Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Geddy2112]

The Name Thing - Did Cross use a false name instead of his birth name Lechmere? The short and only answer is of course no. He used his step-fathers name. Researchers like David Barrat have dealt with this in serious detail and yet it keeps getting mentioned as if it’s a sign of evil intent. It’s the turd that just won’t flush away. Calling himself Fred Smith of Bethnal Green would have been suspicious behaviour. Charles Cross? No. The only question has to be - would a guilty man have gained any advantage in regard to this murder from calling himself Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street instead of Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street? This is about as clear a no brainer as can be. It’s amazing that it still gets promoted as a point in favour of guilt. I’m afraid that, like the ‘gap’ its entirely indicative of the desperation of the attempt to fit up this clearly innocent man.

Was thinking about this from a slightly different angle... let's have some role play..

Mrs L - How was your day at work darling?
CL - Work was fine but on the way to work I found a murdered woman in Bucks Row. I flagged down another man, we checked and she was dead so went to get a copper to help out. We were both late for work so hurried on.
Mrs L - Oh Dear that is tragic. One of those gangs no doubt.
CL - Not sure but the bloke I stopped went and blabbed to the papers and I'm not sure what to do now. It might look bad whatever I do, I was just late to work and she was dead I did what I could. I can't afford to lose my job, how would I support you and the kids?
Mrs L - Well maybe if it's going to be in the paper and you could be identified it's best you go to the inquest before they come looking for you, the man could identify you no doubt.
CL - Good idea, but then I will have to give my name and the newspapers will report it and the killer might find out where we live and come looking for us or the children.
Mrs L - Very true Chassy boy. Why don't you tell them where you work, how long you have worked there and use the name you are known there by, that should throw the killer off the scent if he reads about it in the papers.
CL - So give my step father's name and Pickfords, after all I used his name 'Cross' when I was a kid and signed up for them.
Mrs L - Great idea, you have done the right thing, you did what you could for the poor lady and by giving that name the Police can still find you if needs be but your kids and I should be a lot safer from this fiend.
CL - Excellent. I'll not walk to work next week past Hanbury Street just in case, got a bad feeling about that street...

[FrankO]

"Is there a thread where Dusty posted this image ..."

The original was done for the, "C.S.I. Whitechapel" book. Jaakko Luukanen did the graphics. I added the figures (with permission) for my article in Rip.

Thanks for the info, Dusty!

[Paddy Goose]

Thanks Fiver, but you answered my question with a question.

You stated the "two persons" being Ed & Christer are banned from JTR Forums and I asked if Lechmere is discussed on that site.

I can of course give you the latest info on that.
We have not had a Lechmere post is sometime. ...

Steve

Okay thanks Steve.

Thoughts anyone on why everyone comes here to discuss Lechmere?

Because the "two persons" aren't posting here either. Yet we're up to twenty eight thousand posts under Suspects/Lechmere.

And counting.

[Fiver]

Hello Fiver,



Is Lechmere discussed at JTR Forums?

Do those two posters ever discuss anything besides Lechmere?

[drstrange169]

"Is there a thread where Dusty posted this image ..."

The original was done for the, "C.S.I. Whitechapel" book. Jaakko Luukanen did the graphics. I added the figures (with permission) for my article in Rip.

[Elamarna]

Hello Fiver,



Is Lechmere discussed at JTR Forums?

I can of course give you the latest info on that.
We have not had a Lechmere post is sometime.
Today we have a number of threads, including one on his new book on Hardiman by Andrew Wise.

Steve

[Paddy Goose]

Hello Fiver,

... Over at JTR forums, the two most vocal people profiting from accusing Lechmere are both banned.

Is Lechmere discussed at JTR Forums?

[FrankO]

Dusty posted it on Facebook with a long critique of Christer's recent post about 'found the body' and 'found by the body.' I'm not sure if it's Dusty's work or borrowed from elsewhere, sorry.

Thanks Geddy.

[Geddy2112]

Is there a thread where Dusty posted this image and perhaps others? If so, could you point me to it?

Dusty posted it on Facebook with a long critique of Christer's recent post about 'found the body' and 'found by the body.' I'm not sure if it's Dusty's work or borrowed from elsewhere, sorry.

[FrankO]

Hi Geddy,

Is there a thread where Dusty posted this image and perhaps others? If so, could you point me to it?

Cheers,
Frank

[Geddy2112]

I have a different "take" than you blokes. Even if the Lechmere theory was presented by two kindly, charming nuns sitting in their nunnery, and showing a talent for flattery and humour, it would still receive fierce resistant.

I actually asked Christer basically the same point. If Adolf or the most recent Nobel Peace prize winner presented theories who would you believe. Answer the one who put the best case forward. I'm not so sure. How often have we heard, oh she's a prostitute, would make a terrible witness. He's a smack head we are not using him etc etc. I do honestly think the personalities are part of the issue. Or at least how they twist, dodge or evade issues about the theory when put to them.

What differentiates the Lechmere theory is that the 'evidence' (such as it is) is more tangible. Ed and Christer claim Lechmere has a legal case to answer, and they spell it out, complete with street names, stop watches, and behaviour or alleged behaviour at the crime scene and a geographical argument.
This is rare---almost unique--because they are accusing someone who was at a crime scene and who gave a deposition. Most people like that kind of thing. It makes them feel like there is an actual criminal case or a court room drama to analyse.
As such, the critics are more inclined to play along, weighing the evidence and attacking it if they feel justified.

Absolutely agree this is a factor. Here are two recent pictures from FaceTube... one is the one I did the other is from Dusty...



Both depicting the same series of events. Obviously one is from the Missing Evidence Documentary which shows a completely inaccurate biased representation to what happened. If the documentary had shown the DM version would all the YouTube comments be congratulating them to say 'you're cracked it.' I know why it was done. After all the documentary was aimed at showing Lechmere was guilty but why would CH and Ed want to put their names to this and they do, and quite happily as well. Surely if you put your name to something that is a complete fabrication then it should follow your credibility suffers. Maybe that is why they act the way they do to preserve credibility.

Like I said the more they defend it and put out more ludicrous HOL videos the more they keep it in the public eye. It's relevant, even if it's for the wrong reasons. To horribly link to a HOL video which mentioned the Nicola Bulley. Her case was plastered across the news for weeks. Totally unprecedented in modern times. Things move quick nowadays, the X-Box generation want it now now now and faster and faster. You have to keep up or you lose out. I think that is what is at play here, the Lechmere supporters are trying to keep it current no matter what it takes, whether that be new HOL, arguing on FB (only place they have at the moment) or by whatever other means.

Cases against other suspects (such as David Cohen) are more abstract. One can barely kick the tires. Ultimately, one might decide Cohen is a far more compelling suspect than Lechmere, but there's no way to really approach him. There's just question marks. The whole case is based on an appeal to authority (Sir Robert Anderson) and a psychological profile (basically the one given by John Douglas). There is really no 'evidence' to mull over and debate. You either accept it or you don't.

Either by design or by accident, Ed and Christer have developed a theory that encourages people to debate about it.

Personally, I don't think their evidence is evidence, but it is presented as such and that's good enough to keep the ball rolling.

I agree again. Lechmere has a something about it. It's the bloke who found the first body, yes I chuffing said it. He was there, it can be proven. He walked the streets during the early hours, he possibly had opportunity. He lived in the area. He changed his name at the inquest. He ticks a lot of boxes of course he does, however so do many many others and the Lechmere theory also has a great deal of problems to sort out before I'm convinced.
Like I said, if watching the documentary is their shot at the title it's a round one defeat. Like I posted I found approx 30 issues in a 48 min programme and I am by far and away NOT an expert Ripperoligist. I'm sure someone in higher esteem would find more.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have a different "take" than you blokes. Even if the Lechmere theory was presented by two kindly, charming nuns sitting in their nunnery, and showing a talent for flattery and humor, it would still receive fierce resistant.

What differentiates the Lechmere theory is that the 'evidence' (such as it is) is more tangible. Ed and Christer claim Lechmere has a legal case to answer, and they spell it out, complete with street names, stop watches, and behavior or alleged behavior at the crime scene and a geographical argument.

This is rare---almost unique--because they are accusing someone who was at a crime scene and who gave a deposition.

Most people like that kind of thing. It makes them feel like there is an actual criminal case or a court room drama to analyze.

As such, the critics are more inclined to play along, weighing the evidence and attacking it if they feel justified.

Cases against other suspects (such as David Cohen) are more abstract. One can barely kick the tires. Ultimately, one might decide Cohen is a far more compelling suspect than Lechmere, but there's no way to really approach him. There's just question marks. The whole case is based on an appeal to authority (Sir Robert Anderson) and a psychological profile (basically the one given by John Douglas). There is really no 'evidence' to mull over and debate. You either accept it or you don't.

Either by design or by accident, Ed and Christer have developed a theory that encourages people to debate about it.

Personally, I don't think their evidence is evidence, but it is presented as such and that's good enough to keep the ball rolling.

I think that you’ve hit the nail on the head Roger as to why the theory has gained traction. It’s got that ‘after all these years and all of these largely hopeless suspects you so-called experts have missed a guy that was actually there and could have done it’ factor. It’s why the ‘he was there’ has become almost a mantra. We can dissect events in Bucks Row as we can’t for Bury in Mitre Square or Kosminski in Bucks Row or Druitt in Dorset Street so it’s tangible. It doesn’t need Freemasons or the Royal Family or famous faces because it has a nondescript local man who is most people’s idea of the killer (which he may well have been of course)

And of course we have two ‘salesman’ and a TV channel where they don’t have to listen to Ripperologists picking holes in their non-existent case.

[rjpalmer]

You are indeed correct Herlock. It's the first 'battle' fought on a new terrace.

I have a different "take" than you blokes. Even if the Lechmere theory was presented by two kindly, charming nuns sitting in their nunnery, and showing a talent for flattery and humor, it would still receive fierce resistant.

What differentiates the Lechmere theory is that the 'evidence' (such as it is) is more tangible. Ed and Christer claim Lechmere has a legal case to answer, and they spell it out, complete with street names, stop watches, and behavior or alleged behavior at the crime scene and a geographical argument.

This is rare---almost unique--because they are accusing someone who was at a crime scene and who gave a deposition.

Most people like that kind of thing. It makes them feel like there is an actual criminal case or a court room drama to analyze.

As such, the critics are more inclined to play along, weighing the evidence and attacking it if they feel justified.

Cases against other suspects (such as David Cohen) are more abstract. One can barely kick the tires. Ultimately, one might decide Cohen is a far more compelling suspect than Lechmere, but there's no way to really approach him. There's just question marks. The whole case is based on an appeal to authority (Sir Robert Anderson) and a psychological profile (basically the one given by John Douglas). There is really no 'evidence' to mull over and debate. You either accept it or you don't.

Either by design or by accident, Ed and Christer have developed a theory that encourages people to debate about it.

Personally, I don't think their evidence is evidence, but it is presented as such and that's good enough to keep the ball rolling.

[kjab3112]

All that shows it that Butler either didn't read your book or did not understand it, as you repeatedly make clear that you think escape to the north was much less likely than escape to the south.

I used to agree that south to Whitechapel Road was the only route to make sense, but having modelled the likely lighting north along Queen Anne’s street would seem the most sensible route from the Board School, if and only if, you knew how to get out the other end. This was due to the probable lights at the ends of Court and Woods buildings, compared to the darkness around the board school itself. I’m also slightly confused as to why the murder didn’t take place in Nelson’s court as that seems the darkest location in the vicinity.

Paul

[kjab3112]

The YouTube and other social media algorithms are designed to give only one side of an argument, hence the sheep. The attacks on the BBC, Steve Blomer and Richard Jones were completely unjustified and way beyond counterargument (Steve and Richard had opened by covering the easily discounted routes and even says these are unlikely, but HoL mocks this as promoting these suggestions!)

I am reminded of the old devil’s advocate position where a prospective saint would have somebody argue why they weren’t. HoL though ignores any counterpoint by just saying that has to be wrong because he gave the wrong name and lived in Whitechapel.