Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Fisherman]

SAlly:

" he himself told the inquest that he had felt her hands"

No, Sally, that is the one way NO paper reports it, I think. They say EITHER hand (singularis) OR hands (pluralis) AND face.

Let´s keep it as correct as we can!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

If you read the various accounts then it is unsustainable to try and claim that Cross did not touch the body. Adopting that line of argument to argue against Cross is barely worth commenting back on.

You are quite correct, Lechers. As you must surely know, he himself told the inquest that he had felt her hands; as Paul told the inquest he had felt both hands and face.

I don't see, however, that any more than that can be claimed on the basis of existing evidence - do you?

[Lechmere]

If you read the various accounts then it is unsustainable to try and claim that Cross did not touch the body. Adopting that line of argument to argue against Cross is barely worth commenting back on.

The argument against Fisherman over the possible reason why he may have changed his view on Stride is equally puerile. His or anyone else’s motivation for putting forward a proposition is of rather less interest than debating the nature of the proposition itself.

I will quickly address the issue of a man killing on his way to work.
If Cross was the Ripper, then when would he have been able to commit the crimes?
During most of the daylight hours, apart presumably from on his Sunday day off, he would have been at work. Except for maybe in the first few hours of his working day when the streets would have been more empty and even then only of he had a delivery to a suitable location. He may have had opportunity to park up his wagon and commit a crime earlyish in the day. Otherwise the streets would have been too busy for him to escape notice. This obviously goes for whoever did it and is undoubtedly the reason why the crimes took place when it was dark and quiet.
As Cross was an early starter we must presume he did not work that late each day and came home at the latest in the early evening, possibly late afternoon, when again it would be too busy for him to commit the crimes and again this pretty much goes for whoever did it.
From say 10 pm at the latest to 3 am or so he would tend to be asleep. Maybe he could slip out on occasion but in general that would not be a time when he could roam the streets as his wife would miss him. At weekends, before his day off it is plausible that he may stay out longer but not on other nights as a rule.
So if he was a homicidal maniac, a murderous psychopath, at what time of the day would he have had opportunity to commit his crimes? The only realistic time would have been on his way to work. For those who say loftily ‘oh no one would do these crimes on their way to work’ then firstly I rather hope they are not people with the inner compulsion to commit such crimes and so do not need to find a suitable time slot in which to do them. For a man such as Cross that was the only available time slot so if he had such a compulsion the choice was made for him.
It is as simple as that and all arguments that go along the lines of ‘he wouldn’t do it on his way to work’ are frankly ridiculous if the case is given any sort of sensible thought.
The timings of all the crimes fit what we know of Cross's movements or what we can reasonably guess would have been his movements.
And yes conjecture is involved here - please don't try and loftily say conjecture, conjecture, conjecture as conjecture surrounds all aspects of Ripper suspectology. That is a given.

Tom
I know you want to hold off on Le Grand and I know this is off topic – but did you reply to my earlier query as to whether there was any actual evidence that Le Grand was specifically in the Crown on the night of the Stride murder and if so the time he left? You may have answered and I may have missed it in the maelstrom of debate on Cross.
It is quite understandable that you wish to hold off on debating Le Grand. The recent Cross threads should be a lesson to everyone on that issue. You end up with bitty arguments instead of being able to present a case in the round with all the loose ends answered to make a coherent whole. That is why I have avoided getting too drawn into these threads although it is obviously too tempting sometimes.

[Fisherman]

Tom:

" Garry is absolutely correct in that it appears Fish has changed his longstanding beliefs on Stride (which used to be a major point of contention between he and myself), based solely on the fact that his new suspect's mum lived near Berner Street."

Exactly WHAT is it I have changed, Tom? I fail to see that, so explain ti to me!

" I was shocked to see Fish suggesting Garry should be banned."

So am I -since I never said that. Garry told me thart since I´ve bbeen banned twice, I am in no position to teach him manners (he may have a point there), and I answered that if he thought that staying away from being banned was important to him, he may need to stay away from slandering me.

" you're now in 'suspect theory' territory, which means you need to toughen up and prepare to have your character assassinated."

Fine by me _ I just don´t see how I could receive any MORE character assasination than I already have. Claining that Hutch is not a bright idea is quite enough to achieve that

" It's difficult if not impossible to discuss a theory before you've published it. That's why I avoid any indepth discussions about Le Grand. I'll let the book I'm writing speak for itself. You should consider ceasing all discussion on this until your essay is published and we've had a chance to read it."

That´s perhaps not a bad idea. I´ll think about it...

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi all,

I have to agree with Fish here. I wrote a study of the Nichols murder years ago (it's called 'Old Wounds' and is in the Dissertations section), and I came away from my research with the impression that both Cross and Paul touched the body. In fact, I would argue that the slight movement Paul wishfully thought was Nichols breathing was actually Cross slightly jarring the body.

Regarding what Garry and Fish are discussing, I have mixed feelings. Garry is absolutely correct in that it appears Fish has changed his longstanding beliefs on Stride (which used to be a major point of contention between he and myself), based solely on the fact that his new suspect's mum lived near Berner Street. This does seem disingenuous. However, we've all changed our minds on various aspects of the case and for various reasons, so why should Fish be an exception? If the study of his new suspect opened his mind to interpretations of the evidence that he'd been close-minded to before, then all the better.

But also, I was shocked to see Fish suggesting Garry should be banned. For what? Staying on topic in a thread and discussing the evidence? Granted, such behavior may no longer be the norm, but surely it's not an Admin issue? The reality Fish is that you're now in 'suspect theory' territory, which means you need to toughen up and prepare to have your character assassinated. You're getting off easy so far. Oh, by all means defend yourself and give as good as you get, but I think when you start threatening to go tell mommy you've rather lost the battle and are behaving like a wuss. So I say don't go there.

Also, some advice. It's difficult if not impossible to discuss a theory before you've published it. That's why I avoid any indepth discussions about Le Grand. I'll let the book I'm writing speak for itself. You should consider ceasing all discussion on this until your essay is published and we've had a chance to read it. Then discuss it ONLY with those who have read your essay.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Thanking you for the very useful lesson, Sally, I reproduce three major papers and what they said:

"Daily Telegraph:

”They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm.”

Daily News:

”They both went across to the body, and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stopped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm.”

The Echo:

”We then both went over to the body. He stooped one side of her, and I stooped the other, and took hold of her hand, which was cold. Her face was warm.”

As you will see, there are discrepancies aplenty, so these are no copies. And the papers would have judged the murder interesting enough to send their own reporters.

As an aside, the reports where it is only spoken of Lechmere touching one hand are more alike in this passage, I find. Which is to some extent explainable by the fact that they are worded more economically.

To add, even if had only been the Daily Telegraph mentioning the touching of the face, I think it would be a hard thing to do to press any suggestion that they had misheard it or lied about it.

What is your stance, Sally - do you rely in the Star only here? Should we drop the suggestion that Lechmere touched her face? Would it amount to sheer misleading to use the Daily Telegraph, the Echo and the Daily News as the best and fullest reports?

Or do you prefer not to answer it on this thread...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

We HAVE good sources that corroborate each other, all saying that Lechmere felt her hands and her face, finding the latter warm. And I would submit that these sources, being the ones to make the most informative and fullest reports from the inquest are the sources we all should rely upon.

They only 'corroborate each other' if they come from independent sources originally Fish. Is that the case?

Otherwise they don't corroborate, they repeat the same source information.

Repetition is not corroboration. The frequency with which specific information is disseminated does not necessarily have a bearing on how 'factual ' - or reliable - it is.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"I have neither implied nor stated explicitly that you ‘withhold material’. I asserted that you disregard information that fails to accord with your preconceived thinking. Disregard, as in discount, dismiss, ignore, neglect or reject."

But that is just as wrong. I have not neglected to mention any material that does not accord with "my preconceived thinking". Of course, I could have brought up that there are press reports that are less full than the Daily Telegraph and a number of other papers, but why would I do that? Why would anybody do that? We HAVE good sources that corroborate each other, all saying that Lechmere felt her hands and her face, finding the latter warm. And I would submit that these sources, being the ones to make the most informative and fullest reports from the inquest are the sources we all should rely upon. Do you disagree? Or?

And what happens if we use the Star only? Correct - we are deprived of the fact that Lechmere touched her face, for example, and thus we end up at a stage where we may make the mistake of claiming that this "apparently" never happened. You should know, since you made that very mistake yourself. And of course, the significance is large here, since the fact that he felt her face would mean that he came in close contact with her cut throat, either touching it or coming very close to do so.
This in it´s turn would have meant that he aquired an alibi for any blood that was subsequently detected on him. And that very thing is where you have focused and taken issue with me, is it not? You have claimed that it would have been the most logical thing to do, to help with a prop up, since that would give him a blood alibi, and you have claimed that only touching one of her hands would not have been enough.
But this suggestion of yours rested on incomplete source evaluation, Garry. It should never have been an issue in the first place, let alone that it means that you were in no position whatsoever to claim that I would have disregarded whatever sources I found did not tally with my "preconceived notions". For is it not true, that "my preconceived notions" are fully backed by the fullest reports from the inquest, whereas your claims are not? Do you disagree? Or?

I very much dislike having it implied that I work from preconceived notions, for that matter. It is wrong, and it is an accusation that will disrupt the thread. It is much the same as what happened when Ben suddenly claimed that I had said that Robert Paul had been able to see Lechmere all the way from Brady Street.
I was flabbergasted - I had NEVER said anything like that - we all (well ...) know that the spot Lechmere was at rested in almost total darkness. We all know that it was impossible to tell a woman from a tarpaulin from five yards away. There was no way that I would have said something like what Ben claimed. But that did not stop Ben - he went on to call me "outlandish" and made jokes about something I had never said.
After I had pointed it out? Nothing. No admittance, no excuse, nothing. Good going ...!

This amounts to more of the same. I have gone through the Lechmere material very conscientiously, and there can be no doubt that the Star provides a report that is NOT up to standards since it leaves out elements that were obviously stated at the inquest.

Let me provide you with a parallel, once again naming our mutual friend Hutchinson. I believe you have many times stated that Sarah Lewis´description of the wideawake man tells us that Hutchinson was the man at Crossingham´s.

But there are TWO reports on Lewis, the first being a police report that firmly states that mrs Lewis COULD NOT describe the man. The second report is the inquest ditto, where a description IS delivered.
Do you always mention the chronologically FIRST report, speaking of Hutchinson? I think not. Does this amount to a deliberate withholding of material that is not in accordance of your preconceived notions? Yes, it does, actually.
Then why is it not so in my case? Can you spot the difference? Exactly, the Star does NOT say that Lechmere did not touch Nichols´face. There is no contradiction between the Star and the Daily Telegraph, there is merely a fuller report in the latter, meaning that the Star did not record all the elements brought up at the inquest.
But there IS a contradiction between police report and inquest ditto as per Lewis! She went from a professed inability to describe her man to a sudden ability to do so. Therefore, in THIS instance, it would be of vital importance not to hide the police report in favour of the inquest ditto.

This is how I reason, Garry, and I hope that you can see the relevance. Or do you disagree?

"There you go again. More misattribution. More dishonesty. Or is it simply delusion?"

Here is the relevant passage, Garry:

"The same face that was apparently neither bloodstained nor touched by Cross?"

Am I misreading you here, or are you stating that it was apparent that Nichol´s face was never touched by Cross? And if I am not misunderstanding you, then who is "dishonest"?

"Oh, really?"

Yes, really. I have never withheld any material about my correspondance with Leander, Garry. I have presented it in full, every last bit of it. If I had not, you would have been none the wiser about things. The same goes for the meteorological reports - they have also been presented in full, every last bit, nothing withheld, report for report, each of them adding further understanding. I always do that, always have and always will.

If you think that I did the wrong thing in my dealings with Leander, then you are free to do so. But you are NOT free to imply that I in any way lied about it or kept any part of it from the boards.

"you have a tendency towards misattribution when feeling the pressure"

But I feel no pressure, Garry. I am of the meaning that everybody who wants to diss Lechmere as a suspect are free to do so. It applies no pressure whatsoever on me - why should it? I would be much more worried if anybody could prove me wrong in any instance, or if somebody could point out that I had been dishonest in my presentation of the case. None of this has happened. And in the latter case, nor will it.

"Continue to repeat it if you choose, but then I might be tempted to embarrass you further by posting the direct quotations of what was really said during our earlier exchanges."

Feel free, Garry. It will somehow pale alongside the remark you once made about me - that you always tend to listen to what I say, and then opt for the opposite. Having assured that, any of your future efforts will stand out in a very clear light, I dare say.

Now, may we please return to discussing Lechmere here?

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

You have implied that I withhold material that contradicts what I say. That is patently untrue and an abominable approach to what ought to be a mutually rewarding exchange.

Like I said, Fisherman, you simply don’t listen. I have neither implied nor stated explicitly that you ‘withhold material’. I asserted that you disregard information that fails to accord with your preconceived thinking. Disregard, as in discount, dismiss, ignore, neglect or reject. Hence my reference to ‘confirmation bias’ in a previous post.

You even went as far, Garry, as to state that it was "apparent" that Lechmere never touched Nichols´ face, and in this respect I must admit that you are correct - you ARE of a different cloth than more discerning researchers, who would never call a patently unapparent thing apparent …

There you go again. More misattribution. More dishonesty. Or is it simply delusion?

… It would be wrong, quite simply, as it would be omitting the full reports in favour of less informative material. And we don´t want to do that, believe you me! I would not touch that sort of reasoning with a pair of pliers.

Oh, really? Well how about omitting to send all three of Hutchinson’s statement signatures to Frank Leander, and then claiming to have ‘scientific proof’ that Hutchinson and Toppy were one and the same? And what about your insistence that meteorological reports supported your contention of heavy and incessant rainfall throughout the night on which Mary Kelly was murdered? So it would appear that your pliers have seen a good deal more action than you’d care to admit.

You have proven yourself sorely inadequate when it comes to evaluating a source material that is quite clear on this matter - but far worse, you have also proven yourself inadequate to admit it.

As I stated in an earlier post, Fish, you have a tendency towards misattribution when feeling the pressure, so I’m sure you’ll understand my indifference with regard to such nonsense. Continue to repeat it if you choose, but then I might be tempted to embarrass you further by posting the direct quotations of what was really said during our earlier exchanges.

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"Oh, and I’ll choose the topics I discuss if it’s all the same to you."

It´s not, I´m afraid. You have falsely accused me of choosing only the material that suits my reasoning. You have implied that I withhold material that contradicts what I say. That is patently untrue and an abominable approach to what ought to be a mutually rewarding exchange.

The material we were discussing was whether Lechmere felt both hands and face of Nichols, and you have claimed that I purposefully chose to mislead, withholding reports that contradicted my theory.
I have shown you that this was not the case, since the Star does not say that Lechmere did NOT touch both hands and face - they simply give a less full account, omitting to mention what the Daily Telegraph and other papers reported - that Lechmere felt BOTH hands and face. It was even reported that the face was warm!

Do you think that the more informative papers LIED about that, and that Lechmere never felt her face? Did the reporters on the Daily Telegraph simply dream this up - or do you think that the Star simply may have omitted to mention it?

There can only be one way to mislead in this matter, Garry, and that would be to choose the papers that only speak of touching one hand, and then WITHHOLD the fact that there WERE papers that gave an account that was fuller! THAT would amount to gross misleading and skewing the perspective. And that seems to be the approach you recommend.
That´s okay by me, if you wish to go down that alley. Fine. Just don´t think that I will let you get away with doing it AND call ME misleading!!

You even went as far, Garry, as to state that it was "apparent" that Lechmere never touched Nichols´ face, and in this respect I must admit that you are correct - you ARE of a different cloth than more discerning researchers, who would never call a patently unapparent thing apparent. It would be wrong, quite simply, as it would be omitting the full reports in favour of less informative material. And we don´t want to do that, believe you me! I would not touch that sort of reasoning with a pair of pliers.

This is all that needs to be said. Please extend me the courtesy of not forcing me to discuss this any more. You have proven yourself sorely inadequate when it comes to evaluating a source material that is quite clear on this matter - but far worse, you have also proven yourself inadequate to admit it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

"I’m suggesting that you’ve changed your stance concerning Stride not on an evidential basis, Fish, but rather in the belief that Stride as a Ripper victim adds weight to your contention of Cross the killer."

That was not the issue here, Garry. So don´t change the subject.

Yes it was, Fish, and still is. You’ve abandoned your previously held stance concerning Stride on the basis of what you assert is new evidence. And what is this startling new revelation? Cross’s mother lived close to the Berner Street crime scene.

Oh, and I’ll choose the topics I discuss if it’s all the same to you. The bullying may work on others, but I’m cut from different cloth.

The one and only issue is that you wrote "It seems that you are citing only those sources which concur with your hypothesis and disregarding those that don’t. But then, this should come as no great surprise..."

I find that revolting, and I take very much issue with it, which is why I would like an explanation.

Then try a new approach and actually read and absorb what others are writing. I’ve already commented upon your miraculous change of heart where Stride is concerned, and you cannot fail to have noticed the points I’ve been making about Cross’s refusal to touch the body. There are plenty more besides. But the only time you appear to listen is when on those rare occasions someone actually agrees with you.

If getting banned is something you are trying to avoid, then so much more reason to provide me with a good explanation to the above. Grave accusations like that DO belong to the boards - if you can substantiate them. So...?

Getting banned? Grave accusations? Spare me the indignant attitude, Fisherman. If you believe that I have behaved inappropriately refer the relevant post(s) to Admin. If not, you’re simply going to have to learn to live with the criticisms levelled by myself and others. That’s what comes of promulgating the kind of Trenouthian nonsense with which you are currently afflicting the boards.

[Fisherman]

Tom:

"Incidentally, I think Lucky is going to pin the murder on PC Mizen."

Ever considered Lilley, Tom...?

The best,
Fiosherman

[Tom_Wescott]

What with all the thoroughly convincing theories as of late, an improbable one should be a breath of fresh air. Incidentally, I think Lucky is going to pin the murder on PC Mizen.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious]

Tom,

That was pretty da^%ed funny! Lots of improbable and bizarre lately, maybe the most I've seen in years.

Mike

I love improbable and bizarre, along with creative and imaginative, but most of these lately just baffle me and I can find no validity at all.

C-L is different with some validity. He even gets my creative juices flowing and I can see possibilities, but at this point the argument has not convinced me.

[The Good Michael]

Tom,

That was pretty da^%ed funny! Lots of improbable and bizarre lately, maybe the most I've seen in years.

Mike