Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here are two more that I've seen people say on Youtube (though the first is similar to one of the above):

Lechmere walked past every Ripper murder site at the exact time that each murder occurred.

Lechmere couldn't run when Paul approached because if he had run, that would have proved he was the murderer, so he had no choice but to bluff his way out of it.

It like being in a Marx Brothers movie Lewis. Just we]hen you think they can’t come out with something less silly they do just that.

It’s quite an achievement, like the sentence that they use “caught next to a freshly killed corpse.” How can you cram 3 wrongs into a 7 word sentence?

[Lewis C]

Here are two more that I've seen people say on Youtube (though the first is similar to one of the above):

Lechmere walked past every Ripper murder site at the exact time that each murder occurred.

Lechmere couldn't run when Paul approached because if he had run, that would have proved he was the murderer, so he had no choice but to bluff his way out of it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dis you mean this? (Slightly expanded from the original.)

Tenets of the Cult of Lechmere are:
* Lechmere must have resented the single mom that raised him, not the alcoholic, bankrupt, deadbeat Dad who dodged a manslaughter charge and abandoned the family to shack up with a teenager.
* Lechmere's mom, who waited the legally required 7 years before remarrying, was a bigamist. Lechmere's dad wasn't a bigamist because he never actually married the other woman.
* Lechmere's mom was a rigid moralist and/or completely promiscuous, which is why he hated prostitutes.
* Lechmere deliberately ran over a child with his van in 1876.
* Lechmere was a meat cart driver. This would provide him with an excuse for fresh bloodstains acquired on his walk to work.
* Lechmere worked as a cats meat man. This would provide him with a good knowledge of anatomy.
* Lechmere's family moving several times is proof that he was the Ripper.
* The murders started right after Lechmere moved to the area.
* All the murders occurred during Lechmere's walk to work and on that route.
* The Ripper tried to hide Nichols' injuries.
* Bleed out times are easily calculated and a reliable means of determining time of death and prove that only Lechmere could have been the Ripper.
* Robert Paul caught Lechmere standing/crouching over the body of Polly Nichols.
* Lechmere was the only person near Nichols' body with no alibi.
* It's more credible for the Ripper to try to bluff Robert Paul and PC Mizen than to fade away into the darkness.
* Carmen wore hobnailed boots that echoed loudly down the street for at least a block. This is why Lechmere was able to escape silent and undetected from all the other murder scenes.
* Lechmere's refusal to prop up Nichols body proves that he is the Ripper.
* Lechmere's acting like an innocent man is proof that he is the Ripper.
* Robert Paul's time estimate is right. PC Mizen, PC Thain, PC Neil were wrong.
* Lechmere lied about when he left home.
* Lechmere lied to PC Mizen.
* Robert Paul lied about speaking to PC Mizen.
* Lechmere, Paul, and Mizen all lied about Paul and Lechmere being together when they met Mizen.
* Lechmere tried to avoid going to the police and only came forward because Robert Paul spoke to the press.
* Lechmere didn't give his home address at the inquest.
* Lechmere wearing his work uniform to the inquest is proof that he is the Ripper.
* Lechmere lied to his family about attending the inquest.
* Lechmere tried to hide his identity.
* Three eyewitnesses lied about Chapman's time of death.
* Lechmere left his van unattended and took tea a half hour into his 14+ hour shift so he could get murdery on Chapman.
* Lechmere had no problem getting up 3+ hours early on his only day off or staying up 23+ hours straight to murder Stride and Eddowes.
* The torn piece of Eddowes apron lies on a direct line between Eddowes body and Lechmere's home.
* The Ripper was the same person as the Torso Killer.
* Lechmere would have had no problem hiding trophy organs or even whole decomposing bodies from his large family.
* A bloody rag found near the London Hospital the day after the Pinchin Street Torso was found is tied to that crime and proves that Lechmere was the Ripper.
* Lechmere's great great grandchildren not knowing he attended the Nichols inquest is proof that Lechmere lied to his family.

All of these are either provably false or unsupported speculation. And not every Sect of the Cult of Lechmere holds to all of these Tenets. The two main Sects, the Fishies and the Von Stows, probably don't agree on all points. And neither Fishy nor Von Stow created the theory. Plenty of people disavow the Misogynist Sect, the Ley Line Sect, and/or the TorsoRipper Sect.

And there are more reasonable people who think Lechmere is decent suspect, but they get drowned out by the True Believers.

That’s the one. It beggars belief doesn’t it? And they have the nerve to criticise those who see that Cross is a non-suspect. We don’t need to make things up. Just follow the evidence and he’s a gonner.

[Fiver]

Fiver, have you still got that list of all the stupid things that the fan club have stooped to using to falsely accuse the transparently innocent Cross of being the ripper?

Dis you mean this? (Slightly expanded from the original.)

Tenets of the Cult of Lechmere are:
* Lechmere must have resented the single mom that raised him, not the alcoholic, bankrupt, deadbeat Dad who dodged a manslaughter charge and abandoned the family to shack up with a teenager.
* Lechmere's mom, who waited the legally required 7 years before remarrying, was a bigamist. Lechmere's dad wasn't a bigamist because he never actually married the other woman.
* Lechmere's mom was a rigid moralist and/or completely promiscuous, which is why he hated prostitutes.
* Lechmere deliberately ran over a child with his van in 1876.
* Lechmere was a meat cart driver. This would provide him with an excuse for fresh bloodstains acquired on his walk to work.
* Lechmere worked as a cats meat man. This would provide him with a good knowledge of anatomy.
* Lechmere's family moving several times is proof that he was the Ripper.
* The murders started right after Lechmere moved to the area.
* All the murders occurred during Lechmere's walk to work and on that route.
* The Ripper tried to hide Nichols' injuries.
* Bleed out times are easily calculated and a reliable means of determining time of death and prove that only Lechmere could have been the Ripper.
* Robert Paul caught Lechmere standing/crouching over the body of Polly Nichols.
* Lechmere was the only person near Nichols' body with no alibi.
* It's more credible for the Ripper to try to bluff Robert Paul and PC Mizen than to fade away into the darkness.
* Carmen wore hobnailed boots that echoed loudly down the street for at least a block. This is why Lechmere was able to escape silent and undetected from all the other murder scenes.
* Lechmere's refusal to prop up Nichols body proves that he is the Ripper.
* Lechmere's acting like an innocent man is proof that he is the Ripper.
* Robert Paul's time estimate is right. PC Mizen, PC Thain, PC Neil were wrong.
* Lechmere lied about when he left home.
* Lechmere lied to PC Mizen.
* Robert Paul lied about speaking to PC Mizen.
* Lechmere, Paul, and Mizen all lied about Paul and Lechmere being together when they met Mizen.
* Lechmere tried to avoid going to the police and only came forward because Robert Paul spoke to the press.
* Lechmere didn't give his home address at the inquest.
* Lechmere wearing his work uniform to the inquest is proof that he is the Ripper.
* Lechmere lied to his family about attending the inquest.
* Lechmere tried to hide his identity.
* Three eyewitnesses lied about Chapman's time of death.
* Lechmere left his van unattended and took tea a half hour into his 14+ hour shift so he could get murdery on Chapman.
* Lechmere had no problem getting up 3+ hours early on his only day off or staying up 23+ hours straight to murder Stride and Eddowes.
* The torn piece of Eddowes apron lies on a direct line between Eddowes body and Lechmere's home.
* The Ripper was the same person as the Torso Killer.
* Lechmere would have had no problem hiding trophy organs or even whole decomposing bodies from his large family.
* A bloody rag found near the London Hospital the day after the Pinchin Street Torso was found is tied to that crime and proves that Lechmere was the Ripper.
* Lechmere's great great grandchildren not knowing he attended the Nichols inquest is proof that Lechmere lied to his family.

All of these are either provably false or unsupported speculation. And not every Sect of the Cult of Lechmere holds to all of these Tenets. The two main Sects, the Fishies and the Von Stows, probably don't agree on all points. And neither Fishy nor Von Stow created the theory. Plenty of people disavow the Misogynist Sect, the Ley Line Sect, and/or the TorsoRipper Sect.

And there are more reasonable people who think Lechmere is decent suspect, but they get drowned out by the True Believers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is the problem, they were involved in the Missing Evidence's evidence more than they will admit. The narrator says Holmgren provided the bundle for Scobie, Blink's director sent Stow a message thanking Holmgren for his evidence he provided and all the while Holmgren denies it.
Proof Scobie was lied to -



However since Holmgren and Stow will not distance themselves from the Missing Evidence because they were complicit in it's production then they have to stand by it. The Missing Evidence was an absolute s*it show, 30 plus factual errors in 42 mins. Hardly a good way to prove your case. The YouTube sheep love it though.

Yup. And people still spout on about a gap. How can anything be simpler? Why should it need explaining? The answer of course isn’t that they don’t understand its that the ‘3.30’ as opposed to the actual ‘about 3.30’ is part of a childish bit of deception. Those that don’t know the case fell for it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

lol. at least lech has inspired an interesting and entertaining thread !

Exasperating might be another word Abby.

[Abby Normal]

I haven’t seen the word ‘meece’ for years Abby. Since I was a kid watching an old cartoon called Pixie and Dixie about a cat and a mouse. The cat used to say “I hate meeces to pieces!)

You brought back a memory there Abby.

lol. at least lech has inspired an interesting and entertaining thread !

[Herlock Sholmes]

A nine minute gap would have meant Rippermere was walking down Hanbury Street around the time that Robert Paul entered Bucks Row. It's yet another way that the Lechmerians undermine thier own theory.

Fiver, have you still got that list of all the stupid things that the fan club have stooped to using to falsely accuse the transparently innocent Cross of being the ripper?

[Geddy2112]

A nine minute gap would have meant Rippermere was walking down Hanbury Street around the time that Robert Paul entered Bucks Row. It's yet another way that the Lechmerians undermine thier own theory.

That is the problem, they were involved in the Missing Evidence's evidence more than they will admit. The narrator says Holmgren provided the bundle for Scobie, Blink's director sent Stow a message thanking Holmgren for his evidence he provided and all the while Holmgren denies it.
Proof Scobie was lied to -



However since Holmgren and Stow will not distance themselves from the Missing Evidence because they were complicit in it's production then they have to stand by it. The Missing Evidence was an absolute s*it show, 30 plus factual errors in 42 mins. Hardly a good way to prove your case. The YouTube sheep love it though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A nine minute gap would have meant Rippermere was walking down Hanbury Street around the time that Robert Paul entered Bucks Row. It's yet another way that the Lechmerians undermine thier own theory.

And another issue is that if Cross had left the house just before 3.30 and got to Bucks Row at 3.35/36 and bumped into Polly on his way and the murder and mutilations took no more than 2 minutes then what the hell was he still doing there? Waiting to see if someone showed up so that he could have had a chat? Rubbish theory requiring lies and manipulations to falsely accuse a totally rubbish suspect.

Cross was clearly and very obviously innocent. This subject should be taken more seriously….comedy suspects should be eliminated. Cross is one of the worst.

[Fiver]

I’d forgotten that he’d stretched it to a full 9 minutes Geddy.

A nine minute gap would have meant Rippermere was walking down Hanbury Street around the time that Robert Paul entered Bucks Row. It's yet another way that the Lechmerians undermine thier own theory.

[A P Tomlinson]

Have you considered a career writing fiction?

When it comes to ripperology, if you continue to have nothing constructive to offer, perhaps you should spell your name "Barren".

I think even Blumhouse would consider the style to be crass sensationalism.

[The Baron]

Let’s be clear, I will not engage with anyone who has shown disrespect in any form, whether in the past or present. If you've crossed that line, don’t expect a response.

The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

yes! as someone with an old house next to big field, mice are a huge problem! i would have posited a mouse in our bread drawer! lol i once caught two mice in one mouse trap.. so like opposite of shrodingers equation ..both meece were dead ! lol!

I haven’t seen the word ‘meece’ for years Abby. Since I was a kid watching an old cartoon called Pixie and Dixie about a cat and a mouse. The cat used to say “I hate meeces to pieces!)

You brought back a memory there Abby.

[Herlock Sholmes]

True, but in the end one evaluates a theory by looking at the arguments that are put forward. As we can see, the arguments that comprise the Cross/Lechmere as JtR are simply non-starters. The whole theory comprises attempts to reframe innocuous information into a sinister package. However, as has been shown from the beginning, every supposedly suspicious act by Cross/Lechmere is also found in Paul's behaviour, demonstrating how the "pointers to Cross/Lechmere's guilt" are not pointers to guilt at all. The best case against him is, in the end, no case at all. While there will always be some who will present the case, the case never has anything of substance, and never anything new. Every main point has, at one time or another, been rebutted. It gets repeated, but that doesn't change the fact that repeating a flawed idea doesn't make it stronger.

He was worth looking into, and he has been, and that looking reveals nothing to connect him to the murders.

- Jeff

Summed up to perfection Jeff. He was worth an initial look but you can’t help but be hit by the very obvious indications of innocence. What we are seeing with this subject over the last few years is the absolute worst side of suspectology. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with favouring a suspect (although we should all accept the none of us know who the guilty man was). What we see with the brand of suspectology employed by some who favour Cross is that it’s become almost like someone supporting a football team. Unquestioned, unthinking support no matter what combined with a willingness to see every single thing as being indicative of his guilt. You get the impression that if someone discovered that Charles Cross was in the Scottish Highlands on the day of the Double Event they would say: “well that just proves he was guilty”! The willingness to deliberately edit the evidence, the willingness to deliberately manipulate the evidence, the absolutely childish interpretations of the use of language; it’s almost beyond belief. I often wonder if some of them have any genuine interest in the case at all or do they simply seek to be on one side of an argument just like those thugs that enjoy football violence? Why should anyone be so insistent on this susbject? Look how Fisherman once completely dismissed Cross as a suspect (rightly so). So what has changed…only one thing…that we now know that his birth name was Lechmere! So that’s it. That makes him ‘suspicious’ enough that an entire propaganda machine has been created to hoover in every gullible person they come across. Why would anyone change their opinion on such weak grounds. To change an opinion is fine of course but it should be based on reason.

As you say Jeff, there is…”nothing to connect him to the murders.”