Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Fiver]

This is what I'm totally uneasy about. This bloke no doubt, since he had a large family has living great grandchildren, possibly grandchildren (My nana was alive during the Victorian era.) How do they feel watching a documentary, seeing stuff posted on the internet claiming their Grandfather was a notorious serial killer and not just JtR but ALSO the Torso Killer. I'm not well read enough to know if any of them have come forward to dispute the claims.

Butler's girlfriend is a descendant of Charles Lechmere. I hope the rest of the family is more concerned about their fascism than the strange fascination with accusing her ancestor of horrible crimes.

[Geddy2112]

Butler's girlfriend is a descendant of Charles Lechmere. I hope the rest of the family is more concerned about their fascism than the strange fascination with accusing her ancestor of horrible crimes.

Oh no... I mean just when you thought Teddy was the gift that kept on giving you get this little bombshell. Dear me... I'm just off to start a story my Grandad actually started WWI and then make a YouTube Channel about it to cash in. Thanks for that Fiver.

[Elamarna]

Oh no... I mean just when you thought Teddy was the gift that kept on giving you get this little bombshell. Dear me... I'm just off to start a story my Grandad actually started WWI and then make a YouTube Channel about it to cash in. Thanks for that Fiver.

Just for info, the individual concerned, the descendent of Lechmere, once turned up at a East End Conference, in a T-shirt that bore the word " its Lechmere what did it" or similar, tge exact wording eludes me at present.

S

[John Wheat]

Just for info, the individual concerned, the descendent of Lechmere, once turned up at a East End Conference, in a T-shirt that bore the word " its Lechmere what did it" or similar, tge exact wording eludes me at present.

S

Surely a misprint

[The Rookie Detective]

That's not an accurate summary of anyone's version of the conversation.

The Mizen version would be roughly.
Carman Cross: "You're wanted round in Buck's-row."
PC Mizen: What is the matter?
Carman Cross: "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there."

Then there's the Lechmere/Paul version.
Carman Cross: "There is a woman in Buck's-row in the road lying on the broad of her back. She looks to me either dead or drunk."
Carman Paul:" I believe she is dead."
PC Mizen: "All right."

Exactly Fiver


There's ZERO proof they mentioned that they thought Nichols had been attacked/assaulted/outraged.

This explains Mizen's reaction and also why the pair were allowed to go on their way to work.

Combining the terms "dead or drunk" does NOT imply any kind of attack.

And so my question still stands....

WHY did neither Paul or Lechmere specifically state to Mizen that they thought Nichols had been outraged?

That would then signal to Mizen that there was a person unknown who had impacted on the woman's condition via some form of an assault.

Lechmere and Paul both stated publicly that they thought she had been outraged and yet they failed to tell Mizen.

It's no wonder why they were allowed to just go on their way to work.

When Mizen finally arrived and saw PC Neil I wonder if there was a moment when Mizen realised he should have followed it up more hastily.

If someone tells you there's a woman lying dead or drunk, it implies some form of self harm through alcohol or possibly a fall from being drunk, but it does not imply that another person has assaulted the woman.

But of course, it could be claimed that perhaps they did tell Mizen that they thought she had been raped.

But there's no evidence for that and so we can't assume they did just to fit a narrative that tries to exclude Paul and Lechmere as persons of interest.

RD

[A P Tomlinson]

Oh no... I mean just when you thought Teddy was the gift that kept on giving you get this little bombshell. Dear me... I'm just off to start a story my Grandad actually started WWI and then make a YouTube Channel about it to cash in. Thanks for that Fiver.

I've been working on the "Lechemere family summer trip to Sarajevo in 1914" angle for a while now, (Charlie was still alive and kicking for another six years) trying to sow a seed in their heads so that one of them may eventually run with it.

[Sam Flynn]

Exactly Fiver


There's ZERO proof they mentioned that they thought Nichols had been attacked/assaulted/outraged.

This explains Mizen's reaction and also why the pair were allowed to go on their way to work.

Combining the terms "dead or drunk" does NOT imply any kind of attack.

And so my question still stands....

WHY did neither Paul or Lechmere specifically state to Mizen that they thought Nichols had been outraged?

That would then signal to Mizen that there was a person unknown who had impacted on the woman's condition via some form of an assault.

Lechmere and Paul both stated publicly that they thought she had been outraged and yet they failed to tell Mizen.

It's no wonder why they were allowed to just go on their way to work.

When Mizen finally arrived and saw PC Neil I wonder if there was a moment when Mizen realised he should have followed it up more hastily.

If someone tells you there's a woman lying dead or drunk, it implies some form of self harm through alcohol or possibly a fall from being drunk, but it does not imply that another person has assaulted the woman.

But of course, it could be claimed that perhaps they did tell Mizen that they thought she had been raped.

But there's no evidence for that and so we can't assume they did just to fit a narrative that tries to exclude Paul and Lechmere as persons of interest.

RD

"There's ZERO proof they mentioned that they thought Nichols had been attacked, so my question still stands. WHY did neither of them state that they thought Nichols had been outraged? If someone tells you there's a woman lying dead or drunk, it implies some form of self harm through alcohol or possibly a fall from being drunk."

^^^

I did this to illustrate what happens when primary source information only survives in brief, 3rd-party newspaper reports, which is what we're up against with Nichols' case. Sadly, we aren't dealing with the detailed, verbatim press reports we'd see later, nor - in some instances - inquest records, police reports and witness statements. Even those sources aren't infallible, but we must bear in mind that, with Nichols, the evidence is much less than perfectly preserved.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"There's ZERO proof they mentioned that they thought Nichols had been attacked, so my question still stands. WHY did neither of them state that they thought Nichols had been outraged? If someone tells you there's a woman lying dead or drunk, it implies some form of self harm through alcohol or possibly a fall from being drunk."

^^^

I did this to illustrate what happens when primary source information only survives in brief, 3rd-party newspaper reports, which is what we're up against with Nichols' case. Sadly, we aren't dealing with the detailed, verbatim press reports we'd see later, nor - in some instances - inquest records, police reports and witness statements. Even those sources aren't infallible, but we must bear in mind that, with Nichols, the evidence is much less than perfectly preserved.

Exactly Gareth. I’ve made this point quite a few times over the last year or so on various issues. Even a missing word or two could change our perception of what actually occurred or was said at any given instance. So what difference might a missed sentence have made that didn’t appear important to the Press reporter at the time?

[John Wheat]

There's zero proof Lechmere killed Nichols.

[Lewis C]

Butler's girlfriend is a descendant of Charles Lechmere. I hope the rest of the family is more concerned about their fascism than the strange fascination with accusing her ancestor of horrible crimes.

Hi Fiver,

The primary proponent of the idea that H. H. Holmes was the Ripper is a descendant of Holmes. It's funny how some people seem to want their ancestor to be him.

[John Wheat]

Hi Fiver,

The primary proponent of the idea that H. H. Holmes was the Ripper is a descendant of Holmes. It's funny how some people seem to want their ancestor to be him.

I wonder if Christer is a distant relative of Lechmere because he so wants him to be the Ripper?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fiver,

The primary proponent of the idea that H. H. Holmes was the Ripper is a descendant of Holmes. It's funny how some people seem to want their ancestor to be him.

Indeed. It's as if they want to bask in their ancestors' notoriety.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder if Christer is a distant relative of Lechmere because he so wants him to be the Ripper?

Isn’t Ed Stow’s wife related to the family? Or did I imagine it?

[John Wheat]

Isn’t Ed Stow’s wife related to the family? Or did I imagine it?

I believe his girlfriend is a distant relative.

[Fiver]

Indeed. It's as if they want to bask in their ancestors' notoriety.

Fictional serial killers are bold, clever, witty, powerful, dangerous, and in control - all the things fascists like to pretend they are. So it doesn't surprise me that a fascist would take pleasure in his girlfriend being related to a serial killer.