Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Abby, can you please give me an example of 'decent evidence and hypothesis' of the other C5 murders? I've been asking Christer and Teddy for months and every time I've asked I've been greeted with avoidance or abuse.
Thank you.

hi Geddy
sure. its based on geographical circumstantial evidence of tje other c5, and also tabram, that the tod and location of the victims are near his route to work and about the same time. and that stride is near his moms place. Also of course links the otjers to polly through similarities in sig/ mo.

[kjab3112]

There is also the “I don’t want to get involved” scenario for why the two appeared to play down the situation. A lot of the “evidence” against Lechmere seems to be based on 21st century reassessment of why didn’t he do something. At the time most people (and I suspect in Whitechapel this would be all) did not have a telephone, the police on their beat could not be remotely contacted and were moving at walking pace. Expecting Lechmere and Paul to take out their mobile phone, call 999 and the police to arrive in seconds by car is anachronistic. The only way they could get police help was to find a policeman on the beat and I would theorise that they both knew that Baker’s Row then Hanbury street would offer the best chance of finding one (and potentially they suggested they’d go to Commercial Street police station if unsuccessful). Playing down what they knew or assumed to Mizen is no different to the modern “I was minding my own business when…”

Paul

[The Rookie Detective]

Ok, I accept that is pure unsupported speculation. It completely ignore all the evidence and the testimony , but ok.



I am never failed to be amazed why some think they should have either woken the residents,( what could they do, and they might not answer anyway at that time of the morning) or call out for a police officer when they had no idea where one was.
You go and find one just as happened in Hanbury street.



No they tell him there is a woman laying in Bucks Row , who is either dead or drunk.
What else do you want them to tell him, if their account of event is true?
And of course this is the point, so many seem to want the carmen to lie, not because their is any evidence of such.



The PROBLEM with this and all that you post afterwards is that they DID mention a woman , they mention she is laying in Bucks Row, either DEAD or DRUNK

This right is fairly Basic stuff,

I suggest you reread the testimony RD.

Or have a read of Inside Bucks Row, or Cutting Point

Steve

Precisely Steve

Now it feels like we are getting somewhere.

Of course, I am fully aware of the basic facts of the murder of Nichols and also that they claimed to have mentioned to Pc Mizen there was a woman who was lying dead or drunk in Bucks Row

Apologies for that deception, but it was the only way to prove my point...

They made no mention of their belief of her having been outraged.


That is the fundamental basis and reason why they moved closer to Nichols to check on her in the first place.


Telling Mizen he's wanted in Bucks Row because a woman is lying on the floor dead or drunk, is the reason why Mizen never went immediately to Bucks Row or got the men to accompany him back to the spot.


They never mentioned to the policeman about their subsequent publicly stated belief they thought she had been outraged; because they were eager to avoid and get away from the scene.

Telling a Police Officer a woman is drunk means nothing
Telling a Police Officer a woman is dead is only alarming in the context of her having been attacked or murdered.


What I am trying to say is that neither Paul or Lechmere indicated to Mizen that Nichols had been attacked, assaulted or raped, and therefore Mizen doesn't respond with any degree of urgency because there is no hint of any assault having taken place when they speak to Mizen...

But we know that's not true because they both said later that they thought she had been outraged, ergo, been attacked with a sexual motive.


A woman being found dead or drunk, could come across as dead because she's drunk too much, but it doesn't indicate any kind of attack inflicted by another person.

At the time they approached Mizen they BOTH knew that Nichols had been the victim of an attack.. and so WHY NOT TELL Mizen?



Again, sorry for the deception, but I deliberately wanted someone to publicly correct my obvious error because it proves they never indicated to Mizen that Nichols had been assaulted.


That's the reason why Mizen reaction then makes sense.


But why did the 2 men fail to tell Mizen they thought she had been outraged?


If they had, Mizen would have realized that ANOTHER person had been involved with her death and then likely detained the both of them for questioning or to have brought them back to the scene.

I repeat, both of them were pathetic in their relaying of their message.



A woman being found dead or drunk has zero connection to her having been raped, and that's the reason why they BOTH were allowed to walk on to work after telling Mizen.


RD

[Elamarna]

I believe that initially they were curious, then concerned, but as Paul moved her clothing to cover her dignity, he noticed some blood. It was then at that moment he would have relayed to Lechmere (or vice versa) that she was bleeding from the neck.

It was then they realized she was dead

Ok, I accept that is pure unsupported speculation. It completely ignore all the evidence and the testimony , but ok.

It was then that rather they call out for a policeman, they both made a decision to go together to tell a policeman, because they knew she was already dead and therefore couldn't be helped anyway.

I am never failed to be amazed why some think they should have either woken the residents,( what could they do, and they might not answer anyway at that time of the morning) or call out for a police officer when they had no idea where one was.
You go and find one just as happened in Hanbury street.

they then relay to Mizen a message with no urgency or specific information (They only tell him he's wanted in Bucks Row)

No they tell him there is a woman laying in Bucks Row , who is either dead or drunk.
What else do you want them to tell him, if their account of event is true?
And of course this is the point, so many seem to want the carmen to lie, not because their is any evidence of such.

Why did neither Lechmere OR Paul specifically mention there was a woman they had found in Bucks Row?
They make no mention whatsoever of having found a woman

The PROBLEM with this and all that you post afterwards is that they DID mention a woman , they mention she is laying in Bucks Row, either DEAD or DRUNK

This right is fairly Basic stuff,

I suggest you reread the testimony RD.

Or have a read of Inside Bucks Row, or Cutting Point

Steve

[John Wheat]

This is what I'm totally uneasy about. This bloke no doubt, since he had a large family has living great grandchildren, possibly grandchildren (My nana was alive during the Victorian era.) How do they feel watching a documentary, seeing stuff posted on the internet claiming their Grandfather was a notorious serial killer and not just JtR but ALSO the Torso Killer. I'm not well read enough to know if any of them have come forward to dispute the claims.

I think it's one thing to say some evidence suggests he is JtR (I personally do not see it) but to 'aggressively' condemn the man to the Gallows plus make considerable money from it is another.

Hi Geddy2112

Your absolutely right in what you're saying in this post.

Cheers John

[Geddy2112]

...and yes it includes decent imho evidence and hypothesis of not only the other ripper victims but the torso victims as well.

Thanks Abby, can you please give me an example of 'decent evidence and hypothesis' of the other C5 murders? I've been asking Christer and Teddy for months and every time I've asked I've been greeted with avoidance or abuse.
Thank you.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Frank,

I don't know if this helps (and I think your interpretation of the hem is very likely to be correct) but it's worth bearing in mind that it was very common for 19th Century British journalists to use the word "disarranged clothing" in rape cases. The clothing was 'disarranged' in a way that was suggestive of an assault, often a sexual assault, and I don't think it is coincidental that both Cross and Paul claimed publicly that they thought an 'outrage' had occurred.

Here are three random descriptions of rape cases all from the 1880s, and I could easily find a dozen more. Note that they all refer to the victim's clothing being 'disarranged.' I think the implication was meant to be understood by Victorian readers.

If both Lechmere and Paul both publicly stated they thought Nichol's had been outraged, then they must have had some visual indications to even suspect that.

It would seem evident that their assumption was based on the positioning of her clothing when they first approached her.

So whether they thought she was dead or alive, they at least believed that she had been the victim of a sexually motivated attack.

The irony was of course that there was no evidence of sexual assault or rape.

So when they walk off in the opposite direction to their work and head East to then encounter PC Mizen, why did neither of them tell the officer they had found a woman who they believed had been outraged?

When Paul touches her to move her clothing, it seems to come from the idea of covering her dignity, and as he does so he inadvertently brushes her chest and believes he feels some movement or at least some indication she's alive.

So we have 2 men who stumble on an unresponsive woman, who may still be alive, and who they both believe had been outraged.

We know that Nichol's had been drinking earlier as she was seen in a drunken state as she headed East towards her eventual demise in Bucks Row.

We can therefore almost certainly add that at least one of the 2 men thought she may have been drunk; because it would be almost certain they would have smelt the alcohol as they got close to her to move her clothing.

So we have 2 men who find an unresponsive drunken woman who looks like they've been raped.

We also have the attire that Nichol's was wearing.

Would it have been evident to either of the men to realize she was an Unfortunate?

I would imagine it would have been fairly apparent that Nichol's was of the "Unfortunate" class of women


So we have an unresponsive drunk prostitute who looks like they've been raped.


Now rather than focus on the fact she was unresponsive, they focus on the belief she has been sexually assaulted or raped. This is evidenced by the fact that took the time to get close to her and attempt to rearrange her clothing. Otherwise, they would have just walked on without any intervention.

Their choice to move within close proximity to Nichols proves that in the first instance they had at least believed she had been attacked and was in need of help.

The question is that we will never know is...

Did either of them realize she had been murdered?

Neither of them claim to have seen any wounds.

If we take that at face value, we are left with 2 men who realize a woman is unresponsive on the floor and has likely been attacked by someone with a sexual motive.


But...i don't buy it.


I believe that initially they were curious, then concerned, but as Paul moved her clothing to cover her dignity, he noticed some blood. It was then at that moment he would have relayed to Lechmere (or vice versa) that she was bleeding from the neck.

It was then they realized she was dead

It was then that rather they call out for a policeman, they both made a decision to go together to tell a policeman, because they knew she was already dead and therefore couldn't be helped anyway.

they then relay to Mizen a message with no urgency or specific information (They only tell him he's wanted in Bucks Row)

But...

Why did neither Lechmere OR Paul specifically mention there was a woman they had found in Bucks Row?

They make no mention whatsoever of having found a woman


Why?


Just imagine if you will that you are Paul and you encounter a man who draws your attention to a woman lying on the floor. She's unresponsive, smells of alcohol, but crucially she looks like she has been raped. You then check her briefly and possibly discover some signs of life after you inadvertently brush her torso as you kindly replace her disarranged clothing. But despite that brief sign of life; she remains unresponsive. Maybe she's just drunk and sleeping it off?...oh hold on, she looked like she had been raped...that's why you got close and kindly rearranged her clothing in the first place.

What do you do next?

Imagine that you don't call for help and instead decide to walk with the other man to go find a policeman.

Thankfully you run into a PC Mizen.

At last, you can tell a policeman, who can quickly attend to that unresponsive woman lying in the street, who looked like she had been raped.


Wait for it...


"Officer!"


Wait for it...


Mizen - "Yes?"


Wait for it...


"You're wanted in Bucks Row"


No mention of the woman, from either you or the man you found standing in the road.


Why not?!



What a pathetic pair they were.




RD

[Geddy2112]

I'm not going to argue about your point about fibs. It does seem there is a quest by some to fit Lechmere up too.

This is what I'm totally uneasy about. This bloke no doubt, since he had a large family has living great grandchildren, possibly grandchildren (My nana was alive during the Victorian era.) How do they feel watching a documentary, seeing stuff posted on the internet claiming their Grandfather was a notorious serial killer and not just JtR but ALSO the Torso Killer. I'm not well read enough to know if any of them have come forward to dispute the claims.

I think it's one thing to say some evidence suggests he is JtR (I personally do not see it) but to 'aggressively' condemn the man to the Gallows plus make considerable money from it is another.

[Geddy2112]

I don't know if this helps (and I think your interpretation of the hem is very likely to be correct) but it's worth bearing in mind that it was very common for 19th Century British journalists to use the word "disarranged clothing" in rape cases. The clothing was 'disarranged' in a way that was suggestive of an assault, often a sexual assault, and I don't think it is coincidental that both Cross and Paul claimed publicly that they thought an 'outrage' had occurred.

Totally agree, language has changed somewhat in 140 years. Look at some of the rubbish that gets passed as English nowadays or how the young uns’ communicate with their abbreviations and the like.
I always find it funny, now this is going to be difficult to explain in type. How people are portrayed to have spoken in Victorian times. I like the bit in the Jack The Ripper 1988 production ‘I washed away the blood… best I could… but I never had a brrrrush.’ Victorian lower classes are seemed to be portrayed as speaking in somewhat broken English with lots of short bursts or statements to make a sentence. Like I said hard to explain but if you watch the videos, you will spot it.

The other ‘language’ thing that keeps getting mentioned in relation to Cross is of course the ‘needed’ or ‘wanted’ statement and how they could be interpreted as meaning two completely different things and then on the flip side meaning the same thing. Should we throw ‘required’ into the hat as well. It is extremely difficult without intonation from the written word to 100% accurately assume it’s meaning in some cases. The needed or wanted example being the case in point. For me personally, saying wanted or needed means the same thing and does not imply a third party let alone a policeman. Maybe that is just me though. Language moves on…

Interesting I can see Penshaw Monument out my window now… I wonder where the ‘disarranging’ went on… mmm

[John Wheat]

hi geddy
one. fish has been given more, or at least the same , as he has given in terms of bias, rudeness and personal attacks.

two. imho and a growing number of others, including respected researchers, there are a lot of similarities between the two series and that they could have been done by the same hand.

three. the book contains much circumstantial evidence that the ripper and torsoman were the same and that it was lech. it also contains a rather fascinating theory of what was the inspiration of the killers work. and yes it includes decent imho evidence and hypothesis of not only the other ripper victims but the torso victims as well.

it is a short and very concise book on fishs theory and imho a cracking good read. i enjoyed it and personally recommend it.

full disclaimer: i am NOT a lechmerian, more of a lech apologist lol. comparitively speaking hes not that bad of a suspect imho (but i put a handfull of other suspects ahead of him).

Hi Abby

I just don't get this attitude. How can a clearly innocent man be not a bad suspect?

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

I'm more concerned buying a book that is full of erm.. 'fibs' to fit a man up. I mean the documentary having Lechy Baby basically mounting poor Polly was shocking bias/untruth when all the statements clearly state 'middle of the road.'

I think I'll take the plunge though, thanks all for the advice.

Hi Geddy2112

I'm not going to argue about your point about fibs. It does seem there is a quest by some to fit Lechmere up too.

Cheers John

[Geddy2112]

Why buy a book that is totally bias?

I'm more concerned buying a book that is full of erm.. 'fibs' to fit a man up. I mean the documentary having Lechy Baby basically mounting poor Polly was shocking bias/untruth when all the statements clearly state 'middle of the road.'

I think I'll take the plunge though, thanks all for the advice.

[rjpalmer]

I have no doubt the clothes were disarranged, as also Neil described them as such. However, disarranged might also just mean ‘dislocated’, plus it doesn’t mean the hem had to be in a particular place, i.e. it could be anywhere.

Hi Frank,

I don't know if this helps (and I think your interpretation of the hem is very likely to be correct) but it's worth bearing in mind that it was very common for 19th Century British journalists to use the word "disarranged clothing" in rape cases. The clothing was 'disarranged' in a way that was suggestive of an assault, often a sexual assault, and I don't think it is coincidental that both Cross and Paul claimed publicly that they thought an 'outrage' had occurred.

Here are three random descriptions of rape cases all from the 1880s, and I could easily find a dozen more. Note that they all refer to the victim's clothing being 'disarranged.' I think the implication was meant to be understood by Victorian readers.

[John Wheat]

I would recommend getting Cutting Point. Debating with Christer involves a lot of convolution. With his book you get pure Christer, agree or disagree with him, it is important to understand his view point free from distraction.

Why buy a book that is totally bias?

[drstrange169]

I would recommend getting Cutting Point. Debating with Christer involves a lot of convolution. With his book you get pure Christer, agree or disagree with him, it is important to understand his view point free from distraction.