All roads lead to Lechmere.

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Ally;n797994]

The fact that you continually refer to fascism and the systemic attempt to disenfranchise people as a "political view", is nicely telling.



And rather than actually answering any question or putting up any statement of relevance you resort to ad hominem. Also telling. And I don't need to belittle anyone who crosses me. I just enjoy it.




Nope. He preferred Cross and therefore I will call him Cross. If you are going to insist on legal names, once again, why do you call Butler Stow?

The hypocrisy is ... staggering. I'm guessing you actually have more in common with Butler's ideology than you will admit. Otherwise, you'd have no problem disavowing him and NOT constantly trying to mitigate it and what it actually is. Fascism. Which you apparently don't consider a dealbreaker in a person.

I call him Stow because that’s the name he uses/used on the boards. Of course, when I receive his daily instructions, I greet him as Mein Fuhrer!

I suspect you may have become somewhat obsessed with him and have formed an opinion about what his ‘real’ name is. I’ve no idea. I don’t particularly care.

Ally, you are a bully. And I suspect you do need to bully. Essentially, you are yourself a fascist.

Cross ‘preferred’ Cross on two (possibly just one) occasions in his long life when he was involved in something unpleasant. If you are really interested in researching him (;-)), don’t bother keying in the name ‘Cross’.

[Ally]

I call him Stow because that’s the name he uses/used on the boards. Of course, when I receive his daily instructions, I greet him as Mein Fuhrer!

I suspect you may have become somewhat obsessed. with him and have formed an opinion about what his ‘real’ name is. I’ve no idea. I don’t particularly care.

Ally, you are a bully. And I suspect you do need to bully. Essentially, you are yourself a fascist.

Cross ‘preferred’ Cross on two (possibly just one) occasions in his long life when he was involved in something unpleasant. If you are really interested in researching him (;-)), don’t bother keying on the name ‘Cross’.

It's really adorable how you refuse to accept any culpability or responsibility for your reception. Such a poor, poor victim, of the mean ole bully. Precious.

You still have not responded to anything at all of relevance, answered anything put to you, and do nothing but insult. But I'm sure you hold your own actions as righteous and not those of a bully, right? You no doubt see all your unhinged ranting on here as perfectly justifiable. Your meltdown the other night was truly spectacular to behold and you appear to be heading for another one.

But since I am actually beginning to think you are mentally unwell, I'm going to let you know I'm not discussing Butler with you anymore. You're clearly... off in some way as you veer from a semblance of an attempt at reasonable discourse to unhingedness ad hominem in the blink of the eye, and while I may be a bully and a beast and all sorts, I do actually draw the line at beating up the mentally unwell.

Have a good night. Try to get some sleep and lay off the 3 am unhinged screeching, there's a good boy.

[MrBarnett]

It's really adorable how you refuse to accept any culpability or responsibility for your reception. Such a poor, poor victim, of the mean ole bully. Precious.

You still have not responded to anything at all of relevance, answered anything put to you, and do nothing but insult. But I'm sure you hold your own actions as righteous and not those of a bully, right? You no doubt see all your unhinged ranting on here as perfectly justifiable. Your meltdown the other night was truly spectacular to behold and you appear to be heading for another one.

But since I am actually beginning to think you are mentally unwell, I'm going to let you know I'm not discussing Butler with you anymore. You're clearly... off in some way as you veer from a semblance of an attempt at reasonable discourse to unhingedness ad hominem in the blink of the eye, and while I may be a bully and a beast and all sorts, I do actually draw the line at beating up the mentally unwell.

Have a good night. Try to get some sleep and lay off the 3 am unhinged screeching, there's a good boy.

And this isn’t a meltdown?

Oh dear, Ally, I thought you were made of sterner stuff.

What does all this shite about ‘accepting culpability’, ‘ad hominem’ etc actually mean? I questioned your silly idea that Adolf Hitler in disguise (I hope that doesn’t keep you awake) couldn’t have a valid opinion about Jack the Ripper. Since then you seem to have spiralled into a verbose meltdown.

And you have the nerve to suggest I have mental health issues?

Get a good night’s sleep. Don’t have nightmares about fascists, we held them off for years before for you lot even realised Hitler was a baddy.

If you really are interested in CAL (emoji required) let me know. While I’m nowhere near convinced he was the Ripper, and know next to nothing about the torso cases, I find him a very interesting subject and from all I see you know bugger all about him.

My offer is genuine, if you are being genuine about your interest in ‘Cross’, I’ll be more than happy to take you on a guided tour of the ‘Old Ma Lechmere’ thread over at the other place.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

And there were at least two more adult males with the name Charles Lechmere living in London at the time. If he was trying to hide his identity, it was stupid to mention his middle name of Allen. And to use his stepfather's surname. And to give his home and work addresses to the police. And to come forward and testify in the first place.

Stupid? Are you beginning to see why announcing, ‘My name is Charles Allen Lechmere, but I am known by my stepfather’s name of Cross might have been a problem for him - and even more so for his mother?’

This is progress - I think.

’Alibi’?

[FISHY1118]

The ''mentally unwell'' part was a bit much i thought .

[harry]

Why is there a need to know more of Cross?.He was a person who found a body on his way to work one morning.He was never a suspect in a legal sense,and no evidence of criminal activity,in the death of Nichols, has ever been proven.Theorectically he could have done and been a number of things,but we should only be interested if the facts prove the theory.They do not.

[Ally]

Why is there a need to know more of Cross?.He was a person who found a body on his way to work one morning.He was never a suspect in a legal sense,and no evidence of criminal activity,in the death of Nichols, has ever been proven.Theorectically he could have done and been a number of things,but we should only be interested if the facts prove the theory.They do not.

Absolutely true. I just supposed that after more than ten years of research there would have been more to see in this arena. But clearly there isn't. I'm not particularly interested in the minutia of the life of a man who stumbled on a body 100 year ago. Which appears to be all that distinguishes him. Even his name issue isn't particularly interesting when you know he was known by Cross at his work, and therefore indicates nothing sinister at all.

[GBinOz]

"Even his name issue isn't particularly interesting when you know he was known by Cross at his work". I am unaware of any evidence to support this statement. Ally, can you provide a reference to show that he was known as Cross at Pickfords please?

There is a very good analysis here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR2SQE7SFz0&t=2s&ab_channel=WhatTheFrenchToast

Jeff, if you are seeing this I would be interested in your comments on that video.

It seems to me that it is unlikely that Polly was soliciting at the actual murder site, so I think that her killer either picked her up on Whitechapel Road and she took him to the murder site, or she was rough sleeping at that location when the killer discovered her. If the former, then for Lechmere to have been the perpetrator he would have needed more time for the pickup and the walk to the murder site. I don't know where the author of the video got his 3:15 time of Lechmere's departure from his home. I am aware only of conflicting reports of either 3:20 or 3:30 by Lechmere, but were he the culprit, it could have actually been any time.

Cheers, George

[drstrange169]

>> I don't know where the author of the video got his 3:15 time of Lechmere's departure from his home.<<

The makers note in the comments section that the 3:15 time was an error on their part.

[GBinOz]

>> I don't know where the author of the video got his 3:15 time of Lechmere's departure from his home.<<

The makers note in the comments section that the 3:15 time was an error on their part.

Thanks Dusty. I missed that comment.

[Fisherman]

I have read the posts ensuing my latest post to Ally, and I can see that

A/ Nothing has changed on the issues I brought up, Gary Barnett remains a poster who has made it clear on multiple occasions that he believes the likeliest reason for the name swap was a wish to keep the family name out of the picture (the fact that Ally denies this is so is a falsehood), there were always fatcs beyond the finding and the name that are of great interest to an accusation act against Lechmere (the fact that Ally denies this can be evaluated by looking at how Lechmere disagreed with the police about crucial matters of the case) and I was never embarking on a venture to promote racism, but instead to defend the Lechmere theory of being in any way a political or racist production.

B/ Nothing factually interesting has been brought to the table, but instead the matter has on some hands been turned to a bog full of accusations of racism, personal insults and outright bullying. In that department, I will not debate anything, because contrary to the real issue of the Lechmere theory, it is an arena where I may fail to win the day.

[John Wheat]

I still think this thread should be titled No Roads Lead to Lechmere. As he is a complete non starter as a suspect. He found a body. So what? Someone had to. He used a name that could very easily be traced back to him. As I said complete non starter as a suspect.

[harry]

The name Cross,was,and always will be,when discussing the Nichols murder,a name used to identify a person who gave evidence.It never was,and never will be seen as ,incriminatiing evidence.It was an administrative requirement,and in the proper sense should be seen as information and not evidence.

[Ally]

"Even his name issue isn't particularly interesting when you know he was known by Cross at his work". I am unaware of any evidence to support this statement. Ally, can you provide a reference to show that he was known as Cross at Pickfords please?

There is no direct reference. There's just weighing of probabilities through the filter of common sense, though I should have said, "most likely known" instead of known as I did in a previous post. However, considering we know that several years before the Whitechapel incident, while at work, Cross ran over a young boy who ran out in front of him and there was an inquest where he gave his name as Cross, logic would dictate Cross was his work name. Why does logic dictate this?

This incident happened, *while he was at work* and there is every likelihood that his work would have been *involved* in the inquest to some degree or another, even just to find out if he's going to be held liable and what that would mean for them, his work would have known about the incident. It was in the press. It was being investigated. If he runs over a boy, while at work, and he knows his work is going to be involved, which name is he most likely, beyond the balance of probabilities, to give the police? The one he's known by at work.

There was an investigation. The incident involved his work. If he'd given the name Cross to the police, and he didn't use it at work, someone at Pickfords could have easily claimed, truthfully, "Wait we don't have a Charles Cross working here," when the investigation and press came calling and what kind of mess would that have put him in? He would have been far more likely than not, to use the name he was known by at work, when testifying about a work incident.

Is it a definite fact that he was known by Cross at work? No. However...It is more reasonable than not to assume he went by Cross at work.

[GBinOz]

There is no direct reference. There's just weighing of probabilities through the filter of common sense, though I should have said, "most likely known" instead of known as I did in a previous post. However, considering we know that several years before the Whitechapel incident, while at work, Cross ran over a young boy who ran out in front of him and there was an inquest where he gave his name as Cross, logic would dictate Cross was his work name. Why does logic dictate this?

This incident happened, *while he was at work* and there is every likelihood that his work would have been *involved* in the inquest to some degree or another, even just to find out if he's going to be held liable and what that would mean for them, his work would have known about the incident. It was in the press. It was being investigated. If he runs over a boy, while at work, and he knows his work is going to be involved, which name is he most likely, beyond the balance of probabilities, to give the police? The one he's known by at work.

There was an investigation. The incident involved his work. If he'd given the name Cross to the police, and he didn't use it at work, someone at Pickfords could have easily claimed, truthfully, "Wait we don't have a Charles Cross working here," when the investigation and press came calling and what kind of mess would that have put him in? He would have been far more likely than not, to use the name he was known by at work, when testifying about a work incident.

Is it a definite fact that he was known by Cross at work? No. However...It is more reasonable than not to assume he went by Cross at work.

Your logical progression is based on the premise that the Charles Cross that is the subject of both incidents is the same man. Cross in not an uncommon name, and Pickfords employed a great many people from 1876 to 1888. Had the Islington Gazette given an address for Charles Cross, as they did for nearly everyone else involved, then we could be sure it was the same man but, unfortunately for our cause, they didn't, so we can't just assume that it was our Charles Cross/Lechmere.