Jack The Ripper - Double Cross

[Herlock Sholmes]

It would be interesting to know - of the 11% who said ‘yes’ and the 15% who said ‘not sure,’ what percentage of those people have studied the case as a whole for any length of time apart from everything Cross-related. If the percentage who had studied the case as a whole for any length reasonable length of time was still high I’d consider that worrying. This is a suspect for whom there’s not one single thing that gives us reason for suspicion. Just manipulations of the evidence, outright lies and embarrassing fantasies perpetuated by the Stowe/Holmgren Roadshow and their fan club.

Its about time that they admitted their ‘error,’ and gave up.

[Geddy2112]

Richard's channel has posted a poll asking whether the case against Lechmere has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 11% said yes, 73% said no, and 15% weren't sure. In the comments, we see that many who said no nonetheless think that he's the best suspect, or a strong one.

Yes just seen that. It's not the best of questions and as someone pointed out surely if you are not sure then that is a no in this case. It still baffles me why anyone thinks he is even a suspect. We always have Lingering Lyndon who keeps repeating he was seen lingering and acting suspiciously near the body but whenever anyone asks him to give evidence to back this up it's never answered. To me if I was Team Lechmere I'd be banning him and others from making these unsubstantiated claims, after all they are basically making TL look like a bunch of idiots.

[John Wheat]

You're welcome. When Richard asked why Cross suspect discussion often results in people getting fired up, or however he said it, I thought about how a fair answer to that question could really infuriate the Lechmerians. But you were diplomatic in your response.

Richard raised an interesting point about this being the first book dedicated to arguing against a suspect being the Ripper. If you (or anyone else) wants to write another such book, maybe James Maybrick or Walter Sickert would be a good subject for that.

Isn't there a rather balanced book on Chapman that suggests he wasn't the Ripper? I've not read it as I'm almost certain Chapman wasn't the Ripper. But I do think it exists. Admittedly it's not exactly dedicated to arguing against a suspect but I believe it concludes that Chapman wasn't the Ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isn't there a rather balanced book on Chapman that suggests he wasn't the Ripper? I've not read it as I'm almost certain Chapman wasn't the Ripper. But I do think it exists. Admittedly it's not exactly dedicated to arguing against a suspect but I believe it concludes that Chapman wasn't the Ripper.

One of the best ripper books imo. I’d recommend it to anyone.

Jack the Ripper at Last? The Mysterious Murders of George Chapman by Helen Wojtczak. You can get one for just £7.29 with free p+p on eBay.

[Tom_Wescott]

Herlock writes:It would be interesting to know - of the 11% who said ‘yes’ and the 15% who said ‘not sure,’ what percentage of those people have studied the case as a whole for any length of time apart from everything Cross-related. If the percentage who had studied the case as a whole for any length reasonable length of time was still high I’d consider that worrying. This is a suspect for whom there’s not one single thing that gives us reason for suspicion.

I would add this question 'How many have studied criminal history and murder in general for any length of time?' I've often wondered this about many people who ARE familiar with the Ripper case as a whole but who seem rather naive about the inner workings of the criminal mind or how/why these sorts of crimes occur.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. The quote feature appears to have stopped working for me. Anyone else having this issue?

[Doctored Whatsit]

P.S. The quote feature appears to have stopped working for me. Anyone else having this issue?

Yes, it has been reported as a fault in the new system.

[rjpalmer]

P.S. The quote feature appears to have stopped working for me. Anyone else having this issue?

There are ways around the glitch...but don't quote me on that!

[Barnaby]

I think some jumping on the bandwagon has gone on here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAtk...BoxOnlineRadio I've not watched it yet but since Richard's video is doing well for comments and views I think they want some of that YouTube clicky clicky action.

I enjoy watching this channel. Ned does Jack the Ripper videos every Wednesday and often reacts to what other, bigger channels are discussing.

[Geddy2112]

P.S. The quote feature appears to have stopped working for me. Anyone else having this issue?

Not personally Tom, obviously but I believe it was mentioned in a thread created by Admin regarding forum bugs. I think a workaround was suggested.

[Mark J D]

To call Cross a suspect is pretty much a joke.

“He was there, he was there, he was there!”

-- Whereas, in the case of each of 500 other individuals proposed as suspects:

“He must have been there, he must have been there, he must have been there...”

M.

[Fiver]

Many thanks, the comments section is a hoot. We even have the famous 'he was seen lingering and acting suspicious' in there at least three times. Even one of the questions directly answered it but no the repeating of this falsehood keeps going on and on... Mr Holmgren is not too happy it seems.

Stow and Barnett don't seem very happy, either.

[Geddy2112]

Stow and Barnett don't seem very happy, either.

Oh I've not seen Mr Stow comment. In fact I was remarking to the missus earlier that I'm astonished he has not. I'd presumed he was plotting his assignation via a new HoL video which predictably will come and I'm blocked from replying to. So to have a channel just full of yes men is, well rather erm.. cowardly.

I did see a couple of Gary's posts but one in particular I was not sure he was for or against. He was being vague.

[Mark J D]

Oh I've not seen Mr Stow comment. In fact I was remarking to the missus earlier that I'm astonished he has not. I'd presumed he was plotting his assignation via a new HoL video which predictably will come and I'm blocked from replying to. So to have a channel just full of yes men is, well rather erm.. cowardly.

Edward's video reply to your video has actually been out for hours. He works through yours line by line. Neither you nor Jones comes out looking good.

M.

[Geddy2112]

Stow and Barnett don't seem very happy, either.

Oh the HoL has predictably 'dropped' as those trendy content creators would say.

I notice Gary states this "The idea that there is sufficient detail in the various press reports to establish precisely where he was standing when Paul became aware of him is absurd. That Ian doesn’t mention the ‘where the woman was’ quote says a lot about his methodology."

After claiming he has not read my book. There are at least six newspaper reports that mention Robert Paul saw Cross 'in the middle of the road' The fact I do not mention the 'where the woman was' is because it was not under oath and from a source even Holmgren states 'should be treated with caution.'

Like I said I can't reply to HoL videos because Stow has cowardly banned me. However what Gary has said is 100% inaccurate and to be honest I'm disappointed by his candour. I thought, mistakenly he was better than that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

-- Whereas, in the case of each of 500 other individuals proposed as suspects:

“He must have been there, he must have been there, he must have been there...”

M.

Or “he was suspected by a senior officer at the time,” or “he was an actual murderer who was local at the time.”

We have no suspects that we can call particularly strong or that we can link to a specific murder but there should be at least something that raises our suspicions. Cross has nothing going for him. John Richardson almost certainly wasn’t JtR but there is more that might be considered ‘suspicious’ about him than there is about Cross. To propose a suspect we shouldn’t require the evidence to be edited and yet that’s what’s happened with Cross. Cross finds a body, he’s exactly where he would be expected to have been at that time, he’s never seen next to the body or alone with it unless it’s when someone else was with him, he does nothing suspicious while Paul is with him, he says nothing suspicious when Paul is with him, there is a slight (but unimportant) difference of opinion on what was said to Mizen but Cross couldn’t have meant any deception because he had a complete stranger with him (despite the risible Mizen Scam). He gives his stepfather’s name at the inquest but his own forenames, address and occupation therefore it can’t be considered that he was trying to hide anything from the police.

Therefore there isn’t one single iota of a reason why we should suspect him. Just as the police at the time didn’t. Just as Robert Paul didn’t. He went on to live a perfectly normal life as far as any of us knows. And yet we get people coming up with the most bizarre stuff. Seeing the fact that he wore his work clothes to the inquest as somehow suspicious is one of the subjects biggest jokes.

When Christer was posting on here I’ve lost count of the amount of times that he referred to crime history and the behaviour of criminals to make a point. And yet we get no response to the questions - how many times in the history of crime it been discovered that the finder of the victim of a serial killer turned out to be the serial killer? So far, over the years, not one single example has been found. Making a guilty Cross either entirely unique or vanishingly rare. And how many times in serial killer history can we name one that killed and mutilated a victim whilst on his way to work and just 20 minutes from being due there? Again, so far no one can name one. So again, unique or vanishingly rare. Yet these things are water-off-a-ducks-back to some. They see Cross as the Teflon suspect. If we found proof that Cross was on the Isle of Mull when Catherine Eddowes was killed one of the Cross Club would say “well that proves it, he must be guilty.”

The only mystery is “how the hell have Christer and Stowe convinced so many people that this bloke was guilty?” He’s not even remotely interesting as a suspect. To make him of interest people have to start inventing, omitting and imagining.