The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[drstrange169]

Hello Christer,

Even though you are too frightened to debate with me …

>>The area around Bucks Row was dead silent and empty at the time of the murder. Where were the scores of Ripper candidates that are spoken of at that stage?<<

And where are the other people that had a step- father called Cross, worked at Pickfords for 20 years, who took Buck’s Row as their route to work that particular morning, that would make Xmere unidentifiable to his family and work?

[drstrange169]

>>Because much as he gave the POLICE the address, he did not do so with THE PRESS.<<

That’s your theory and you are entitled to it, but you are not entitled to present it as fact.

There is a yawning chasm between the two.

[drstrange169]

>>The fact that all of the papers wrote all of the addresses mentioned by the witnesses leads me to the conclusion that they would have written Lechmeres address too - if they had it.<<

This is where Kattrup’s original post proves useful. In the “official” transcripts of the trials at the Old Bailey, in every single case cited, the witnesses give their addresses, but when we cross-check what the newspapers wrote, we find that the address do not always appear in their articles.

Amazing huh?

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer,

Even though you are too frightened to debate with me …

>>The area around Bucks Row was dead silent and empty at the time of the murder. Where were the scores of Ripper candidates that are spoken of at that stage?<<

And where are the other people that had a step- father called Cross, worked at Pickfords for 20 years, who took Buck’s Row as their route to work that particular morning, that would make Xmere unidentifiable to his family and work?

Dusty (Dr Strange 169) has made it a habit to call me a liar. He has also made it a habit not to answer my posts, instead opting for delivering answers to questions I have never asked, apparently in an effort to muddle things.
He repeatedly claims that I cannot answer his questions and that I run away from debate with him.
I have, however, answered all his questions numerous times, and he is simply rehashing them and claiming that they have not been answered.
This is an intolerable situation, and one that I will not honor other by than producing this prewritten text, over and over again, as many times as it takes.

I am not opposed to the idea that Dusty may better his ways, and become a useful debating partner, and I will therefore read his posts to see if there is something in them I feel has gone unanswered, in which case I will answer it. Likewise, if I feel the need to make any point on account of Dustys posting, I will do so.
However, if the old state of things prevails, with false allegations and rehashing of questions that have been answered, then this post is all I will offer.

[Fisherman]

>>Because much as he gave the POLICE the address, he did not do so with THE PRESS.<<

That’s your theory and you are entitled to it, but you are not entitled to present it as fact.

There is a yawning chasm between the two.

Dusty (Dr Strange 169) has made it a habit to call me a liar. He has also made it a habit not to answer my posts, instead opting for delivering answers to questions I have never asked, apparently in an effort to muddle things.
He repeatedly claims that I cannot answer his questions and that I run away from debate with him.
I have, however, answered all his questions numerous times, and he is simply rehashing them and claiming that they have not been answered.
This is an intolerable situation, and one that I will not honor other by than producing this prewritten text, over and over again, as many times as it takes.

I am not opposed to the idea that Dusty may better his ways, and become a useful debating partner, and I will therefore read his posts to see if there is something in them I feel has gone unanswered, in which case I will answer it. Likewise, if I feel the need to make any point on account of Dustys posting, I will do so.
However, if the old state of things prevails, with false allegations and rehashing of questions that have been answered, then this post is all I will offer.

[Fisherman]

>>The fact that all of the papers wrote all of the addresses mentioned by the witnesses leads me to the conclusion that they would have written Lechmeres address too - if they had it.<<

This is where Kattrup’s original post proves useful. In the “official” transcripts of the trials at the Old Bailey, in every single case cited, the witnesses give their addresses, but when we cross-check what the newspapers wrote, we find that the address do not always appear in their articles.

Amazing huh?

Wow - something new! Or ALMOST new, at least.

We cannot look at this as one homogenous collection of testimonies. We know for certain that in the Nichols case - a very high profile case - the papers invariably all tried to give the addressess of the unprofessional witnesses involved. It is not a case of half doing it and the other half not.
But in Lechmeres case, one out of all papers had the name, and had it correct. No other unprofessional witness offers any comparison.
The Daily News, the Daily Telegraph, the Echo, the Morning Advertiser, The East London Observer, the East London Advertiser, the Times, the Evening News, you name it - all of these papers, who did all they could to get all the other witnesses addresses written down in spite of not being able to make them out completely, suddenly lost interest in that detail when the carman Charles Allen Cross got up on the stand. Only the Star made an effort - and what an effort!

The implication is therefore that the Star reporter picked the address up from a desk clerk, not that there was a sudden disinterest in taking down addresses with all the rest of the reporters.

[Fisherman]

In the courts one is assumed innocent, yet in law enforcement I believe detectives assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent (i.e. alibi). If I were a detective I'd assume everyone could be the killer unless he can be absolutely eliminated. Why would anyone looking for a killer assume innocence?

Which is a distinction that has been all but lost on far too many people out here.

[Fisherman]

A real researcher and serious student doesn’t block their ears and whistle when they are asked tough questions. It’s something children do that’s why we call it childish.

Would a real researcher spend his time answering baseless accusations about being a coward?
Would a real researcher answer questions repeated time after time after time, as if they had never been asked before?

Much more pertinently, does a real researcher throw baseless accusations about people being cowards around himself. And does he ask the exact same questions over and over again? Or is that something an internet troll does?

My ears are not closed in any way, as you can see. I read the insults, I read the lies, the accusations and all of the rest of the crap you spread out here. But I will not be drawn into it. I will make my own choice about when there is a reason to answer any of your post that can be of use to the overall understanding of the case - and your efforts to distort it.

[harry]

CertainSum1,
It is more that the common law dictates how law enforcement officers should approach establishing guilt.I was taught to start with the consideration of innocence,and build a case of guilt on what incriminating evidence was unearthed.Certainly there are cases where,from the beginning,certain facts appear apparent of guilt,but one should still tread carefully.
The case against Cross begins a hundred and more years after the death of Nichols,with the realisation he used a name other than he used on official documents,and he was branded a liar.It has never been established that the name of Cross was a lie,and nothing else of an incriminating nature has been established.

[Fisherman]

CertainSum1,
It is more that the common law dictates how law enforcement officers should approach establishing guilt.I was taught to start with the consideration of innocence,and build a case of guilt on what incriminating evidence was unearthed.Certainly there are cases where,from the beginning,certain facts appear apparent of guilt,but one should still tread carefully.
The case against Cross begins a hundred and more years after the death of Nichols,with the realisation he used a name other than he used on official documents,and he was branded a liar.It has never been established that the name of Cross was a lie,and nothing else of an incriminating nature has been established.

Nothing has been proven, Harry - but that is a different matter. Sure enough, a lot of inconsistencies have been established!

We know for certain that Lechmere said that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30. In neither case should he have been in Bucks Row at 3.45 - he should have passed it at 3.27 or 3.37.
Once more, these are not certain timings - but they DO give an impression of him having been in Bucks Row when he should not have been.

We know for certain that Charles Lechmere was found standing in the street, close to the body of Polly Nichols, and that he MAY have been there for a substantial amount of time.

We know for certain that he used the name Cross instead of the name he was registered by and otherwise always used - as far as we know - in official circumstances.

We know that the clothes were down over Nicholsī abdomen when Robert Paul first saw the body - which is consistent with somebody having hidden the abdominal wounds.

We know that Nichols was still bleeding from the wound in her neck as Neil and Mizen saw her - which is consistent with her having been cut around the time when Lechmere was alone with her, according to Jason Payne-James.

We know that Lechmereīs daily route to Pickfords passed right through the killing zone, apparently at a remove in time that is roughly consistent with him being the killer.

None of these things are enough to convict him in a court of law, and he may have been able to offer alternative, innocent explanations to them. But taken together, they make for a powerful incentive to regard the carman as the potential killer of Polly Nichols. Nobody has dug out anything even close to it in terms of circumstantial evidence against any other suspect, like it or not.

In this case, I would suggest that the police needed to work from the presumption that Lechmere could well be the killer of Nichols. And in such an investigation, they would be called upon to try and produce evidence from both angles - they needed to see if there was anything that could clear him, but they also had an obligation towards the society they were hired to protect, to try and find evidence for him being the killer.
Normally, the police will say that they need to clear people from an investigation, but they are quite aware that this can sometimes not be done. And when it canīt be done, they will investigate the other possibility - that they have the culprit.
We are living in a time where there is an overall pressure on the police not to thwart justice, and therefore, they will not be very keen on saying that they look upon somebody as a potential killer before they have evidence to back it up. But behind closed doors, this is something that will be very common anyway. Before proof can be found, the overall picture of a person may well be enough for the police to dub him the prime suspect internally.

These are things that should not even need to be said. You just have to read up on cases like David Carpenter, Gary Ridgway and John Wayne Gacy, where in retrospect, policemen commenting on the cases are very clear on how they always believed they knew - but lacked the binding evidence.

[Kattrup]

We cannot look at this as one homogenous collection of testimonies. We know for certain that in the Nichols case - a very high profile case - the papers invariably all tried to give the addressess of the unprofessional witnesses involved. It is not a case of half doing it and the other half not.

This is not correct, see below.

But in Lechmeres case, one out of all papers had the name, and had it correct. No other unprofessional witness offers any comparison.

You seem very certain. Let's check out that statement's veracity!

Alfred Mulshaw, the night watchman to the board of works for the Whitechapel district, stated that he was on duty in Winthorpe-street all night

Edward Mulshaw said that he was a night watchman, employed by the Whitechapel District Board of Works.

Edward Mulshaw said he was a night watchman, employed by the Whitechapel District Board of Works.

Edward Mulshaw said he was a night watchman, employed by the Whitechapel District Board of Works. He was in Winthorpe-street during the night of the 30th ...

Alfred Mulshaw, night watchman for the Board of Works, Whitechapel district, said that he was on duty in Winthorpe-street, Buck's-row, all the night of the murder.

Edward Muleham, night watchman at the Whitechapel District Board of Works, said

Alfred Malshaw, a night watchman in Winthorpe-street, had also heard no cries or noise. He admitted that he sometimes dozed.

Albert Mulshall, a night watchman in the employ of the Whitechapel District Board, said that on the night of Aug. 30th, he was on duty in Winthorpe (sic) street.

Edward Mulsham (sic), night watchman at the Whitechapel District Board of Works, said - On the night of the murder I was in Winthorpe (sic) street during the ...

The Pulitzer for outstanding investigative journalism goes to:

Patrick Mulshaw, a night porter in the employ of the Whitechapel District Board of Works, living at 3, Rupert-street, Whitechapel, said on the night of this ...

for bothering to include the address of a minor witness when other papers did not.

The Daily News, the Daily Telegraph, the Echo, the Morning Advertiser, The East London Observer, the East London Advertiser, the Times, the Evening News, you name it - all of these papers, who did all they could to get all the other witnesses addresses written down in spite of not being able to make them out completely, suddenly lost interest in that detail when the carman Charles Allen Cross got up on the stand.

Why not check out Thomas Eade - the papers did all they could to get all the other witnesses addresses written down? He's not identified by an address by anyone.

Only the Star made an effort - and what an effort!

The implication is therefore that the Star reporter picked the address up from a desk clerk, not that there was a sudden disinterest in taking down addresses with all the rest of the reporters.

There's no such implication. In the Nichols-inquest, and in other inquests, there are witnesses who appear without their address being reported, without the address being reported by all the papers but only by some, and without the address being reported by any papers but one (e.g. Cross, Mulshaw, Henry Holland).

The simple and obvious fact is that witnesses addresses were sometimes included by the papers in their reportings and sometimes not. No implications can be drawn from this.

I theorise that witnesses who were deemed less important were also less likely to have their address reported, but I haven't actually bothered to do any statistics on this. It certainly seems the case that the later in the proceedings the witness appeared, the less likely was the address of being included in the report.

Your belief that "professional" witnessess' addresses were not reported is erroneous, as a simple look at the inquest reportings will confirm.

Police officials were of course not identified by address, but generally everybody else was.

[Fisherman]

This is not correct, see below.


You seem very certain. Let's check out that statement's veracity!














The Pulitzer for outstanding investigative journalism goes to:


for bothering to include the address of a minor witness when other papers did not.

Why not check out Thomas Eade - the papers did all they could to get all the other witnesses addresses written down? He's not identified by an address by anyone.



There's no such implication. In the Nichols-inquest, and in other inquests, there are witnesses who appear without their address being reported, without the address being reported by all the papers but only by some, and without the address being reported by any papers but one (e.g. Cross, Mulshaw, Henry Holland).

The simple and obvious fact is that witnesses addresses were sometimes included by the papers in their reportings and sometimes not. No implications can be drawn from this.

I theorise that witnesses who were deemed less important were also less likely to have their address reported, but I haven't actually bothered to do any statistics on this. It certainly seems the case that the later in the proceedings the witness appeared, the less likely was the address of being included in the report.

Your belief that "professional" witnessess' addresses were not reported is erroneous, as a simple look at the inquest reportings will confirm.

Police officials were of course not identified by address, but generally everybody else was.

The problem with this is that Mulshaw was a night watchman, meaning that he was not an unprofessional witness. He appeared in the same sort of capacity as did the PC:s, who are not quoted as stating their home addresses. And why? Because they had no bearing on what they were about to say. These people were in official duty and identified as such, and therefore they needed not state their addresses. When and if they did, I suggest the papers did not regard it as information they would take down and print. One paper did nevertheless, but that may well have owed to a lack of experience on behalf of the reporter.

There is, I believe, an interesting other witness where the information fluctuated between the papers as to the address, and thatīs LLewellyn. He was a professional witness, but there was nevertheless reason to mention his address since it had a bearing on the case - Thain rushed there to get him.

Thomas Eade was a signalman in the employ of the East London Railway Company, and it was in that capacity he witnessed, and he may well have been regarded as a professional witness too.
There is also the possibility that he simply did not remember to give his address, and the coroner did not encourage him to do so - in such a case, it goes to show that there was slackness surrounding the procedure, a slackness that Lechmere may have taken advantage of.
Is there the chance that he was not regarded as a professional witness and that the papers simply all jointly decided to keep the address he stated out of their space?
A simple look at how this was handled with the rest of the unprofessional witnesses, save Lechmere, tells the story.

It remains that we should have expected all papers to note all addresses relating to the unprofessional witnesses. It remains that one carmans address, Pauls, was taken down by paper after paper, some of them missing out on the numer he lived at, some writing Forster Street, some Foster Street, whereas the other carmans address, though supposedly spoken out loud and clear enough for the Star reporter to catch on, was not taken down by a single other paper. That is an almighty change in professional ethics - or something entirely different.

[Fisherman]

As an amusing side-dish, have you noticed that the only paper that wrote Mulshaws address, was also the only paper to get his christian name right? And the address seems to be spot on, spellingwise. No Rhubarb Street!
Coincidences, coincidences...

Iīll get my tin helmet.

[Harry D]

Wow - something new! Or ALMOST new, at least.

You say that like it's our fault and not a damning indictment of your "suspect". Of course it's a cyclical discussion when the case against Lechmere has been built on such shaky ground. There's nowhere else to go with it.

[Fisherman]

You say that like it's our fault and not a damning indictment of your "suspect". Of course it's a cyclical discussion when the case against Lechmere has been built on such shaky ground. There's nowhere else to go with it.

A "damning indictment"???

Maybe you should read what I say about the treatment of the name issue? Maybe you should aquaint yourself with the facts - ALL of them?

There is an ongoing construction of castles in the air here. Suddenly, the Lechmere theory has suffered irreparable damage and is sinking outside the shores of Neverland.

Itīs quite funny, actually. Like having a serious verdict passed by a bunch of drunken football supporters. And worth the exact same amount of credit.

Now go read. Educate yourself, itīs never a bad thing.