Jack The Ripper - Double Cross

[Lewis C]

The book should be considered required reading and is very well researched, but I personally wouldn't use the word "balanced" nor is it non-committal. I think it is fair to say that Helena Wojtczak is highly skeptical of the 'Chapman' theory and finds very little, if anything, to say in support of it.

Think of her treatment as similar to Phillip Sugden's treatment of the Druitt, Kosminski, and Ostrog theories: almost entirely dismissive.

Personally, I think she was almost too fair-minded when it came to Klosowski, but maybe this is a cultural difference. We Americans tend to treat all criminals as if they are monsters from the bowels of Hell and she took a more humanistic angle, always cautious in her criticism.

It's a fine and thought-provoking book. Highly recommended.

I'm sure that your characterization of the book is a good one. Since I'm interested in Chapman as a suspect, I probably should read it.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

I wouldn’t dream of considering it case solved even when talking about worthwhile suspects, but the fact that an adult can read about Cross (and see the same evidence everyone else sees) and conclude that this man was the ripper is bizarre to say the least. And then to read of adults claiming that those who don’t accept Cross into their lives as having some kind of agenda is the most perfect example of the old phrase ‘the pot calling the kettle black’ that I can think of. Stow and Holmgren are the heads of a self-created corporation full of people who desperately want to be on what they hope will be seen as the ‘winning’ side, and they really do want that corporation to succeed and they will stoop to any kind of tactic to try and achieve that goal. They have long ago forgotten what this subject is about - trying to discover who Jack the Ripper was by trying to find conclusive evidence; failing that, to try and find the likeliest ripper from a weight of circumstantial evidence; something that can never be more than disputed opinion. They haven’t even come remotely close to the latter and yet we witness people weirdly claiming the former. This is flat earth level stuff. These are people who desperately want to ‘win,’ and to win at all costs so they have done the old, old trick. They have picked someone that was there and have woven a fantasy around him. They believe that if they repeat a lie often enough that some people will actually come to believe it. We see this most obviously in the constant lie that Cross was found next to a freshly killed corpse. This can’t be an error unless the person saying it can’t read. It’s a lie pure and simple. There was only one witness, Robert Paul, and he categorically said that he only saw Cross standing in the middle of the road.

They use platforms like Facebook where it appears that they can silence opposition and YouTube where they can post what amount to propaganda videos and over the last few years just about every single aspect of the case and every part of the Cross family history is somehow twisted to imply guilt. And they appear to do this with no sense of embarrassment and almost religious faith in the cause.

The case against him is overwhelming. We can’t conclusively eliminate him but we can’t conclusively eliminate Lewis Carroll either.

They're fond of quoting the article that quotes Paul as saying Cross was "standing where the woman was". Richard Jones channel has a new video that discusses the various press reports of the Nichols murder, where he reads through Paul's statement. For me, that highlighted how the Lechmere camp picks and chooses what to use from the sources. The same article that says "standing where the woman was" also has Paul saying things that you won't see the Lechmerians quoting: "It was too dark to see the blood about her." "I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come." "The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time." The first quote counters their claim that they didn't see blood because there wasn't any blood yet because she had just been killed. The third also counters their claim that she had just been killed. The second quote has Paul speaking to Mizen rather than Cross, which would make the Mizen Scam impossible. Actually, since we can agree this isn't how it happened, the second quote shows that Paul's account as quoted here is unreliable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They're fond of quoting the article that quotes Paul as saying Cross was "standing where the woman was". Richard Jones channel has a new video that discusses the various press reports of the Nichols murder, where he reads through Paul's statement. For me, that highlighted how the Lechmere camp picks and chooses what to use from the sources. The same article that says "standing where the woman was" also has Paul saying things that you won't see the Lechmerians quoting: "It was too dark to see the blood about her." "I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come." "The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time." The first quote counters their claim that they didn't see blood because there wasn't any blood yet because she had just been killed. The third also counters their claim that she had just been killed. The second quote has Paul speaking to Mizen rather than Cross, which would make the Mizen Scam impossible. Actually, since we can agree this isn't how it happened, the second quote shows that Paul's account as quoted here is unreliable.

“Standing where the woman was” is such a vague quote Lewis. He saw him up ahead and the woman was up ahead too of course. He was at the same location as the woman. All that matters is what was said at the inquest:

“He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning, and as he was passing up Buck’s-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road.”

That really is end of story as far as that particular fantasy goes. Never at any time was Cross seen alone next to the body. Any claim that he was is simply a lie. It’s not an error; it’s not an alternative interpretation, it’s a deliberate twisting of the evidence. Par for the course for a certain group I’m afraid.