All roads lead to Lechmere.

[Fiver]

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".

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

Which is a an obvious implication by Gary that there was something sinister about Charles Allen Lechmere calling himself Charles Allen Cross at the inquest.

The post of his that Ally quoted has already been shown to be quite in line with that argument, and does not say in any shape or form that Gary thinks that Lechmere hid his real name on account of being the killer.

The words "And there’s nothing sinister about using a ‘false’ name is there?", clearly imply that Gary thinks there is something sinister.

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.

What Ally actually said was "It's also a fact that Paul didn't corroborate Mizen's take."

Which illustrates that you hold Charles Lechmere to different standards than Robert Paul.

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.

So you are denying that Edward is a bigot? Because you sure have been defending him.

So you are wrong on every score, like it or not.

Ah, irony.

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

This felt like a threat when Gary said it to Ally It feels even more like a threat when you repeat it.

[Ally]

What’s this ‘Brotherhood’ you refer to Ally? I’m sure there are numerous posters on here who have had constructive debates with Ed Stow without feeling it necessary to denounce his politics. Are they all part of the Brotherhood?

Do you have a list of them?

No, I only concern myself with those who, entirely unprompted, and without any objective reason to do so, jump in to defend his "good" name.

[MrBarnett]

What’s this ‘Brotherhood’ you refer to Ally? I’m sure there are numerous posters on here who have had constructive debates with Ed Stow without feeling it necessary to denounce his politics. Are they all part of the Brotherhood?

Do you have a list of them?

[MrBarnett]

There were roughly 350 Charles Crosses in London in 1891.

Have a guess at How many Charles Allen Lechmeres there were.

Go on, Fiver, have a go.

[Ally]

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.

No, but his "politics" which are actually fascism, should cause any ethical person to ostracize them as being beyond the pale in terms of acceptable company. Not invite them in to a vaunted position in ones Brotherhood. For example, there are a multitude of ways you and Fish could have responded to this. For example you could have said "While Ed is no doubt morally reprehensible, and no one I would support, he has done a lot of research which I value." I mean that still means you hold his research as being exculpatory, but neither one of you has actually CONDEMNED those politics - which lets be clear -AGAIN- are fascism. He's a fascist. Which doesn't appear to bother you all that much. And that's fine. It's always good to know who one is dealing with.

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.

Personally I think it's the same reason that he used it in the original inquest where he originally used Charles Cross. He was most likely known by Cross at work, as evidenced by that's the name he testified under when he ran over a child, while at work. And having once testified under that name and most probably using it in a social fashion, it was "normal" to use it again. Especially if the police came to his place of employment and he'd given them the name Lechmere and they asked for a LEchmere, who no one knew worked there....what would that have caused in terms of suspicion? He was beyond the balance of probabilities known by Cross as work. It make sense he would use it in a capacity where he was identifying himself as an employee.

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.

Sigh. And since the discussion being had is "FACTS" that directly link CROSS to being the ripper, the fact that Christer believes the RIPPER and the TORSO KILLER were the same is irrelevant. Which still makes it baffling why he chose to include a fact, that doesn't prove his point.

This is why it's hard to take fervent theorists seriously. They don't actually follow or understand a discussion well enough to have a coherent discussion on it. They just vomit every random thing on a page and hope people are so turned off by the mess and the stench they won't point out how their spewing is not actually answering or addressing anything. The topic was Facts, that point to Cross being the Ripper. Not every irrelevant fact under the sun.

No panes of glass, I’m afraid, Ally. That really was a silly idea.

I agree, it's why I assumed it would resonate with all the rest of Christer's silly ideas. Sometimes I attempt to speak the language of those I am speaking to.

[MrBarnett]

Seems not!

[MrBarnett]

Did you even read the article?

Did you somehow completely miss that the article starts by saying "This well known licensed victualler, who has been identified with Bethnal Green for the past 30 years"

Did you somehow completely miss that the article mentions John Hall first working at the Panther, which is in Bethnal Green?

Did you somehow completely miss that the article says that the testimonial for John Hall could be seen at the Pitt's Head, which is in Bethnal Green?

Did you somehow completely forget that Charles Allen Lechmere lived at 22 Doveton Street, which is in Bethnal Green?



Did you somehow completely forget that Charles Allen Lechmere had used the name Charles Cross in 1876?

Did you somehow completely miss that no one said that the Charles Cross of the article was the Charles Cross of the 1876 and 1888 inquests?

Did you somehow completely miss that my conclusion is that the Charles Cross of the article was probably not the Charles Cross of the 1876 and 1888 inquests?

You clearly missed the fact the the Charles Cross mentioned was apparently one of the Walworth and Newington pals. It would seem so.

Was Doveton Street in Bethnal Green? That’s interesting.

[Fiver]

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?

Did you even read the article?

Did you somehow completely miss that the article starts by saying "This well known licensed victualler, who has been identified with Bethnal Green for the past 30 years"

Did you somehow completely miss that the article mentions John Hall first working at the Panther, which is in Bethnal Green?

Did you somehow completely miss that the article says that the testimonial for John Hall could be seen at the Pitt's Head, which is in Bethnal Green?

Did you somehow completely forget that Charles Allen Lechmere lived at 22 Doveton Street, which is in 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).

Did you somehow completely forget that Charles Allen Lechmere had used the name Charles Cross in 1876?

Did you somehow completely miss that no one said that the Charles Cross of the article was the Charles Cross of the 1876 and 1888 inquests?

Did you somehow completely miss that my conclusion is that the Charles Cross of the article was probably not the Charles Cross of the 1876 and 1888 inquests?

[MrBarnett]

Our pal Fiver is always reminding us that on the single occasion we know of Lechmere started work at 4.00pm and he concludes from that that he had what he calls ‘an alibi’ for the Chapman murder.

[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.