Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

    H Herlock,

    I think that the idea behind Cross as a suspect is that the Ripper would have been more likely to kill when it was convenient for him. Rather than make a special trip somewhere just to kill someone, he more likely would have killed when he was going to be in the area anyway for some other reason. But that brings us to Geddy's point. If that's how he operated, then going to Mitre Square, the opposite direction from where he lived, doesn't fit with how he usually did things.
    Hi Lewis,

    I just don’t think that serial killers work on a ‘well, now that I’m here I might as well kill someone’ basis. Those that obsessively propose Cross have a very noted tendency of finding a way of making everything point to guilt and sad to say they are none too fussy how they do it. Manipulation of evidence, editing, omitting, stretching the language to breaking point etc. If an alibi was found for Cross they would call it certain evidence of his guilt.

    Fiver posted: “Dutfield's yard is not on a direct route between lechmere's home and his mother's home.”

    This isn’t Fiver’s Opinion…it’s simply a fact.

    Then we get a Cross supporter, Mark, who posts: “Hilarious,” accompanied by a map which perfectly illustrates that Fiver was right. A line cutting through Berner Street with Dutfield’s Yard being at least 150 yards away.

    You couldn’t make this stuff up.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 03-30-2024, 10:33 PM.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

    Comment


    • #77
      'No, Cross is not a very good suggestion as the Ripper. To begin with, at the inquest Cross stated that he heard the approaching footsteps of Paul from around forty yards away - but still waited for him to come up to the spot where Nichols lay. It was pitch dark - so dark that the two men did not see the blood running from her neck - and there must have been every chance to leave the scene unseen had he been the Ripper.
      Also, if he WAS the Ripper, it would be a very strange thing to go looking for a policeman carrying the knife that killed Nichols on his person - for it was not found at the murder site.
      I think that we can safely write off Cross as a contender.
      Christer wrote this some years before being turned to the dark side. I could add a few things to the above to bolster Christer's point like 'killing on the way to work, 'killing someone on a road he walked six days a week so could easily be identified' etc the list goes on and on. However this one post should have put any reason for Lechmere being JtR to bed before the bandwagon started. However it has snowballed into some form of Cottage Industry. How any man can wrote the above then turn around his reasons for Lechmere NOT to be the killer for Lechmere to ACTUALLY being the killer is preposterous. Yes you can change your mind but you can't change the 'evidence' behind it.
      Is Lechmere JtR just because we are waiting for a better suspect to pop up? Is it just his turn?
      ​​

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

        Christer wrote this some years before being turned to the dark side. I could add a few things to the above to bolster Christer's point like 'killing on the way to work, 'killing someone on a road he walked six days a week so could easily be identified' etc the list goes on and on. However this one post should have put any reason for Lechmere being JtR to bed before the bandwagon started. However it has snowballed into some form of Cottage Industry. How any man can wrote the above then turn around his reasons for Lechmere NOT to be the killer for Lechmere to ACTUALLY being the killer is preposterous. Yes you can change your mind but you can't change the 'evidence' behind it.
        Is Lechmere JtR just because we are waiting for a better suspect to pop up? Is it just his turn?
        ​​
        I think that there might be an element of that Geddy. We keep hearing ‘he was provably there’ repeated like an increasing desperate sounding mantra…people that find bodies always are there but they never turn out to be the killer though so the hunt was on, almost like a game, to find something else. Then two things created him as a suspect. The gap and the name.

        A gap which can only be created by turning three unknowns into knowns - the time that Cross left the house became 3.30 instead of ‘about 3.30.’ The time for the walk became 7 minutes even though we don’t know his actual walking speed. And the time that the body was found, said by Baxter to have been: “…cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m” gets squeezed to something like 3.44 by Christer to widen the imaginary gap when the evidence that Baxter had would have led him to around 3.40.

        And then ‘bingo’ they found that his birth name was Lechmere. Even though he gained no advantage from calling himself Charles Allen Cross (instead of Lechmere) of 22 Doveton Street. Even though it was his stepfather’s name. Even though masses of examples were found of this being done. It’s still proclaimed as a LIE by those proposing him when it’s nothing of the kind.

        Then you get desperate claims like the one on here - that the Stride murder site was on a direct route between his house and his mother’s house - even producing the map showing that it was something like 150 yards away! How desperate would you need to be?

        Its an empty sack.
        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 03-31-2024, 10:10 AM.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

        Comment


        • #79

          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          I think that there might be an element of that Geddy. We keep hearing ‘he was provably there’ repeated like an increasing desperate sounding mantra…people that find bodies always are there but they never turn out to be the killer though so the hunt was on, almost like a game, to find something else. Then two things created him as a suspect. The gap and the name.
          A gap which can only be created by turning three unknowns into knowns - the time that Cross left the house became 3.30 instead of ‘about 3.30.’ The time for the walk became 7 minutes even though we don’t know his actual walking speed. And the time that the body was found, said by Baxter to have been: “…cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m” gets squeezed to something like 3.44 by Christer to widen the imaginary gap when the evidence that Baxter had would have led him to around 3.40.
          Surely the wider gap actually works AGAINST Lechmere being the killer as it gives him more time to escape. On the documentary it's claimed the gap 'is' 9 mins. The medical expert then states 2 mins to do the kill, I personally think the kill could be done in slightly less time but that's irrelevant. So according to the documentary he had 7 mins to spare. In those 7 mins he could have been back home or so far along his route Paul would never have clapped eyes on him but instead he hung around waiting for someone to come along and possibly finger him in a murder. Give over...

          And then ‘bingo’ they found that his birth name was Lechmere. Even though he gained no advantage from calling himself Charles Allen Cross (instead of Lechmere) of 22 Doveton Street. Even though it was his stepfather’s name. Even though masses of examples were found of this being done. It’s still proclaimed as a LIE by those proposing him when it’s nothing of the kind.
          I liken this to the times, as a kid I was caught on the bus without a ticket and used to give my mate's NAME & ADDRESS to avoid the fine. I never give my name, his address or vice versa. The name thing is a complete red herring and for me (and others) would suggest innocence rather than guilt. However we could ask Mr Stow about name changing I guess..

          Then you get desperate claims like the one on here - that the Stride murder site was on a direct route between his house and his mother’s house - even producing the map showing that it was something like 150 yards away! How desperate would you need to be?
          Yes that was rather ironic... he is some evidence to proof I'm correct which turns out to be quite the opposite. I still like the idea he bunked off work to kill in Hanbury Street leaving a cart full of wares unattended for what say 15 mins so he could nip inside and butcher Annie Chapman. Who of course was in the back yard waiting to be killed as to enable Charles to not miss too much work time, very considerate of her... mmmm. As a side would his cart have been horse drawn? I've also just read the Pickford's site that states a relative searched the Pickford's archives and found no mention of Lechmere (probably little truth in this.) Now that would be a nail in the coffin..​

          Comment


          • #80
            Yes, it’s something I mentioned in my original posts. If he’d been in Bucks Row for 4 or 5 or 6 minutes or even longer we would have to ask “what had he been doing and why the hell was he still there?” Are we to believe that he’d been out for ages but hadn’t found a victim until just after 3.30 when he found her elsewhere then took her back to the spot where we would have been expected to have been found at that time 6 days a week? All I can say is…yeah right. Cross supporters can’t respond to these points.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

            Comment


            • #81
              Another problem I have with the time gap argument is that for it to work, we would pretty much have to know what time things happened to the exact minute, and we just don't know that precisely. I have that same problem with attempts to argue that the blood evidence points to Cross' guilt. But in the case of the time gap, it doesn't even appear to be probable that there was a time gap if one considers all the evidence, such as when PC Mizen said that he talked to Cross and Paul, and when another PC said he found the body.

              Comment


              • #82
                And all we have is an estimated time that he left the house, a modern day re-walk of the route when we don’t know how quickly Cross walked then a discovery time that we can only estimate at around 3.40. Certainly Cross could have left the house at 3.30 and got there for 3.37 killed Nichols before Paul arrived at 3.40 but we can’t assume it. So saying ‘there might have been a gap’ gets us nowhere. And in the documentary it was stated as fact in an attempt to fool the public. Robert Paul might have killed Polly and then doubled back so that he could be there when the body was discovered….but it’s unlikely. John Richardson might have killed Annie Chapman in his mum’s backyard…but it’s unlikely. George Morris might have accosted and killed Eddowes in Mitre Square…but it’s unlikely. And of course the suggestion of a 7 minute or so gap begs the question ‘why was he still there?’

                Cross found the body and nothing more Lewis. I’m as close to certain as I can be about anything in this case. I’d love to hear what Scobie would have said without the gap. According to Trevor, who had a phone call with him, he wouldn’t have been impressed. The bandwagon has no wheels.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                Comment


                • #83
                  We have no idea of how intelligent Cross was but I think it’s reasonable to suggest that a serial killer who was never caught would possess at least a level of cunning. Lying would have come easily to him as his whole life would have been a lie. So a guilty Charles Cross had from the Friday morning of the murder to Monday ( 3 days - although he testified on the 4th) to make sure that he wasn’t going to drop himself in it at the inquest. So how difficult would it have been for him to have made himself appear as innocent as possible? Did he need Professor Moriarty-level genius….or simply a brain? After all, it’s something that he naturally would have wanted to do.

                  • He could have firmed up the time that he’d left the house and said “I left at 3.35,” knowing that a walk of around 7 minutes or so would have seen him in Bucks Row at around 3.42.
                  • He could have said that he’d heard Paul walking a distance behind him as he’d entered Bucks Row.
                  • He could have said that as he’d walked along Bucks Row he’d heard someone running away somewhere up ahead. He could even have claimed to have seen a figure but as he hadn’t yet seen the body he couldn’t assume anything.
                  • If he’d wanted to avoid being detained by a Constable he could have said to Robert Paul “we’ll have a better chance of finding a Constable if we split up and go different ways,” allowing him to avoid any Constable that he might have seen.
                  • When Paul said that he thought that she was still breathing why didn’t Cross simply agree. Then they could have both told Mizen that there was a drunk woman in Bucks Row?
                  • He could have not told a pointless lie about there being a PC in Bucks Row? How suspicious would this have appeared if Mizen had got to the body before Neil arrived?​

                  I’m sure that more could be added.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    "Cross supporters can’t respond to these points​"

                    Oh yes they can!

                    Usually with just one word answers or emojis. The other tactics are to flood the thread with over blown posts, misquoting, avoiding the actual issue and eventually becoming abusive.

                    And therein lies the problem with Lechmere's candidacy, deviate from the holy book of Lechmere at your peril.

                    On the plus side there is a lot of background to Lechmere that has been uncovered, which is interesting.
                    Last edited by drstrange169; 03-31-2024, 10:53 PM.
                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      ‘The Evidence Of Innocence… Part I’

                      Originally posted by Stow
                      People claim 1000s walked these streets, which is not true they were deserted this time of night.
                      There is no evidence one way or another to quantify this statement. People might have said 1000s walk those streets however they did not mention which time, lazy journalism to say the least. Giving so called evidence more credence when it’s only half the story. Red flag one burned.

                      Originally posted by Stow
                      …at about 3:30am
                      Lechmere’s 2nd of Sept report states 3:20am. Which is correct. Too unreliable to be stated as fact especially with the famous ‘gap’ is to be discovered.

                      Originally posted by Stow
                      This is not important.
                      Relating to the timings. Really? It seems to form the essence of your case against Lechmere. Red flag two down.

                      Originally posted by Stow
                      Documentaries show short cuts on some issues.
                      Indeed they do as does the one with Christer. Discussed elsewhere. Having it both ways again I see. A common trait for Lechmere lovers...

                      Originally posted by Stow
                      Did Paul see Lechmere as he left home? No.
                      He never said he did or say he didn’t however the timings he claims are ‘about’ so how about are they? If they are ‘about’ it makes it impossible for Paul to have seen Lechmere or worse still, make it impossible to prove if seeing him or not is valuable evidence.

                      Originally posted by Stow
                      Me turning into Buck’s Row now…
                      Yes, in your video you are in broad daylight hence we can see you. Again hardly conclusive proof. Also back to the ‘about’ timings. A second or two in the wrong direction throws this point away as erm… pointless. Did Lechmere and Paul have atomic clock type time pieces to check? Did Paul kill Polly putting him in front of Lechmere at this point making a sighting of Paul seeing Lechmere turn into Buck's Row impossible.
                      Stow walks into Buck’s Row on the video, in the video it is approx 15 seconds for the cameraman to catch up and ‘see’ Stow. What does this tell you? Yes, a full 15 seconds. I’ll not point out the obvious, but it seems another red flag gone.
                      Stow also illustrates the four possible sighting points Paul could have had with Lechmere. Two words in that statement are ‘possible’ and ‘could.’ Remember Stow mentions Lechmere leaving home ‘about’ 3:30am. The ‘about’ in all of this negates the possibility of the four sightings. You can’t have it both ways Mr Stow. The four points also heavily rely on BOTH men telling the truth and being very accurate with their times. Accurate with times and having consistent walking speeds is impossible to prove and certainly should not raise a red flag.
                      Stow has the walking distance from Doveton Street at 7m33s, Christer has it at 7m, Google has it at 9mins. Streets have changed, walking speed is not constant or known, timings are approximations. All add up to shabby evidence, especially when we are needing them to be accurate for the GAP!

                      Originally posted by stow
                      Other witnesses (apart from Paul) are irrelevant.
                      Why is that because they contradict what you are trying to prove?

                      Originally posted by Stow
                      Lechmere does not have an alibi through his own timings
                      Guess what neither does Paul. Possible for Paul to have got there before Lechmere, done the killing, doubled back after seeing Lechmere approach and then confront Lechmere? Sorry I’m not in London at the moment so can’t do a timed experiment to test that theory. Not once did Paul suspect Lechmere in the killing, if he did have any suspicions, he would have mentioned this to Mizen, he did not. Why?

                      Originally posted by Paul, Lloyds 2/9/1888
                      I saw a man standing where the woman was
                      Originally posted by Paul, Testimony Daily News 18/9/1888
                      On passing up Buck’s Row he saw a man in the middle of the road
                      Which is correct? According to Stow it does not matter. However I concede it matters a great deal. At no point did Paul see Lechmere over the body or pulling down the clothes. Lechmere himself never said he was not near, or near enough to pull down the clothes. No evidence to suggest Lechmere was 'at' or 'near' the body.

                      Originally posted by Stow
                      Signs perpetrator had covered up the wounds.
                      Again according to the statements this is simply not true. In fact the statements state the opposite.

                      Originally posted by Stow
                      You don’t have to look any further till that man is cleared
                      In ref to the documentary evidence supplied by the policeman interviewed for the show. What has Stow already said about documentaries? Again Mr Stow are we trying to have our cake and eat it? Back in 1888 they never looked at him again, there is no record of him being interviewed or questioned relating to this murder or any others. So was he ‘cleared’ then?

                      Originally posted by Stow
                      Lechmere walked back towards him (Paul)
                      Did he? We now hear Mr Stow’s account of fight or flight. Mr Stow being of course a qualified psychologist.

                      Originally posted by Sofi Oskarsson et al
                      The results of our review provide support for the startle modulation paradigm as a valuable means for differentiating individuals with psychopathic personality from controls. However, findings from the studies we have reviewed also point to a need to consider heterogeneity among psychopathic individuals, as reduced ASP seems to be associated with particular traits or clusters of traits rather than with psychopathic personality in general. Findings from the present review suggest that two constructs from the triarchic model of psychopathy are relevant in the understanding of a fear deficit, namely boldness and meanness. These traits are related to an under-reactivity of the brain's defensive motivational system as indexed by a reduced ASP in psychopathic individuals. This suggests a need to move toward conceptualizing and assessing psychopathy as a multifaceted rather than unitary construct and continuing to explore ways to identify distinct and meaningful subtypes of psychopathy.
                      - Sofi Oskarsson (School of Psychology, Law and Social Work, Írebro University, Sweden) October 2021.
                      In other words Mr Stow’s account that all Psychopaths (which JtR must have been) exhibit the same flight or flight response is not accurate. This according to Oskarsoon et al is simply not the case. So many other factors need to be considered. Which Stow does not do or has evidence to support.

                      In the video Stow states Lechmere would have mutilated the victim looking West, because of the layout of the School Building blocking the view of oncoming ‘witnesses.’ To a point I agree he might have, however this points to a risk. Yes, another one in the long line of risks for Lechmere to have killed poor Polly where she was found. The ever so slight, sorry massive problem with this is the body is facing the complete opposite direction unless good old Lechy had the neck of an owl. Erm is that another red flag down?

                      Originally posted by Stow
                      Lechmere’s refusal to prop up the body.
                      I’ve already addressed this in a previous post. There are conflicting reports to if Paul or Lechmere refused. Which is it? Red flag down again.

                      Originally posted by Stow
                      Abandoned the body…
                      Did they? Didn’t they both decide to go for help? To me this is not a valid point of guilt, after all they BOTH left the body. Again is Paul the killer and not Lechmere? Remember if Lechmere’s route to work covered some of the murder sites, so did Paul’s. Food for thought, but I’m not sure how long it will take to digest. I’m not sure I’ve the stomach for Part II just yet. It’s a rather tedious watch to be frank and littered with inaccuracies.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                        ‘The Evidence Of Innocence… Part I’

                        Lechmere’s 2nd of Sept report states 3:20am. Which is correct. Too unreliable to be stated as fact especially with the famous ‘gap’ is to be discovered.
                        Almost all press reports have Lechmere stating he left home around 3:30am. The reasonable thing is to go with the majority of accounts, but the Cult of Lechmere repeatedly ignores this.

                        * They ignore that the majority of reports on the time that Lechmere left home so they can add 10 minutes to the supposed time gap or to claim that Lechmere changed his story about when he left home.
                        * They ignore all the accounts of Paul seeing Lechmere in the middle of the road, so they can focus on a single ambiguous account that they can imply had Lechmere hovering over the body.
                        * They ignore that the timings given by PC Neil, PC Thain, and PC Mizen, selectively quote the coroner, and ignore the conclusion of Inspector Abberline to add 5 minutes to the supposed time gap.
                        * They ignore that Robert Paul supported Lechmere and contradicted PC Mizen to try to portray Lechmere as a liar.
                        * They ignore the testimony of Lechmere, Paul, and Mizen to manufacture the falsehood called the Mizen scam.
                        "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


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                          Guess what neither does Paul. Possible for Paul to have got there before Lechmere, done the killing, doubled back after seeing Lechmere approach and then confront Lechmere? Sorry I’m not in London at the moment so can’t do a timed experiment to test that theory. Not once did Paul suspect Lechmere in the killing, if he did have any suspicions, he would have mentioned this to Mizen, he did not. Why?
                          Exactly. The Cult of Lechmere lives by the double standard.

                          Charles Lechmere did not have an alibi for Polly Nichols murder. Neither did Robert Paul. Neither did PC John Neil. Or William Nichols. Or Walter Purkiss. Or Patrick Mulshaw. Or James Green. Or Sergeant Henry Kirby.

                          The only people in the area with a confirmed alibi are the three slaughtermen.

                          There are hundreds of Ripper suspects. Only a handful of them have alibis.

                          Yet the Cult of Lechmere acts as if Lechmere is the only man without an alibi.​

                          And that's hardly the only example of double standards. The Cult of Lechmere notes that he lived and worked in the area, ignoring the hundreds, if not thousands of other people that lived and worked in the area. They insist Lechmere walking on the right side of the street is suspicious, ignoring that Robert Paul and PC Neil also did. They insist Lechmere wearing work clothes to the inquest is suspicious, ignoring all the other witnesses that did so. They make much of Nichols and Chapman being killed on Lechmere's route to work, ignoring that it was also the route of Robert Paul and of dozens, perhaps scores of other people. They also ignore that none of the other victims were killed on Lechmere's route to work. They act as if Lechmere was the only man to use another surname at an inquest, ignoring dozens of other examples, including one witness in the Eddowes inquest.
                          "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


                          • #88
                            I’ve never understood why anyone could possibly think that wearing work clothes to an inquest is suspicious? I just don’t get it.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                              Again according to the statements this is simply not true. In fact the statements state the opposite.
                              This is one of several tenets of the Cult of Lechmere that are provably false.

                              * Nichols' wounds were not covered. The neck wound was never covered. The abdominal wounds were covered by Robert Paul pulling Nichols' dress down.
                              * PC Neil testified that it would have been easy for the killer to escape undetected. The Cult claims it was nigh-impossible.
                              * Lechmere was not a meat cart driver. Pickfords was a general delivery service.
                              * There is no evidence that Lechmere was ever a cats meat man. People that were purchased boiled horsemeat that had already been separated from the hair, hide, hooves, bones, and organs. You'd learn more about anatomy from eating a piece of fried chicken than from being a cats meat man.
                              * The Gouston Street graffito was not on a direct route between Mitre Square and Lechmere's home. Tabram, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were not killed on Lechmere's route to work.
                              "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


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                I’ve never understood why anyone could possibly think that wearing work clothes to an inquest is suspicious? I just don’t get it.
                                Or by giving their legal name, correct work and home address is either...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X