Macnaghten as a suspect

[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

[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.

[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.

[Jeff Leahy]

And miss out on all those bee jokes

[Mike Covell]

Catch you later Mike

Pirate

Not if I put you on ignore

[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]

But what if someone quotes your response, Pirate?

[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]

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 ?

[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

[Bailey]

Bonjour, Strong,

My French is very poor, dating back to high school many years ago, so I won't try to use it further than the greeting above.

The point people are trying to make with the tarp is that it is perhaps an indication of the sort of errors that seem to appear in this theory. If something as simple as this is not correct, it casts doubt on the standard of the author's research and her efforts to put together a case. So while the presence or absence of a tarpaulin at the murder scene may not be relevant to the likelihood of McNaghten being the Ripper, can you not see how these sorts of simple errors could be *perceived* as damaging the credibility of the work as a whole?

I'm intrigued by this theory, though I must admit to being quite skeptical until I can read the book for myself. However, do you not see that you have come here and been agressive, even abusive, and of course people are not impressed? Furthermore, you make others less likely to pay attention to to the work by this approach.

I anxiously await an English edition of the text so that we might perhaps be able to pursue a more informed - and perhaps calmer? - discussion on its merits. Until that point, however, I must say that for the time being I am yet to be convinced that Sir Melville was Jack.

Cheers,
Bailey.

[STRONG]

WE DON'T CARE ! It's a tiny detail !

For God sake, Polly's body was NOT found under a tarp, on a tarp, at the side of a tarp or around any tarp. There was NO tarp, ever, 100%, proven. NO TARP!! Just Polly's body - NO TARP!! Cross THOUGHT the body was tarp until he got closer and then saw it WASN'T a tarp but a dead body.... Just a dead body, not a dead body on or under or around a tarp........

One last time - There was, and never will be, a tarp involved in the discovery of Mary Ann Nichols's body, EVER! NEVER! NO TARP!!

Calm down "Uncle Jack" ! Cross - the witness - believed from the start it was a tarp, even if it's not the case at the end. Supposing, he was wrong about the tarp he believed to see ! NO MATTER ! No link with Macnaghten or even the theory ! You understand what does it mean ? THE TARP WAS THERE OR NOT, WE DON'T CARE ! NOT RELEVANT ABOUT THE THEORY ! It's not among the list of pieces of evidence proposed by Herfort ! All this idiosyncrasy on this website is a phenomenon ! A Loss of time ! Could we elevate the "debat" please !

[George Hutchinson]

What a waste of bandwidth. Still - I'll do my bit for the environment. I can now add a second person to my IGNORE list and I'd like to extend that offer to most of the people here. It keeps your threads almost shyte-free. This is clearly a person unable to understand fact and rationale who has a huge bee up their bottom. The lovely thing here is that when they reply to this post, screaming, ranting and insulting... I won't know about it. Think of it as being tightly wrapped in a tarp.

PHILIP

[Uncle Jack]

For God sake, Polly's body was NOT found under a tarp, on a tarp, at the side of a tarp or around any tarp. There was NO tarp, ever, 100%, proven. NO TARP!! Just Polly's body - NO TARP!! Cross THOUGHT the body was tarp until he got closer and then saw it WASN'T a tarp but a dead body.... Just a dead body, not a dead body on or under or around a tarp........

One last time - There was, and never will be, a tarp involved in the discovery of Mary Ann Nichols's body, EVER! NEVER! NO TARP!!

[STRONG]

That's exactly what she said !

The problem, She from Nicosia, is that there was no tarpaulin.

Is it clear now? Cross saw a shadowy mass - THOUGHT it was a tarpaulin, and thought it was a valuable thing to pick up and take home. When he came closer, lo and behold, he saw it was no tarpaulin. IT WAS A DEAD WOMAN!

Pas de bâche! Une machabbée, c'est tout! IL S'ETAIT TROMPÉ!

T'as compris maintenant?

À plus
Crochet

That's exactly what she said in her book. You don't understand anything in french ! Admit it !