All roads lead to Lechmere.

[MrBarnett]

That last press report was completely irrelevant. This one, however, isn’t.

What do you reckon, Fiver?

[MrBarnett]

The presentation that C. Cross was involved in took place in Walworth, didn’t it? And the person who was being honoured had run pubs in numerous locations across London and elsewhere. Why the fixation with Bethnal Green?

Now, if a Charles Allen Lechmere had taken part, they’red be no doubt who it was. That name was virtually unique (apart from two of CAL’s children, one of whom died in infancy).

It was the ‘Walworth and Newington pals’ who threw the party.

[MrBarnett]

According to the Pickfords website - "In 2012, a descendent [sic] of Charles Latchmere [sic] searched the Pickfords archive to find any reference to her relative. No records were found"

That could mean the records for Cross/Lechmere were lost. It could mean that the records were in the archive, but that his descendant could not find the records. It could mean that only the name Charles Lechmere was searched for and he was employed as Charles Cross.

But it clearly does mean that Pickfords still has an archive of period employee records.

No, it means Pickfords still has an archive. I think I may know the Lechmere descendant in question. Next time we meet up for a cross* burning perhaps I could ask.

*See what I did there?

[Fiver]

According to the Pickfords website - "In 2012, a descendent [sic] of Charles Latchmere [sic] searched the Pickfords archive to find any reference to her relative. No records were found"

That could mean the records for Cross/Lechmere were lost. It could mean that the records were in the archive, but that his descendant could not find the records. It could mean that only the name Charles Lechmere was searched for and he was employed as Charles Cross.

But it clearly does mean that Pickfords still has an archive of period employee records.

[MrBarnett]

Interesting find. The question is whether this is "our" Charles Cross.

The Pitts Head is about 9 minutes walk from 22 Doveton Street.

The Panther, which is where the article's Charles Cross would have met the article's John Hall, was about 19 minutes from 22 Doveton Street. A Thomas Brierley was the licensee of the Panther in 1884. Sometime between then and 1891, John Hall became the licensee, with Henry Forster replacing him later that same year.

So this Charles Cross needs to have been an adult living near the Panther sometime between 1884 and 1891 and still alive in 1901.

Using Ancestry, electoral registers show

Charles Cross - 16 Turville street, Bethnal Green South West 1894 and 1895.

Charles George Cross - Streatley buildings, Bethnal Green South West 1898

The Turville Street Cross lived a lot closer to the Panther than Charles Lechmere.

The only Charles George Cross that I can find lived 1847 to 1898, so he can't be the Charles Cross of the article.

Checking the 1891 Census, we find the Turville Street Cross was living there in 1891, aged 25, with a wife Ann, and children Charles and James. His occupation is Stick Dresser, whatever that is.

This doesn't eliminate Charles Lechmere from being the man in the article, but the Turville Street Cross seems more likely to me.

The presentation that C. Cross was involved in took place in Walworth, didn’t it? And the person who was being honoured had run pubs in numerous locations across London and elsewhere. Why the fixation with Bethnal Green?

Now, if a Charles Allen Lechmere had taken part, they’red be no doubt who it was. That name was virtually unique (apart from two of CAL’s children, one of whom died in infancy).

[MrBarnett]

There’s a lot of wriggling going on. My point was simply that Ed’s politics do not necessarily invalidate his research or the conclusions he draws from them. Just as they don’t those of Chris Scott.

I’ve been banging on for ages about my theory as to why CAL may have called himself Cross at the inquest. I suspect it had more to do with his mother than it did Polly Nichols. That said, when someone emphatically states that the use of the name Cross could not have concealed his identity as the murderer, the stupidity of that statement has to be challenged.

And finally - dear Ally is apparently baffled by Christer’s reference to the similarity between the injuries to Chapman and Jackson. The relevance, of course, as pretty much anyone who has paid attention to the debate must surely know, is that Christer believes the two series - Ripper and Torso - were by the same hand, so similarities between them support his theory. No panes of glass, I’m afraid, Ally. That really was a silly idea.

[Ally]

Your list of facts ignores facts that contradict your theory. It also includes facts that contradict your theory, facts that are irrelevant, and claims that are not facts at all. All of which has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
The same goes for how Chapman, Kelly and Liz Jackson all had their abdominal walls cut away in large panes. Fact.

This if a fact, but it has no possible bearing on Lechmere's guilt or innocence.

This one actually baffled me when I first read it. I mean most of the nonsensical facts I could at least see where they were trying to go, though of course, the arguments were still ridiculously specious, but this one? . How in the actual hell does how their abdomens were cut provide evidence against Charles Lechmere? "He once said he was fond of gazing through window panes, and their flesh was cut away like panes, ergo - GUILTY!!" I mean, I wouldn't put it past it to be something that ludicrous considering what's been offered so far.

[Fiver]

Sorry, Fiver, but you are going to have to digest another post by my hand. Blame it on Ally, who missed a golden opportunity not to respond to my last post.

There is no reason to blame Ally for you choosing to return (again) after saying you were leaving forever (again) to try to reinflate your burst soap bubble of a theory (again).

It was your choice.

[Fiver]

So, Ally, what you are prepared to accept as established facts is that:

Your list of facts ignores facts that contradict your theory. It also includes facts that contradict your theory, facts that are irrelevant, and claims that are not facts at all. All of which has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

A: Lechmere found the body of Polly Nichols, and…

Fact: Robert Paul did not observe any blood on Charles Lechmere's hands or clothing.

Fact: PC Mizen did not observe any blood on Charles Lechmere's hands or clothing.

B: Lechmere used an alias at the inquest.

Fact: Lechmere used his stepfather's surname at the inquest.

Fact: Lechmere had used his stepfather's surname at a previous inquest in 1876.

Fact: Lechmere gave his middle name at the 1888 inquest.

Fact: Lechmere gave the name of his employer and their address at the 1888 inquest.

Fact: Lechmere gave his home address at the 1888 inquest.

But it is also on record that Charles Lechmere disagreed with the police about what he said on the murder morning.

Fact: Robert Paul disagreed with PC Mizen about what he said to the police on that morning.

Fact: Robert Paul's time estimates disagree with the time estimates of PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain.

Fact: Charles Lechmere's time estimates agree with the time estimates of PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain.

The same goes for how Lechmere passed through Bucks Row and Spitalfields every working day morning. Fact.

Fact: Robert Paul passed through Bucks Row every working day morning.

Fact: The police observed other men in the area of Bucks Row on the morning of the murder.

Fact: The police testified that it would have been easy Nichols killer to escape the murder site undetected>

Fact: Hundreds, possibly thousands, of men passed through Spitalfields every working morning.

The same goes for how his mother lived in 1 Mary Ann Street, very close by Berner Street. Fact.

Fact: Hundreds of people lived, or had relatives that lived, or attended clubs, or went to pubs, or walked though the area near the Stride murder.

The same goes for how Stride and Eddowes were both murdered on a Sunday morning. Fact.

Fact: Stride was murdered between 12:45am and 1am.

Fact: Eddowes was murdered between 1:35am and 1:40am.

Fact: For Lechmere to be the killer he would have had get up 3 hours early on his only day off a week or he would have had to stay up for 23 hours straight.

The same goes for how Lechmere refused to help prop Nichols up. Fact.

Fact: Propping up Nichols would have provided an innocent explanation for any blood on Lechmere's hands or clothes.

The same goes for how Paul said that he was sure that he felt a movement in the chest of Nichols as he touched it. Fact.

This if a fact, but it has no possible bearing on Lechmere's guilt or innocence.

The same goes for how Mizen said that the wound in the neck was ”still bleeding” as he observed it. Fact.

Fact: Alice Mackenzie's body bled for 22 minutes after it was found.

The same goes for how Goulston Street lies between Mitre Square and Doveton Street. Fact.

Fact: Ghoulston street lies between Mitre square and over one hundred other streets

The same goes for how the building site of the new church up at London Hospital lies between the Pinchin Stret railway arch and Doveton Street. Fact.

Fact: None of the period police thought the Pinchoin Street Torso was a Ripper victim.

Fact: The Pinchin Street Torso was deposited between 4:55am and 5:25am.

Fact: Charles Lechmere began work at 4am.

Fact: A piece of bloody garment was found a couple blocks to the west a few hours after the Pinchin Street Torso was deposited.

Fact: There is no evidence that the bloody garment piece found the next day in that church building site had anything to do with the Pinchin Street Torso.

Fact: The church construction site lies between the Pinchin Street railway arch and over one hundred other streets.

The same goes for how Chapman, Kelly and Liz Jackson all had their abdominal walls cut away in large panes. Fact.

This if a fact, but it has no possible bearing on Lechmere's guilt or innocence.

The same goes for how the wounds to Nicholsī abdomen were covered up buy her clothing. Fact.

Fact: Robert Paul testified that he pulled down Nichols' dress.

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n797823]So when you say that the only facts there are , are the finding and the name swop, you are wrong. There are heaps of facts that taken together lend themselves quite well to form a cogent theory about Lechmere as the killer. [/quote}

None of these facts support your theory that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper and the Torso Killer.

It is only when I reason that for example the fact that Lechmere disagreed with the police over what was said is likely indicative of guilt that it becomes opining.

You "reason" that Lechmere disagreeing with PC Mizen is evidence of guilt, but you do not apply the same "reasoning" to Robert Paul disagreeing with PC Mizen.

It's hardly the only inconsistency in your reasoning and and far from the first time the inconsistencies in your reasoning have been noted.

[Fiver]

[B]And in the same breath, you are heroically putting a tin helmet on your head and climbing onto the highest horse you can find to do battle on people on account of them entertaining political ideas that you find despicable? /B]

So you are mocking Ally for finding racism and fascism despicable?

[Ally]

Just to derail the incoming, "So now you claim Mizen is a wrong cop" argument, completely ignoring I also said cops can just be wrong or misconstrue, I present this scenario:

Cross: Hey, a policeman's needed in Buck's row, there's a woman lying on the ground, I think she's dead.

Mizen: He said a policeman needed me in Buck's row.


Neither lied. One said a statement, the other slightly misconstrued what he heard, because when he arrived, there was in fact a policeman there.

No actual wrongdoing on Mizen's part, merely a verbal miscommunication which happens no doubt millions of times a day.

[Ally]

A short answer to Ally is all that is needed.

It's cute what Fisherman considers to be a short answer.

Ally once more tries to sweep her being wrong under the carpet in various ways. An example is how Ally, after having been corrected about how Gary Barnett does NOT think the name issue points to Lechmere being a killer, does not choose to say "Okay, so I was wrong". Or "Sorry, I was wrong".

No, Ally doesn't. Fisherman fails to prove her wrong, ergo, the criteria for the admission of wrongdoing weren't met. Kind of like with Lechmere as a candidate. Some guy DECIDING they were a wrong 'un, doesn't make it so, without actual evidence. It's such a difficult concept for these gents to comprehend.

When all the while, the whole problem was always that Ally took an uninformed stance that she could have avoided by reading up. Gary has been tremendeously clear and tremendeously consistent about this throughout, and has left a very long and very clear trail about it.

Nope. He hasn't. But it's good that you keep running his errands for him. Let me guess, he's too embarrassed by his meltdown to come back like an actual grown adult and defend himself?

The problem is, Ally, that you should have been, well, clearer if that was what you meant, because that was NOT what you wrote. You wrote that there are two (2) facts only involved. And you donīt think they mean diddly squat either, remember?

Okay fine. I'll be clearer. In fact, I was. In my last response. But I understand zealotry gets in the way of reason and since you and the brethren appear to be suffering from a surplus of the former and a significant deficit of the latter. I'll be more clear. There are lots of facts in the world. England is a monarchy, the streets were dirty, living was hard for many of those in the East End. All of those are irrelevant to Charles Cross' candidacy as Jack the Ripper. Just like all the facts you laid out are irrelevant to Charles Cross being Jack the Ripper. The only two facts, that could in anyway be used to Charles Cross, and Charles Cross specifically are: He found the body, and he used a family name instead of a legal name.

Have I broken it down enough that even you can take it onboard now? Somehow, I have doubts. Because of course, you didn't answer any of the points raised in any of my post. You never do. I suspect you never will. It's the hallmark of zealots, to answer a question that wasn't asked, when backed into a corner and circle around endlessly and endlessly, convincing only themselves of their unerring righteousness.

Whether or not you like the facts I listed is neither here nor there, they remain facts just the same. And most people with some insight into criminal activities are aware that for example disagreeing with the police is a VERY serious matter.
Not you, though.

ROFLMAO.. My father was a cop, for forty years in one of the worst areas of the country, trust me when I say that cops aren't perfect and they misconstrue and they also lie. So people who think that "disagreeing with a cop" is a serious matter, only think so if they believe cops are always truthful, never wrong, and perfect human beings. In short, the only people who think "disagreeing with the police" is a very serious matter, are morons. Cops are wrong often. Just check many cop's sworn testimony against body camera footage, and then come back and make the argument that nobody should disagree with a cop's version of events. You guys are legitimately living in your own really idiotic world.

Lastly, you seem to say that yours is a noble cause and you are a true heroine (more or less) while I am "defending the name of a bigot". Wrong again.

This is in fact EXACTLY What you are doing, otherwise you'd call him Butler, like you call Cross, Lechmere. I mean, you know what his legal name is. You know what he goes by socially isn't his actual name, and yet, you afford a racist more respect than you afford an innocent witness to a crime.

What I am defending is the right to argue the Lechmere case without people trying to infer that one of the other proponents political background would somehow lessen the value of said theory.

No, you are defending your boy and have done so, repeatedly and complimented him too. I'd throw up in my mouth before I knowingly complimented a Nazi. I guess you guys would be fine with Andy Spallek being allowed on the boards too, wouldn't you? Because of course, the only thing that matters is the research. Not basic morality.

But it's fine. You think research in an unimportant historical event is more important than ethics. Everybody has to come down on one side or the other on that one. It's good to know where you and Gary stand.

As Gary Barnett pointed out in an earlier post: We now know who you are.

If you only NOW know who I am, this just proves how very poor researchers you are. It's not like I've hidden it, at all. Unlike you know... your boy Butler.

And now I can give it a new try to leave this very sad exchange. Wish me luck.

Well, the good news is the world is a big wide open place, and you can go off with the rest of the Brethren and create your own little "safe space" where you guys won't be challenged by facts and dissenting opinions or get called out on your lack of morality. I hear safe spaces are all the rage these days.

[Harry D]

Why are we assuming the killer continued eastwards after Goulston Street? If the killer had made a beeline in this direction, the apron rag would've been found sooner, but according to the beat cops it wasn't there. How do we know the killer didn't duck into a hideout near Goulston Street before he reappeared to deposit the apron/graffito and headed in a different direction?

Assuming of course he did carry on east, there's a wide radius of houses in that direction. Lechmere's just happens to be one of them.

[Aethelwulf]

Anyways, it is no as if we can say that the correlation between Mitre Square, the rag in Goulston Street, and Doveton Street is not there.

We can say it (i.e. the correlation) isn't there because correlation implies some statistical analysis has taken place and produced a statistically significant result. That is not the case. The word you want is coincidence. Coincidence, nothing more, and not a very sinister one, I wouldn't even give it an off white flag.

[Fisherman]

I'm at a loss to understand how this is relevant to Lechmere, unless you're arguing that he killed Eddowes and fled the scene as the crow flies. But if you look at a line drawn (roughly) between Mitre Square, the Goulston Street Graffito and Doveton Street, it cuts through many buildings and streets, which may not have any significance to Lechmere's address.

The police will very likely have pondered the location of the rag as being potentially indicative of the direction in which the killer fled, Scott. And that direction is in line with Lechmere being their man.
The fact that another rag was found on the exact route between the Pinchin Street railway arch and Doveton Street does nothing to dissolve the possibility that the Goulston Street rag was a genuine clue. Once we look at the rags in combination with each other, the argument is not a bad one at all.

Of course, we all have different takes on the degree to which the many facts I listed to Ally lend themselves to pointing a finger at Lechmere. Some of them are weaker, some stronger indications, and not all will rank them the same way in this respect.

The important thing to remember is that we should never isolate them and try and dismiss them one by one, becasue that exercise is far too simple. We must look at them all in combination and ask ourselves whether or not an innocent man is likely to amass such a mountain of pointers to guilt. And that is where Scobie becomes very succinct when he chooses not to say "He must have been guilty", but instead "a jury would not like him".

Anyways, it is no as if we can say that the correlation between Mitre Square, the rag in Goulston Street, and Doveton Street is not there. It IS a fact, and since Ally claimed that there were two facts only involved in the Lechmere case, it belonged to the correction that needed to be made.