All roads lead to Lechmere.

[drstrange169]

The whole article,

[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

[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.

[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]

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

A stick dresser was someone who put ornate handles on walking sticks etc such as a silver top or horn, I believe.
Regards Darryl

[Fiver]

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.

People trying to fit up Lechmere for the killings have claimed him walking on the right side of the street was suspicious. And held to that even after I pointed out that Robert Paul and PC Neil both also said they wee walking on the right side of the street.

[Fiver]

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

How many times have you said you were leaving forever? I've lost count.

[jmenges]

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.

If you're trying to suggest Ed Stow was "once known by" Eddy Butler and no longer goes by that name, please don't.

https://hopenothate.org.uk/2022/07/19/from-one-sunken-ship-to-another-life-without-for-britain-leaves-a-few-scratching-their-heads/

JM

[Fiver]

For anyone not familiar with Chris Scott, which is hardly surprising since he's been dead for nearly a decade, he posted a thread under Witnesses about Charles Lechemere. There's a lot of information, but watch out that you don't step in the speculation and insinuation from some of the usual suspects.

[Fisherman]

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.

So lets break her new post down and comment and correct as we go along!

1. ”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.”

The premise here is of course completely false. Nobody has claimed that people using false names are not guilty of any wrongdoing, quite the contrary. And again, as I pointed out before, there can be benevolent and malevolent reasons for using an alternative name.

The conflict Ally tries to point to does therefore not exist.

2. ”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.”

Actually, no, we do not have to prove that Charles Lechmere was a criminal to have a point when we are saying that a man who suddenly uses an alias at an inquest where he testifies as a person who was found alone with the freshly killed victim may be a big warning flag.

You may notice that I used the word ”may” here. We will return to it shortly.

3. ”Ah, okay. So when he writes this:

Originally posted by MrBarnettView Post

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?”

Yes, exactly - he does not have to be implying anything nefarious at all. I told you before that Gary Barnett has always been saying that his take on things is that the likeliest explanation for why Lechmere used the Cross alias was that he was trying to protect the family name.

Now, try the sentence on again, this time with my addition:

That he didn’t suggests to me he was hiding something - most likely his family name.

You said in point two that you wanted to see something indicating that Lechmere was a part of the criminal world before you would be willing to accept that the name change was likely to indicate foul play.

What happened to those standards here? Suddenly, you are willing to promote your own take on how Gary Barnett would have said or believed that the name issue points to guilt, although there are years and years of evidence out on the boards about his true take - he does not deny that the name change can have been linked to guilt (as indeed nobody CAN deny), but he very clearly favours the suggestion that the one act of hiding Lechmere would have engaged in was one of hiding the Lechmere name being tarnished.

This was a mistake you could have avoided by reading up. Simple as that!

Now, you have a golden opportunity to say ”Okay, so I was wrong”, but somehow, I cannot see that coming any time soon.

4. ”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.”

I am a great fan of Muhammad Ali. I think he really was the greatest. AND a muslim. I fail to see how and why muslims have anything at all to do with this matter. I gladly admit that there are those I find mentally deranged and unfit to plead, but I myself find they come from all countries and religions.

And I cannot for the life of me see how it has got anything at all to do with the Lechmere theory. It was around before Edward looked into it, and I would not brandish either Michael Connor nor Derek Osborn as either intellectually barren or infidels. The exact same applies to Edward Stow, Gary Barnett and any other person who think that Charles Lechmere is a good suspect. If you check the internet, you will see that they come in large hoards nowadays. Which religion they ascribe to, I do not know, however.

5. "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."

This kind of wording really should not feature on any kind of discussion forum, for obvious reasons. Edward Stow is a highly intelligent person and a very good researcher. Many more people than myself agree on that matter.

Of course, that does not make it true per se; many crowds have been wrong about many things.

However, if you are to argue that somebodies cognitive functions are not fit to form a cogent theory, then you should not do so about somebody where hundreds and thousands of people (from all sorts of religions) actually agree that the theory is not only cogent, but also the one really good theory that has ever been presented.

I said in my former post that it was never a good idea to suggest that politics should rule whether or not a theory is viable or not. I stand by that. The mere idea is asinine. Regardless of whatever crusade we feel like embarking on.

6. ”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.”

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

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

B: Lechmere used an alias at the inquest.

Why is it that you are prepared to accept these matters as facts? Because we have them on record and they cannot be denied?

Or is it because you consider them damning, that you think they imply guilt?

Nah, of course you don’t. You think that Lechmere was innocent.

So, the one thing that establishes these matters as facts is that they are on record, right?

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

That does not per se mean that he must be guilty. But it IS on record. It is therefore the exact same thing as the suggested finding of the body and the name swop - it is on record. All three matters are possible indicators of guilt. Similarly, none of the three must point to guilt.

But they are all established facts. None of them are opining.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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. And opining is what every theory is about, so it should not depress you too much, one would think. It is where we return, as promised to the ”may”. Lechmere may well have been the killer, and personally, I have little doubt that he was.

And the thing is, Ally, that it is the exact same for the finding of the body and the name swop - it takes opining before they become part of a theory suggesting guilt. These two matters that you falsely isolate as the only facts there are, are instead only a small part of the total amount of facts forming the theory.

And there goes that misconception. Again. You are not the first person I have explained this to. But you ARE the first person that has suggested that cognitive dysfunction is part of why somebody would think that the Lechmere theory is a bad one.

Your problem is that you yourself have woefully failed to understand the many elements involved. That is not something I would put on my CV if I applied for a job at the cop shop.

7. "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."

This is quite interesting. You are mocking me for being a poser, wanting to clutch my chest and take heroic poses.

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? Saving the world, cleansing it from those bastards, as it were…?

Mirror. Use a mirror. And try not to laugh.

[Darryl Kenyon]

[B]

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

I have mentioned to you a few times Fish that the neck wounds were almost certainly not covered ., again - PC Neil - I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat.
Yet you keep banging on about how Lech tried hiding his handiwork by covering the wounds to poor Polly's abdomen. Yet this master of covering his tracks leaves the severe wounds [ Dr Llewellyn ], to poor Polly's throat uncovered. Not only that but Lech allows Paul to touch Polly's face without trying to distract him, thus giving Paul every chance of noticing the cuts. That just does not make sense if he tried hiding the fact that he killed Polly.

Regards Darryl

[Ally]

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.

So when you said: " Regardless of the outcome, I have had my say and will not make any further posts on the matter." was that you thinking you had the intestinal fortitude to walk away and remain strong in your dignity, and you've now realized, you lack will power, or what? No of course not, it's MY fault you're breaking your word, because how dare I respond to you when you bring me up over and over in your post. Totally my fault that you've come crawling back, not any character defect of your own.

You love me don't you?

The premise here is of course completely false. Nobody has claimed that people using false names are not guilty of any wrongdoing, quite the contrary. And again, as I pointed out before, there can be benevolent and malevolent reasons for using an alternative name.

Absolutely right. Other than this direct quote to which I was responding:

And there’s nothing sinister about using a ‘false’ name is there?

Sure of course not, when people make a querying statement like that, they're just you know... being rhetorical, not making a declarative of any kind.

Actually, no, we do not have to prove that Charles Lechmere was a criminal to have a point when we are saying that a man who suddenly uses an alias at an inquest where he testifies as a person who was found alone with the freshly killed victim may be a big warning flag.

And in census records, and in other inquest testimony that had nothing to do with the case at all, when he used the name in several instances, and it seems likely was known at work by that name, not really much of a warning flag, definitely not a big one. Not even a Lilliputian one.

Yes, exactly - he does not have to be implying anything nefarious at all. I told you before that Gary Barnett has always been saying that his take on things is that the likeliest explanation for why Lechmere used the Cross alias was that he was trying to protect the family name.

Then he should argue that consistently and not let his actual bias slip through on several occasions and show what he really thinks. And there are several occasions, where he argues in a manner that makes it clear, like in that post.

Now, try the sentence on again, this time with my addition:

That he didn’t suggests to me he was hiding something - most likely his family name.

It's so cute how your little pack keep running in to explain what others meant. No, I won't add your addition, because that's not what Gary said. And who are you to put words in his mouth. If he wants to clarify his intentions, why's he sending an errand boy like you to do it for him. He's a grown up. He can choose to clear up his words. Why in the world would anyone take your explanation as to what a grown living man MEANT? This isn't Psychic Medium. He ain't dead. If he wants to clarify his meaning, he can do it. Why are you here, carrying his water?

You said in point two that you wanted to see something indicating that Lechmere was a part of the criminal world before you would be willing to accept that the name change was likely to indicate foul play.

What happened to those standards here? Suddenly, you are willing to promote your own take on how Gary Barnett would have said or believed that the name issue points to guilt, although there are years and years of evidence out on the boards about his true take - he does not deny that the name change can have been linked to guilt (as indeed nobody CAN deny), but he very clearly favours the suggestion that the one act of hiding Lechmere would have engaged in was one of hiding the Lechmere name being tarnished.

What is this gibberish. I didn't promote my own take. I took his words, and put them up there. Yeah. I admit, Gary likes to weasel around. But every once in a while, he makes a statement that lets you know where he stands. Even if it is on constantly shifting ground. But you started off that ...rant? By saying I wanted to see something indicating Lechmere was a criminal, and then utterly failed to provide anything. Instead you go off on that ... butt Smooch of your boy.

This was a mistake you could have avoided by reading up. Simple as that!

Now, you have a golden opportunity to say ”Okay, so I was wrong”, but somehow, I cannot see that coming any time soon.

Er... I've said I was wrong numerous times, when proven wrong. Like with the Swanson Marginalia, like with many other avenues of exploration turn out to not be the correct path through out time in memorial. I have no problems saying I'm wrong. It's not a character failing, which is something you boys might want to take on board. At some point in your life before you calcify into rigid pomposity.

Did I miss the part where you actually offered proof about his criminality, since this was supposed to be the great gotcha moment where you prove me wrong? Because I feel like I missed it.

I am a great fan of Muhammad Ali. I think he really was the greatest. AND a muslim. I fail to see how and why muslims have anything at all to do with this matter. I gladly admit that there are those I find mentally deranged and unfit to plead, but I myself find they come from all countries and religions.

Of course you fail to see what Edward Butler aka Ed Stow, your home boy Supreme, has to do with Muslims. I mean the fact that he swans around England campaigning against them, and acting no different than a thug is a distinction that completely escapes you, because it doesn't AFFECT YOU. There are muslims who read this board and they shouldn't have to see a terrorist of Butler's stature upheld as being ANYTHING worth associating with. I don't care what derelict piece of minutia he drags from the dustbins of history, it doesn't make up for the fact that he's repugnant, and people who he has made a lifetime ACTIVELY working to disenfranchise shouldn't have to see him lauded and applauded for anything. You guys keep saying "politics" shouldn't matter, that politics are irrelevant. No, you only think they are irrelevant because he's not hate campaigning against you. If he were, you'd have a far different take. This isn't about "politics". This isn't about whether the Monarchy should exist or should not. This is about a repugnant little dirt clod of a man going around and campaigning under the sole aim of disenfranchising anyone who isn't white and right. It's not about politics.

5. "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."

This kind of wording really should not feature on any kind of discussion forum, for obvious reasons. Edward Stow is a highly intelligent person and a very good researcher. Many more people than myself agree on that matter.

LOL, and that's really the problem isn't it? You only think racists and bigots are a problem if they are a problem for you. I know Ed Butler (see how you keep calling him Stow when you know that's not his legal name but don't extend the same courtesy to Charles Cross...interesting isn't it?) is not intelligent. You know this by how he's devoted his time effort and energy in life. It's interesting how people attach such importance to relatively inconsequential things and make it their whole identity isn't it. Gary, in his spectacular meltdown accused me of being a "part-timer", ....like it's an insult I haven't made Jack the Ripper studies my entire focus and goal in life (something which, let's be clear, I wear as a badge of honor. If Jack the Ripper is your entire world, you need to get out in the fresh air more). But what Ed has devoted his life to is one area of relatively little importance, and one area of great harm. This is not the actions of an intelligent man.

However, if you are to argue that somebodies cognitive functions are not fit to form a cogent theory, then you should not do so about somebody where hundreds and thousands of people (from all sorts of religions) actually agree that the theory is not only cogent, but also the one really good theory that has ever been presented.

Millions of people believing in something doesn't indicate anything in terms of what they believe in being accurate. For instance only one of those religions can be right. The number of people who believe in something is absolutely distinct from whether it is true. But it is interesting that you, and your boys, find "faith" in the false idea of numbers. That explains the pack mentality. If everybody tells you exactly what you want to hear, it must be true. Let's just ignore the millions who think differently, they're infidels, they aren't true believers. Y'all are a legit trip.

6. ”

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

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

B: Lechmere used an alias at the inquest.

Why is it that you are prepared to accept these matters as facts? Because we have them on record and they cannot be denied?

Yes, exactly. Facts... things that are objectively true.

So, the one thing that establishes these matters as facts is that they are on record, right?

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

Yes, this is a fact. It's also a fact that Paul didn't corroborate Mizen's take.

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

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

And... none of those facts mean diddly squat. Oh my god, he lived in the area, where people were getting killed and walked to work? HANG HIM

Just because something is a fact, doesn't mean it's relevant. "He wore an apron" Fact. Clearly it was to cover up the bloodstains... wildly ridiculous speculation that means absolutely nothing, unless you've already determined his guilt.

His use of a false name only matters as evidence of guilt, AFTER you know he's guilty. There are a couple of billion people walking around using "fake" names, from actors, to authors, to nicknames, to people with blended family scenarios, to everyone on this board. Pretty much completely irrelevant, as a fact in terms of guilt. But I allow it, because it MIGHT mean something. But of course, most probably doesn't.

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.

Literally not a single fact that you listed taken together add up to anything, unless you want it to. Every single fact against Cross, is innocuous.

And the thing is, Ally, that it is the exact same for the finding of the body and the name swop - it takes opining before they become part of a theory suggesting guilt. These two matters that you falsely isolate as the only facts there are, are instead only a small part of the total amount of facts forming the theory.

I don't falsely isolate them. They are the only facts that can be speculated on with any degree of rationality if one wants to determine his guilt. All the rest are irrelevant, and show absolutely nothing about the man in terms of HIS guilt or not. They are irrelevant details.

And there goes that misconception. Again. You are not the first person I have explained this to. But you ARE the first person that has suggested that cognitive dysfunction is part of why somebody would think that the Lechmere theory is a bad one.

It's interesting how you continuously equate Stow's actions, words and deeds with the Lechmere theory as a whole. Almost like you cannot separate one of your brethren from your Faith. Like an attack on one of you is an attack on all. Pack mentality? Witness it in action folks. Because indeed Fish, the only cognitive function in relation to a person comments I have made is how should one treat the ravings of one who is cognitively deficient -- Butler. And I have to say I do find it fascinating that you and the Brethren really can't seem to separate an attack on HIM from an attack on your entire ideology. Has he Svengali'd you? Do y'all gather around and light candles and invoke his name?

Your problem is that you yourself have woefully failed to understand the many elements involved. That is not something I would put on my CV if I applied for a job at the cop shop.

That one was... especially funny. Thanks.

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? Saving the world, cleansing it from those bastards, as it were…?

Mirror. Use a mirror. And try not to laugh.

Yep see the difference is, I'm actually willing to fight a battle without making pronouncements like "DO WITH ME WHAT YOU WILL! I AM NOBLE". Yeah, I'll get on my high horse and ride to fight against bigots and their bullshit. You get on yours and ride to defend the name of a bigot. Being willing to climb on a horse and ride into battle isn't what makes you a poser. It's all the posing while sitting on your pony, tilting at windmills, that's what does it.


Edit: PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT I HAVE EDITED MY POST AFTER FINDING OUT A SLANG WORD IN THE UK HAS VASTLY DIFFERENT MEANINGS THAN HOW MY CIRCLE USES IT OVER HERE. The problems of a common but completely different language. I used a word that apparently over there would be a great insult and also, not accurate as far as my knowledge, that was not my intention, and I have deleted it.