Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

I had never heard of Edward Stow until discovering this thread, so I went to YouTube and watched his three-part series on Lechmere. I'm glad I read Herlock Sholmes' breakdown before I watched—I always approach Ripper theories as a skeptic, but I might have been slightly more taken in by Stow if I hadn't.

Most of Stow's "red flags" aren't red flags at all, and so many of them are pure supposition. And none of them constitute any kind of evidence—although as somebody early in the thread pointed out, there are NO Ripper suspects for whom we have any real evidence of guilt.

I remember when I first read Begg's "The Facts" I thought "what about this Cross guy, he 'found' the body." And I buy the idea the police never took Cross seriously because they were distracted by Leather Apron. (Unlike many Ripperologists, I find the Met to have been decidedly incompetent in investigating the Whitechapel murders, and this is just one data point.) But really, which of these "red flags" is convincing enough to be taken seriously? None of them. Especially nonsense like "he lived locally," or "he lied about his name."

I couldn't believe that Stow's estimate of the time to travel from Cross' house to the murder scene was based on timing himself speed-walking along a largely different route, because the original route no longer exists. And even the alternate route was blocked by construction? What the actual?

Stow makes so many unsupported assumptions that I just can't take him seriously. He's not as bad as Cornwell, but he falls into the same category.

[chubbs]

Hehe, not sure what this Polish bloke would like to sound like... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfKZ...nel=trouchelle

Smith?

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Geddy2112]

Sorry for my misunderstanding. No, I'm not saying 'he wanted it to sound Polish' - almost the opposite, in fact. He wanted it to LOOK English.

Hehe, not sure what this Polish bloke would like to sound like... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfKZ...nel=trouchelle

[chubbs]

Yes but that is Polish not English. So by Anglicising his name he wanted it to sound like Polish, is that what you are saying? However I was not strictly referring to the pronunciation I was asking who decided that he 'Anglicised' his name by changing it's spelling. Where did that notion come from?

Sorry for my misunderstanding. No, I'm not saying 'he wanted it to sound Polish' - almost the opposite, in fact. He wanted it to LOOK English.
We'll never know 'who' decided to anglicise Lawende, but these things happen, don't they, especially with foreign names in other countries. Spellings are very fluid, especially when someone feels the need to assimilate into their country of choice. It's a tiny step from Lawende to Lavender - they even sound identical. It could easily have happened by mistake in the first instance and latched onto by Lawende. Couple this with the fact that spelling was much more flexible in those days anyway.

(I wonder if Ian Lavender [Pikey in Dad's Army] had Jewish ancestors called Lawende.) Edit - no he didn't lol!!!

[Geddy2112]

Putting "accidental" shows one of several possibilities.
* TopHat did not read the sources, but assumed the worst of Charles Cross.
* TopHat read the sources and deliberately attempted to falsify what they said.
* TopHat read the sources, but has such poor analysis skills that he interpreted Cross being exonerated by every eyewitness and the court as meaning Cross probably ran over the child on purpose.

Let's ask TopHat at what time he thinks Charles Cross left home that Aug morning... That will show his true colours.

[Geddy2112]

For pronunciation, watch the first few seconds of this...

Yes but that is Polish not English. So by Anglicising his name he wanted it to sound like Polish, is that what you are saying? However I was not strictly referring to the pronunciation I was asking who decided that he 'Anglicised' his name by changing it's spelling. Where did that notion come from?

[Fiver]

It's very misleading of you to put the word 'accidental' in quotation marks (above), as though the young child's accidental death in 1876 may not have been accidental. Sadly for you, it also undermines your judgement on other issues relating to Mr Cross. e.

Putting "accidental" shows one of several possibilities.
* TopHat did not read the sources, but assumed the worst of Charles Cross.
* TopHat read the sources and deliberately attempted to falsify what they said.
* TopHat read the sources, but has such poor analysis skills that he interpreted Cross being exonerated by every eyewitness and the court as meaning Cross probably ran over the child on purpose.

[chubbs]

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.

For pronunciation, watch the first few seconds of this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt1XfqBcQH8

[Geddy2112]

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.

Let's ask Fish.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTdO...=OfficeRockers