Macnaghten as a suspect

[The Good Michael]

Damon,

There is a history of a small group of French speakers, Sophie Herfort (sp?) being one of them, who come on this website only to promote some idea, or "new" piece of writing. Historically, they have been pleasant at first, and then have taken the abusive route when doubted or questioned. I'm certain it is the same group over and over again. It happens perhaps every 8 or 9 months. Obviously they are not representative of the majority of Francophones. Yet, it is sad that they are the majority of those who post here. DVV, or David is the more correct example of the educated French speaker who is here to learn and to help.

Cheers,

Mike

[Mike Covell]

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." 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. The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before.
Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left. In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries.
The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?
Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.
A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.


What someone thinks they saw and what that person actually saw are two different things, Cross initially thought he saw a tarp, he then realised he was mistaken and it was actually a woman!

Ce qui quelqu'un les pense scie et ce que cette scie de personne réellement sont deux choses différentes, la croix a au commencement pensé il a vu un tarp, il a alors réalisé qu'il était erroné et c'était réellement une femme !

A theory is nothing more than an un-proven assumption to be proved or disproved through research and testing. Nothing has been proved but the tarp theory has been disproved. Is the rest of the work so thorough?

Une théorie n'est rien d'autre qu'une hypothèse non prouvée à être prouvée ou réfutée par la recherche et la mise à l'essai. Rien n'a été prouvé mais la théorie de toile de bâche a été réfutée. Est le reste du travail si consciencieux ?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello She Strong

And welcome to casebook. You have undergone a baptism of fire haven’t you? Luckily enough there are many reasonable posters like Bailey that may not agree with you but will be courteous and listen to what you have say and pass reasonable comment back.

Dan Norder is a self appointed viddual-anti who takes it upon himself to attack anyone he believes has got the slightest fact incorrect in order to make himself feel bigger. This said however when he himself gets things wrong (which he often does) he would never admit the point. His usual tatic, once he makes mistakes, is to use a splatter gun of arguments to try and distract you from your original point and if all else fails he will post abuse, claim unfair tactic’s and storm off in a huff….

Luckily enough he currently has me on his ‘ignore’ setting which means that he is unable to read this post! I’m invisible to him . Which is excellent because I can now point out his errors to people without him realizing that I am doing it….

‘While Norder is correct about Nichols body being mistaken for a ‘Tarp’, if your going to go by Norders own standards of detail he is himself making an error that he should have pointed out to everyone…Nichols body was in fact discovered by a Charles Lechmere.

It was recently discovered that Charles Cross used a false name…a number of arguments have been given for this, some even suggesting Lechmere as a suspect.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3

This link will give you further information.

My advice is to take anything posted by Norder with a pinch of salt, most respected experts on the subject do.

Like Bailey I think I will hold any criticism of the book until it is published in English and I can read it properly but I also find it hard to believe that any of the police officials were involved in the crime..

My French is very poor. However I have travelled extensively in France and believe it one of the most wonderful countries in the world and love the people. You are more than welcome on casebook. Keep your cool, you are going to need it.

Good luck.

Pirate

[Mike Covell]

But what if someone quotes your response, Pirate?

[Jeff Leahy]

But what if someone quotes your response, Pirate?

I dont know Mike? I've never been silly enough to put anyone on 'Ignore' i would imagine you'd be having a fairly dis-jointed idea of the conversation..

Fore instance your post must be having Norder scratching his head like mad.

It could be an excellent possibility of a wind-up however...luckily enough there are still a number of posters with a sense of humour around here.

How about letting Strong reply that Norder has made a mistake..Re; Lechmere.

Admittedly its rather unfair technically..but it would be excellent to watch him huff puff and backtrack. When its thrown at him

No doubt one of the prefects would tip him off..

Catch you later Mike

Pirate

[Mike Covell]

Catch you later Mike

Pirate

Not if I put you on ignore

[Jeff Leahy]

And miss out on all those bee jokes

[Bailey]

‘While Norder is correct about Nichols body being mistaken for a ‘Tarp’, if your going to go by Norders own standards of detail he is himself making an error that he should have pointed out to everyone…Nichols body was in fact discovered by a Charles Lechmere.

It was recently discovered that Charles Cross used a false name…a number of arguments have been given for this, some even suggesting Lechmere as a suspect.

Haaaang on, tho. My understanding (without, I confess, taking the time to go read the article you mention and confirm) is the Lechmere is still the man we know as Cross, correct? This is hardly therefore a glaring error on Mr Norder's part, merely perhaps the habitual use of what was until comparitively recently a known name. Furthermore, if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents - as Mr Evans, of whom you are a strong supporter, would urge us - then Cross is the correct name to use.

I would venture further that including an actual tarp at the murder scene and locating Polly underneath it is far more grevious an error - it suggests a substantial lack of comprehension of the source documents and therefore calls the standard of research being applied into the theory on offer. Whether this is the result of language barriers, willfully ignoring the facts or outright stupidity is beside the point - nonetheless, it inherently calls into doubt the credibility of the author and her case. Calling Charles Cross / Lechmere by the name which he was known by for over a century is not the same thing.

Jeff, with all due respect, sir, I have no idea how far back this thing you have with Dan Norder goes, nor why it started. From what I've seen in the last few weeks on Casebook, however, it seems like you're both being a bit bloody silly about it all. While at times it's certainly been entertaining, I think it's also a bit sad, and extremely counter-productive when we are, in theory, all supposed to be working towards the same end here.

Well, everyone but me, I'm just here to enjoy the ride and contribute as little as possible.

No offense mate, just a thought...

B.

[Bailey]

Damon,

There is a history of a small group of French speakers, Sophie Herfort (sp?) being one of them, who come on this website only to promote some idea, or "new" piece of writing. Historically, they have been pleasant at first, and then have taken the abusive route when doubted or questioned. I'm certain it is the same group over and over again. It happens perhaps every 8 or 9 months. Obviously they are not representative of the majority of Francophones. Yet, it is sad that they are the majority of those who post here. DVV, or David is the more correct example of the educated French speaker who is here to learn and to help.

Cheers,

Mike

Hey Mike

Thanks for that. I must say I'd rather picked up that impression as I worked through this thread, but my general inclination is to give folks the benefit of the doubt, and try to play devil's advocate wherever possible.

Basically, I like to avoid getting into confrontations myself, but I don't mind watching when others have them I believe the correct term is "coward."

Cheers,
B.

P.S. That Churchill quote you have there is quite a thing. I'm not entirely sure how to interpret it, either from its original source or from your decision to use it as a sig quote - care to elaborate on that? Not stirring, mind, just curious.

[Jeff Leahy]

Haaaang on, tho. My understanding (without, I confess, taking the time to go read the article you mention and confirm) is the Lechmere is still the man we know as Cross, correct? This is hardly therefore a glaring error on Mr Norder's part, merely perhaps the habitual use of what was until comparitively recently a known name. Furthermore, if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents - as Mr Evans, of whom you are a strong supporter, would urge us - then Cross is the correct name to use.

I would venture further that including an actual tarp at the murder scene and locating Polly underneath it is far more grevious an error - it suggests a substantial lack of comprehension of the source documents and therefore calls the standard of research being applied into the theory on offer. Whether this is the result of language barriers, willfully ignoring the facts or outright stupidity is beside the point - nonetheless, it inherently calls into doubt the credibility of the author and her case. Calling Charles Cross / Lechmere by the name which he was known by for over a century is not the same thing.

Jeff, with all due respect, sir, I have no idea how far back this thing you have with Dan Norder goes, nor why it started. From what I've seen in the last few weeks on Casebook, however, it seems like you're both being a bit bloody silly about it all. While at times it's certainly been entertaining, I think it's also a bit sad, and extremely counter-productive when we are, in theory, all supposed to be working towards the same end here.

Well, everyone but me, I'm just here to enjoy the ride and contribute as little as possible.

No offense mate, just a thought...

B.

Yeah its picking the bones, but its a fun observation, please check the thread. Cross aka Lechmere...but still Lechmere is his real name.

I think it fair to suggest we should wait until the book is published in English. No doubt it will contain some errors, almost evreything on a subject this big and this controversial does...often it comes down to a point of view.

I just don't like to see new posters getting jumped on by this idiot.

As you suggest my grievance with Norder goes back a long way. He is currently travelling these boards accusing me of being a liar. Something which I have never done...when pressed on the subject he offers no evidence...how would you feel?

No offence taken, enjoy the ride.

Pirate

[DVV]

Some fun more?

What is admirable with herfort's book is that you are never disappointed.
Chapter after chapter, she makes you laugh.
Up to the end, and even...after the end.

Look at the bibliography:

"Stewart (P. Evans) et Rumbelow (Donald), JtR...
Stewart (P. Evans) et Skinner (Keith), Letters...
Stewart (P. Evans) et Skinner (Keith), The ultimate..."

Don't you know P. Evans Stewart, the famous author of "Ripper the Jack"?
Great!

[Septic Blue]

Charles Lechmere (aka "Charles Cross&quot

My understanding (without, I confess, taking the time to go read the article you mention and confirm) is the Lechmere is still the man we know as Cross, correct? This is hardly therefore a glaring error on Mr Norder's part, merely perhaps the habitual use of what was until comparitively recently a known name. Furthermore, if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents - as Mr Evans, of whom you are a strong supporter, would urge us - then Cross is the correct name to use.

"... if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents ... then Cross is the correct name to use."

I am in total disagreement !!!

Thanks to the efforts of Michael Connor and Chris Scott, we know:

- That this person appeared as "Lechmere" on his 1849 birth certificate, 1871 marriage certificate and 1920 death certificate; as well as census returns of 1851, 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901(?)

- That his wife and eight living children (of 1891) all appeared as "Lechmere" in various census returns

- That a ninth child (1888-1890) appeared as "Lechmere" on her birth and death certificates

- That this person's only known appearances as "Cross", the name of his stepfather from age eight, occurred in the census returns of 1861 (age 11), and during the investigation of Polly Nichols's murder (age 38)

Charles Lechmere (aka "Charles Cross") !!!

"Cross" was an alias !!! An explicable alias; but still an alias !!!

We do not know the reasoning, behind which Charles Lechmere chose to identify himself as "Charles Cross", throughout the course of the investigation of Polly Nichols's murder. But the fact that he chose to do so, is not just cause for him to be known to history by that alias.

His name was Charles Lechmere !!! Period !!!

We don't refer to Catherine Eddowes by her chosen alias: "Mary Ann Kelly". Neither should we refer to Charles Lechmere by his chosen alias: "Charles Cross".

Again; his name was Charles Lechmere !!! We now know that to be the case, and we should act accordingly.

For the time being, however; the reference 'Charles Lechmere, aka "Charles Cross"' should alleviate any possible confusion.

Derek Osborne (Ripperana No. 37, July 2001) discovered a Charles Lechmere in residence at 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town; as recorded in the 1891 census. But he merely hypothesized that Lechmere and "Cross" might have been one and the same. His findings and hypotheses regarding Lechmere then faded into obscurity.

Michael Connor (Ripperologist No. 87, January 2008), in the absence of any knowledge of Osborne's work, delved much more deeply into the background and post-1891 life of Charles Lechmere; and concluded (quite rightly) that Lechmere and "Cross" most probably were one and the same.

Chris Scott put the icing on the cake.

If we do not take the progressive route, and refer to people, places and events in accordance with recent discoveries; then we will remain stagnant and go nowhere in our quest.

Also; if we show blatant disregard for the work of Michael Connor and Chris Scott, and allow it - like Derek Osborne's - to fade into obscurity, then this whole saga will be repeated in seven-or-eight years, when someone else 'discovers' Charles Lechmere, of 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town.


Colin


P.S. Click the quote prompt (white arrow) to take this discussion to the appropriate thread.

"... if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents ... then Cross is the correct name to use."

I am in total disagreement !!!

[DVV]

[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;33939]
I think it fair to suggest we should wait until the book is published in English. No doubt it will contain some errors, almost evreything on a subject this big and this controversial does...often it comes down to a point of view.


/QUOTE]

Hi Pirate,
oh no, it's not a matter of "some errors" or "point of view". Just have a look at the thread Police officials/ McNaghten-the theory/post 19, and you will understand everything.
Maybe, when it will be translated into English, the author will try to add corrections, thanks to the "*******" website she has ridiculously insulted...

Amitiés,
David

[Dan Norder]

I'm going to use Cross, as that's what he called himself in regards to this case. Most authors call him that. I similarly call Eddowes "Catherine" instead of "Catharine" because she called herself that and even an official document saying that it was "Catharine" doesn't change that she was known to the case as Catherine and most authors refer to her that way. It seems to me to be ridiculous to refer to him as Lachmere when anyone going to any book to look him up would have to look for Cross instead. We also don't call Lawende "Lavender," and so forth and so on.

Jeff's just desperate to try to prove me wrong despite the fact that he can never find anything real to complain about it. You might remember Stewart, Ally, Judy, Lyn, Mike and others catching him in making up lies about what was said in the Cornwell thread in order to try to save face. He's just a pathetic, obsessed nobody who wants attention and can only get it by insulting people. Ignore him and he'll wander off and leave us alone for a while just like the last couple of times he tried this nonsense.

The same could be said for Sophie and her sockpuppets, really, except they show up every six months or so instead of every couple of years.

[DVV]

The same could be said for Sophie and her sockpuppets, really, except they show up every six months or so instead of every couple of years.

And this time Sophie Herfort comes back slyly under an alias, "She Strong", which is a pathetic pun (She=more or less "her", Strong=fort), and she tells us she's a Cypriote citizen...