Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Geddy2112]

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?)

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[Fiver]

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.

[FrankO]

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.

[Elamarna]

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

[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...

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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