Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[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.

[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.

[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

[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!

[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...

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[chubbs]

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

Why do you insist on putting your mouse in a box?

The murder took place in the street, so wouldn't a proper analogy have the cheese sitting on the ground, enabling the murderous mouse to run away?

Did you put your mouse in a box to make him cross (get it?). By the way, mice are not capable of having a 'guilty look', not even when they've eaten cheese that doesn't belong to them. Do your increasingly bizarre posts suggest a growing desperation? If you're truly interested, try looking for the mouse that got away and forget about the poor little imaginary thing you've got shut in your mental box.

[Geddy2112]

"The man seen standing alone by the body" - HoL - Jack the Ripper Detective Abberline - Was he any good? (17th Jan 2025)

For crying out loudly... still can't get it right.

Bit of a contradiction:

we have never believed about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic of anything of that kind.

(36m20s)

He [Abberline] was looking for an overt lunatic..

(40m30s)

Which one is it then? Mmmmm

[The Baron]

-.- --- ... -- .. -. ... -.- .. / .-- .- ... / - .... . / ... ..- ... .--. . -.-. -



The Baron

[rjpalmer]

-.- --- ... -- .. -. ... -.- .. / .-- .- ... / - .... . / ... ..- ... .--. . -.-. -



The Baron

"Kosminski was the suspect"

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let’s give ourselves a simple, straightforward comparison to see which is likelier…

a) Charles Cross murders and mutilates his victim and then stands waiting for a complete stranger to arrive whilst carrying a bloodied knife (something that we have no record of any serial killer in history doing). Or,

b) An unnamed man murders and mutilates his victim, hears the footsteps of Charles Cross echoing along the street, then does exactly what all serial killers do…he escapes.

The medical evidence fits both and can’t favour one over the other in such a short space of time.

so,

a) is a named man behaving totally unlike a serial killer (not to mention that he was 15/20 minutes away from clocking on time with walking still to do. A man who was exactly where he should have been at that time)

b) is an unnamed man with no innocent reason for being where he was acting exactly as every other serial killer does by escaping and avoiding capture.


Is this a difficult choice for anyone? It’s not complex is it? We are looking for someone who was a serial killer and who acted like serial killer have to do yet some prefer a witness who acted like a witness simply on the grounds that we can name him.

Has it really come to this? Sadly, yes it has.

[Abby Normal]

Schrodingers mouse!