct trend to attempt to dismiss any suspect suffering from what we might loosely term "Mental Illness", such as Kosminski or Levy.
Indeed we have had several videos in recent weeks, which mention the mental health issue, over and over.

This little hobby of ours is littered with fashions and trends. Mental Health is a very trendy thing recently, along with 'genders.' Did Jack identify as a Giraffe, or maybe Ed's Tiger who knows.

The problem with Mental Health is it's still a very emotive subject and not a huge amount is known about it, it evolves fast. In Victorian times I might have been slung in the asylum for being left handed for example. What people classed asylum worthy in those days is hardly the same today. In fact even in my life time at primary school you were 'naughty' or 'thick.' Now we have ADHD, dyslexia, autism etc etc. So for Victorians to label someone 'mad' would have covered a huge range of issues.

The thing that bothers me is in some of these YouTube videos the narrator throws about 'mad' 'not mad' like they are experts and it turns out they will probably not even have an O Level or GCSE in Psychology or the likes. (Yes I do before any bugger asks ) So how are they qualified to do so?

[Elamarna]

All that shows it that Butler either didn't read your book or did not understand it, as you repeatedly make clear that you think escape to the north was much less likely than escape to the south.

I wonder if its more complicated Fiver? Watching recent videos and posts by others on FB, there is a distinct trend to attempt to dismiss any suspect suffering from what we might loosely term "Mental Illness", such as Kosminski or Levy.
Indeed we have had several videos in recent weeks, which mention the mental health issue, over and over.

This trend appears to have increased since the recent High Profile documentary featuring, Tracy I'anson, Rob House and Mike Hawley ( in case not seen it, Levy was voted Top).


Steve

[Fiver]

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

All that shows it that Butler either didn't read your book or did not understand it, as you repeatedly make clear that you think escape to the north was much less likely than escape to the south.

[Elamarna]

I agree, Andrew.

It took just one look at his FB page and watch the video "The Policeman Who Missed Jack the Ripper" to find out that what you write is true.

In the video he tells the viewers which streets and alleys Neil's beat comprised of and also shows it. He acknowledges that also the northern part of Thomas and Queen Ann Street were part of his beat. But from then on he leaves these parts out, as he claims that "The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes" and only walking the exteriors of his beat, the northern part of Thomas Street and Queen Anne Street wouldn't fit in some 12 minutes.

And, therefore, he concludes, the only way that Neil could have missed the 2 carmen and vice versa, Neil must have been somewhere on Whitechapel Road close to the entrance to Thomas Street when the carmen passed Thomas Street on Buck's Row and that Neil only entered Buck's Row, when the carmen had just turned right on Baker's Row.

But he's wrong there.

Firstly, only the exteriors including the northern part of Thomas Street and Queen Ann Street is about 1400 m/0.87 miles and if you'd walk that distance at the quick pace of 6.3 kmph or 3.9 mph, then it would take 13 minutes and 20 s to cover that distance. Quite fitting, I'd say. However, if you'd go by Ed's version of the exteriors of Neil's beat that counted, then that route would have been less than 900 m/2950 feet, which, at a speed of 6.3 kmph/3.9 mph, would be covered in some 8.5 minutes.

Secondly, he forgetting that Neil also stated “A quarter of an hour previously he was in Whitechapel road”. Assuming that ‘previously’ refers to ‘arriving at the crime spot’, counting back from the crime spot, through the southern part of Thomas Street, a quarter of an hour earlier he would have been about 200 m/660 feet before arriving at the crime spot on his previous round. If you'd, instead, count back from the crime spot, through Queen Ann Street and the northern part of Thomas Street, then you'd end up on Whitechapel Road a quarter of an hour earlier.

Never mind the negative comments directed at Casebook and Casebookers below the video...

Cheers,
Frank

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