Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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?

[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.