So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

[Fisherman]

You can clearly see here that your answers/replies are suspect driven. Simply giving Crow the benefit of the doubt, but not Cross.

For example, with 1, we could ask why Cross was killing haphazardly on his route to work? 2, is trying to get Crow out of Whitechapel altogether because him operating a cab in Whitechapel takes him also past the murder scenes. 3, are obviously still connections. 5, is that Crow meets the conditions for Rossmo. He lives in the hot zone. 6,7, your answer here gives Crow the benefit of the doubt over his story, but just doubts Cross' story.

You may need to be aware that Gary Barnett does not favour Charles Lechmere as the killer. Accordingly calling him suspect-driven becomes very silly.

I am grateful that somebody as well read up and discerning as him has the moral stature to acknowledge Lechmere´s value as a suspect. It makes a welcome change to the ones who do not have equal levels of knowledge and insight but who nevertheless take it upon themselves to discard Charles Lechmere on very loose grounds - or no grounds at all.

[Fisherman]

He gave his name as Cross. He did. Himself.

Monty

Yes, and when he decided which name to be listed by officially, he gave the name Lechmere. He did. Himself.

[Monty]

There is no prima facie reason to suppose that the 1873 Battersea torso was the work of the Whitechapel Ripper of 1888 but, because you believe the contrary, your perception of Crow's candidacy for the Ripper is compromised.

This is precisely why building theories by combining speculation and subjective opinion is so dangerous.

99% of suspect theories are built on speculation and subjective opinion.

It’s how the case shall be solved.

Monty

[MrBarnett]

You can clearly see here that your answers/replies are suspect driven. Simply giving Crow the benefit of the doubt, but not Cross.

For example, with 1, we could ask why Cross was killing haphazardly on his route to work? 2, is trying to get Crow out of Whitechapel altogether because him operating a cab in Whitechapel takes him also past the murder scenes. 3, are obviously still connections. 5, is that Crow meets the conditions for Rossmo. He lives in the hot zone. 6,7, your answer here gives Crow the benefit of the doubt over his story, but just doubts Cross' story.

Not at all. I'm reacting to your obvious bias in favour of Crow.

[Monty]

Yes, and when he decided which name to be listed by officially, he gave the name Lechmere. He did. Himself.

So you have stated.

Yet he, himself, confirmed his name at inquest, under oath, in view of those in attendance.

The interpretated use of Lechmere is an attempt to infer guilt by others, Ed, yourself.

See Gareth’s post above about suggestive opinion.

Monty.

[Fisherman]

So you have stated.

Yet he, himself, confirmed his name at inquest, under oath, in view of those in attendance.

The interpretated use of Lechmere is an attempt to infer guilt my others, Ed, yourself.

See Gareth’s post above about suggestive opinion.

Monty.

Of course, this works in two ways - it can just as easily be claimed that calling him Cross is to take his side. Perhaps that illuded you? For whatever reason?

What bears significance here is that we know that he used the name Lechmere on occasions when he was in contact with the authorities. A hundred times and more.

What we do NOT have is any evidence that he ever strayed from this habit, other than possibly in connection with another violent death some years before.

No matter how many possible explanations we provide him with for having that sudden change of mind when he spoke to the police, we are left with this fact - it is therefore an anomaly, and as I said on another thread, if there is anything an innocent man should avoid, then that is anomalies.

To claim that pointing this anomaly out is combined with a vicious lust for tarnishing Lechmere is daft, quite frankly. You may wish to sweep it under the carpet, claiming that such a thing is in line with an unbiased approach on your behalf, but I believe most people are fully able to see the implications of this desire of yours.

I hope we are clear on how it works now.

[MrBarnett]

He gave his name as Cross. He did. Himself.

Monty

Yes, and that's rather odd.

Someone once trawled through the Old Bailey records and came up with a long list of men who identified themselves by a surname other than that on their birth certs. I think the intention was to show that adopting a step parent's name etc and using it in court was a common occurrence. As indeed it was. But the reason we knew it had happened was that in every case the accused/witness also felt it appropriate to reveal their 'real' name.

'My name is Joe Bloggs, but I go by the name of Smith which is my stepfather's name' kind of thing.

Curiously, Charles Lechmere didn't do that. And the only other time we know he may have used the name Cross was when he killed a child with his cart. I say may, because it's possible that the driver of the cart was another Charles Cross who worked for Pickfords. I'm sure there's no need for me to repeat the mantra about the 100+ times he used the name Lechmere in his dealings with the authorities.

[Monty]

Of course, this works in two ways - it can just as easily be claimed that calling him Cross is to take his side. Perhaps that illuded you? For whatever reason?

What bears significance here is that we know that he used the name Lechmere on occasions when he was in contact with the authorities. A hundred times and more.

What we do NOT have is any evidence that he ever strayed from this habit, other than possibly in connection with another violent death some years before.

No matter how many possible explanations we provide him with for having that sudden change of mind when he spoke to the police, we are left with this fact - it is therefore an anomaly, and as I said on another thread, if there is anything an innocent man should avoid, then that is anomalies.

To claim that pointing this anomaly out is combined with a vicious lust for tarnishing Lechmere is daft, quite frankly. You may wish to sweep it under the carpet, claiming that such a thing is in line with an unbiased approach on your behalf, but I believe most people are fully able to see the implications of this desire of yours.

I hope we are clear on how it works now.

This desire of mine?

Your post gives a lot away. The need to justify clear.

The fact remains he stated his name as Cross. From his mouth. He did.

Again, you assume this event was a one off. You claim it as a diversion. As stated before, there are many reasons why he may chose to use multiple names (a trait common for the era).

Gary asked a question. I answered.

I have no horse in this suspect race, unlike yourself. Therefore no bias, unlike yourself.

Monty

[Monty]

Yes, and that's rather odd.

Someone once trawled through the Old Bailey records and came up with a long list of men who identified themselves by a surname other than that on their birth certs. I think the intention was to show that adopting a step parent's name etc and using it in court was a common occurrence. As indeed it was. But the reason we knew it had happened was that in every case the accused/witness also felt it appropriate to reveal their 'real' name.

'My name is Joe Bloggs, but I go by the name of Smith which is my stepfather's name' kind of thing.

Curiously, Charles Lechmere didn't do that. And the only other time we know he may have used the name Cross was when he killed a child with his cart. I say may, because it's possible that the driver of the cart was another Charles Cross who worked for Pickfords. I'm sure there's no need for me to repeat the mantra about the 100+ times he used the name Lechmere in his dealings with the authorities.

Cross’s position is unique Gary.

Monty

[MrBarnett]

Cross’s position is unique Gary.

Monty

We're all unique, Neil.

[John G]

Speaking of the route, JG. I’m wondering how the road construction for the new tramway on Commercial Street would have altered pedestrian traffic? Apparently the construction lasted day and night.

Yes, that would br interesting, Jerry. Of course, when referring to "quickest route", that's a reference to distance, not practically.

[John G]

See, that's where it starts to fall apart. Apart from Nichols, we can only say that of the Chapman murder - and then only if we (a) accept an earlier TOD that is by no means proven; and (b) we assume that Cross was actually en route to work via Hanbury Street at that time. Nichols aside, this is the only other occasion where Cross's work-route might have coincided with the scene and time of a murder, but even here we're on very shaky ground.

Incidentally, the same "logic" would apply to Robert Paul in respect of the Nichols/Chapman murders, not that it means much at all.

Of course, that only works if you consider that a serial killer would consider it sensible to carry out brutal murders, where there had to be a great risk of being covered in blood and gore, on his way to work.

Incidentally, Hanbury Street is 0.6 miles from Durward Street. Someone living at Flower and Dean Street wouldn't be more than 0.6 miles away from any murder site, except Mitre Street, and even there he would be 0.4 miles closer than Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

This desire of mine?

Your post gives a lot away. The need to justify clear.

The fact remains he stated his name as Cross. From his mouth. He did.

Again, you assume this event was a one off. You claim it as a diversion. As stated before, there are many reasons why he may chose to use multiple names (a trait common for the era).

Gary asked a question. I answered.

I have no horse in this suspect race, unlike yourself. Therefore no bias, unlike yourself.

Monty

Your "unbiased" stance visavi me took it´s start when you accused me of making money off the people visiting the event we made in St Johns Church in Bethnal Green, disclosing Lechmere as our suspect.

Of course, it was a charity event, and every last penny went to the Stairway to Heaven foundation. And I payed for my flight to London out of my own purse.

That is how unbiased an approach you started out with. There was never any obstacle to check the real circumstances, but you skipped over that opportunity in favour of officially naming me somebody who benefitted from poor relatives of Bethnal Green tube disaster victims and castigated descendants of Lechmere - who we had beforehand approached and asked if they were okay with our presentation.

Before you speak of me as being too biased to warrant any trust, you would do well to consider this.

I favour Lechmere as a suspect, and I do so for a large number of given reasons. I believe the was the Whitechapel killer and the Torso killer, and I have provided my reasons in detail.

When one researches somebody as a suspect, one tends to look at all the matters that may point to guilt. The name matter is one such thing. It is by no means at all any given thing that his choosing the name Cross was innocent. Nor is it any given thing that it was sinister, but it goes - or should go - without saying that it is a red flag, and a possible pointer to foul play.

I have never once said that it is a given that it WAS sinister. I have never once denied that he could have used the name Cross on a day-to-day basis. These are possibilities, but weighing up just HOW possible they are and comparing them to the sinister possibilities is not an easy thing to do. Certainly, the fact that he seems not to have divulged the name Lechmere to the police and inquest and the fact that he was in the habit of using the name Lechmere in all other known contacts with the authorities does not help his case for innocence.

Therefore, they must be presented as possible pointers to guilt by somebody who makes a case for Charles Lechmere as the culprit. That is precisely what I do. The question must therefore be: What is your problem with it?

Do I have a quota I must fill every month, by acknowledging a certain amount of times that the name change MAY be innocent? Or what?

You may give your answer to this as you please, and you may take full advantage of how I state that regardless of which answer you give, I am done with this discussion with you. I have made my position very clear on numerous times, and that will have to do for you.

[Fisherman]

Of course, that only works if you consider that a serial killer would consider it sensible to carry out brutal murders, where there had to be a great risk of being covered in blood and gore, on his way to work.

Incidentally, Hanbury Street is 0.6 miles from Durward Street. Someone living at Flower and Dean Street wouldn't be more than 0.6 miles away from any murder site, except Mitre Street, and even there he would be 0.4 miles closer than Lechmere.

Do sexual serial killers ply their trade on account of a wish to look sensible, John? Do eviscerators? Is or is not every act of murder fraught with risk in one way or another? Are some killer less put off by this than others?

Hanbury Street is 0,6 miles from Durward Street. But if you walk Hanbury Street on your way to work it suddenly becomes 0 miles away. Why do you not weigh in this factor?

[Monty]

Your "unbiased" stance visavi me took it´s start when you accused me of making miney on the people visiting the event we made in St Johns Church in Bethnal Green, disclosing Lechmere as our suspect.

Of course, it was a charity event, and every last penny went to the Stairway to Heaven foundation. And I payed for my flight to London out of my own purse.

That is how unbiased an approach you started out with. There was never any obstacle to check the real circumstances, but you skipped over that opportunity in favour of officially naming me somebody who benefitted from poor relatives of Bethnal Green tube disaster victims and castigated descendants of Lechmere - who we had beforehand approached and asked if they were okay with our presentation.

Before you speak f me being too biased to warrant any trust, you would do well to consider this.

I favour Lechmere as a suspect, and I do so for a large number of given reasons. I believe the was the Whitechapel killer and the Torso killer, and I have provided my reasons in detail.

When one researches somebody as a suspect, one tends to look at all the matters that may point to guilt. The name matter is one such thing. It is by no means at all any given thing that his choosing the name Cross was innocent. Nor is it any given thing that it was sinister, but it goes - or should go - without saying that it is a red flag, and a possible pointer to foul play.

I have never once said that it is a given that it WAS sinister. I have never once denied that he could have used the name Cross on a day-to-day basis. These are possibilities, but weighing up just HOW possible they are and comparing them to the sinister possibilities is not an easy thing to do. Certainly, the fact that he seems not to have divulged the name Lechmere to the police and inquest and the fact that he was in the habit of using the name Lechmere in all other known contacts with the authorities does not help his case for innocence.

Therefore, they must be presented as possible pointers to guilt by somebody who makes a case for Charles Lechmere as the culprit. That is precisely what I do. The question must therefore be: What is your problem with it?

Do I have a quota I must fill every month, by acknowledging a certain amount of times that the name change MAY be innocent? Or what?

You may give your answer to this as you please, and you may take full advantage of how I state that regardless of which answer you give, I am done with this discussion with you. I have made my position very clear on numerous times, and that will have to do for you.

Rest assured. I shall answer as I please. No permission from you is required.

And as I’m about to go on duty, my response shall indeed be brief.

Your need to drag an incident up from many years ago is, again, quite telling. It has nothing to do with biased opinion in relation to Cross as a suspect but more to do with my opinion on yourself, and the way you mispresent your so called evidence.

It is true I was highly critical of your trip, as I was unaware that the event was a charity fundraiser. It wasn’t I tell Ed pointed that fact out, that I was indeed aware. I note you have omitted the fact I apologised at the time, and that I have promoted subsequent events upon my Facebook page and elsewhere, with the latest being Lucky Dogs play about that awful disaster some months back.

It is this skewered presentation that does Cross as a suspect no good.

Sadly, you seemed to have not learnt a thing in how to present your theory in the year I have been away.

Fake history repeating.

Monty