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.

[The Rookie Detective]

“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.

I agree Herlock.


Standing in the middle of the road is not enough to even come close to suggesting that Cross was seen standing near the body.

For the sake of balance, I would say that the only aspect of the entire Cross and Paul account, is the question as to why after having found Nichols, neither of them chose to raise the alarm as would be expected of someone discovering what they had indeed discovered.

On that basis, they're either both suspicious, or neither of them are.

I favour the latter and believe that Cross had just found Nichols, and the Ripper had only left the scene after becoming aware of Cross approaching.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Isn’t it surprising how this man was supposedly cunning enough to kill and yet fool Robert Paul, the coroner’s court and the police into not suspecting him and smart enough to come up with the ‘fiendish’ Mizen Scam on the spur-of-the-moment as Robert Paul approached and yet when we look at his actions we see that, if he was indeed a killer trying to ‘get away with it,’ then he was actually more than a little stupid. A man of contradictions is our Mr Cross.

He supposedly lies to Mizen about seeing a Constable in Bucks Row even though he knew that he’d had a complete stranger with him who would prove him a liar to the police by saying that they hadn’t.

He refuses to prop up the body supposedly because he doesn’t want the fact that she’d had her throat cut revealed to Paul and yet he’s called over this complete stranger in the first place who he has no control over and who could easily have discovered that fact her throat was cut while he was checking to see if she was still alive.

He had ample time between the murder and the inquest but he still leaves the time that he left home at the slightly vague ‘about 3.30.’ Why didn’t he just tell the police that he’d left home at 3.35 or just before 3.40?

Why didn’t he take the very obvious and very simple opportunity of saying that he’d heard someone up ahead running away. Or even that he’d seen a figure near to the body up ahead who ran away as he’d approached?

How in a deserted, echoing backstreet did he still manage to be in situ when a stranger approached?

When Paul got there why didn’t he try and avoid approaching the body? They eventually both agreed on walking on to work and informing a Constable ‘if’ they saw one anyway so why didn’t he suggest that from the start? The worse that could have happened would have been if Paul had said “no, let’s go over and see if she’s ok.”


What a cunningly stupid Mr Cross he was.

…


I’ll add a doubt. Nothing that I’m suggesting as solid evidence but a doubt nonetheless.

Cross and Paul missed seeing PC Neil by a matter of just 5 minutes; possibly a little less. Cross didn’t know exactly what time that he’d left the house (unless you doctor the evidence of course) so it’s entirely reasonable to suggest that he didn’t leave the house at exactly the same time every day. Is it also by any means unlikely that on occasion the Constable on his beat might have entered Bucks Row a minute or two earlier than he had done on the day of the murder? So how unlikely is it that at no time ever did Cross see a Constable on his beat in Bucks Row? Then we have to consider that he, in all likelihood, returned home by the same route. Is it likely that he left work at exactly the same time every day? In a job like his, delivering, loading, unloading etc? There must surely have been variation in the time that he’d walked along Bucks Row every evening so what would be the chances that he’d never seen a constable on his beat? It seems pretty unlikely to me. So if he had seen a constable he would obviously have known the Bucks Row was on a police beat. So would he really have committed a murder in Bucks Row knowing this? So did he just see her and couldn’t stop himself…ignoring where he was or where he was going? Cross lived a long and apparently normal life….could a man with such a remarkable lack of self-control have lived a normal life?

[John Wheat]

Cross is a terrible suspect. He's up there with VanGough for how bad a suspect he is. He is a clearly innocent man. The quest to frame Cross is in bad taste.

[Abby Normal]

how many feet was lech from polly nichols body when paul saw him?

[Lewis C]

how many feet was lech from polly nichols body when paul saw him?

Hi Abby,

In Ian's video on Richard's channel, he estimated that Charles was about 30 feet from the body at the time. The reason for that is that he would have seen the body when it was still ahead of him, so it's not a question of just measuring the width of the road.