Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Geddy2112
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    Interesting hypothetical, but I don't think he was trying to hide his identity from anyone.

    At the Inquest, he gave his name as Charles Allen Cross. There were dozen of Charles Crosses. Most of them didn't have the middle name of Allen.

    He had to give his home address to the Inquest. He had the right to ask for his home address to not be given publicly - there are several examples. Instead, he chose to publicly give his home address of 22 Doveton Street.
    I do not think he was trying to hide anything either. It's obvious he was known as Cross at Pickfords so gave that name to 'avoid' confusion. He might have even given both, we have no way of knowing. More than likely he was known to all his friends and family as Cross but just Lechmere on official records. Maybe he used Cross as a nickname, who knows.

    I do wonder though if the papers had reported it as Charles Allan Lechmere we would be having these threads today? It does seem to be the starting point, well him near the body was the starting point but the name thing seems to be the first rung on the ladder for him being a suspect. I'm sure if the name was not the issue he would not be considered. Which kind of proves how weak the theory is.

    It really boils my pee when I see all these videos (not just HoL) and comments stating 'he lied to Police etc about his name, so he must be guilty.' It's amazing how many sheep latch onto that and do not a) understand it, or b) challenge it. They just accept it because the 'internet' told them so. Mindless sheep.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

    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...
    Interesting hypothetical, but I don't think he was trying to hide his identity from anyone.

    At the Inquest, he gave his name as Charles Allen Cross. There were dozen of Charles Crosses. Most of them didn't have the middle name of Allen.

    He had to give his home address to the Inquest. He had the right to ask for his home address to not be given publicly - there are several examples. Instead, he chose to publicly give his home address of 22 Doveton Street.

    Leave a comment:


  • Geddy2112
    replied
    Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
    Mrs L -​ Well I think losing your job should be the least of your worries right now, your priority should be telling the authorities your story so that no one gets any ideas that you were the one who murdered her
    Suspecting Charlie boy as a multiple murderer, what a silly idea, who would even think that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert St Devil
    replied
    Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

    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…

    or… an alternate version:

    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 i think losing your job should be the least of your worries right now, your priority should be telling the authorities your story so that noone gets any ideas that you were the one who murdered her

    Leave a comment:


  • Geddy2112
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    "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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy Goose
    replied
    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.

    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post
    Hello Fiver,



    Is Lechmere discussed at JTR Forums?
    Do those two posters ever discuss anything besides Lechmere?

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    "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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy Goose
    replied
    Hello Fiver,

    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

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

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Geddy2112
    replied
    Originally posted by FrankO View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
    Click image for larger version

Name:	437516466_10161897702144769_1186923057517239001_n.jpg
Views:	164
Size:	145.1 KB
ID:	833427 Click image for larger version

Name:	438918836_10226329939983346_9053036389582985239_n.jpg
Views:	147
Size:	132.9 KB
ID:	833428
    Hi Geddy,

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

    Cheers,
    Frank

    Leave a comment:


  • Geddy2112
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    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.

    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    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...

    Click image for larger version

Name:	437516466_10161897702144769_1186923057517239001_n.jpg
Views:	164
Size:	145.1 KB
ID:	833427 Click image for larger version

Name:	438918836_10226329939983346_9053036389582985239_n.jpg
Views:	147
Size:	132.9 KB
ID:	833428

    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.

    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X