Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fiver]

“Oh, yes, we found the suspect standing near the body, while it was still bleeding and gasping for its final breaths, But we can’t rule out the possibility that someone else teleported in, did the deed, and then teleported out before we got here"

"Let’s not jump to conclusions!"

The Baron

"The Coroner - Whitechapel road is busy in the early morning, I believe. Could anybody have escaped that way?
PC Neil - - Oh, yes, sir. I saw a number of women in the main road going home. At that time anyone could have got away.

[Fiver]

The Mental Gymnastics of the Second Mouse Theory

The anti-Lechmere folks act like the mouse is a framed victim in a crime noir movie.

You need to think outside the box.

Because there was no box.

PC Thain saw a couple men "down Brady-Street shortly before I was called by Neale." Mulshaw was told of the murder by an unknown man. Mrs Lilley heard two people in Bucks Row around 3:30am. An unknown man passed by shortly after the body was found. Sergeant Henry Kirby, Walter Purkiss, Patrick Mulshaw, James Green, and the watchman at Essex Wharf were all nearby with no known alibi. That's not counting Robert Paul, the various constables, or the horse slaughterers.

There is no cheese. There's another dead mouse.

Lechmouse is not "licking its whiskers, looking guilty as sin". Paulmouse and Mizenmouse saw nothing even slightly suspicious about Lechmouse's actions. And Paulmouse had started on high alert, worried he was about to get mugged.

Lechmouse does not "have crumbs on his face or cheese stuck in his teeth". Paulmouse and Mizenmouse don't see any blood on his hands or clothing and Mizenmouse had a lantern. Paulmouse doesn't find a bloody handprint on his clothing where Lechmouse touched his shoulder.

Lechmouse never had a diary. He did have a work schedule which shows he is wildly unlikely to have killed Chapmouse, Stridemouse, or Eddomouse.

[John Wheat]

The Mental Gymnastics of the Second Mouse Theory

The anti-Lechmere folks act like the mouse is a framed victim in a crime noir movie.

“Listen, detective, you’ve got it all wrong. This mouse? He’s just misunderstood. He’s not your guy. The real perp’s out there somewhere.... probably a bigger mouse, or maybe a gang of them. The mouse mafia, you know? You should be looking at them!”

Meanwhile, the actual mouse is just sitting there with a full belly, a guilty look, and a crumb trail leading straight to its tiny mouse mouth...

There’s one mouse in the box. One mouse! Not two, not three, not a whole gang of rodents staging a cheese heist!

And yet, they double down “We can’t jump to conclusions! What if this mouse didn’t even like cheese? Ever think of that? Maybe he’s lactose-intolerant. Maybe he wandered into the box to warn the cheese about the real danger, and now he’s being set up. This poor mouse is the real victim here!”

They’ll bend over backward to defend him and write a whole dissertation titled, "The Case for the Hypothetical Second Mouse: Why the Obvious Suspect is Totally Innocent."

At this point, you have to wonder if the anti-Lechmere crowd has ever actually seen a mouse before!

This isn’t some innocent bystander in the box, sipping tea and reading a book while all this cheese drama went down....

This is the one mouse in the one box with the one piece of eaten cheese....

It doesn’t take a PhD in mouse criminology to figure out what happened here!
But no. The anti-Lechmere people can’t accept the obvious. They can’t possibly believe that the guy standing alone.. in the dark.. near the still bleeding still breathing Nichols could have anything to do with it.

No, it must have been a phantom Ripper, an invisible killer who disappeared the second Lechmere showed up. Sure, that makes total sense.

Just like the invisible cheese thief that somehow got in and out of the box without leaving a trace...

Honestly, if these people were in charge of actual crime scenes, nothing would ever get solved.

“Oh, yes, we found the suspect standing near the body, while it was still bleeding and gasping for its final breaths, But we can’t rule out the possibility that someone else teleported in, did the deed, and then teleported out before we got here"

"Let’s not jump to conclusions!"


The Baron

This is absolute rubbish.

[Geddy2112]

It could be Stockholm Syndrome.

After all, when a former adversary suddenly becomes someone's most enthusiastic supporter, it could indicate a hostage situation...

Unless he starts blinking in Morse code (rather hard to do on an internet forum) I don't think we'll ever know...

More like Helsingborg Syndrome. Something 'fishy' going on here. I mean look at the " in the posts, some are at different angles suggesting plain text or HTML text. I mean I'm no Abberline but.... well I just hope Baron is okay.

The "Mental Gymnastics" of the posting is odd to say the least. I'm getting funny vibes seeing "phantom" killers mentioned. But let's not jump to conclusions.

Still not seen anything posted to convince me Cross was a killer. We even have Stow in today's HoL video at odds with Holmgren regarding Abberline's hand written Police report, those two need to get their stories straight...

[rjpalmer]

Has your account been hacked? Your posts seem rather different since you changed your avatar. Hope you are okay...

It could be Stockholm Syndrome.

After all, when a former adversary suddenly becomes someone's most enthusiastic supporter, it could indicate a hostage situation...

Unless he starts blinking in Morse code (rather hard to do on an internet forum) I don't think we'll ever know...

[rjpalmer]

Honestly, if these people were in charge of actual crime scenes, nothing would ever get solved.

Yet, strangely enough, Inspector Helson, Inspector Abberline, and Chief Inspector Swanson solved any number of important cases, yet they, too, were totally oblivious to this mouse in a trap. If only they had shared your great insights, Baron!

This is why we are ultimately forced to reject your Kozminski theory. If Donald Swanson didn't even have the wherewithal to fathom the obviously guilty Charles "the Cheese gobbler" Cross, how on earth can we trust anything he had to say about Kozminski?

Kozminski was nowhere in that cardboard box, was he?

Free Aaron Kozminski!

[The Baron]

The Mental Gymnastics of the Second Mouse Theory

The anti-Lechmere folks act like the mouse is a framed victim in a crime noir movie.

“Listen, detective, you’ve got it all wrong. This mouse? He’s just misunderstood. He’s not your guy. The real perp’s out there somewhere.... probably a bigger mouse, or maybe a gang of them. The mouse mafia, you know? You should be looking at them!”

Meanwhile, the actual mouse is just sitting there with a full belly, a guilty look, and a crumb trail leading straight to its tiny mouse mouth...

There’s one mouse in the box. One mouse! Not two, not three, not a whole gang of rodents staging a cheese heist!

And yet, they double down “We can’t jump to conclusions! What if this mouse didn’t even like cheese? Ever think of that? Maybe he’s lactose-intolerant. Maybe he wandered into the box to warn the cheese about the real danger, and now he’s being set up. This poor mouse is the real victim here!”

They’ll bend over backward to defend him and write a whole dissertation titled, "The Case for the Hypothetical Second Mouse: Why the Obvious Suspect is Totally Innocent."

At this point, you have to wonder if the anti-Lechmere crowd has ever actually seen a mouse before!

This isn’t some innocent bystander in the box, sipping tea and reading a book while all this cheese drama went down....

This is the one mouse in the one box with the one piece of eaten cheese....

It doesn’t take a PhD in mouse criminology to figure out what happened here!
But no. The anti-Lechmere people can’t accept the obvious. They can’t possibly believe that the guy standing alone.. in the dark.. near the still bleeding still breathing Nichols could have anything to do with it.

No, it must have been a phantom Ripper, an invisible killer who disappeared the second Lechmere showed up. Sure, that makes total sense.

Just like the invisible cheese thief that somehow got in and out of the box without leaving a trace...

Honestly, if these people were in charge of actual crime scenes, nothing would ever get solved.

“Oh, yes, we found the suspect standing near the body, while it was still bleeding and gasping for its final breaths, But we can’t rule out the possibility that someone else teleported in, did the deed, and then teleported out before we got here"

"Let’s not jump to conclusions!"


The Baron

[Geddy2112]

Completely innocent. I wonder what he’d think if he could see today that even his family are trying to make everyone believe that he was Jack the Ripper.

Yeah but she has an ulterior motive I guess. But then you see the press from two days ago with Eddowes' descendants wanting the case to be closed etc due to the DNA evidence. Really? Is it bad press reporting or do these folk now know about Edwards? The whole 'hobby' is riddled with numpties.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Absolutely correct, on the video they invent a 9 min gap. They tell us it took 2 mins to kill poor Polly that would give Cross, according to their times enough time to get back home, but no he waits around for Paul. Ok sounds legit...

I’d forgotten that he’d stretched it to a full 9 minutes Geddy. If there’s anything in this case that irritates me (and there are quite a few) this piece of sleight of hand annoys me the most of all. As far as I can recall it’s the single most obvious piece of a combination of dishonesty and nursery school logic that I’ve ever come across. Why do we feel the need to keep explaining this to adults? Why is it still used as a ‘thing’? To make the statement that there was a gap we would need to know when Cross left his house (which we don’t) What Cross’s walking speed was (which we don’t know) The time that Robert Paul arrived (which we don’t know)

And yet Crosstians seem to have fallen for the suggestion that we can make a positive statement for 3 estimations. Even if we name just one time scenario which doesn’t allow Cross to have committed murder then that’s enough. The gap falls. But we don’t, we have numerous connotations where Cross wouldn’t have had time. There are also connotations were he would have had time of course but ‘could have’ and ‘might have’ are nowhere near good enough on this occasion. What Crosstians are basically saying is “it should be considered damning that Cross might have had time to kill Nichols,” but most of us prefer to give that kind of tosh short shrift.

I’m afraid that it boils down to this - it’s impossible (and I do mean impossible) that anyone interested in the case can’t see and understand why no claim of a gap can be made. It’s not even a complex issue as some things are. It’s shouldn’t be contentious. It’s a childishly simple, black and white, staring-you-right-in-the-face fact that a gap cannot be suggested. Look at someone like Abby. He considered that Cross is worth considering as a suspect…fine. But ask him about the ‘gap’ and he’ll accept everything that I and others have repeatedly said Why, because not crippled with bias.

The ‘gap’ should never be mentioned as pointing to Cross guilt. He might have had time. He might not have had time. We cannot know. Other evidence exonerates him of course. Completely innocent. I wonder what he’d think if he could see today that even his family are trying to make everyone believe that he was Jack the Ripper.

[John Wheat]

The idea that Cross was the Ripper is laughable and the continued quest to frame Cross is in bad taste.

[Geddy2112]

Their own theorizing makes it impossible fr Cross to have killed Nichols.

Absolutely correct, on the video they invent a 9 min gap. They tell us it took 2 mins to kill poor Polly that would give Cross, according to their times enough time to get back home, but no he waits around for Paul. Ok sounds legit...

[Geddy2112]

Has your account been hacked? Your posts seem rather different since you changed your avatar. Hope you are okay...

Here’s the thing, nobody likes to admit they’re wrong. The anti-Lechmere crowd has spent so long defending this guy, they’ve convinced themselves he’s just a poor, misunderstood Victorian bloke who happened to bumble into a crime scene. But denying the obvious doesn’t make it any less true.

OK, if you have to make stuff up to make a theory work then you do not have a theory.

Time Gap - made up
False name - made up
The Prop - it's fifty fifty on that one
Mizen Scam - made up
Blood evidence - made up
Routes to work - impossible to know

That is just a tiny piece of the Lechmere Theory and it's all been shot to bits.

Ask yourself ONE question if Robert Paul did not exist then would you ever even consider Charles Cross as the Ripper?

[Fiver]

We’ve already seen the stuff about Robert Paul in Christer’s humorous article. Paul said he ‘fancied’ that he felt movement. So what? We have PROVED how the word ‘fancied’ was used. He just got an impression. Nothing more. Are we expected to believe that Nichols was strangled, had her throat cut twice and back to her backbone, followed by some horrific abdominal mutilations and yet, a minute later she’s still alive. Perhaps she sat up and asked them the time but they neglected to mention it. I know that chicken’s can run around with their heads cut off but I didn’t think that anyone would stoop to applying it to humans.

Ahh, but then we have ‘agonal breathing’ which, when we read the description, sounds nothing like what Paul imagined that he felt. And we know that ‘agonal breathing’ can occur minutes, even hours after death. So how does that ‘incriminate Cross’? Well, it doesn’t of course but it doesn’t stop this silliness still being mentioned. The medical evidence in no way whatsoever favours Cross being guilty.

If Nichols was still gasping for breath, then PC Neil is the most likely killer. If bodies bled out as fast as Holmgren claims, then PC Neil is the most likely killer.

Their own theorizing makes it impossible fr Cross to have killed Nichols.

[Fiver]

The Cheese, the Mouse, and the Anti-Lechmere Delusion

Alright, let’s talk about basic logic. Imagine you open a box. Inside, you find a piece of cheese. That cheese has been nibbled. Next to the cheese, there’s a mouse sitting there, licking its whiskers, looking guilty as sin. What do you think?

You suspect the mouse, obviously. You don’t need Hercule Poirot to swoop in and solve this mystery, it’s right in front of your face. The cheese is eaten. The mouse is in the box. Case closed.

But then… enter the anti-Lechmere brigade. These people are like the ones who open the box, see the mouse, see the eaten cheese, and go:

“Hmm… you know what? I think another mouse snuck in here, ate the cheese, and then left without a trace. This mouse? No, no, it’s just an innocent bystander. Poor little guy. Don’t be so quick to blame him!”

Here’s the thing, nobody likes to admit they’re wrong. The anti-Lechmere crowd has spent so long defending this guy, they’ve convinced themselves he’s just a poor, misunderstood Victorian bloke who happened to bumble into a crime scene. But denying the obvious doesn’t make it any less true.

Lechmere isn’t just a mouse in the box. He’s the mouse with crumbs on his face, cheese stuck in his teeth, and a diary that says “Today I ate some cheese.” If you’re still looking for a second mouse, you might want to check basic logic first.



The Baron

Thank you for the laugh. Your example is such a wonderfully over the top parody of the Lechmerian position. Anyone even slightly familiar with the Bucks Row murder will know that nothing in your intensely humorous post bears even a faint resemblance to reality.

[John Wheat]

The Cheese, the Mouse, and the Anti-Lechmere Delusion

Alright, let’s talk about basic logic. Imagine you open a box. Inside, you find a piece of cheese. That cheese has been nibbled. Next to the cheese, there’s a mouse sitting there, licking its whiskers, looking guilty as sin. What do you think?

You suspect the mouse, obviously. You don’t need Hercule Poirot to swoop in and solve this mystery, it’s right in front of your face. The cheese is eaten. The mouse is in the box. Case closed.

But then… enter the anti-Lechmere brigade. These people are like the ones who open the box, see the mouse, see the eaten cheese, and go:

“Hmm… you know what? I think another mouse snuck in here, ate the cheese, and then left without a trace. This mouse? No, no, it’s just an innocent bystander. Poor little guy. Don’t be so quick to blame him!”

Here’s the thing, nobody likes to admit they’re wrong. The anti-Lechmere crowd has spent so long defending this guy, they’ve convinced themselves he’s just a poor, misunderstood Victorian bloke who happened to bumble into a crime scene. But denying the obvious doesn’t make it any less true.

Lechmere isn’t just a mouse in the box. He’s the mouse with crumbs on his face, cheese stuck in his teeth, and a diary that says “Today I ate some cheese.” If you’re still looking for a second mouse, you might want to check basic logic first.



The Baron

This is complete rubbish.