All roads lead to Lechmere.

[Fiver]

The whole article,

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.

[rjpalmer]

Most of us will know that this is oversimplifying the matter. The pope in Rome was christianed Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but calls himself Pope Francis these days. So obviously, there need not be any malignancy at all involved in using an alternative name.

Sorry Christer, but that has to be the worst analogy I've ever read, and I imagine that you have just insulted any Roman Catholic who might be in your audience.

You're comparing a man using an alternative name, presumably to hide his unsavory past or murderous behavior, to the name change that invariably happens when someone becomes The Pope?

Oh brother.

Do you really think it is the same thing?

If you can't see the difference, it doesn't say much for the quality of thinking of those who promote the Lechmere theory, but what I imagine you must be admitting is that an alternative name can be completely innocent...so why keep hammering away on it when it comes to Charles Allen Cross?

I've left Ed's politics out of it, as I think the quality of his thinking falls or stands on its own merits or lack thereof.

He claims in the video--without evidence--that the murderer was facing the Baker's Row end of the street, because that's the direction a PC would come and catch him unawares.

Ed then claims this is a 'red flag' against Lechmere--even though there is not a whisp of evidence that Lechmere was actually facing and looking in that direction, other than the incidental fact that he would have been walking west to get to work.

In fact, when Paul came upon him, Lechmere was actually facing the other direction (towards Paul) and we have no way or knowing if Lechmere had been looking up the street to the west or had been simply staring down at the body. There is no evidence to tell us, so there is no red flag. It's smoke and mirrors.

To cap it all off, Ed further shoots himself in the foot by arguing that this is why Robert Paul was able to practically sneak up on Lechmere unawares...because Paul had approached from the other direction.

But wait. That was the whole rationale for the murderer supposedly facing west to begin with-- so he WOULDN'T be caught unawares by an approaching man.

None of it makes the least bit of sense, Christer.

And notice that neither you, nor Gary Barnett, has actually addressed the questions that I posed when I revived this thread. If Lechmere and Paul blew past the guard of the Great Eastern Railway, why didn't the guard report this fact to Spratling? Did they also have x-ray vision? How did they know there was a guard in the warehouse?

And if Lechmere's callousness is evidence of guilt, why isn't it evidence of guilt when it comes to Robert Paul?

When a mundane behavior is seen as guilt in one man, but is only indifferent behavior in another, it is a sure sign that the suspect is being fitted-up.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;n797767]


So, time to make a Casebook entry again, a rare thing on my behalf nowadays. But there are times when we must speak our minds.

Ally uses post 178 to argue that if it was a sign of malignancy on behalf of Charles Lechmere to use another name than his ordinary one in combination with the Nichols inquest, then it must equally be a sign of malignancy by Edward Stow to use an alternative name than the one he was once known by.

No, that was not what Ally argued. What Ally argued is that if Lechmere-adherents are going to argue that Lechmere is defacto guilty of a crime because he used a name that he was legally entitled to use, then they cannot turn around and claim that other people using false names are not guilty of any wrongdoing.

Ally has always stated that use of a false name is not indicative of guilt, or innocence. It depends on circumstance. In fact, she said it on this thread.

However, it equally applies that in the criminal world, alternative names have always been used as a means to deceive the honest part of the population as well as the police.

And this would matter if there had been anything indicating Charles Cross/Lechmere was a part of the criminal world, which ten years of research have failed to prove.

Therefore, we cannot make the kind of comparison that Ally tries to make. And I suspect that she is well aware of this herself too.

She is aware. And again, she also didn't make it. It was a member or your crew who tried to frame up a man on one hand, and exonerate another for doing the exact same thing.

However, when she writes ”what I do find interesting is that having just read Mr. Barnett extolling for post after post, and page after page, for years about how Lechmere's use of the name Cross was evidence of guilt”, she is not keeping to the truth.

What Gary Barnett has argued is that we cannot rule out that the name change could have been linked to guilt. He has said that the name swop is an anomaly regardless if the carman was innocent or guilty. However, he has also always said that he believes that the likeliest explanation was that Lechmere may not have wanted to have the family name publicly involved in as sordid a business as murder.

Ah, okay. So when he writes this:

I just can’t accept that it did not occur to him that the name Lechmere was the one he should have used when he was sworn in. And if it was the case that he was generally known as Cross (which seems highly unlikely) then he should have mentioned both names. That he didn’t suggests to me he was hiding something.

...He wasn't in fact implying that it was nefarious that Lechmere used Cross. 'K. When you are arguing on a thread about a suspects candidacy and you come down on the side of his use of a name he was legally entitled to use is somehow indicative of deception, you are defacto throwing in with the idea that what he was hiding, was his murdering nature. He even says in that post that he didn't think he was trying to hide from his neighbors, so what was he hiding then?

What this insight means, sorely missed by Ally, is of course that the comparison in between Charles Lechmere and Edward Stow she claims that Gary Barnetts reasoning allows her to infer, is based on a misconception on her own behalf. And so the whole matter falls. That is what often happens when we do not get the basics correct.

I agree, it's important to get the basics correct. You should give it a go.

As for the underlying matter of Edward Stows political background, it is not for me to tell anybody what they should think of it. Nor do I comment on it myself, because it has no bearing whatsoever on the matter of Lechmeres candidacy as a Ripper suspect. And that is what these boards are supposedly about - ripperology, not political stances.

What it has a bearing on is how much credence one should give to a person who has proven to be intellectually barren. How do you treat a nutty zealot with any kind of respect in terms of reasoning. I am quite sure that if someone of a Islamic faith was out in the world screaming burn the infidel, you and Gary, and Butler would all be using it as proof of their mental unfitness. The same thing applies here.

An effort has been made before to try and dismiss Lechmeres candidacy on the exact same political grounds; ”Edward Stow is a bad person, therefore Charles Lechmere is a bad suspect”.

No, I'm saying Lechmere is a bad suspect AND Butler is a bad person. The two are both true, but for mutually disparate reasons. However, when Butler argues something, his cognitive function should be used in determining how likely it is he's capable of forming a cogent theory. And the answer is: Not likely.

The Lechmere theory is built on these facts, and they go way beyond him having ”found the body” of Polly Nichols and having used his stepfathers name instead of his registered one at the inquest. That too would have become obvious if Ally had spent more time reading up on the facts and less time lashing out against people for various grounds - like political disagreements and not having read up properly.

LOL... no, those facts are literally the only facts. The rest is conjecture, speculation and attempt to fit belief into the frame. I read your thread. I read all you had to say. It was not convincing. "Once again, I've been asked to lay out the evidence against...." and then you laid out a lot of speculation that isn't verified and isn't based on anything but what you want to believe.

That's not fact. That's opining. Different animals.

If this post of mine earns me a ban out here, I could not be prouder. If it is instead met by a barrage of foul-mouthed accusations, I am happy to say that it will not change a iot of what I write above.

LOL, you children are so adorable with your proud stances of "If this earns me a ban, so be it. I am a martyr for my cause!" You wish. Even ol Gary hasn't been banned, it's beyond hubris to think you matter that much.
But you know, everyone loves a good "I die, for the good of my cause!" speech. Make sure you clutch your chest and grimace in the appropriate heroic pose.

[Fisherman]

So ten years or so ago when I first heard of the Lechmere/Cross drama it appeared the only "evidence" against him was he found the body, and he used his stepfather's name (who was a policeman) at the inquest.

After scrolling through several interminable, ridiculous suspect threads, related to Lechmere over the last couple of days, it appears that ten years of research and countless hours of debate later, the sole evidence against Lechmere is -- he found the body and used his Stepfather's name. So that was a decade wasted for several people.

But what I do find interesting is that having just read Mr. Barnett extolling for post after post, and page after page, for years about how Lechmere's use of the name Cross was evidence of guilt, he put up that argument above. I'm so confused. So ...using a non-legal name is proof that Lechmere was a murderous serial killer, but Butler using a false name to hide his identity from the people who knew him ---there's nothing sinister in it? Butler operated on a social level for years as Stow, with no one knowing that was not his name. Is that evidence of wrongdoing on his part or not?

Which is it? I asked the question before and it was of course ignored. And now I see why. You can't have it both ways. Either Butler-Stow is nefarious and his use of a false last name to deceive everyone around him is proof of his malignancy, or it's irrelevant. If it's irrelevant, then so is Lechmere using a false name. But having argued for years that Lechmere using a "false" last name is nefarious, how does one make an argument like that above without having your brain completely melt? The cognitive dissonance is .... magnificent.

I suspect it is the same kind of thinking that infests most people. When * I* or my in-group does something, it's reasonable and just and right for ...reasons. Because our actions are excusable based on circumstances particular to us, that don't apply to anyone else, but us. If anyone else does what we do though, their reasons are never just enough to be excused. Only * I * get the benefit of the doubt, only my choices in my circumstances are beyond reproach. Malignant narcissism or just further evidence of limited cognitive faculties, who can say? What was that phrase used earlier? Pack mentality. Indeed.

So, time to make a Casebook entry again, a rare thing on my behalf nowadays. But there are times when we must speak our minds.

Ally uses post 178 to argue that if it was a sign of malignancy on behalf of Charles Lechmere to use another name than his ordinary one in combination with the Nichols inquest, then it must equally be a sign of malignancy by Edward Stow to use an alternative name than the one he was once known by.

Most of us will know that this is oversimplifying the matter. The pope in Rome was christianed Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but calls himself Pope Francis these days. So obviously, there need not be any malignancy at all involved in using an alternative name.

However, it equally applies that in the criminal world, alternative names have always been used as a means to deceive the honest part of the population as well as the police.

Therefore, we cannot make the kind of comparison that Ally tries to make. And I suspect that she is well aware of this herself too.

However, when she writes ”what I do find interesting is that having just read Mr. Barnett extolling for post after post, and page after page, for years about how Lechmere's use of the name Cross was evidence of guilt”, she is not keeping to the truth.

What Gary Barnett has argued is that we cannot rule out that the name change could have been linked to guilt. He has said that the name swop is an anomaly regardless if the carman was innocent or guilty. However, he has also always said that he believes that the likeliest explanation was that Lechmere may not have wanted to have the family name publicly involved in as sordid a business as murder.

What this insight means, sorely missed by Ally, is of course that the comparison in between Charles Lechmere and Edward Stow she claims that Gary Barnetts reasoning allows her to infer, is based on a misconception on her own behalf. And so the whole matter falls. That is what often happens when we do not get the basics correct.

As for the underlying matter of Edward Stows political background, it is not for me to tell anybody what they should think of it. Nor do I comment on it myself, because it has no bearing whatsoever on the matter of Lechmeres candidacy as a Ripper suspect. And that is what these boards are supposedly about - ripperology, not political stances.

An effort has been made before to try and dismiss Lechmeres candidacy on the exact same political grounds; ”Edward Stow is a bad person, therefore Charles Lechmere is a bad suspect”. It was not a good idea then, and it is not a good idea now. Charles Lechmere had been dead for the longest time when Edward Stow was born. The facts we have on record about Lechmere did not change when Edward set foot in this world, they did not change when he got politically involved and they did not change when he was publically called ”a shitstain” by an administrator of these boards.

The Lechmere theory is built on these facts, and they go way beyond him having ”found the body” of Polly Nichols and having used his stepfathers name instead of his registered one at the inquest. That too would have become obvious if Ally had spent more time reading up on the facts and less time lashing out against people for various grounds - like political disagreements and not having read up properly.

If this post of mine earns me a ban out here, I could not be prouder. If it is instead met by a barrage of foul-mouthed accusations, I am happy to say that it will not change a iot of what I write above.

Regardless of the outcome, I have had my say and will not make any further posts on the matter.

[Ally]

Mr Stow/Butler is one of the best researchers in the field in my opinion. And there's nothing sinister about using a 'false'; name is there?

So ten years or so ago when I first heard of the Lechmere/Cross drama it appeared the only "evidence" against him was he found the body, and he used his stepfather's name (who was a policeman) at the inquest.

After scrolling through several interminable, ridiculous suspect threads, related to Lechmere over the last couple of days, it appears that ten years of research and countless hours of debate later, the sole evidence against Lechmere is -- he found the body and used his Stepfather's name. So that was a decade wasted for several people.

But what I do find interesting is that having just read Mr. Barnett extolling for post after post, and page after page, for years about how Lechmere's use of the name Cross was evidence of guilt, he put up that argument above. I'm so confused. So ...using a non-legal name is proof that Lechmere was a murderous serial killer, but Butler using a false name to hide his identity from the people who knew him ---there's nothing sinister in it? Butler operated on a social level for years as Stow, with no one knowing that was not his name. Is that evidence of wrongdoing on his part or not?

Which is it? I asked the question before and it was of course ignored. And now I see why. You can't have it both ways. Either Butler-Stow is nefarious and his use of a false last name to deceive everyone around him is proof of his malignancy, or it's irrelevant. If it's irrelevant, then so is Lechmere using a false name. But having argued for years that Lechmere using a "false" last name is nefarious, how does one make an argument like that above without having your brain completely melt? The cognitive dissonance is .... magnificent.

I suspect it is the same kind of thinking that infests most people. When * I* or my in-group does something, it's reasonable and just and right for ...reasons. Because our actions are excusable based on circumstances particular to us, that don't apply to anyone else, but us. If anyone else does what we do though, their reasons are never just enough to be excused. Only * I * get the benefit of the doubt, only my choices in my circumstances are beyond reproach. Malignant narcissism or just further evidence of limited cognitive faculties, who can say? What was that phrase used earlier? Pack mentality. Indeed.

[rjpalmer]

Before going off the rails, Gary accused me of “twisting the evidence.”

Here’s what I wrote:

Stow begins his video by pointing out that the murderer was facing the Baker's Row end of the street, because that is the direction a constable was likely to approach unawares.

The point being that Lechmere later walked in a direction that a constable was likely to be found, but, of course, was also his route to work.

Here’s Gary’s accusation:

No, the assumption is that someone, anyone, could approach without warning from that direction. You’re twisting things again. Your bias is in plain sight. (It’s never out of it).

I’ll let the readers of this forum judge for themselves.

Here’s a transcript from Ed Stow’s video, Jack the Ripper: Evidence of Guilt Part Two. I’ll supply a link below. The relevant section begins at 2:32, where Ed is discussing why Lechmere was allegedly facing the Baker’s Row end of the street while with Nichol’s body.

“The other point I was going to make under the fifth red flag was that there was dead ground up in that direction and so Lechmere would have—or the murderer--would offensively been more worried about what was coming from this way in this direction [than in?] the direction Robert Paul came from which is almost certainly why he managed—Robert Paul managed—to come up and disturb him because Lechmere’s attention was focused in this direction. (Towards Baker’s Row) He was worried about from that direction PC NEIL ON HIS BEAT and less concerned about what would come from that way which is why again he was confident of going up to Robert Paul. HE KNEW THE POLICEMAN was coming from that way and not that way.”

Damn, Gary. It looks like Stow said exactly what I said he did: “Stow begins his video by pointing out that the murderer was facing the Baker's Row end of the street, because that is direction a constable was likely to approach unawares.”

Ed evens states that Lechmere “knew the policeman was coming from that way.”

He emphasizes this point again at the 4:28 mark when down at that end of the street:

“I go back to that same one five—the dead ground. Show you the dead ground all this area here this was all open here, so we’ve got building works to the railway, but this area was open. IF PC NEIL HAD BEEN COMING DOWN HERE LECHMERE JUST WOULDN’T HAVE KNOWN WHAT WAS GOING ON.”

May I ask? Did you even watch Stow’s video before accusing others of twisting it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ-CAFV7a8o&t=227s

[drstrange169]

The whole article,

[drstrange169]

Gary has requested I post this here,

"Our Charles Cross" ?

Eastern Argus and Borough of Hackney Times - Saturday 27 July 1901


https://www.britishnewspaperarchive....ortorder=score

[drstrange169]

>>I thought he had an issue with very idea of Ed describing Lechmere as callous. <<

Since R.J. has made it clear what he meant, you don't have to hold onto that misconception anymore.


>>If so, does that count as yet another of those mistakes you never make?<<

So far, it's you who is currently making mistakes.


>>Do you recall stating on here that you never made mistakes? <<

Since I've never stated on here to "never" make mistakes, how could I recall it?

This fact has been pointed out to you before and you continue to make the claim, how should we regard your credibilty?

You have some interesting research to offer on various subjects, but you fall completely flat when you try to launch unprovoked person attacks.

[drstrange169]

>>No, the assumption is that someone, anyone, could approach without warning from that direction. <<

No, the narrator specifically says,

"P.C. Neil on his beat was going to come from that direction shortly."

and to confirm he specifically meant a P.C. he added,

" ... so if Lechmere fled in that direction ... he would have known what he was going to bump into."


>>You’re twisting things again. Your bias is in plain sight. (It’s never out of it). <<

The evidence actually tells us it you who has twisted things, with your bias apparently in plain sight.

[Ally]

What’s your take on Lechmere’s old Ma - Maria Louisa Roulson?

I have not yet arrived at any takes on any aspect of the subject. As I said, I am quite literally, just beginning to give this more than a cursory glance. It has not been an arena that has interested me up til now.

[MrBarnett]

It's Butler aka Stow, actually. BuTler....He's a racist bloke who puts out videos and other content on the subject of Lechmere. And as I stated before, seeing as how bigots are notoriously not the best in terms of critical thinking, it's quite a shame that he has become the face of Lechmere studies. I do not deny that his being the vanguard in this arena has up til now, quite put me off studying it. So I finally decided to take a sniff at what actual reasoning might go into propping up this subject, and of course, the lead post is .... not high on critical systems being fully engaged in the development stage. So far, not convinced, and with what "evidence" I've seen, I'm not seeing much.

What’s your take on Lechmere’s old Ma - Maria Louisa Roulson?

[Ally]

So who is this Buler bloke you’ve been banging on about?

It's Butler aka Stow, actually. BuTler....He's a racist bloke who puts out videos and other content on the subject of Lechmere. And as I stated before, seeing as how bigots are notoriously not the best in terms of critical thinking, it's quite a shame that he has become the face of Lechmere studies. I do not deny that his being the vanguard in this arena has up til now, quite put me off studying it. So I finally decided to take a sniff at what actual reasoning might go into propping up this subject, and of course, the lead post is .... not high on critical systems being fully engaged in the development stage. So far, not convinced, and with what "evidence" I've seen, I'm not seeing much.

[MrBarnett]

If you want to discuss Chris Scott's merits as a researcher, feel free to create a thread about it. This is a thread about Lechmere. Return to topic.

So who is this Butler bloke you’ve been banging on about?

[MrBarnett]

lol funny but the current play is under review.

The ruling is.. the call is reversed. No Ad Hominem was committed as the Offense was merely asking a hypothetical. The defense loses the challenge and their last time out. : )

Lol indeed!