Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Geddy2112]

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...

Quality piece of work there FrankO. He does tend to be selective with the evidence he uses to condemn. 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'm really struggling what the next episode will be, last two we have had bagels and escaped tigers. Spoilt brat springs to mind.

[FrankO]

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.

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

[FrankO]

When Mizen finally arrived and saw PC Neil I wonder if there was a moment when Mizen realised he should have followed it up more hastily.

Seeing that there was a world of difference between what he expected to find (based on his own version of the conversation with the carmen) and what he actually did find when he arrived at the crime spot, I think he should at least have been surprised, RD.

Cheers,
Frank

[John Wheat]

Fictional serial killers are bold, clever, witty, powerful, dangerous, and in control - all the things fascists like to pretend they are. So it doesn't surprise me that a fascist would take pleasure in his girlfriend being related to a serial killer.

Possibly the best post I've ever read on Casebook Fiver.

[Fiver]

Hi Fiver,

The primary proponent of the idea that H. H. Holmes was the Ripper is a descendant of Holmes. It's funny how some people seem to want their ancestor to be him.

At least Holmes was an actual serial killer, not just some ancestor picked for the notoriety. That said, the MOsare completely different.

My only serial killer related ancestor was a circuit riding Methodist preacher who ate at the Bender Inn on the way to a camp meeting, but didn't look prosperous enough for the Bloody Benders to murder.

[Fiver]

Indeed. It's as if they want to bask in their ancestors' notoriety.

Fictional serial killers are bold, clever, witty, powerful, dangerous, and in control - all the things fascists like to pretend they are. So it doesn't surprise me that a fascist would take pleasure in his girlfriend being related to a serial killer.

[John Wheat]

Isn’t Ed Stow’s wife related to the family? Or did I imagine it?

I believe his girlfriend is a distant relative.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder if Christer is a distant relative of Lechmere because he so wants him to be the Ripper?

Isn’t Ed Stow’s wife related to the family? Or did I imagine it?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fiver,

The primary proponent of the idea that H. H. Holmes was the Ripper is a descendant of Holmes. It's funny how some people seem to want their ancestor to be him.

Indeed. It's as if they want to bask in their ancestors' notoriety.

[John Wheat]

Hi Fiver,

The primary proponent of the idea that H. H. Holmes was the Ripper is a descendant of Holmes. It's funny how some people seem to want their ancestor to be him.

I wonder if Christer is a distant relative of Lechmere because he so wants him to be the Ripper?

[Lewis C]

Butler's girlfriend is a descendant of Charles Lechmere. I hope the rest of the family is more concerned about their fascism than the strange fascination with accusing her ancestor of horrible crimes.

Hi Fiver,

The primary proponent of the idea that H. H. Holmes was the Ripper is a descendant of Holmes. It's funny how some people seem to want their ancestor to be him.

[John Wheat]

There's zero proof Lechmere killed Nichols.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"There's ZERO proof they mentioned that they thought Nichols had been attacked, so my question still stands. WHY did neither of them state that they thought Nichols had been outraged? If someone tells you there's a woman lying dead or drunk, it implies some form of self harm through alcohol or possibly a fall from being drunk."

^^^

I did this to illustrate what happens when primary source information only survives in brief, 3rd-party newspaper reports, which is what we're up against with Nichols' case. Sadly, we aren't dealing with the detailed, verbatim press reports we'd see later, nor - in some instances - inquest records, police reports and witness statements. Even those sources aren't infallible, but we must bear in mind that, with Nichols, the evidence is much less than perfectly preserved.

Exactly Gareth. I’ve made this point quite a few times over the last year or so on various issues. Even a missing word or two could change our perception of what actually occurred or was said at any given instance. So what difference might a missed sentence have made that didn’t appear important to the Press reporter at the time?

[Sam Flynn]

Exactly Fiver


There's ZERO proof they mentioned that they thought Nichols had been attacked/assaulted/outraged.

This explains Mizen's reaction and also why the pair were allowed to go on their way to work.

Combining the terms "dead or drunk" does NOT imply any kind of attack.

And so my question still stands....

WHY did neither Paul or Lechmere specifically state to Mizen that they thought Nichols had been outraged?

That would then signal to Mizen that there was a person unknown who had impacted on the woman's condition via some form of an assault.

Lechmere and Paul both stated publicly that they thought she had been outraged and yet they failed to tell Mizen.

It's no wonder why they were allowed to just go on their way to work.

When Mizen finally arrived and saw PC Neil I wonder if there was a moment when Mizen realised he should have followed it up more hastily.

If someone tells you there's a woman lying dead or drunk, it implies some form of self harm through alcohol or possibly a fall from being drunk, but it does not imply that another person has assaulted the woman.

But of course, it could be claimed that perhaps they did tell Mizen that they thought she had been raped.

But there's no evidence for that and so we can't assume they did just to fit a narrative that tries to exclude Paul and Lechmere as persons of interest.

RD

"There's ZERO proof they mentioned that they thought Nichols had been attacked, so my question still stands. WHY did neither of them state that they thought Nichols had been outraged? If someone tells you there's a woman lying dead or drunk, it implies some form of self harm through alcohol or possibly a fall from being drunk."

^^^

I did this to illustrate what happens when primary source information only survives in brief, 3rd-party newspaper reports, which is what we're up against with Nichols' case. Sadly, we aren't dealing with the detailed, verbatim press reports we'd see later, nor - in some instances - inquest records, police reports and witness statements. Even those sources aren't infallible, but we must bear in mind that, with Nichols, the evidence is much less than perfectly preserved.

[A P Tomlinson]

Oh no... I mean just when you thought Teddy was the gift that kept on giving you get this little bombshell. Dear me... I'm just off to start a story my Grandad actually started WWI and then make a YouTube Channel about it to cash in. Thanks for that Fiver.

I've been working on the "Lechemere family summer trip to Sarajevo in 1914" angle for a while now, (Charlie was still alive and kicking for another six years) trying to sow a seed in their heads so that one of them may eventually run with it.