Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Kosminski, Aaron: Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have? - by Elamarna 32 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by Elamarna 1 hour and 17 minutes ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have? - by Damaso Marte 6 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by drstrange169 7 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - by drstrange169 7 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - by c.d. 12 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: The Lechmere/Cross "name issue" - (10 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have? - (8 posts)
A6 Murders: Here we go again.... - (4 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: More Newspaper Articles - (3 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Lipski - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: Patricia Cornwell - Walter Sickert - BOOK 2 - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #501  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:32 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,799
Default

Kattrup: 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.

So they did not use the same person to cover a number of days of an inquest back then? They changed reporters, to let them all have a go?
Try again.

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.

You have a very poor understanding of the word rational, Kattrup. If it was all a toss-up in the air, we would have a mixture of one paer giving the addresses, three doing so, nine, eleven doing so, seven doing so.
But what we have is something very specific and completely different.

I suggest you learn from it.

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.

You are not inclined to do so. So much for a genuine interest.

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.

Yes. Or those doctors. So much for "generally speaking". Either or, Kattrup.

You did:

That has nothong to do with distances. It has to do with the fact that Llewellyns quarters were directly invilved in the events. It would hold true regardless if they were in Kuala Lumpur.


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.

Not if the other witnesses cannot be shown to have mentioned their addresses at all - like Eade. Or if they were proffesional witnesses. like Neil, Mizen, Thain - or Mulshaw.

Once that is cleared up, the picture that remains is in perfect accordance with what I say.
But never mind, Kattrup - you donīt have to hunt Lechmere down. You would be the Closeau of the case, and I would not want that to stand in my way.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #502  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:33 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
I believe you missed the point, I was referring to W H Bury turning himself into the police.
!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #503  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:33 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
My sentence, that he was found in Bucks Row with the freshly killed body of Nichols, not far from the body, is actually undisputably true.

It may have been a case of Paul arriving first, killing Nichols and swearing that he would kill Lechmere too if he did not say that he was first.
How are those two sentences, found in the same post, not contradictory?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #504  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:35 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
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.
Much as there can always be changes in these matters, the principle has always been that the reporter that is read up on an errand and has former experience of it, is the reporter that handles the sequels too.

Not in Kattrups distant world, where this was something that was sooooooo different, of course - but in mine it is.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #505  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:37 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kattrup View Post
I came across this guy a few days ago:


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.
...and in ALL other walks of life, he was NOT Thornaby. He did not use it otherwise. He was not a man sharing his life in an official and an unofficial part, using one name for the official business and another at the pub.

Useful example, that.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #506  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:39 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
So they did not use the same person to cover a number of days of an inquest back then? They changed reporters, to let them all have a go? Try again.
He doesn't need to try again. Take the London Evening Post with which I'm very familiar. I'm quite sure that it sent its (only) court reporter down to the Nichols inquest when Cross was giving evidence. But when it came to 17 September, its court reporter was clearly at the Parnell Commission, so it used an agency report from the inquest in its afternoon issue that day.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #507  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:39 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But I have a feeling that it was a single reporter (the one for the Morning Post/Morning Advertiser/Evening Standard) who referred to "Parson Street".

So why not argue that the Lechmere never mentioned "Parson Street" in his oral evidence and the reporter who included it in his report got it from a clerk or the police, taken from Lechmere's police statement?
Because I fail to see why he would have hidden which way he took.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #508  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:41 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
How are those two sentences, found in the same post, not contradictory?
They are not. I was not aware that we were going to enter La-La Land until you started to speak about the Lechmere/Paul double act.

To be frank, I STILL think that sentence a represents the truth, but I have to admit it does not cover the grass/acid/funny mushroom "truths".
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #509  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:42 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Much as there can always be changes in these matters, the principle has always been that the reporter that is read up on an errand and has former experience of it, is the reporter that handles the sequels too.

Not in Kattrups distant world, where this was something that was sooooooo different, of course - but in mine it is.
No but in the actual world of Victorian England most of these papers probably only employed a single court reporter. They couldn't be in two places at once and the start of the Parnell Commission was far more newsworthy that day. The excitement of the Leather Apron murders had completely died down by 17 September. We wouldn't even remember them today had it not been for the double murders at the end of the month, followed by the Kelly murder of course.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #510  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:42 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4,975
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Because I fail to see why he would have hidden which way he took.
Perhaps he was having an affair with a woman in Parson Street?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.