Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Geddy2112]

Doing a quick check, it appears 7 papers had Paul suggesting they sit Nichols up, while 2 had Cross suggesting they sit her up.

Panic on the streets of London, Whitechapel, Mitre Square and Bethnal Green... hang the carman hang the carman hang the carmen.... HANG THE CARMAN.

Basically we have two main Lechy Lovers, a journalist and a 'politician.' Two of the most truth telling, compassionate, objective professions in history. It all should have stopped at that point.

Evidence of guilt...

1) He might have lied about what time he left home.
2) He might have given a false name at the inquest (this is open to debate on what is meant as false).
3) He refused to move the body, possibly.
4) He went to find a policeman.
5) He stopped Paul for assistance.
6) He murdered a woman on his way to work on a street he walked 6 days a week at the time he would normal do so.
7) He was not covered in blood.
8) He had at least 7 mins to spare after the kill but did not flee.

....the list goes on.

(I'm off to this other forum for a bit to see if I can actually work out her claims that Lechmere and Cross are two different people stack up..)

[FrankO]

The ‘gap’ is an invention that cannot be sustained by evidence and yet it keeps getting repeated as if it’s some kind of proven point against him when it’s nothing of the kind.

Hi Mike & all,

The best the yea-sayers can say is that the timing doesn't exonerate Lechmere and that's it.

The best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Mike & all,

The best the yea-sayers can say is that the timing doesn't exonerate Lechmere and that's it.

The best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Absolutely. He might have had the opportunity just as others might have had.

[Fiver]

Don't forget that multiple newspapers got their info from the same source (e.g. a press agency, if not outright "borrowing" from another press report), so surveys of that nature can often give a very misleading impression.

That is a legitimate concern. Lets look at the actual newspapers.

The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman." - 4 September 1888 Morning Advertiser, 4 September Evening Standard

"The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her." - 4 September Daily News

"The other man at the same time, put his hand on her breast over her heart and remarked, "I think she is breathing, but very little, if she is." He then said, "Sit her up," I replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him."" - 4 September 1888 Echo

"The other man put his head on her heart saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if she is." The man suggested that they should "shift her," meaning to set her upright. Witness answered, "I am not going to touch her." - 8 September 1888 Illustrated Police News

"The other man put his hand on the breast outside the clothes - over her heart - and said, "I think she's breathing, but very little." He suggested they should shift her - set her up against the wall - but witness said, "I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him." - 3 September 1888 Star

"The other man, having put his hand over her heart, said "I think she is breathing." He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so." - 4 September 1888 Times

"The other man put his hand over her heart, and said he fancied she was breathing a little. He then suggested they should sit her up, but witness said he should not touch her." - 3 September 1888 Evening Post

"Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her." - 4 September 1888 Daily Telegraph, 9 September 1888 Lloyds Weekly News

So accounting for duplicates, there are 7 accounts of Robert Paul suggesting they sit the woman up and only 1 where the idea was Lechmere's.

[Fiver]

We also need to go back to the fact that if Cross/Lechmere IS the killer, there are two things he doesn't know in the instant that he sees Paul.
1) That Paul didn't see him at his work, now fears for his own life and won't tell the first copper they come across,
and
2) Whether he has incriminating blood marks on him from the murder.

Paul was obviously afraid at first.

"He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth." - Robert Paul, 2 September 1888 Lloyds Weekly News

At which point I'd expect any murderer smarter than a paving stone to believe Paul had spotted him being all murdery.

It's been said a thousand times before, but helping to move the body would provide him with an easy excuse for the latter, should someone say "Hey... you have a blood stain on your cheek..." Not wanting to move the body does not indicate guilt.

I don't know what the Lechmere prosecution's excuse is for the first issue. (I imagine it will fall into either "He was a criminal genius" or "He was as thick as mince".)

The Cult of Lechmere frequently requires Schroedingers Supect - a criminal genius and stupendously stupid at the same time.

[rjpalmer]

Basically we have two main Lechy Lovers, a journalist and a 'politician.' Two of the most truth telling, compassionate, objective professions in history. It all should have stopped at that point.

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Ed Stow.

It's not difficult to see why he has a loyal following, and he's quite shrewd in the way he goes about things.

Ed is doing something no one else is doing; he's taking his viewers down to ground zero--into the East End itself in a series of well-presented lectures, which are admittedly entertaining.

He doesn't scream or shout and seldom even insists, but quietly and patiently discusses the case against the hapless Cross, always giving a great amount of historical detail, which his audience obviously loves and appreciates. He has slowly built-up an impressively large following.

It's also a relatively easy matter for him to appear to be a voice of reason in a sea of insanity, and thus win the confidence of his viewers, since elsewhere self-proclaimed theorists promote wild solutions or even out and out fantasies and frauds like the Royal Conspiracy or the Maybrick Hoax, while he presents the murderer as a mundane, ordinary working-class stiff who is being overlooked--and it is also a simple matter to point to supposedly modern counterparts like Sutcliffe or Kemper and draw what appears to be a parallel.

Also, having been banned from other major platforms, Ed can naturally and easily assume the role of a maligned thinker who is feared and wronged by a group that is terrified that he has solved a case that they have so singularly failed to do. And it is impossible for his critics to write him off as a mere fraud, for he does his homework, continually refers to contemporary documents and has done considerable original and sophisticated research. His persona is confident and likeable.

Personally, I think his case against Lechmere is a mistaken one, and maybe even a manufactured one, but Ed is relatively young and a man of impressive energy and dedication, and a shrewd marketer of his goods. I don't think either he, or his following, is going away anytime soon.

What I find rather disturbing is the zeal with which his viewers accept this 'evidence' as compelling, particularly since there is every likelihood that many of them will one day serve on an actual criminal jury in which someone's reputation or freedom will stand in the balance. Not a particularly comforting thought.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Ed Stow.

It's not difficult to see why he has a loyal following, and he's quite shrewd in the way he goes about things.

Ed is doing something no one else is doing; he's taking his viewers down to ground zero--into the East End itself in a series of well-presented lectures, which are admittedly entertaining.

He doesn't scream or shout and seldom even insists, but quietly and patiently discusses the case against the hapless Cross, always giving a great amount of historical detail, which his audience obviously loves and appreciates. He has slowly built-up an impressively large following.

It's also a relatively easy matter for him to appear to be a voice of reason in a sea of insanity, and thus win the confidence of his viewers, since elsewhere self-proclaimed theorists promote wild solutions or even out and out fantasies and frauds like the Royal Conspiracy or the Maybrick Hoax, while he presents the murderer as a mundane, ordinary working-class stiff who is being overlooked--and it is also a simple matter to point to supposedly modern counterparts like Sutcliffe or Kemper and draw what appears to be a parallel.

Also, having been banned from other major platforms, Ed can naturally and easily assume the role of a maligned thinker who is feared and wronged by a group that is terrified that he has solved a case that they have so singularly failed to do. And it is impossible for his critics to write him off as a mere fraud, for he does his homework, continually refers to contemporary documents and has done considerable original and sophisticated research. His persona is confident and likeable.

Personally, I think his case against Lechmere is a mistaken one, and maybe even a manufactured one, but Ed is relatively young and a man of impressive energy and dedication, and a shrewd marketer of his goods. I don't think either he, or his following, is going away anytime soon.

What I find rather disturbing is the zeal with which his viewers accept this 'evidence' as compelling, particularly since there is every likelihood that many of them will one day serve on an actual criminal jury in which someone's reputation or freedom will stand in the balance. Not a particularly comforting thought.

Excellent points Roger.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi all


I just wanted to throw a little spanner in the works and ask your learned opinions on the following...


The witness statement that was given by Charlotte Colwell; the 11-year-old Granddaughter of Charles Cross (not THE same Charles Cross/Lechmere) living in Brady Street, in which she stated hearing a woman calling out...

"Murder Murder Police Police Murder!"

And then hearing the woman get closer to her house and the sound of something or someone "scuffling or bumping" against the shutters.

And then listening as the sound of the woman moved passed and towards the direction of Bucks Row.


Do we give any credence to her statement?


Bearing in mind that initial reports stated that Nichols was initially attacked elsewhere, or at least, wasn't murdered where she was found.

This was based partly on bloodied hand prints allegedly found in Brady Street.




The reason I ask is because it is my understanding that Lechmere and Paul both walked down Brady Street.


The issue is that Charlotte's statement places Nichols in the vicinity of north Brady Street at least a few minutes before she was found by Lechmere in Bucks Row.


Now I am not suggesting Lechmere was the killer because I don't believe he was...


However, for the sake of balance in the force; could Lechmere and Paul have worked together?


It's interesting to note that from one of the early newspaper reports on the 2nd September...

Paul said this...



"...I saw a man standing where the woman was."


Lechmere isn't necessarily suspicious to me, but when you add Paul and the statement made by Charlotte Colwell, it just adds a little spice to the mix.


Thoughts?


RD

[Geddy2112]

I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Ed Stow. It's not difficult to see why he has a loyal following, and he's quite shrewd in the way he goes about things….

Apologies, that is not what I was hinting at. I do not underestimate Ed, maybe the contrary. I do not doubt his Historical knowledge of the area per se, but I do question the way he portrays it. I’ve read about his ‘past’ and follow that through to his current ‘preaching.’
Like a great deal of ‘YouTubers’ he has a certain swagger, an ego to feed, the need to be ‘on the telly’ the reluctance to accept ANY outcome rather than his own. Why put his face and flat cap all over his videos, there is no need. In fact it totally detracts from what he is trying to say with his mumblings, stumbling and shifting eyes referring to his prompt sheets.
To admit defeat, like Christer would be a disaster, to lose credibility as a Journo and Politician is damaging. Losing face on YouTube also has financial ramifications. He even lost an argument to me on FB recently and said he did not care as long as I ‘clicked’ to watch the video. It’s ego, it’s vanity. It’s not about fundamentally being correct it’s about the clicks and likes, it's about being seen on the ‘telly.’
His videos are very easy, even for me to dissect and destroy and I’m by far not the best expert of Jack The Ripper. I am however quite logical and open minded. He contradicts himself, follows one narrative and only presents ONE side of the coin. He will never admit defeat, re above. No one dislikes his videos, no one disagrees with him on his videos, unless he has deleted said comments (if possible) but that is the nature of YouTube. You do not argue with the great ‘content providers.’ To disagree with a YouTuber is a sin, send them to the Tower!
Unfortunately YouTube, Facebook, Social Media has given the ‘stupid’ a voice. I do not mean that in the meanest of ways but rather it gives folk a voice who really should not have one, again hard to put that across in type but it breeds 'stupidity,' the sheep following. Why? ‘Oh you know that famous YouTuber, I watch his stuff and agree with it so I’m awesome.’ It allows by some stretch of the realms of intelligence to allow distant people to form somewhat iron clad bonds and by association it allows the clicker to be ‘famous’ as well… look at me I know Edward Stow. It’s akin to the old ‘name dropper’ in the pub everyone referred to as ‘Sleeping Tablet’ back in the day. It allows people to not challenge and believe what is presented when in this case, and a good amount of other YouTube stuff it is factually incorrect or biased. But it’s on the Internet so it must be true!
Read the comments on the House of Lechmere videos, most of a similar nature, ‘nice video Edward,’ ‘great to see another video,’ ‘wow perfect, a new House of Lechmere to watch’ etc. Very little seem to like the actual bear bones of it all and of course those who disagree with Ed simply do not watch his videos, hence no dislikes. Clever system when you think about it. It’s like asking all the shoppers in M&S what their favourite shop is…
So no I do not underestimate Ed Stow, I think he is wrong with Lechmere and wrong to push it so vigorously. Being so blinkered in a ‘case’ that is neigh on impossible to solve is dangerous. Christer has found that out (again won’t admit it) when he said on these very boards ‘Lechmere should be ruled out as a suspect.’ Ed in his latest video about their being a connection to Bagels and Jack the Ripper was maybe how desperate he has become to stroke that ego and get on the ‘telly’ I do not know but even then, the last 3 mins of the 18 mins video that actually mentioned JtR was so full of inaccuracies it was untrue. The likes of Ed and Christer are not interested as such in solving the case, they are about the ego and the money. It’s about selling the books, getting the YouTube revenue in and being so arrogant it matters not who they muddy along the way. The way both of them treat people who basically stand up against them is shocking and as I’ve said elsewhere once the petty insults come in then you know you have lost, and dear me the petty insults have been flying in.

[Geddy2112]

I just wanted to throw a little spanner in the works and ask your learned opinions on the following...
Do we give any credence to her statement?
Bearing in mind that initial reports stated that Nichols was initially attacked elsewhere, or at least, wasn't murdered where she was found. This was based partly on bloodied hand prints allegedly found in Brady Street.

Surely, it’s a rather large spanner? If the young ladies’ account is to believed, then for me it completely throws the possibility of Lechmere being the killer out of the park. It throws away all the ‘timings,’ the ‘gap,’ the ‘why did Paul not see Lechmere at these four points’ etc etc, it completely kills Lechmere as a credible suspect.

[jerryd]

Add this to the mix as well.


Echo
London, U.K.
20 September 1888

A DOCUMENT OF SOME IMPORTANCE.
Inspector Helson, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Chandler are now busy making inquiries regarding a letter received this morning by Mrs. Harderman, proprietor of the cat's-meat business carried on at 29, Hanbury-street. The police themselves naturally decline to give any information whatever respecting this document, which is regarded as of some importance, especially as certain men are alluded to, and the writer, who resides in Mile-end, desires his name to be kept a secret. The letter has more special reference to the crime in Buck's-row, for the writer positively asserts: "The poor woman was made tipsy, then murdered, and carried to the spot where she was found." Our reporter called upon Mrs. Harderman, who assured him that she had received the letter in question. The source from which it came she could not at present state.

[The Rookie Detective]

Surely, it’s a rather large spanner? If the young ladies’ account is to believed, then for me it completely throws the possibility of Lechmere being the killer out of the park. It throws away all the ‘timings,’ the ‘gap,’ the ‘why did Paul not see Lechmere at these four points’ etc etc, it completely kills Lechmere as a credible suspect.

The issue is that the statement made by Charlotte follows the path that Lechmere and Paul would have taken.
It either destroys him as a suspect like you say, or it makes things worse for him depending on how you look at it.

I think the biggest impact it makes is that it questions the police.

Which police officer passed down Brady Street and/or into Bucks Row?

For me, Sergeant Kirby and PC Thain may have some explaining to do IF Charlotte was being truthful and accurate about what she heard.


There has always been a stigma surrounding the potential involvement of the police in the murders; based on the killer's almost superhuman ability to go unseen and unheard, evade capture and escape murder sites with relative ease.

There's just something about the police activity in Bucks Row that just feels a little off to me.

Neil, Thain, Mizen, Kirby etc... Something just doesn't ring true.


There's also another interesting little titbit that I wanted to add...

On the same morning of the murder of Nichols it was reported that shortly after midnight a local couple living yards from Bucks Row had a domestic.

Well, when I say domestic, I mean the husband cut his wife's throat and went out into the street. She was taken to the hospital in a critical condition...

But... This report only appears briefly in the newspaper and as of yet, I have been unable to verify whether this incident actually occurred or whether it was fabricated.

If it is true, then the husband who had just cut his wife's throat and left her for dead, and who then went outside, may or may not have bumped into Nichols.

The other thing of course is that IF the account is true, then there would have already been an increased police presence in and around Bucks Row.

Seeing as the name and fate of the wife is unknown, I am swayed by the idea that it never even happened.


But there's still a chance it did.


But going back to Charlotte; I find it fascinating that her mother's father was called Charles Cross.
I know it has been mentioned multiple times before but I just wanted to re-highlight that ironic coincidence


Lots to ponder


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Add this to the mix as well.


Echo
London, U.K.
20 September 1888

A DOCUMENT OF SOME IMPORTANCE.
Inspector Helson, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Chandler are now busy making inquiries regarding a letter received this morning by Mrs. Harderman, proprietor of the cat's-meat business carried on at 29, Hanbury-street. The police themselves naturally decline to give any information whatever respecting this document, which is regarded as of some importance, especially as certain men are alluded to, and the writer, who resides in Mile-end, desires his name to be kept a secret. The letter has more special reference to the crime in Buck's-row, for the writer positively asserts: "The poor woman was made tipsy, then murdered, and carried to the spot where she was found." Our reporter called upon Mrs. Harderman, who assured him that she had received the letter in question. The source from which it came she could not at present state.

Love this Jerry!

Jerry I just need to say that your mere presence on this thread has already quadrupled my interest.

A big shout out to JerryD in da house!




RD

[rjpalmer]

Apologies, that is not what I was hinting at. I do not underestimate Ed, maybe the contrary. I do not doubt his Historical knowledge of the area per se, but I do question the way he portrays it. I’ve read about his ‘past’ and follow that through to his current ‘preaching.’

Hello Geddy--no need to apologize; I wasn't disputing your opinions or commentary. I rather ineptly used your post as a springboard for my own. I suspect we see things largely the same way.


There's certainly a not-so-thin line between presenting a theory and 'marketing' a theory. We now live in an age when a relatively small group of individuals, given enough time and energy, can promote an idea on multiple platforms, giving it a prominence that it does not truly deserve.

There's an old saying that 'science progresses one funeral at a time.' The same is true of history. A single skilled or clever historian can push his or her idea to the forefront and misdirect attention away from other viewpoints or avenues of investigation, but so often this idea begins and ends with the historian himself (or herself), but once removed from the scene, those ideas wither and die on the vine.

Twenty years ago on this site, much of the talk about the murderer concerned Joe Barnett and George Hutchinson, kept alive by a handful of advocates. One seldom hears these theories nowadays. If I live another twenty years, will the Lechmere theory still be making the rounds? Over-exposure can sometimes be a theory's death knell. It depends on how much scrutiny the theory can tolerate.

[New Ford Shunt]

When I think of the Lechmere theory and its two main proponents, I'm reminded of when my Granddad died and we bought my Nan a budgie to keep her company. She named it Frankie after him. I asked her how did she know it was male and she replied 'Because it's called Frankie'.