Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[drstrange169]

Hello and welcome Kunochan,

If you are not familiar with the person who calls himself Ed Stow I should point out that he is actually a good researcher and is the person responsible for most of the things we know about Charles allen Lechmere.

The problem lies with his bias when it comes to forming opinions about Lechmere. His partner is a Lechmere descendant and there is a vested interest there that is usually not declared. The parts of his videos that stick to facts or are about non-Lechmere related subject matter can be worthwhile.

You just have to keep in mind what you have already noticed, a heavy and often unreasonable bias with any thing Lechmere.

[Kunochan]

If you are not familiar with the person who calls himself Ed Stow I should point out that he is actually a good researcher and is the person responsible for most of the things we know about Charles allen Lechmere.

Hi! Yes, I saw a previous poster mention that Stow found a lot of good information about Cross/Lechmere, which is of course commendable. And it seems like, if you want to make money in Ripperology, you have to pick a pet theory and defend it with your life. Hence my plan to push my theory that all five canonical deaths were actually suicides. /jk

I notice you said "person who calls himself Ed Stow." Is that not his real name?

[Fiver]

People who knew him/of him would have known him as Charles Lechmere, who worked at Pickford's.

You start by speculation. Considering the 1876 accident, it is likely he was known as Cross by his coworkers and employers at Pickfords.

And how many people would have known his address, not many I'd say; same with his middle name.

His family and friends would have known his home address. So would his neighbors and employers. Using the name Cross if they knew him as Lechmere would result in more, not less attention. Giving his home address also meant any journalist who wanted to interview Cross would been able to find him.

And while Charles Cross had to give his home address to the coroner, he had no legal obligation to give it publicly. There are many period examples of witnesses asking the court to not publicly state their addresses. If he wanted anonymity, why didn't Charles Cross ask for that?

You are probably correct that few people knew his middle name was Allen, but you miss the point. There were a lot more people named Charles Cross than there were people named Charles Allen Cross. A man who wanted anonymity would have been a fool to give his middle name.

By providing the name Cross he ruled out all those who purely knew him as Charles Lechmere (or Charles Lechmere who worked at Pickford's).

If he was known as Lechmere, using Cross might have deflected attention from acquaintances. It would do nothing to help him avoid police or the press. And it would attract, not deflect, attention from his family, friends, neighbors or employers.

[Fiver]

Hi! Yes, I saw a previous poster mention that Stow found a lot of good information about Cross/Lechmere, which is of course commendable. And it seems like, if you want to make money in Ripperology, you have to pick a pet theory and defend it with your life. Hence my plan to push my theory that all five canonical deaths were actually suicides. /jk

I notice you said "person who calls himself Ed Stow." Is that not his real name?

His real name is BNP politician Eddy Butler. His girlriend's surname is Clapp, but she often goes by Lechmere. Based on their "reasoning", that's proof that they are both serial killers.

[Kunochan]

His real name is BNP politician Eddy Butler.... Based on their "reasoning", that's proof that they are both serial killers.

Oh my god that's hilarious.

[Kunochan]

His real name is BNP politician Eddy Butler.

Oh good lord he's a Fascist. I did not see that coming.

[Fiver]

Oh good lord he's a Fascist. I did not see that coming.

Fictional serial killers are bold, clever, witty, powerful, dangerous, and in control - all the things fascists like to pretend they are. So it doesn't surprise me that a fascist would take pleasure in his girlfriend being related to a serial killer.

[Sam Flynn]

I have always heard Lavender pronounced as LAV-en-dur. From what I can find online, Lawende appears to be pronounced la-Ven-dah. There are distinct differences in which syllable is emphasized and in the pronunciation of the final syllable.

The shift in emphasis/stress from laVENder to LAVender is easily explicable, given that the word "lavender" was already available and widely used.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam, I've seen this mentioned before in 'retaliation' of Fiver's point. However do you know who decided this 'anglicisation' or are we just guessing that is what he did? Thanks.

It's a well-established phenomenon, so I'm not exactly guessing In fact, it might not be a case of Lawende himself chooosing to change his name; he may have merely gone with the flow, given that the the English people he encountered may have naturally defaulted to the more familiar and common English word/name Lavender.

[Geddy2112]

whats all this nonsense about lech and paul "cofounding" the body? lech discovered the body and paul discovered lech standing near the body. dont accuse the lechmerians of over egging the pudding ( i have too- and they do) but then do the same.

Hi Abby, it's not nonsense. Cross was never closer than 30 feet from the body alone in the middle of the road, as soon as he was at this point he heard Paul so turned around to attract his attention, only at this point did they go to the body together.



I'm simply following the evidence. For me there is a huge difference that needs separating here because as you say Team Lechmere over egg the pudding so it's required to separate the two actions, noticing and finding. Or more to the point noticing and approaching. If you class finding the body as noticing it from the middle of the road then Cross did 'find' the body, however if you considering getting right up to the body within touching distance as finding the body then Cross co-found the body with Paul. Cross was never at the body alone. Apologies if you think it is incorrect but it's my way of distinguishing the story TL put out there and what the evidence tells us happened.

[GBinOz]

Hi Abby, it's not nonsense. Cross was never closer than 30 feet from the body alone in the middle of the road, as soon as he was at this point he heard Paul so turned around to attract his attention, only at this point did they go to the body together.



I'm simply following the evidence. For me there is a huge difference that needs separating here because as you say Team Lechmere over egg the pudding so it's required to separate the two actions, noticing and finding. Or more to the point noticing and approaching. If you class finding the body as noticing it from the middle of the road then Cross did 'find' the body, however if you considering getting right up to the body within touching distance as finding the body then Cross co-found the body with Paul. Cross was never at the body alone. Apologies if you think it is incorrect but it's my way of distinguishing the story TL put out there and what the evidence tells us happened.

Abby is right. WADR, your 30 feet theory is pure conjecture. I have done a re-enactment and there is NO way that Cross could have determined that the shape he was seeing was the body of a woman from 30 feet away.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But we can’t know the lighting surely? How can we know what he could or couldn’t have seen?

[Fiver]

The shift in emphasis/stress from laVENder to LAVender is easily explicable, given that the word "lavender" was already available and widely used.

I understand the why of the shift to a similar name, but the two names are pronounced differently - LAV-en-dur as opposed to la-VEN-dah.

[GBinOz]

But we can’t know the lighting surely? How can we know what he could or couldn’t have seen?

We know it was dark enough that neither man noticed the 2" wide cut to her throat, even when Paul crouched down to try to hear if she was breathing.

[GBinOz]

Hi Abby, it's not nonsense. Cross was never closer than 30 feet from the body alone in the middle of the road, as soon as he was at this point he heard Paul so turned around to attract his attention, only at this point did they go to the body together.



I'm simply following the evidence. For me there is a huge difference that needs separating here because as you say Team Lechmere over egg the pudding so it's required to separate the two actions, noticing and finding. Or more to the point noticing and approaching. If you class finding the body as noticing it from the middle of the road then Cross did 'find' the body, however if you considering getting right up to the body within touching distance as finding the body then Cross co-found the body with Paul. Cross was never at the body alone. Apologies if you think it is incorrect but it's my way of distinguishing the story TL put out there and what the evidence tells us happened.

Hi Geddy,

Perhaps I am missing the evidence that you are using for your theory.

Can you show us where it is stated that Cross was on the eastern edge of the entrance to the wool warehouse rather than just in the vicinity, or even on the western edge.

Can you present the evidence that Cross, on sighting a shape, walked directly towards that shape rather than continuing on the pavement until approximately opposite the shape.

Can you show where it states that Cross walked back (30 feet?) to his original sighting point to confront Paul.

Are you assuming that while Cross didn't hear Paul walking behind him for about 60 metres, he was able to accurately estimate the distance away when he first heard Paul by the sound of his foot falls.

Theories are all very well but can be based on speculation or, even worse, perceived "common sense".

Cheers, George