Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
    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’.


    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
    Just realised I haven't include the at least a mile sentence in the book.

    Slight rewrite for update next month

    Steve

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

      Just realised I haven't include the at least a mile sentence in the book.

      Slight rewrite for update next month

      Steve
      Glad to have reminded you of it, Steve.
      "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
      Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
        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?
        i think it is a combination of things.

        * Lechmere has no known criminal history and all of his known actions appear to be innocent. Much of crime fiction is based around the innocent man unjustly accused, so many people's sympathy is for the accused.
        * Lechmere was working class. That makes him more of an everyman than more prosperous suspects, and many people root for the everyman.
        * Lechmere cannot speak for himself. Even suspended or banned members of the forums can accuse him in other locations.
        * One of Lechmere's own descendants accuses him. Which can feel like Lechmere was betrayed and can make him more sympathetic than other suspects.
        * A couple of the most well known Lechmerians are fascists. Their vile ideology has no bearing on the validity of their suspect theory, but it colors how willing people are to listen to anything they have to say.
        * The most vocal Lechmerians are trying to profit from their theory. That automatically makes them less sympathetic to many people.
        * The Lechmerians trying to profit from their accusations have actively taken to Ripper forums, pushing their theories. I'm not aware of anyone profiting from suspect videos or books about other suspects who has been aggressively promoting trying to promote their views on Ripper forums.
        * The Lechmere theory, like any theory, raises questions about weaknesses in the theory. The most vocal Lechmerians repeatedly ignore these questions.
        * Some posts about Charles Lechmere's mother assume the worst, often while glossing over the father's flaws. This double standard comes across a misogynistic, which raises sympathy for Mrs Cross, and by extension, her son.
        * Behavior of the most vocal Lechemerians in online forums. Over at JTR forums, the two most vocal people profiting from accusing Lechmere are both banned.
        * The "documentary" presents speculation, and in some cases provable falsehoods, as fact.
        "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

        "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

          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 three things. Firstly, the level of confidence shown is so disproportionate to the evidence. Some treat it as a given that Cross must have been guilty; as if it’s an obvious fact. Then it’s the levels that they will go to in defending the case and why they should feel compelled to do it? The obviously deliberate omitting of the word ‘about’ to create a gap. The attempt to move the discovery time to as close to 3.45 as possible. The suggestion that Cross covered the wounds when we know that her skirts were raised. The suggestion that Cross refused to prop up the body but newspapers also mention Paul refusing. The repeated attempts to make the ‘name thing’ an indicator of guilt despite Cross gaining no advantage and despite the evidence that has been found to show that it was commonplace. Then there’s Christer’s constant use of ‘phantom killer’ to belittle the suggestion of the real killer fleeing before Cross there. It’s basically a propaganda campaign.

          Finally, perhaps there’s an element of Social Media vs Ripperology to it these days? Some, like myself, don’t do social media, but some Ripperologists do and of course we have Cross supporters posting on here but I think that there is possibly a new wave who are social media only and that they have caught on to the ‘Rubenhold plan’ which was to begin a ‘campaign’ by maligning the enemy. Characterise them as misogynistic, sexist, stuck-in-the-past older men who don’t think that anyone else should have an opinion. None of which is the case of course but it can be an effective tactic in shaping opinion. It then becomes ‘the establishment with all its faults’ versus the new ‘good guys.’ They care about the victims and we don’t. They are ‘open-minded’ and we aren’t. We have a ‘hobby’ that we don’t want to end whereas they don’t and are impartial. And I’ve no doubt that Christer and Edward are now almost at martyr status…kicked out by the two ‘establishment’ forums in our attempt to silence the truth.

          So maybe that Cross has now become the first social media suspect is something to do with the level of irritation (for want of a more subtle word perhaps?) Have ripperology and Social Media become like two opposing sets of football fans? Kept apart by a divide?
          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 04-23-2024, 09:44 AM.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            Have Ripperology and Social Media become like two opposing sets of football fans? Kept apart by a divide?
            'In my sincere opinion football violence will never end as long as they are shitting in our shoes and we are pissing in their Bovril.' - Billy Connelly.

            You are indeed correct Herlock. It's the first 'battle' fought on a new terrace. It still will have it's time, it's just it's time keeps getting strung out by tenuous HOL videos. Ed is obviously making a few quid from them so he's going to keep it going. The old 'Politician' in him and his views on that, that I'm told should be separate but they are not as they bleed together so well, 'force' him to keep putting out.
            I'm sorry if I were a genuine 'YouTuber' I would not want likes from the sheep. I'd want them from educated individuals who are going to challenge me viewpoint, point out my errors so in turn I can learn. Unfortunately he takes it from his political approach.. 'I'm right **** everyone else.' Ego and arrogance.

            (Do you think I've done enough to get a disparaging mention on the next HOL yet?)

            Comment


            • The YouTube and other social media algorithms are designed to give only one side of an argument, hence the sheep. The attacks on the BBC, Steve Blomer and Richard Jones were completely unjustified and way beyond counterargument (Steve and Richard had opened by covering the easily discounted routes and even says these are unlikely, but HoL mocks this as promoting these suggestions!)

              I am reminded of the old devil’s advocate position where a prospective saint would have somebody argue why they weren’t. HoL though ignores any counterpoint by just saying that has to be wrong because he gave the wrong name and lived in Whitechapel.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                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 used to agree that south to Whitechapel Road was the only route to make sense, but having modelled the likely lighting north along Queen Anne’s street would seem the most sensible route from the Board School, if and only if, you knew how to get out the other end. This was due to the probable lights at the ends of Court and Woods buildings, compared to the darkness around the board school itself. I’m also slightly confused as to why the murder didn’t take place in Nelson’s court as that seems the darkest location in the vicinity.

                Paul

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                  You are indeed correct Herlock. It's the first 'battle' fought on a new terrace.
                  I have a different "take" than you blokes. Even if the Lechmere theory was presented by two kindly, charming nuns sitting in their nunnery, and showing a talent for flattery and humor, it would still receive fierce resistant.

                  What differentiates the Lechmere theory is that the 'evidence' (such as it is) is more tangible. Ed and Christer claim Lechmere has a legal case to answer, and they spell it out, complete with street names, stop watches, and behavior or alleged behavior at the crime scene and a geographical argument.

                  This is rare---almost unique--because they are accusing someone who was at a crime scene and who gave a deposition.

                  Most people like that kind of thing. It makes them feel like there is an actual criminal case or a court room drama to analyze.

                  As such, the critics are more inclined to play along, weighing the evidence and attacking it if they feel justified.

                  Cases against other suspects (such as David Cohen) are more abstract. One can barely kick the tires. Ultimately, one might decide Cohen is a far more compelling suspect than Lechmere, but there's no way to really approach him. There's just question marks. The whole case is based on an appeal to authority (Sir Robert Anderson) and a psychological profile (basically the one given by John Douglas). There is really no 'evidence' to mull over and debate. You either accept it or you don't.

                  Either by design or by accident, Ed and Christer have developed a theory that encourages people to debate about it.

                  Personally, I don't think their evidence is evidence, but it is presented as such and that's good enough to keep the ball rolling.


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                    I have a different "take" than you blokes. Even if the Lechmere theory was presented by two kindly, charming nuns sitting in their nunnery, and showing a talent for flattery and humor, it would still receive fierce resistant.

                    What differentiates the Lechmere theory is that the 'evidence' (such as it is) is more tangible. Ed and Christer claim Lechmere has a legal case to answer, and they spell it out, complete with street names, stop watches, and behavior or alleged behavior at the crime scene and a geographical argument.

                    This is rare---almost unique--because they are accusing someone who was at a crime scene and who gave a deposition.

                    Most people like that kind of thing. It makes them feel like there is an actual criminal case or a court room drama to analyze.

                    As such, the critics are more inclined to play along, weighing the evidence and attacking it if they feel justified.

                    Cases against other suspects (such as David Cohen) are more abstract. One can barely kick the tires. Ultimately, one might decide Cohen is a far more compelling suspect than Lechmere, but there's no way to really approach him. There's just question marks. The whole case is based on an appeal to authority (Sir Robert Anderson) and a psychological profile (basically the one given by John Douglas). There is really no 'evidence' to mull over and debate. You either accept it or you don't.

                    Either by design or by accident, Ed and Christer have developed a theory that encourages people to debate about it.

                    Personally, I don't think their evidence is evidence, but it is presented as such and that's good enough to keep the ball rolling.

                    I think that you’ve hit the nail on the head Roger as to why the theory has gained traction. It’s got that ‘after all these years and all of these largely hopeless suspects you so-called experts have missed a guy that was actually there and could have done it’ factor. It’s why the ‘he was there’ has become almost a mantra. We can dissect events in Bucks Row as we can’t for Bury in Mitre Square or Kosminski in Bucks Row or Druitt in Dorset Street so it’s tangible. It doesn’t need Freemasons or the Royal Family or famous faces because it has a nondescript local man who is most people’s idea of the killer (which he may well have been of course)

                    And of course we have two ‘salesman’ and a TV channel where they don’t have to listen to Ripperologists picking holes in their non-existent case.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                    “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                      I have a different "take" than you blokes. Even if the Lechmere theory was presented by two kindly, charming nuns sitting in their nunnery, and showing a talent for flattery and humour, it would still receive fierce resistant.
                      I actually asked Christer basically the same point. If Adolf or the most recent Nobel Peace prize winner presented theories who would you believe. Answer the one who put the best case forward. I'm not so sure. How often have we heard, oh she's a prostitute, would make a terrible witness. He's a smack head we are not using him etc etc. I do honestly think the personalities are part of the issue. Or at least how they twist, dodge or evade issues about the theory when put to them.

                      Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                      What differentiates the Lechmere theory is that the 'evidence' (such as it is) is more tangible. Ed and Christer claim Lechmere has a legal case to answer, and they spell it out, complete with street names, stop watches, and behaviour or alleged behaviour at the crime scene and a geographical argument.
                      This is rare---almost unique--because they are accusing someone who was at a crime scene and who gave a deposition. Most people like that kind of thing. It makes them feel like there is an actual criminal case or a court room drama to analyse.
                      As such, the critics are more inclined to play along, weighing the evidence and attacking it if they feel justified.
                      Absolutely agree this is a factor. Here are two recent pictures from FaceTube... one is the one I did the other is from Dusty...

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	437516466_10161897702144769_1186923057517239001_n.jpg
Views:	214
Size:	145.1 KB
ID:	833427 Click image for larger version

Name:	438918836_10226329939983346_9053036389582985239_n.jpg
Views:	192
Size:	132.9 KB
ID:	833428

                      Both depicting the same series of events. Obviously one is from the Missing Evidence Documentary which shows a completely inaccurate biased representation to what happened. If the documentary had shown the DM version would all the YouTube comments be congratulating them to say 'you're cracked it.' I know why it was done. After all the documentary was aimed at showing Lechmere was guilty but why would CH and Ed want to put their names to this and they do, and quite happily as well. Surely if you put your name to something that is a complete fabrication then it should follow your credibility suffers. Maybe that is why they act the way they do to preserve credibility.

                      Like I said the more they defend it and put out more ludicrous HOL videos the more they keep it in the public eye. It's relevant, even if it's for the wrong reasons. To horribly link to a HOL video which mentioned the Nicola Bulley. Her case was plastered across the news for weeks. Totally unprecedented in modern times. Things move quick nowadays, the X-Box generation want it now now now and faster and faster. You have to keep up or you lose out. I think that is what is at play here, the Lechmere supporters are trying to keep it current no matter what it takes, whether that be new HOL, arguing on FB (only place they have at the moment) or by whatever other means.

                      Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                      Cases against other suspects (such as David Cohen) are more abstract. One can barely kick the tires. Ultimately, one might decide Cohen is a far more compelling suspect than Lechmere, but there's no way to really approach him. There's just question marks. The whole case is based on an appeal to authority (Sir Robert Anderson) and a psychological profile (basically the one given by John Douglas). There is really no 'evidence' to mull over and debate. You either accept it or you don't.

                      Either by design or by accident, Ed and Christer have developed a theory that encourages people to debate about it.

                      Personally, I don't think their evidence is evidence, but it is presented as such and that's good enough to keep the ball rolling.
                      I agree again. Lechmere has a something about it. It's the bloke who found the first body, yes I chuffing said it. He was there, it can be proven. He walked the streets during the early hours, he possibly had opportunity. He lived in the area. He changed his name at the inquest. He ticks a lot of boxes of course he does, however so do many many others and the Lechmere theory also has a great deal of problems to sort out before I'm convinced.
                      Like I said, if watching the documentary is their shot at the title it's a round one defeat. Like I posted I found approx 30 issues in a 48 min programme and I am by far and away NOT an expert Ripperoligist. I'm sure someone in higher esteem would find more.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                        Click image for larger version

Name:	437516466_10161897702144769_1186923057517239001_n.jpg
Views:	214
Size:	145.1 KB
ID:	833427 Click image for larger version

Name:	438918836_10226329939983346_9053036389582985239_n.jpg
Views:	192
Size:	132.9 KB
ID:	833428
                        Hi Geddy,

                        Is there a thread where Dusty posted this image and perhaps others? If so, could you point me to it?

                        Cheers,
                        Frank
                        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                          Is there a thread where Dusty posted this image and perhaps others? If so, could you point me to it?
                          Dusty posted it on Facebook with a long critique of Christer's recent post about 'found the body' and 'found by the body.' I'm not sure if it's Dusty's work or borrowed from elsewhere, sorry.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                            Dusty posted it on Facebook with a long critique of Christer's recent post about 'found the body' and 'found by the body.' I'm not sure if it's Dusty's work or borrowed from elsewhere, sorry.
                            Thanks Geddy.

                            "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                            Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                            Comment


                            • Hello Fiver,

                              Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                              ... Over at JTR forums, the two most vocal people profiting from accusing Lechmere are both banned.
                              Is Lechmere discussed at JTR Forums?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post
                                Hello Fiver,



                                Is Lechmere discussed at JTR Forums?
                                I can of course give you the latest info on that.
                                We have not had a Lechmere post is sometime.
                                Today we have a number of threads, including one on his new book on Hardiman by Andrew Wise.

                                Steve

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X