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:
Fiction: Dust and Shadow - Lindsay Faye - by Pcdunn 16 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Collaboration on Mitre Square and GSG? - by Elamarna 20 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 22 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by Sam Flynn 22 minutes ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by DirectorDave 31 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by caz 32 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (19 posts)
General Discussion: Collaboration on Mitre Square and GSG? - (9 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (9 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (6 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - (5 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (4 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
  #511  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:43 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
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.
The principle of coverage still remains. As I said, things may come up to make a change - but not of the overall principle. And that principle was not different then from now, which was what Kattrup implied.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #512  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:43 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
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.
See my former answer.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #513  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:44 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Perhaps he was having an affair with a woman in Parson Street?
Ah - we are back in La-La Land again!

You may need a rest. I know I do.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #514  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:48 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
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".
You can call them what you like but the point is that we don't know anything for certain. We only know anything "for certain" based on the evidence in the case. Based on the evidence in the case we can be certain that Cross found the body of Nichols.

But you see Fisherman that doesn't mean that he didn't murder her. We don't know who murdered her which means that in truth we know nothing for certain.

PC Mizen, PC Neil, Paul, Cross, Inspector Spratling and just about every other man in London (and woman too if you like) is a suspect for the murder. Everyone at the inquest could have been lying. The police could be corrupt. Paul and Cross could have been part of a murdering criminal gang. Nichols could have been wrongly identified and was another woman entirely.

That's why we need to stick to the evidence in the case if we are to talk about certainties.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #515  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:51 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Ah - we are back in La-La Land again!
But Fisherman, as you know, there are plenty of people here who would say that YOU are in La-La Land for believing that Cross murdered Nichols.

And there are even more people here (me included) who would say that you are in La-La Land for believing that Cross withheld his address from the inquest because he was trying to keep his identity a secret from his wife.

I do happen to think that is a fantasy and your entire theory about Lechmere using a "false name" is a mistake.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #516  
Old 02-05-2017, 01:57 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
The principle of coverage still remains. As I said, things may come up to make a change - but not of the overall principle. And that principle was not different then from now, which was what Kattrup implied
Who cares about "the overall principle"? Given the existence of the Parnell Commission, Kattrup is right. The reporters at the inquest on 17 September were different to those on 3 September, or at least there were far fewer of them. And when it comes to the Star we don't have any surviving report at all, so how is it possible to make any comparisons?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #517  
Old 02-05-2017, 02:03 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
You can call them what you like but the point is that we don't know anything for certain. We only know anything "for certain" based on the evidence in the case. Based on the evidence in the case we can be certain that Cross found the body of Nichols.

But you see Fisherman that doesn't mean that he didn't murder her. We don't know who murdered her which means that in truth we know nothing for certain.

PC Mizen, PC Neil, Paul, Cross, Inspector Spratling and just about every other man in London (and woman too if you like) is a suspect for the murder. Everyone at the inquest could have been lying. The police could be corrupt. Paul and Cross could have been part of a murdering criminal gang. Nichols could have been wrongly identified and was another woman entirely.

That's why we need to stick to the evidence in the case if we are to talk about certainties.
One problem with this philantropic approach of yours is that the man in whom the truthfulness of the evidence must rest, is the same man that I think killed Nichols.

You see, I am inclined to think that if he was the killer, he is not to be trusted. I have this sneaking feeling that he may have been the type of criminal that could see his way through to lying about it.

So therefore, I try to check the parameters where he could NOT distort the evidence.

Like, for example, what paths he would have used. Would they perhaps be POTENTIALLY compatible with the paths of the killer?

Or the blood evidence. I mean, if a renowned forensic specialist like Jason Payne James suggests that Nichols would be more likely to bleed for three or five minutes than seven, and if the evidence suggests that she did bleed for at least six or seven minutes, then that would not be something Lechmere would have been wrongly accused of lying about. It would be scot free of any Lechmere contamination and quite admissible as evidence.

That is how I try to do my work. And, moreover, that is how I believe I SHOULD do my work.

Whether you like it or not is - I am sorry to say - a tad immaterial to me. I donīt think you are a very good judge of these matters, although I admire your overall certainty that you are. It is something that will not always lend you an air of being in the know - kneel, Sir Galahad! - but it IS a trait that certainly will give you the last, wrong word many a time.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #518  
Old 02-05-2017, 02:05 PM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
Come on then, you've obviously done a "google", name them.
Ed Kemper, Wayne Adam Ford, Keith Jesperson, Andrei Chikatilo originally handed himself in but the police didn't believe him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
However I think I've made my point, where the behaviour of serial killers are concerned there are always exceptions to the rule.
Except we're talking about different rules. There's a difference between a serial killer psychologically breaking and approaching the authorities, and a serial killer denying the impulse to leave the crime scene after a fresh kill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
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.
See above.
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #519  
Old 02-05-2017, 02:06 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Who cares about "the overall principle"? Given the existence of the Parnell Commission, Kattrup is right. The reporters at the inquest on 17 September were different to those on 3 September, or at least there were far fewer of them.

This is served as an established truth? Yes?

Goodnight.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #520  
Old 02-05-2017, 02:08 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,143
Default

How do you reconcile

"he told the police his address, but they agreed to keep it secret" (but one paper got it)

V

"He never told the police his name"
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
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 08:40 AM.


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