The Lechmere/Cross sources

[Pierre]

Hi,

As I have understood the theory about Charles Lechmere/Cross being Jack the Ripper, it is based on sources with low reliability and validity. But I may be wrong.

Firstly, the original inquest sources are lost, or at least not accessible. Secondly, some, if not many, of the sources which the theory are built on, are various newspapers.

Now, there are just a few components in this theory, since the theory is only built upon sources from the murder of Nichols.

So it is not a wide theory based on sources giving data for the other murders. Therefore, the components are few.

(Even if the sources may be many).

And therefore, as I understand the theory, it should be easy to explicate it, i.e. to explain to those interested in the theory, how the connections between component 1, 2 and 3 (and so on and so forth) are constructed.

For example, one component is "The Mizen Scam".

On which type of sources is this component built?

And what is the reliability and validity of the historical (from the past) sources, on which the hypotheses in "The Mizen Scam" is built?

Another component is "the domineering mother".

On which type of sources is this component built? What is the reliability and validity of the historical sources, on which the hypothesis is built about this domineering mother and her influence on the son to the extent that he becomes a serial killer, and not just any serial killer, but "Jack the Ripper"?

I would like to know, before people start moving into a house for example, if the ground is well built, and if the house is safe. I think this is a reasonable request.

So what we need, essentially, are the following answers -
for every component in the theory:

1. Has academic, historical source criticism been used to evaluate the
sources?

2. Or is the evaluation built on bias and "common sense"?

3. What is the reliability of the sources?

4. Are the sources valid and why, if they are?

5. How are the connections between the sources, the hypotheses and the
theory constructed?

6. Which source(s) is connected to which hypothesis?

7. What sources are given the most significance in the theory and why?

8. What are the main problems from the point of view of this source criticism
for the sources, for the hypotheses and theory?

I think this is a very good chance for the researcher(s) of Lechmere/Cross to convince us that the house is safe to live in. Otherwise, we will probably (!) prefer to stay outside or go to another house.

Kind regards, Pierre

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Pierre

Glad to hear your views. But please don't BOLD your entire post, and nor use all caps which is a cardinal sin for posters on the Internet -- not saying you do that, but just making a parallel.

Good luck, Pierre.

Chris

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre

Glad to hear your views. But please don't BOLD your entire post, and nor use all caps which is a cardinal sin for posters on the Internet -- not saying you do that, but just making a parallel.

Good luck, Pierre.

Chris

OK, I changed it. Thanks!

Kind regards, Pierre

[ChrisGeorge]

OK, I changed it. Thanks!

Kind regards, Pierre

Much better. Thanks for doing that.

Cheers

Chris

[Pierre]

Hi,

As I have understood the theory about Charles Lechmere/Cross being Jack the Ripper, it is based on sources with low reliability and validity. But I may be wrong.

Firstly, the original inquest sources are lost, or at least not accessible. Secondly, some, if not many, of the sources which the theory are built on, are various newspapers.

Now, there are just a few components in this theory, since the theory is only built upon sources from the murder of Nichols.

So it is not a wide theory based on sources giving data for the other murders. Therefore, the components are few.

(Even if the sources may be many).

And therefore, as I understand the theory, it should be easy to explicate it, i.e. to explain to those interested in the theory, how the connections between component 1, 2 and 3 (and so on and so forth) are constructed.

For example, one component is "The Mizen Scam".

On which type of sources is this component built?

And what is the reliability and validity of the historical (from the past) sources, on which the hypotheses in "The Mizen Scam" is built?

Another component is "the domineering mother".

On which type of sources is this component built? What is the reliability and validity of the historical sources, on which the hypothesis is built about this domineering mother and her influence on the son to the extent that he becomes a serial killer, and not just any serial killer, but "Jack the Ripper"?

I would like to know, before people start moving into a house for example, if the ground is well built, and if the house is safe. I think this is a reasonable request.

So what we need, essentially, are the following answers -
for every component in the theory:

1. Has academic, historical source criticism been used to evaluate the
sources?

2. Or is the evaluation built on bias and "common sense"?

3. What is the reliability of the sources?

4. Are the sources valid and why, if they are?

5. How are the connections between the sources, the hypotheses and the
theory constructed?

6. Which source(s) is connected to which hypothesis?

7. What sources are given the most significance in the theory and why?

8. What are the main problems from the point of view of this source criticism
for the sources, for the hypotheses and theory?

I think this is a very good chance for the researcher(s) of Lechmere/Cross to convince us that the house is safe to live in. Otherwise, we will probably (!) prefer to stay outside or go to another house.

Kind regards, Pierre

Anyone?

[Pierre]

Anyone?

I don´t think Fisherman is able to even explicate his own theory.

[Fisherman]

I don´t think Fisherman is able to even explicate his own theory.

I think it´s more like how he is unwilling to waste time.

[Pierre]

I think it´s more like how he is unwilling to waste time.

How can it be waste of time to show us that your house is a solid building, a safe place to enter, before you invite us in?

How can it be a waste of time to show us the reliability of your theory from a source critical perspective, since you are asking us to believe in it?

How can it be a waste of time to use historical methods when you are trying to write history?

And not just any history - but forensic history, claiming to have solved an old serial murder case, and accusing a dead person of being a serial murderer!

Regards, Pierre

[Columbo]

How can it be waste of time to show us that your house is a solid building, a safe place to enter, before you invite us in?

How can it be a waste of time to show us the reliability of your theory from a source critical perspective, since you are asking us to believe in it?

How can it be a waste of time to use historical methods when you are trying to write history?

And not just any history - but forensic history, claiming to have solved an old serial murder case, and accusing a dead person of being a serial murderer!

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

From what I've read so far on the subject of Cross/Lechmere (and I apologize if I'm wrong) but most if not all of what you're asking has already been answered on the forums. It takes a little digging but it's there. I can see why Fisherman doesn't want to keep re-writing what's out there.

A little perseverance and you'll find it

[Templarkommando]

Pierre,

What I would be interested in is a criteria of some sort for discounting particular sources. Does it seem a little unfair to you to discount a source simply for being from a newspaper?

What information specifically do you want to discard?

Understand, I'm not necessarily married to the idea of Lechmere being the ripper - I don't think I know enough about the subject to know. I still think that he's an interesting character in the whole story.

[Pierre]

The sources for the Lechmere theory

Hi Fisherman and everyone,

I have been analyzing what should be - from a source critical perspective - your most important sources for the base of you hypothesis that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

If I have missed any source, please tell me.

The sources are

1) The article in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper - Sunday 02 September 1888
2) The police summary of Abberline19 September 1888
3) The police summary of Swanson 19 October 1888

We start with the article in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper.

The source has a tendency which signifies that the witness is systematically making strong remarks aimed at being used for criticizing the police.

Here are the examples:

”The dangerous character of the locality”

”....being on guard, for there are many terrible gangs about.”

”There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot”.

Paul is making strong remarks about the area where the police work.

”She was dead and the hands cold”.

”I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle”

These are strong statements and the witness sounds as if he is 100 percent certain. This does not mean the statement is without tendency. As we will se, he makes the statements for criticising the police.

”He (the policeman) continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.

The woman was so cold she must have been dead some time and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there.

If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time."

The tendency of the witness is clear. He is criticizing the police. The police is the object of ”A great shame”.

And there is another problem in the source. A discrepancy, compared to the other two sources:

”I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.

This is a problem, if you chose to take this source seriously, in spite of its tendency. According to it, Paul went to the police alone.

Now we will analyse the other two sources:

In the summary report by Swanson, there is no statement at all as to the position of Charles Cross in Buck´s Row when the victim was found. In the summary report of Abberline, Cross is described as follows:”He stopped to look at the women when another carman... came up...”.

Both Swanson and Abberline also states that the two carmen went to look for a policeman together.

The conclusions for what should be the most important sources for your theory about Cross/Lechmere being Jack the Ripper are:

The first source is a newspaper article and therefore connected to a set of problems. Now, we can always chose to ignore problems - but then we are bad historians and bad researchers.

Firstly, we can see that the statment of Paul was that he went alone to find a policeman. This is contrary to the statements of both Swanson and Abberline.

The first source also has a tendency, which dominates the whole narrative in the article. Therefore, this source is not a reliable source and should be discarded.

The other two sources does not give any reliable information as to the position of the witness Cross in Buck´s Row. Swanson does not even mention it, and Abberline gives a synchronic interpretation of the event:

”He (Cross) stopped... when...”. This gives one point in time: When Cross stopped, the other man came up.

The police sources are high up in the hierarchy of sources, but they are problematic since they might not contain eyewitness accounts directly from the carmen. It can be the impression of Abberline we are seing in that source. It could also be a direct quotation from any of the carmen. Either way, it does not give the position for Cross in Buck´s Row.

So what you are building your whole theory on, Fisherman, is one newspaper article with tendency, contradicting the two police summaries, and two summaries which do not contain any corroboration for your hypothesis for the position of Cross in Buck´s Row.

On top of this, you use newspaper reports for the inquest, since the inquest sources are not available. Newspapers are often of low reliability. I suggest that you perform a source critical analysis of the newspaper sources you base this theory on, and you will realize this.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Templarkommando]

Pierre,

What reason specifically do you have for doubting the Newspaper's version of the inquest report?

Also, forgive my curiosity, but could you provide links to both of the police summaries that you analyzed? Since you likely know where they are, it would be easier for me to find them that way.

Many thanks,

Templarkommando

[David Orsam]

On top of this, you use newspaper reports for the inquest, since the inquest sources are not available. Newspapers are often of low reliability.

Pierre, you seem to be criticising Fisherman for using newspaper reports of the inquest but yesterday you posted in another thread about your own use of newspapers:

"In the case of absence of original inquest papers and primary sources produced by the police, as you see, we have no choice. "

It's exactly the same for Fisherman as it is for you when you rely on newspaper reports. There is no choice. So why even bother making the point?

And you need to get it into your head that newspapers contain more information about what happened at the inquests than the original inquest papers.

[David Orsam]

This does not mean the statement is without tendency.

The tendency of the witness is clear.

This is a problem, if you chose to take this source seriously, in spite of its tendency.

The first source also has a tendency, which dominates the whole narrative in the article. Therefore, this source is not a reliable source and should be discarded.

So what you are building your whole theory on, Fisherman, is one newspaper article with tendency

Pierre,

Your use of the word "tendency" does not correspond to how it is normally used in the English language where one usually refers to "a tendency to or towards" something. I note that the Wikipedia reference for the use of this word is to a book published in Stockholm entitled "Källkritik". Therefore I am concerned that whatever Swedish word in the original book was used has been wrongly or badly translated by whoever wrote the Wikipedia article. Can you refer me to any published work by a suitably qualified historian in the English language which uses the word "tendency" in the way you have used it on this forum? I mean, if what you are doing is bog-standard academic historical analysis then you should be able to cite absolutely loads of books by "academic historians" which refer to the "tendency of a source" or "the tendency of the witness", right?

[Fisherman]

...a book published in Stockholm entitled "Källkritik".

...which translates into "Source criticism" - if that helps.