Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[FrankO]

I assume you mean the escape route one I did,

https://youtu.be/_UMwreAbf10?si=2J9hJLLMSuMWqCE4

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.

Hi Steve,

If we go by the notion that Lechmere disturbed the killer, as you and Richard Jones do in the video, then we’d also go by Lechmere seeing what he first thought to be a tarpaulin, then, on crossing the street, he saw it was the figure of a woman, then heard & saw Paul, waited for him, etc..

That would mean the killer would have had some 5 minutes, at least, before any alarm was raised. After all, the carmen only spoke to Mizen about 4 minutes after Paul ever laid eyes on Nichols. And Neil probably arrived at the crime spot around the same time that the carmen reached Mizen.

So, the question is: how much distance could the killer have covered in those 5 minutes or so? It’s not important that the killer couldn’t have known when an alarm would be raised, it’s important that he got as much distance between himself and Buck’s Row.

Let’s see how various walking speeds would work out.
Walking speed: 3 mph/4.8 kmph à 402 m/439 yards
Walking speed: 3.4 mph/5.5 kmph à 458 m/500 yards
Walking speed: 3.7 mph/6 kmph à 500 m/546 yards
Walking speed: 3.9 mph/6.3 kmph à 525 m/574 yards

Even the slow pace of 3 mph would get him over 400 m away from the crime spot, which would certainly seem more than enough distance to have gotten away.

Furthermore, Ed in his video claims that Neil stated “These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete” and he makes it seem as though ‘these officers’ comprised of all the officers in the area. But, of course, Neil only spoke of Thain and Mizen there.

Of course, these 2 officers may have meant by that: ‘anybody who could have come from Buck’s Row’, but it’s certainly not a given, as Ed seems to suggest.

Anyway, if the killer chose a northern escape route, via Queen Ann Street and Thomas Street, instead of going further west through Hanbury Street, he could easily have chosen Underwood Street, north of Hanbury. Mizen might very well not have seen him, as there’s no way of knowing where he would have been the moment the killer surfaced from the northern arm of Thomas Street onto Baker’s Row. And, if he did see him, there’s no reason to think that Mizen would have thought anything about the man, anything other than: just another man on his way to work/home.

So, that Ed is claiming in his video that Mizen would certainly have ‘blocked’ the killer fleeing, is indeed truly amazing, Steve. I guess he lost sight of the fact that you and Richard were talking about a killer who was disturbed by Lechmere and not about a guilty Lechmere fleeing. The only thing he rightly considered was Mulshaw possibly awake between 3 and 4, although it’s certainly not a given, as he suggests – regardless of whether he was Lechmere or not.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

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?

Hi Roger,

For me, it's got more to do with the attitude of the yaesayers than the theory itself. The theory has some things going for it, but just not enough for me to believe it. Main thing for me, personally, would be that they can certainly come off as arrogant and stubborn, which regularly makes it uninviting to discuss things with them, but, at the same time, sometimes even makes you more eager to repay them in 'kind'.

Of course, I'm only speaking for myself.

Cheers,
Frank

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

If we go by the notion that Lechmere disturbed the killer, as you and Richard Jones do in the video, then we’d also go by Lechmere seeing what he first thought to be a tarpaulin, then, on crossing the street, he saw it was the figure of a woman, then heard & saw Paul, waited for him, etc..

That would mean the killer would have had some 5 minutes, at least, before any alarm was raised. After all, the carmen only spoke to Mizen about 4 minutes after Paul ever laid eyes on Nichols. And Neil probably arrived at the crime spot around the same time that the carmen reached Mizen.

So, the question is: how much distance could the killer have covered in those 5 minutes or so? It’s not important that the killer couldn’t have known when an alarm would be raised, it’s important that he got as much distance between himself and Buck’s Row.

Let’s see how various walking speeds would work out.
Walking speed: 3 mph/4.8 kmph à 402 m/439 yards
Walking speed: 3.4 mph/5.5 kmph à 458 m/500 yards
Walking speed: 3.7 mph/6 kmph à 500 m/546 yards
Walking speed: 3.9 mph/6.3 kmph à 525 m/574 yards

Even the slow pace of 3 mph would get him over 400 m away from the crime spot, which would certainly seem more than enough distance to have gotten away.

Furthermore, Ed in his video claims that Neil stated “These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete” and he makes it seem as though ‘these officers’ comprised of all the officers in the area. But, of course, Neil only spoke of Thain and Mizen there.

Of course, these 2 officers may have meant by that: ‘anybody who could have come from Buck’s Row’, but it’s certainly not a given, as Ed seems to suggest.

Anyway, if the killer chose a northern escape route, via Queen Ann Street and Thomas Street, instead of going further west through Hanbury Street, he could easily have chosen Underwood Street, north of Hanbury. Mizen might very well not have seen him, as there’s no way of knowing where he would have been the moment the killer surfaced from the northern arm of Thomas Street onto Baker’s Row. And, if he did see him, there’s no reason to think that Mizen would have thought anything about the man, anything other than: just another man on his way to work/home.

So, that Ed is claiming in his video that Mizen would certainly have ‘blocked’ the killer fleeing, is indeed truly amazing, Steve. I guess he lost sight of the fact that you and Richard were talking about a killer who was disturbed by Lechmere and not about a guilty Lechmere fleeing. The only thing he rightly considered was Mulshaw possibly awake between 3 and 4, although it’s certainly not a given, as he suggests – regardless of whether he was Lechmere or not.

Cheers,
Frank

A fair summing up.
AS I have said many times, I believe Mulshaw needs to be treated with a great deal of caution.

Steve

[FrankO]

A fair summing up.
AS I have said many times, I believe Mulshaw needs to be treated with a great deal of caution.

Steve

I agree, Steve.

[Paddy Goose]

Do you have any ideas or thoughts about why the Lechmere theory provokes such a strong negative response?

Yes because it has turned Casebook into Lechbook.

And here we all are on the top line discussing Lechmere.

This is how Christer's video happened in the first place. A decade ago the film company asked a poster 'is there a suspect being talked about a lot on Casebook?' The answer was of course "Yes, Lechmere." The answer today would be exactly the same if another film company is interested.

[Fiver]

Furthermore, Ed in his video claims that Neil stated “These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete” and he makes it seem as though ‘these officers’ comprised of all the officers in the area. But, of course, Neil only spoke of Thain and Mizen there.

Exactly. We have no idea if Sergeant Kirby saw anyone "leaving the spot to attract attention:.

We also know that Lechmere and Paul left the spot and attracted PC Mizen's attention. Yet Mizen doesn't seem to have mentioned that to PC Neil. Which makes it quite possible that other men passed Mizen, but he didn't think they were worth mentioning either.

Pc Thain testified that " Shortly before he was called by Constable Neil" he saw "one or two working men going down Brady-Street" "in the direction of Whitechapel-road".

Butler appears to omit that PC Neil also said it would have been quite easy for Nichols' killer to escape undetected - "At that time anyone could have got
away." And that the coroner agreed with PC Neil.

[Lewis C]

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?

HI RJ,

For me, part of it is that I don't think there is any other named suspect for whom there is as much twisting and misinterpreting of as many different facts as there is for those who promote Lechmere as a suspect.

[Geddy2112]

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 still think it's the way it's defended more than the actual theory. Obviously like all theories there are going to be holes. The problem seems with this theory every time it's challenged the goal posts move. I think it's been mentioned it's completely circular in nature.

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.

In my opinion that is good, why? Because Like I said he has to keep it current and the more he posts his videos the more credibility he will lose, same as Christer's posting. In other words they are becoming more and more desperate.

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."

Completely agree and this ties in with the Nicola Bulley and links to JtR video! What!!! Tigers, Bagels and now Nicola Bulley. Like I said getting desperate. Any self respecting 'author' would put a theory out, stand by it and let it be unless there was new evidence to force an update.

I suspect that this is why the Lechmere theory tends to me more repellent to those who have studied the case for a long time than to relative newcomers.

Possible but I still think it's the way it's defended and by whom. Blinkeredness, stubbornness, the 'I'm better than you' viewpoint. (Arrogance.)

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.

This is hard for me to explain in type. For me 'Lechmere' is a real person, mainly by the fact it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt he was in the right place at the right time (or there about.) The other suspects seem 'less real' as they appear as names on a newspaper report, a phantom, only exist in the press, someone else's words etc. That is hard to explain but I hope you get my meaning, Lechmere is credible to some in the sense it's more personal.

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.

...and to many others that is all they got.

[FrankO]

Exactly. We have no idea if Sergeant Kirby saw anyone "leaving the spot to attract attention:.

We also know that Lechmere and Paul left the spot and attracted PC Mizen's attention. Yet Mizen doesn't seem to have mentioned that to PC Neil. Which makes it quite possible that other men passed Mizen, but he didn't think they were worth mentioning either.

Pc Thain testified that " Shortly before he was called by Constable Neil" he saw "one or two working men going down Brady-Street" "in the direction of Whitechapel-road".

Hi Fiver,

It’s quite odd, indeed, to fathom why a killer who was disturbed by Lechmere would have acted in any other way than those working man seen by Thain. As long as no alarm had been raised, there would be no reason for the killer to act suspiciously, odd or in any manner that stood out.
If the killer was disturbed by Lechmere turning into Buck’s Row, then it wouldn’t be so hard to imagine that he would have had, at least, some rough idea of the distance or time there was between him and Lechmere at that point. Neither would it be hard to imagine that he could have figured out that, if Lechmere would raise an alarm, the coppers wouldn’t immediately react on it.
In 1.5 minutes the killer could have been on Whitechapel Road close to Baker’s Row. Or just around the corner in Mount Street, south of Whitechapel Road and directly west of the London Hospital. And as it would have turned out, Lechmere and Paul only raised an alarm some 4.5 minutes after Lechmere arrived at the crime scene. If any police officer would have seen him, they would have seen ‘just another fellow going to work or returning home from work’.

Butler appears to omit that PC Neil also said it would have been quite easy for Nichols' killer to escape undetected - "At that time anyone could have got
away." And that the coroner agreed with PC Neil.

Quite right. Ed seems selective with what he does and doesn’t say to get his view across. Another thing he didn’t say was the last sentence of the snippet in the Echo of 21 September 1888 about the beats of Neil and his colleagues. It reads: “The exterior of the beats are at least a mile in extent, and to this distance must be added the interiors.”

When Ed talks about “The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes” he claims that the exteriors would be Buck’s Row, Brady Street, Whitechapel Road, Baker Street and then back into Buck’s Row again (entering the part that was formerly called White’s Row). He even shows this route on Google Maps, saying that it would take exactly 12 minutes to walk this route. Besides the route it gives the distance of the route as 0.6 miles. The distance of this route measured on an Ordinance Survey map is 830 m/2730 feet. What he also doesn't say, take into account or want to say is that the distance (0.6 miles) walked in 12 minutes would come down to an average walking speed of 3 mph. Even with a stretch of the imagination, that can't be called "quickly walked over". In fact, it's a rather slow walking speed.

The best,
Frank

[Geddy2112]

When Ed talks about “The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes” he claims that the exteriors would be Buck’s Row, Brady Street, Whitechapel Road, Baker Street and then back into Buck’s Row again (entering the part that was formerly called White’s Row). He even shows this route on Google Maps, saying that it would take exactly 12 minutes to walk this route. Besides the route it gives the distance of the route as 0.6 miles. The distance of this route measured on an Ordinance Survey map is 830 m/2730 feet. What he also doesn't say, take into account or want to say is that the distance (0.6 miles) walked in 12 minutes would come down to an average walking speed of 3 mph. Even with a stretch of the imagination, that can't be called "quickly walked over". In fact, it's a rather slow walking speed.

Ah come on now, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good theory...