Favorite suspect/s?

[MrBarnett]

Cue Fisherman turning this into a revenge motive for Lech the Ripper

Mock ye not, Mr Williams.

Just imagine that you were a respectable woman who had found herself living in 'Tiger Bay' in the 1860s. Your much younger husband has close encounters with the local riff-raff, including the 'Tigresses', on an almost daily basis and your adolescent son risks coming into contact with such people every time he leaves the house. Wouldn't you be tempted to instil in him a wariness/dislike of the bad streets, bad men and, perhaps above all, the bad women in the neighbourhood?

[Elamarna]

And anyone who can say that it is "more likely" that the reason was not suspicious?

Or does the "more likely" refer only to how you suggest that there was a reason? Meaning that you find it more likely that there was a reason than how there was not a reason...?

Sliiiiiiiiiiiiding, are we?

Its pretty clear from my response:


"To answer your question It may have been, but i think it unlikely. Morelikely there was a reason, which need not be suspicious"

The comma, which you have missed out has meaning. That the reason may not be suspecious, not that it is not.
And of course not knowing what the reason was, we cannot be sure if it suspicious or not.

Anyone who could say it definitely was or was not suspicious is oversteping the available evidence.


The comma which you missed out is the important part there and makes it clear the more likely applies to there being a reason, rather than oversight.

But of course you are well aware of that, so why ask?



Steve

[Sam Flynn]

By 'duffed up' I mean physically assaulted:

[ATTACH]18694[/ATTACH]

From the Morning Advertiser of 2nd Feb., 1864. It could of course have been another H Div Thomas Cross.

Even better for Fisherman, he was duffed up in the abdomen! Oh, by a man, unfortunately

Nice find, Gary.

[Sam Flynn]

I think I may have found a report of his being duffed up by one.

Cue Fisherman turning this into a revenge motive for Lech the Ripper

[MrBarnett]

WHAT???

By 'duffed up' I mean physically assaulted:



From the Morning Advertiser of 2nd Feb., 1864. It could of course have been another H Div Thomas Cross.

[Sam Flynn]

Or does the "more likely" refer only to how you suggest that there was a reason?

It is more likely that it wasn't suspicious because, apart from his full name - albeit using a perfectly understandable alternative surname - he also gave his address and place of work.

[Elamarna]

Richardson was all over the place in his testimony visavi in his early interviews. He never placed himself on the stairs in the first place, it as not until late in the process he ended up there.
And as if that was not enough, there is also a possibility that he may actually have missed the body if it WAS there and if he actually DID sit where he said he sat.
If he turned his body to the right and if the door never went up fully, he could have missed the body in the gloom - or so it was reasoned back in 1888, at least.

lots of ifs again i see, he would not need to see it, he would smell it as soon as tge door was opened

What fascinates me is how three seemingly unreliable witnesses can create what people regard as an impenetrable wall.

Swanson was very reluctant to allow for Long to have been correct - and he too was aware of Richardson.

why mention Long again when i have made it plain i do not use her

In my opinion, you are putting far too little trust in Phillips, who I find was completely unlikely to say two hours, probably more, if it was less than one! The body should have been quite warm at that stage. Plus rigor mortis was in line with Phillips´ observations.
All that must be thrown overboard before we can start to believe in Long et al. I won´t do it. It´s that simple.

Please medicine was in its infancy.
Rigor Mortis does not work the way they beleived it did in 1888.

"The body should have been quite warm at that stage" really?
Even with massive injuries, the body laid open, and far more importantly temperature judged by touch?

No one is asking you to beleive in Long, why do you continually mention her? Very odd.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

I would have considered it reckless and stupid to run.

It is called a disagreement.

I think most of us would disagree with you on that, Fish. He had every opportunity to run away - indeed, no need to run given that there was a choice of escape routes within easy walking distance.

What really would have been reckless and stupid would be for a guilty man to call attention to himself and accompany another to find a policeman, after having savagely mutilated a woman en route to work.

[MrBarnett]

Cross was in his late thirties when he died in December of 1869, 39 I believe, but I am not certain. He died from dropsy.

Thanks, Fish. The dropsy COD rings a bell now, Im sure you or Ed must have mentioned it before.

The GRO has his age at death as 34, which ties in with his marriage cert, but I seem to remember that was at odds with earlier Census returns which suggest he was a few years younger.

[Fisherman]

No not at all.
Gary asked was the leaving of the name Lechmere out just an oversight?

I replied :


"To answer your question It may have been, but i think it unlikely. Morelikely there was a reason, which need not be suspicious"

The comma, which you have missed out has meaning. That the reason may not be suspecious, not that it is not.
And of course not knowing what the reason was, we cannot be sure if it suspicious or not.

Anyone who could say it definitely was or was not suspicious is oversteping the available evidence.


Steve

And anyone who can say that it is "more likely" that the reason was not suspicious?

Or does the "more likely" refer only to how you suggest that there was a reason? Meaning that you find it more likely that there was a reason than how there was not a reason...?

Sliiiiiiiiiiiiding, are we?

[Fisherman]

I think I may have found a report of his being duffed up by one.

WHAT???

[Elamarna]

Let me just point out that you spend an awful lot of time telling me that where there is no evidence, we cannot deduct something or favour a view that lacks such an evidential base.

And here you are, suggesting that it is MORE likely than not that "there was a reason that need not be suspicious".

And there is no evidence at all to support the idea.

Isn´t that kind of ... flexible, Steve?

No not at all.
Gary asked was the leaving of the name Lechmere out just an oversight?

I replied :


"To answer your question It may have been, but i think it unlikely. Morelikely there was a reason, which need not be suspicious"

The comma, which you have missed out has meaning. That the reason may not be suspecious, not that it is not.
And of course not knowing what the reason was, we cannot be sure if it suspicious or not.

Anyone who could say it definitely was or was not suspicious is oversteping the available evidence.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Please don’t find out that Cross was killed on duty by a prostitute

I think I may have found a report of his being duffed up by one.

[Fisherman]

He does not Forget Paul, such is highly unlikely given Paul's Lloyds article, he ignores Paul

I find you approach to evidence to be far from conducive to research which reaches any meaningful conclusions, its all "ifs", "coulds" and "maybes"


Steve

Thank you, Steve. Since you already know what I think about your take on evidence matters, I will save space and not reiterate it.

[Fisherman]

It is unlikely in the extreme that a guilty CL would have acted so suicidally stupidly!

Says you. I know. And I disagree. I would have considered it reckless and stupid to run.

It is called a disagreement.