The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[David Orsam]

There is another question to answer too - if there was an accoustic problem in combination with Lechmere giving his address, then why is it that this accosustic problem went away when he stated his name and gave his versions of the events?

It seems very odd, does it not.

But the acoustic problem didn't go away. Lechmere's route to Bucks Row isn't correctly reported and there is an inconsistency in the reporting between whether he left his house at 3.20 or 3.30.

[David Orsam]

We know for certain that Charles Lechmere was found standing in the street, close to the body of Polly Nichols, and that he MAY have been there for a substantial amount of time.

The problem with Fisherman's approach is more fundamental than whether Lechmere was 'found' or 'seen' standing in the street.

Let me take this sentence which Fisherman does not include in his post:

We know for certain that Lechmere found the body of Nichols.

Fisherman would not like this sentence because his theory is that Lechmere murdered Nichols and he didn't 'find' her body at all.

But perhaps someone could develop a theory that the murder was committed by Paul and Lechmere as a team. In which case, Paul did not see Lechmere standing close to the body because he was with him killing Nichols. There is no proof that this did not happen.

So suddenly this 'fact' of which Fisherman is so 'certain' is not a certain fact after all.

How can any of this be resolved?

Well I suggest we can say that on the evidence it is certain that Lechmere found the body of Nichols and that he pointed out the body of Nichols to Paul.

[Observer]

Killers, especially serial ones, habitually flee the crime scene, Fish. Lechmere's actions are perfectly congruent with a witness who has found a murder victim, your convoluted attempts to hoist guilt on him be damned.

Also, serial killers don't hand themselves over to the police.

[Harry D]

Also, serial killers don't hand themselves over to the police.

Ah, but paradoxically Fish argues that it would've been more dangerous not to attend the inquest. In other words, Lechmere acted like an innocent witness because he was a guilty serial killer.

[Kattrup]

Kattrup: Eade and Robert Paul appeared on a different day than Cross.

They did - but the probable thing is that the reporters were the same, more or less. That´s how papers cover these kinds of things, using the same reporter. I´ve been a journalist for more than thirty years, and I have seen these things and how they are handled.

Your personal anecdotes of work at a (I'm guessing) Swedish provincial paper ca. 1975-2005 are not relevant when discussing editorial processes of a London paper in 1888.
Geographically, culturally and chronologically they are completely different.

The rational explanation is that witnesses addresses could be included or not at the whim of the paper.

No, that is not any rational explanation at all, since we should have a similar praxis treatment of all witnesses. What we would not have is a picture where ninety per cent of the unprofessional witnesses were quoted on their addresses while a single witness was not.

I don´t know how you define "rational", but is seems to differ from the rational definition of the word.

The addresses were generally included, but sometimes not. Each paper could decide for itself whether to include or exclude it. Usually, it was included, but sometimes not.

That is the rational explanation. There is nothing implied by an address' inclusion or exclusion.

The papers were unde no obligation to include them, unlike what you imply "carmen's addresses WERE supposed to be taken down".

Go check all the trials you can find in cases from these years, and where carmen appear. Then check to what extent they give their addresses. THEN come back and argue your case.

I'm not inclined to do so, as I've nothing to prove or substantiate in this. You wish to show that Cross somehow avoided giving his address. Fine. The onus is on you to prove it.

Again, please check other inquests and note how doctors's addresses are generally included, even though according to you they were "professional witnesses".

Like this?

FRANK FRAZER . I am a Doctor of Medicine, and practise at Lee, in Kent—I saw the body of a female child on Sunday, 24th January, at the Railway Hotel at Penshurst...

Or this:

EYRE IEVERS . I am a doctor, of Tunbridge—I attended Harold Augustus Sylvester, a medical man, at Tunbridge in his last illness; he died on 10th July.

Or this:

WILLIAM REEVE . I am a doctor—I have been attending Mr. Edmund Rae—I saw him the day before yesterday; he was then in bed suffering from influenza—I would not allow him out to-day, as it would be dangerous.

Or this:

JAMES SAUNDERS . I am a doctor—I was called to the prosecutor and found him in' bed—he had an incised wound over the right eyebrow; I put a stitch into it—there was a small lacerated wound under the right eyelid; the left eye was also bruised—he complained a good deal of pain in his chest—he is still suffering a good deal from nervous excitement.

Or this:

MAHOMMED YUSSEF KHAN . I am a doctor of medicine—I am not registered in London; I have been a surgeon in the army in the Indian Medical Service—I am M. D. of Calcutta—I have left the service...

Or this:

MARTINDALE KINSLADE WARD . I am a doctor of medicine, master in surgery, a member of the College of Surgeons, and a surgeon of the Metropolitan Police—I saw the deceased on 11th...

All examples from 1885 to 1895. That is how "general" their giving their addresses is.

Many DO give their addresses, though. I would suggest that ALL witnesses were asked to give their personal information, but that proffesional witnesses were not required as such to respond to it, when it comes to their addresses.

Or doctors Bagster Philips, Bond, Saunders, Sequiera, Brown, Llewellyn etc. who were all mentioned in various papers with their address when giving evidence at a Ripper-inquest.

The distance to the crime scene has nothing to do with including it or not.

I do not know why you claim this like something I said. I never did.

You did:

There is, I believe, an interesting other witness where the information fluctuated between the papers as to the address, and that´s LLewellyn. He was a professional witness, but there was nevertheless reason to mention his address since it had a bearing on the case - Thain rushed there to get him.

[B]Because the adresses of professional witnesses were oftentimes left out, even by the witnesses themselves. So we do know, Kattrup. Why do Neil, Thain, Mizen and Spratling, for example, not state where they lived? Because professional witnesses are not required to do so. In Llewellyns case, it was a slightly different story, since his quaters had a bearing on the testimony. It stands to reason that this is why ne stated it, and it equally stands to reason that a number of reporters did not realize why he did so, and consequently left the address out.

To reiterate: witnesses' addresses are usually, but not consistently included. There is nothing extraordinary about Cross' address not being reported.

To reiterate: All of the unprofessional witnesses addresses in the case were taken down by the newspapers and given in text, but for two examples, one of which may have been a witness regarded as a civil servant due to his work at the railway, Thomas Eade.

[B]The other example is Lechmere.

We have another example from the same inquest, with the same occupation: Paul. And his address was given by all the papers, in varying degrees of correctness.

To suggest that there is nothing at all odd about how Lechmere´s address was left unconsidered by all papers but one equals doing ripperology with a paper bag over your head.

I don't have much to add to this. My general point is that one needs an empirical basis to construct a theory. You don't have one. The various "odd" omissions you claim are not odd at all, as several counterexamples have demonstrated.

For instance, if a witness' address is referenced only by one paper that you've found, you wish to portray this as suspect. Well, when it's extremely easy to find other witnesses treated similarly, then it immediately becomes clear that it is not suspect at all.

So. There's no basis for believing that Cross in any way attempted to mislead the inquest or hide his name or identity.

[Observer]

Ah, but paradoxically Fish argues that it would've been more dangerous not to attend the inquest. In other words, Lechmere acted like an innocent witness because he was a guilty serial killer.

I believe you missed the point, I was referring to W H Bury turning himself into the police.

[David Orsam]

Kattrup: Eade and Robert Paul appeared on a different day than Cross.

They did - but the probable thing is that the reporters were the same, more or less. That´s how papers cover these kinds of things, using the same reporter. I´ve been a journalist for more than thirty years, and I have seen these things and how they are handled.

I don't believe this is true at all Fisherman.

The day of the resumed Nichols inquest, on 17 September 1888, just happened to be the first day of the Parnell Commission. This was regarded as a far more newsworthy event especially as, by this date, most of the the excitement generated by the Nichols and Chapman murders had died down.

Consequently the top newspaper court reporters were evidently sent to the Royal Courts of Justice that day, not back down to Whitechapel.

Most of the press used the same agency report when reporting on the inquest that day. It's why it's very difficult to find independent accounts of Paul's evidence.

[Harry D]

I believe you missed the point, I was referring to W H Bury turning himself into the police.

1. Some serial killers have indeed turn themselves in.

2. Bury never "turned himself in" in the sense of admitting a crime.

[Kattrup]

I came across this guy a few days ago:

I was born before marriage, and I married in my mother's maiden name of Thornaby, and I followed my occupation in my father's name of Lowe; I always had the name of Lowe except for the few minutes when I was being married, and then I was Thornaby

Link

Seems he used one name all his life, except for a few minutes in a different official context. Even so, he was not a serial killer.

[Observer]

1. Some serial killers have indeed turn themselves in.

Come on then, you've obviously done a "google", name them. However I think I've made my point, where the behaviour of serial killers are concerned there are always exceptions to the rule.

2. Bury never "turned himself in" in the sense of admitting a crime.

Doesn't make a bit of difference. If he was JTR then he knew full well that not only would he be questioned regarding his wife's murder, but he would be questioned regarding the Whitechapel murders also. That's exactly what transpired.

[Sam Flynn]

The day of the resumed Nichols inquest, on 17 September 1888, just happened to be the first day of the Parnell Commission. This was regarded as a far more newsworthy event especially as, by this date, most of the the excitement generated by the Nichols and Chapman murders had died down.

Not that there was much press coverage, comparatively-speaking, about the Nichols murder in any case. This somewhat inadequate coverage poses some serious problems with our analysis of the Nichols murder in its own right, to say nothing of Crossmere's walk-on part in the drama.

[David Orsam]

Not that there was much press coverage, comparatively-speaking, about the Nichols murder in any case.

I'm not sure I agree about that Sam. It was a major news story at the start of September 1888. I mean, you say "comparatively speaking" but compared to, say, the Martha Tabram murder a few weeks earlier, it was huge.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello David

I mean, you say "comparatively speaking" but compared to, say, the Martha Tabram murder a few weeks earlier, it was huge.

Huge compared to Tabram, yes. However, compared to subsequent canonical victims, we have little in the way of useful information preserved apropos the Nichols murder. We don't even have a clear picture of her wounds, for starters.

[David Orsam]

Hello DavidHuge compared to Tabram, yes. However, compared to subsequent canonical victims, we have little in the way of useful information preserved apropos the Nichols murder. We don't even have a clear picture of her wounds, for starters.

Well 'useful' press coverage is a very different matter from 'much' press coverage.

[Sam Flynn]

Well 'useful' press coverage is a very different matter from 'much' press coverage.

Agreed, David, but - again, comparatively speaking - there's really not "much" press coverage of the Nichols murder in terms of column inches, either. Not that I'd expect it to have been any different, as the case was yet to truly take off, and there was a far more "interesting" murder within a week of Nichols's anyway.