Jack The Ripper - Double Cross

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Why would anyone care what Stow says? He thinks Cross was guilty.

[Geddy2112]

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.

To be fair I've not watched it all and in all likelihood will not because the man is 'economical with the truth' shall we say, even in Richard Cobb's offering where he writes Chapter nine his says "Lechmere also had the opportunity to kill. He said he left home at 3:30am" Which is a blatant, well lie. He also states Old Ma Lechmere bigamously married even though the law states the seven year absence rule. So if her first marriage was not bigamous and Thomas died before she remarried again how can her third marriage be bigamous and again the bigger picture here is so chuffing what? What does bigamous marriages have to do with being a serial killer?

It's funny I have had four very well respected Rippersphere members compliment me on the video and others on the book. Now whose opinion should I be bothered about? Respected Ripper authors and commentators or proven liars and folks with Stow's background? Mmmm it's a tough one. Oh to add Mark, just out of curiosity why do you believe someone who as I've just proven is economical with the truth?

Of course if you seriously think Richard or I came out badly can I throw in some of the comments from the HoL offering from today...

You’re honorable. That’s what I really appreciate about you. It’s obvious that you are interested in the truth and not just wanting to sell a story to gain something. I think it’s despicable when people try to sell a story for personal gains. I might come across as flattering but it’s my honest words and how I really feel about it.

It actually showed that the anti Lechmere advocates have a very weak case and are guilty of misinformation.

The research and reasoning of yourself and Christer is far more detailed, robust and persuasive than any of the arguments/opinions that attempt to refute Lechmere's likely guilt

He was standing near a freshly slain body, whose blood hadn’t even began to spread across the sidewalk yet.

I believe THIS channel is the ONLY channel worth one’s time

Yes, I do believe lechmere WAS Jack the Ripper, all the arguments against are opinions and zero legitimate reasons, just “no one would hang around to show the body if theyJTR” and “there’s zero evidence” despite tons of evidence as described on here… tbh, they don’t WANT lechmere to be JTR, as it would close their money avenues!!!

I predicted Edward would demolish and debunk Ian’s arguments (disappointingly ‘led’ by a clearly biased Richard Jones, host of the Jack the Ripper Tours channel) in under three minutes. I was wrong — it was under two.

Ian Hope is Geddy 2112 on the casebook forum. He is seriously unhinged about Lechmere not being a suspect, he's one of many nuts on that site.

The ONLY JTR channel worth taking seriously, it isn’t about money or “I wrote a book on the queens dog being JTR and it proves it” type of amateur investigations, this channel provides countless reasons and FACTS that point to it being lechmere, the links are mind blowing, I think others DO believe it was lechmere but hey, it’s a lucrative business is it not? .. I watch the occasional other JTR vid but they leave me with zero answers.. it’s all factless bs tbh..

Hi ed, thanks for the response video I knew you would make a response video when that video came out. It seems the guy in the video is clutching at straws just like the police In 1888 when they thought it was people like druit, kosminski etc.

Lechmere is the only credible suspect,. so many red flags surrounding him. I believe he was caught red handed and he basically blagged his way out of it , using deception and a false name technically . he would be held in custody today.

It's funny how they say Lechmere as a suspect is conjecture. When all i hear and see about the Anti Lechmere crowd is conjecture and flat out lies.

I've been looking forward to this. Ian Hope's interview to rubbish the Lechmere theory was incredibly weak and full of inaccuracies and contradictions. He actually strengthened my belief in Lechmere being the Whitechapel murderer. Aside from all the facts and red flags, for me the biggest indicator of Lechmere's guilt is the fact he never told his family he discovered the body. That would have been a talked about for generations had it been known.

He was lingering (hanging around) and he was acting suspiciously. Robert Paul never saw him walking ahead never saw him crossing the road, never saw him offering aid to Polly. He just saw him "standing where the woman was". This is lingering/hanging around. I didn't appreciate the insinuation on the Richard Jones show that I made this up.

I thought Ian was a poor choice for an interview for this video. His arguments were so weak.

From a logical point of view, I think the position has to be taken that it is Charles Lechmere until proven otherwise.

Great video. I strongly suspected you would feel the need to have a say about what I considered (last week when I viewed it) to be a very tenuous anti Lechmere as Ripper argument. Transpose the events to the modern day and Lechmere would be strongly suspected as an almost caught red handed individual. His work, family background and experiences make him a very hard to disprove suspect. This online book's arguments are based on supposition and surmising.

I Trust in Edward and Christer , watched so many JTR over last 10 yrs and I'm sold that Lechmere was JTR because of your research Edward . Lechmere makes the most sense out of all the others. Lets not over complicate the matter. And stick to facts.

I’m glad you got on this video as fast as you did. After following you from the start of your channel, I saw all the holes in this video. Again I’m glad you got on this as quick as you have, because its inaccuracies needed to be brought to the people’s attention, before it was taken as a serious case against Lechmere being the killer.

I saw this interview and to be fair his reasons for Lechmere not being JR were appalling. This man couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag. I was suprised that Richard, who is normally fair and inclusive had this weak weak opinion aired on his channel. He proved or disproved absolutely nothing and Richard didn't seem to question him or disagree with anything this guy said. Really disappointing arguments by a man baby. Glad you tore the nonsense down

It irritated me that Ian kept calling him Cross rather than Lechmere.

Just wanted to make a point about the apron. If I read JtR right he was a thrill seeker. Doing things under the nose of police men seemed to be part of his kick. I can imagine such a type would wear a dirty apron, one that he may have worn during one of his killings, because it was fun to him, standing there in full display while saying yes sir, no sir. He would probably feel superior doing so, it would be funny to him.

At this point of investigation by Christer, Edward, and others, entirely dismissing Lechmere as the culprit is quite a sloppy, or agenda-driven, thing to do.

...I'm sorry but if that is the mentality and reasoning of those thinking Cross was Jack the Ripper then I give up. A nice quote I like to use from time to time...

"The internet has given a voice to people who would have been considered the village idiot"

If you Google this quote you are led to a reddit page with the following comment - "A cursory glance at any YouTube comments section would confirm this as fact."

Never more has this been as accurate as in HoL comments.

Hey my reason for writing the book was mentioned at the beginning of the video, I thought on the surface the Lechmere Theory was compelling and thought wow we have him, awesome at last. Then I started to read more here and watch some videos and read Cutting Point and watch the Missing Evidence and suddenly I realised it was all a complete load of horse muck. I've always wanted to write a book but never could decide on what to write about so I thought let's write about the Lechmere Theory. I thought at least I'd give it a go. I was very nervous about doing the video because I knew I'd only get one shot, no second chances, no reading from a word for word script. I knew every single word I said would be poured over and criticised by Team Lechmere and I knew Stow would produce a hatchet job. Maybe I should not put myself out there but at least I've not banned the 'other side' from commenting on the video like he has, the coward.

The bit I saw of this video he is ironically berating me for missing out the word 'almost' from the quote 'almost up to her stomach' which incidentally I have in the book in it's entirety. A book I know Holmgren and Stow have not read, funny they berated Inside Bucks Row too without reading it, astonishing. To scour over a video frame by frame and pick that out is remarkably desperate to be honest and hence if that is the level of debunking we are talking about I fail to see how Richard or I have come out bad and even if we have come out bad it's 'only' from people who write the rubbish quoted above and why anyone with their head screwed on correctly believes anything Stow says is beyond me, this is a great researcher who thinks people buried next to each other knew each other in real life. This is a bloke who thinks wearing an apron at a murder inquest is a sign of guilt, this is a bloke who lies about when Cross left home. This is a bloke who knows Cross' walking speed and his routes to work. This is a bloke who knows what Cross did on his days off and when he did and did not visit his mother. This is the bloke who thinks there is still human flesh in the Doveton Street drains.... but yes indeed Richard and I come off badly due to what this man says.

Sorry I had a great idea for a book, I thought I could take from here what I've learned and achieve something by producing a book. I thought I could actually educate some people and show a different side to the 'skulduggery' we have endured for so many years. It seems I was wrong. It seems my dear mother was correct and you can't educate or argue with stupid. But here we are, I made the effort, I wrote the book, I got it published and have been offered a few contracts to have it published in hard and paper back forms. So for that, even if it does not sell a dozen copies it does not matter, I wrote a book and got it published. I've achieved that and that is something a good number of people here and on Stow's fanboy pages will never be able to manage. Maybe being interviewed was not a great idea but I went with it and have been complimented for that by a good number of respectable people in the 'scene.' (At least I had the balls to do it.) So thank you I'd rather listen to them than some washed up old failed right wing politician who has made so many errors of judgement when doing his research its unbelievable.
Apologies for wanting to try and wanting to try and add some balance. I'll know better next time.

[Geddy2112]

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.

One of my big bug bears with Christer's crime history expertise is that Cross' big scam so to speak was to act all innocent at the scene. (Even though Lingering Lyndon states he was acting suspiciously.) Now my problem with this is what would an innocent man act like? Erm... innocent I guess so why is Cross' acting innocent presumed to be an act or sign of guilt? Puzzling.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be fair I've not watched it all and in all likelihood will not because the man is 'economical with the truth' shall we say, even in Richard Cobb's offering where he writes Chapter nine his says "Lechmere also had the opportunity to kill. He said he left home at 3:30am" Which is a blatant, well lie. He also states Old Ma Lechmere bigamously married even though the law states the seven year absence rule. So if her first marriage was not bigamous and Thomas died before she remarried again how can her third marriage be bigamous and again the bigger picture here is so chuffing what? What does bigamous marriages have to do with being a serial killer?

It's funny I have had four very well respected Rippersphere members compliment me on the video and others on the book. Now whose opinion should I be bothered about? Respected Ripper authors and commentators or proven liars and folks with Stow's background? Mmmm it's a tough one. Oh to add Mark, just out of curiosity why do you believe someone who as I've just proven is economical with the truth?

Of course if you seriously think Richard or I came out badly can I throw in some of the comments from the HoL offering from today...

You’re honorable. That’s what I really appreciate about you. It’s obvious that you are interested in the truth and not just wanting to sell a story to gain something. I think it’s despicable when people try to sell a story for personal gains. I might come across as flattering but it’s my honest words and how I really feel about it.

It actually showed that the anti Lechmere advocates have a very weak case and are guilty of misinformation.

The research and reasoning of yourself and Christer is far more detailed, robust and persuasive than any of the arguments/opinions that attempt to refute Lechmere's likely guilt

He was standing near a freshly slain body, whose blood hadn’t even began to spread across the sidewalk yet.

I believe THIS channel is the ONLY channel worth one’s time

Yes, I do believe lechmere WAS Jack the Ripper, all the arguments against are opinions and zero legitimate reasons, just “no one would hang around to show the body if theyJTR” and “there’s zero evidence” despite tons of evidence as described on here… tbh, they don’t WANT lechmere to be JTR, as it would close their money avenues!!!

I predicted Edward would demolish and debunk Ian’s arguments (disappointingly ‘led’ by a clearly biased Richard Jones, host of the Jack the Ripper Tours channel) in under three minutes. I was wrong — it was under two.

Ian Hope is Geddy 2112 on the casebook forum. He is seriously unhinged about Lechmere not being a suspect, he's one of many nuts on that site.

The ONLY JTR channel worth taking seriously, it isn’t about money or “I wrote a book on the queens dog being JTR and it proves it” type of amateur investigations, this channel provides countless reasons and FACTS that point to it being lechmere, the links are mind blowing, I think others DO believe it was lechmere but hey, it’s a lucrative business is it not? .. I watch the occasional other JTR vid but they leave me with zero answers.. it’s all factless bs tbh..

Hi ed, thanks for the response video I knew you would make a response video when that video came out. It seems the guy in the video is clutching at straws just like the police In 1888 when they thought it was people like druit, kosminski etc.

Lechmere is the only credible suspect,. so many red flags surrounding him. I believe he was caught red handed and he basically blagged his way out of it , using deception and a false name technically . he would be held in custody today.

It's funny how they say Lechmere as a suspect is conjecture. When all i hear and see about the Anti Lechmere crowd is conjecture and flat out lies.

I've been looking forward to this. Ian Hope's interview to rubbish the Lechmere theory was incredibly weak and full of inaccuracies and contradictions. He actually strengthened my belief in Lechmere being the Whitechapel murderer. Aside from all the facts and red flags, for me the biggest indicator of Lechmere's guilt is the fact he never told his family he discovered the body. That would have been a talked about for generations had it been known.

He was lingering (hanging around) and he was acting suspiciously. Robert Paul never saw him walking ahead never saw him crossing the road, never saw him offering aid to Polly. He just saw him "standing where the woman was". This is lingering/hanging around. I didn't appreciate the insinuation on the Richard Jones show that I made this up.

I thought Ian was a poor choice for an interview for this video. His arguments were so weak.

From a logical point of view, I think the position has to be taken that it is Charles Lechmere until proven otherwise.

Great video. I strongly suspected you would feel the need to have a say about what I considered (last week when I viewed it) to be a very tenuous anti Lechmere as Ripper argument. Transpose the events to the modern day and Lechmere would be strongly suspected as an almost caught red handed individual. His work, family background and experiences make him a very hard to disprove suspect. This online book's arguments are based on supposition and surmising.

I Trust in Edward and Christer , watched so many JTR over last 10 yrs and I'm sold that Lechmere was JTR because of your research Edward . Lechmere makes the most sense out of all the others. Lets not over complicate the matter. And stick to facts.

I’m glad you got on this video as fast as you did. After following you from the start of your channel, I saw all the holes in this video. Again I’m glad you got on this as quick as you have, because its inaccuracies needed to be brought to the people’s attention, before it was taken as a serious case against Lechmere being the killer.

I saw this interview and to be fair his reasons for Lechmere not being JR were appalling. This man couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag. I was suprised that Richard, who is normally fair and inclusive had this weak weak opinion aired on his channel. He proved or disproved absolutely nothing and Richard didn't seem to question him or disagree with anything this guy said. Really disappointing arguments by a man baby. Glad you tore the nonsense down

It irritated me that Ian kept calling him Cross rather than Lechmere.

Just wanted to make a point about the apron. If I read JtR right he was a thrill seeker. Doing things under the nose of police men seemed to be part of his kick. I can imagine such a type would wear a dirty apron, one that he may have worn during one of his killings, because it was fun to him, standing there in full display while saying yes sir, no sir. He would probably feel superior doing so, it would be funny to him.

At this point of investigation by Christer, Edward, and others, entirely dismissing Lechmere as the culprit is quite a sloppy, or agenda-driven, thing to do.

...I'm sorry but if that is the mentality and reasoning of those thinking Cross was Jack the Ripper then I give up. A nice quote I like to use from time to time...

"The internet has given a voice to people who would have been considered the village idiot"

If you Google this quote you are led to a reddit page with the following comment - "A cursory glance at any YouTube comments section would confirm this as fact."

Never more has this been as accurate as in HoL comments.

Hey my reason for writing the book was mentioned at the beginning of the video, I thought on the surface the Lechmere Theory was compelling and thought wow we have him, awesome at last. Then I started to read more here and watch some videos and read Cutting Point and watch the Missing Evidence and suddenly I realised it was all a complete load of horse muck. I've always wanted to write a book but never could decide on what to write about so I thought let's write about the Lechmere Theory. I thought at least I'd give it a go. I was very nervous about doing the video because I knew I'd only get one shot, no second chances, no reading from a word for word script. I knew every single word I said would be poured over and criticised by Team Lechmere and I knew Stow would produce a hatchet job. Maybe I should not put myself out there but at least I've not banned the 'other side' from commenting on the video like he has, the coward.

The bit I saw of this video he is ironically berating me for missing out the word 'almost' from the quote 'almost up to her stomach' which incidentally I have in the book in it's entirety. A book I know Holmgren and Stow have not read, funny they berated Inside Bucks Row too without reading it, astonishing. To scour over a video frame by frame and pick that out is remarkably desperate to be honest and hence if that is the level of debunking we are talking about I fail to see how Richard or I have come out bad and even if we have come out bad it's 'only' from people who write the rubbish quoted above and why anyone with their head screwed on correctly believes anything Stow says is beyond me, this is a great researcher who thinks people buried next to each other knew each other in real life. This is a bloke who thinks wearing an apron at a murder inquest is a sign of guilt, this is a bloke who lies about when Cross left home. This is a bloke who knows Cross' walking speed and his routes to work. This is a bloke who knows what Cross did on his days off and when he did and did not visit his mother. This is the bloke who thinks there is still human flesh in the Doveton Street drains.... but yes indeed Richard and I come off badly due to what this man says.

Sorry I had a great idea for a book, I thought I could take from here what I've learned and achieve something by producing a book. I thought I could actually educate some people and show a different side to the 'skulduggery' we have endured for so many years. It seems I was wrong. It seems my dear mother was correct and you can't educate or argue with stupid. But here we are, I made the effort, I wrote the book, I got it published and have been offered a few contracts to have it published in hard and paper back forms. So for that, even if it does not sell a dozen copies it does not matter, I wrote a book and got it published. I've achieved that and that is something a good number of people here and on Stow's fanboy pages will never be able to manage. Maybe being interviewed was not a great idea but I went with it and have been complimented for that by a good number of respectable people in the 'scene.' (At least I had the balls to do it.) So thank you I'd rather listen to them than some washed up old failed right wing politician who has made so many errors of judgement when doing his research its unbelievable.
Apologies for wanting to try and wanting to try and add some balance. I'll know better next time.

Criticism from Stow and his worshippers is like being attacked by someone trying to beat your brains out with a baguette. Messy but ineffective. They are in their own little bowl excitedly telling each other what a great suspect Cross is while making sure they keep away from anyone that knows anything about the case while they witter on about Cross’s mother, who is about as relevant to the case as Humphrey Bogart, and crap like the apron (classic - which genius actually came up with that one?) and they even try to move Cross around in Bucks Row to make him look suspicious, then Christer we had doctoring the evidence (twice) to trick Scobie. How can these people ignore all of this?

[Fiver]

Congratulations. I loved the interview. I do have a comment about Cross wearing his Pickford uniform to the inquest. If he really was both Jack and the torso murderer as some have claimed, and killed on his way to work, surely the uniform would be speckled with blood and wouldn't the Observer have noticed? It would be quite the flex for him to show up at the inquest in the clothes that he committed the murder.

The work apron was probably much lighter colored than Cross' other clothing, meaning blood stains would be even more visible than on his regular clothes. It's another reason that killing on his way to work would be rather stupid.

[Fiver]

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

When I see HoL, I think of this.

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.

I find it refreshingly straightforward.

[Fiver]

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.

The problem is hardly unique to Lechmerians, or suspectologists, or Ripperlogy as a whole. No matter what the topic, one of the biggest annoyances are people who agree with your conclusions, but post nonsensical arguments.

[Fiver]

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

I suspect most people's ideas of serial killers come from popular fiction, where serial killers are bold, clever, witty, powerful, dangerous, and in control. In reality, most of them are only dangerous.

[The Rookie Detective]

Exciting thread indeed.


Well, coming from someone (me) who was impressed by Christer's documentary a few years ago, and from that documentary alone was convinced that Lechmere was the Ripper... but then came to realise that I was mistaken... I can say which a fair degree of certainly....


... that Lechmere wasn't the Ripper.


His life story can be pretty much fully documented and his antecedents verified.

And we find absolutely zero evidence of any history of violence or hatred towards women, zero hint at psychopathy, and zero suggestion that he was capable of carrying out the knife injuries that the real Ripper inflicted on the victims.

Aside from him being the man who found Nichols; there's also nothing whatsoever to link him to any of the other murders.


And yet we have the likes of the enigmatic Hutchinson, and Schwartz, who remain elusive to this day.


The amount of time spent and wasted on trying to show Lechmere as the Ripper, is baffling.


Great thread though.

[Lewis C]

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.

Ian, I believe your experience was similar to mine in that when I was first exposed to the Lechmere theory, in my case by seeing the Missing Evidence video, I thought he seemed like a good suspect. In fact, for awhile he was my #1 suspect. As I learned more about the case and heard the counter-arguments defending Lechmere, I came to recognize he wasn't a good suspect. I think some people just haven't moved beyond that initial stage, either because they haven't learned enough to move beyond it, or because they had made up their minds and weren't going to allow new information to change their minds.

[Lewis C]

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.

Hi John,

Since Herlock has read it, he would be the one to ask about this, but my impression from the comments about the book was that it was balanced, not pushing the idea that Chapman was the ripper, but not closing the door to the possibility either.

[Lewis C]

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.

Hi Herlock,

The question has come up about whether there's a difference between saying "not sure" and saying "no" to that question. One might say that if one isn't sure, that means that one has doubt. Another possibility though is that some people taking the poll know that they don't know much about it, and said "not sure", meaning that they didn't know enough to have an informed opinion.

Christer Holmgren commented under the poll and said that he was among those who said yes. In another post he said that he assumed that Lechmere would be the only suspect that this question would be asked about, that it would be ridiculous to ask it about any other suspect. Ian quoted a poster as saying that Richard Jones was biased against the Stow/Holmgren argument, but I'd say that if they only do a poll like this for Lechmere, that would show anything but a bias against that position. I think the poster assumed that because Richard was positive and sympathetic to what Ian was saying, and didn't consider that maybe being positive and sympathetic is just Richard's interviewing style. I haven't seen Richard's video with Ed Stow, but I'm gonna guess that Richard was nice to Ed too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

The question has come up about whether there's a difference between saying "not sure" and saying "no" to that question. One might say that if one isn't sure, that means that one has doubt. Another possibility though is that some people taking the poll know that they don't know much about it, and said "not sure", meaning that they didn't know enough to have an informed opinion.

Christer Holmgren commented under the poll and said that he was among those who said yes. In another post he said that he assumed that Lechmere would be the only suspect that this question would be asked about, that it would be ridiculous to ask it about any other suspect. Ian quoted a poster as saying that Richard Jones was biased against the Stow/Holmgren argument, but I'd say that if they only do a poll like this for Lechmere, that would show anything but a bias against that position. I think the poster assumed that because Richard was positive and sympathetic to what Ian was saying, and didn't consider that maybe being positive and sympathetic is just Richard's interviewing style. I haven't seen Richard's video with Ed Stow, but I'm gonna guess that Richard was nice to Ed too.

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.

[rjpalmer]

Hi John,

Since Herlock has read it, he would be the one to ask about this, but my impression from the comments about the book was that it was balanced, not pushing the idea that Chapman was the ripper, but not closing the door to the possibility either.

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.