The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Harry D]

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.

Such a sensitive little soul about your pet suspect.

No one said the Lechmere theory has "suffered irreparable damage", that's your paranoia talking. All I'm saying is that the name discussion is a dead horse that has beaten into dust because there's little else to discuss about Lechmere's "guilt".

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Such a sensitive little soul about your pet suspect.

I have my own picture of what a little soul is, and it ainīt me.

No one said the Lechmere theory has "suffered irreparable damage", that's your paranoia talking.

No, that was John G talking. But of course, if you donīt read the boards, you wonīt know such things. And donīt say I didnīt tell you to go read, cause I did.
So much for my paranoia, another brain ghost of yours.

All I'm saying is that the name discussion is a dead horse that has beaten into dust because there's little else to discuss about Lechmere's "guilt".

New information is added from time to time, but on the whole, you have a point. We are left with both possibilitites, whilst one is more supported by facts and therefore more viable than the other.

Now letīs see how dead that horse is.

[Harry D]

Harry D: Such a sensitive little soul about your pet suspect.

I have my own picture of what a little soul is, and it ainīt me.

No one said the Lechmere theory has "suffered irreparable damage", that's your paranoia talking.

No, that was John G talking. But of course, if you donīt read the boards, you wonīt know such things. And donīt say I didnīt tell you to go read, cause I did.
So much for my paranoia, another brain ghost of yours.

All I'm saying is that the name discussion is a dead horse that has beaten into dust because there's little else to discuss about Lechmere's "guilt".

New information is added from time to time, but on the whole, you have a point. We are left with both possibilitites, whilst one is more supported by facts and therefore more viable than the other.

Now letīs see how dead that horse is.

I love these catty responses when I remember that you're a 60 year-old man.

[Fisherman]

I love these catty responses when I remember that you're a 60 year-old man.

When you are sixty you tend to forget that, see.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

Since Kattrup has given exactly the same answer I was going to, the point is covered and dismissed.

[drstrange169]

>>Would a real researcher spend his time answering baseless accusations about being a coward?<<

Since that’s exactly what you are doing, are you admitting you are not a real researcher?

Sometimes we wonder if you actually understand what you are writing here.


>>Would a real researcher answer questions repeated time after time after time, as if they had never been asked before?<<

If they chose to debate in a public forum, of course they would, that’s the whole point. You really are having a bad day.


>>Much more pertinently, does a real researcher throw baseless accusations about people being cowards around himself. <<

I don’t understand the sentence.


>>And does he ask the exact same questions over and over again? Or is that something an internet troll does?<<

An internet troll as far as understand, makes up stories, avoids rational debate and refuses to justify or prove their claims.

Each time I’ve accussed you of something, I’ve clearly labeled what it is and cited quotes to back it up. I’ve even offered money if you can show I’m wrong. If you have no defence, that’s your problem not ours.

On the other hand you keep making vague unspecified accusation about me. When I press you for detail so I can respond to them, you have backed away each time and that is how most people define a “troll’.


>>I read the insults, I read the lies, the accusations and all of the rest of the crap you spread out here.<<

If they are lies, prove it and collect the $100 dollars and a charity will benefit.

As I just wrote, I back up my allegations with specific examples. If I’m lying or spread crap it should be easy for you to call me out, yet nothing emanates from you in that regard.


>>But I will not be drawn into it.<<

Since here you are, being “drawn into it” that sentence is just another example of you not doing what you claim.

Interestingly not, one part of your post was about the subject matter of this thread. So how about stopping the nonsense and face up to what you have written on this thread.

[drstrange169]

>>We know for certain that Lechmere said that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30.<<

Errr, no we don’t. You, yourself, have often said he could have been lying. He could be mistaken. His clock, if had even had one, could have been wrong. He could have been simply guessing the time.


>>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.<<

Wrong again, because of the lack of synchronization we can’t judge Xmere by anything other than his own timings and the only timings with have from him are leaving at 3:20 or 3:30 and arriving at Broad St at 4:00.

These timings are perfectly consistent.

They only appear odd if we compare them with a non synchronized source like Paul’s dubious statement to Lloyds.

This is the method of a “fit up” not scientific, unbiased reasoning.


>>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.<<

I love the way “certain” gives way to “MAY(upper case)” by the end of the sentence.


>>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.<<

Ditto “certain” and “as far as we know”.

In this instance, of course, “far as we KNOW” is the relevant part of the sentence, because it indicates we don’t know.


>>We know that the clothes were down over Nicholsī abdomen when Robert Paul first saw the body …<<

Glad we finally lost the word “certain" from the sentence.

In fact we don’t know anything of the sort.

If we stick to the facts, we have two accounts of where the clothes were. Tellingly, you’ve chosen on this occasion to totally believe Xmere and disbelieve Paul.

And you wonder why you cop so much stick here with your flakey reasoning.



>> -which is consistent with somebody having hidden the abdominal wounds.<<

And which is consistent with Paul’s version.

And which is consistent with the fact that Mrs Nichols was the only victim wearing a girdle.

And which is consistent with the killer dropping the skirt and fleeing when they heard Xmere arriving.

So what's you point?



>>We know that Nichols was still bleeding from the wound in her neck as Neil and Mizen saw her…<<

No we don’t.

We have no detailed forensic evidence that what Neil saw was not just leakage caused by the body being disturbed by either Paul or Neil himself.

>>- which is consistent with her having been cut around the time when Lechmere was alone with her, according to Jason Payne-James.<<

What did Payne James say about the viability of leakage through disturbance?
Until we have that answer your point is meaningless.


>>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.<<

We don't “ know” it .

If you “know” it, you surely must have firm evidence. Why won’t you back it up with actual evidence as people have asked you to?


>> I would suggest that the police needed to work from the presumption that Lechmere could well be the killer of Nichols.<<

Finally something we can agree on. So either the police were completely and utterly incompetent or they dismissed the notion for reasons not available to us.

[drstrange169]

>>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. <<

So how come We know Mulshaw, a "professional" witness, lived at 3 Rupert St?
So how come We know Mann, a "professional" witness, was a workhouse inmate ?
So how come We know Tomkins, a "professional" witness, lived at 12 Coventry St?

etc. etc.

Which ever way you look at it your reasoning falls down.

[harry]

Fisherman,
"Nothing has been proven Harry".How correct you are.Nothing that incriminates Cross as the killer of Nichols.No proof of guilt that would stand up in court.Nothing that would persuade the majority of posters here that Cross was anything but an honest workman who found a woman who was
dead or dying.
"Nothing will be proven Fisherman".That is certain.

[Fisherman]

>>Would a real researcher spend his time answering baseless accusations about being a coward?<<

Since that’s exactly what you are doing, are you admitting you are not a real researcher?

Sometimes we wonder if you actually understand what you are writing here.


>>Would a real researcher answer questions repeated time after time after time, as if they had never been asked before?<<

If they chose to debate in a public forum, of course they would, that’s the whole point. You really are having a bad day.


>>Much more pertinently, does a real researcher throw baseless accusations about people being cowards around himself. <<

I don’t understand the sentence.


>>And does he ask the exact same questions over and over again? Or is that something an internet troll does?<<

An internet troll as far as understand, makes up stories, avoids rational debate and refuses to justify or prove their claims.

Each time I’ve accussed you of something, I’ve clearly labeled what it is and cited quotes to back it up. I’ve even offered money if you can show I’m wrong. If you have no defence, that’s your problem not ours.

On the other hand you keep making vague unspecified accusation about me. When I press you for detail so I can respond to them, you have backed away each time and that is how most people define a “troll’.


>>I read the insults, I read the lies, the accusations and all of the rest of the crap you spread out here.<<

If they are lies, prove it and collect the $100 dollars and a charity will benefit.

As I just wrote, I back up my allegations with specific examples. If I’m lying or spread crap it should be easy for you to call me out, yet nothing emanates from you in that regard.


>>But I will not be drawn into it.<<

Since here you are, being “drawn into it” that sentence is just another example of you not doing what you claim.

Interestingly not, one part of your post was about the subject matter of this thread. So how about stopping the nonsense and face up to what you have written on this thread.

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]

drstrange169;407918]>>We know for certain that Lechmere said that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30.<<

Errr, no we don’t. You, yourself, have often said he could have been lying. He could be mistaken. His clock, if had even had one, could have been wrong. He could have been simply guessing the time.

One point before you get your standard answer - did you notice that I did not say that we know that Lechmere left home at 3.20 or 3.30? And that I instead said that we know that he SAID he did?
Can you see what that does to your denial?
Things like these, I will correct.

And now, this:

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]

>>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. <<

So how come We know Mulshaw, a "professional" witness, lived at 3 Rupert St?
So how come We know Mann, a "professional" witness, was a workhouse inmate ?
So how come We know Tomkins, a "professional" witness, lived at 12 Coventry St?

etc. etc.

Which ever way you look at it your reasoning falls down.

With professional witnesses, I mean people working for the society, and not people employed by private employers.
Interestingly, with that distinction, my reasoning does not fall down. It holds up quite well, with a few minor exceptions, in all probability caused by inexperience. The thing to keep your eye on is how two carmen, knit to the exact same case at the exact same time, are treated totally different by the papers. It is one of many anomalies surrounding Lechmere, and it therefore requires an explanation. That explanation is not that "they didnīt care" or "they took some peopleīs addresses, and skipped over other peopleīs". They ALL took down Pauls address, most got it wrong, but they made the effort. That is the litmus paper to go by, if you are discerning enough to care about the details.

The rest of my answers to you can be found here:

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]

Fisherman,
"Nothing has been proven Harry".How correct you are.Nothing that incriminates Cross as the killer of Nichols.No proof of guilt that would stand up in court.Nothing that would persuade the majority of posters here that Cross was anything but an honest workman who found a woman who was
dead or dying.
"Nothing will be proven Fisherman".That is certain.

So sorry, Harry, but there can be no certainty in the idea that nothing will be proven. Things have been proven many, many times in this case, like Ostrogs innocence etc. It all lies in the digging and the researching.

So you are totally wrong on that point, in all probability - many things will be proven.

Otherwise, I canīt recall a single case where the police called off the hunt of a person they firmly believed to be guilty, but where they lacked proof. Can you?

We are not necessarily out here to prove a case, Harry. We are out here to - amongst other things - see which suspect is most likely to have been the culprit.

You seem to think that if I can not prove my case, I should leave the boards? If that is so, then can I please ask you to go away, and take George Hutchinson with you when you leave?

[David Orsam]

Fisherman's argument on the issue of the address is a non-starter.

For it to work, it depends on Cross being the only 'normal' witness at the Nichols inquest not required to either state or confirm his address in the witness box. Indeed, it would make him the only such witness at any of the inquests not to have been required to do so.

But if Cross did (deliberately) mumble his address so that it was inaudible to everyone in court and the Star reporter needed to speak to a clerk to confirm it, then every single court reporter could have done the same. How could Lechmere possibly have known that this would not happen? Was he an expert in procedure in such cases?

If every single court reporter had confirmed the address then Cross' address would have been printed in every newspaper, thus entirely defeating the whole point of him supposedly giving a 'false' name (i.e. to hide his identity from his wife).

Given that Fisherman accepts that Cross had told the police his correct address (which is how the clerk knew it) it makes no sense to think that Cross believed he could keep his identity a secret from the press.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Fisherman's argument on the issue of the address is a non-starter.

Thanks, David.

For it to work, it depends on Cross being the only 'normal' witness at the Nichols inquest not required to either state or confirm his address in the witness box. Indeed, it would make him the only such witness at any of the inquests not to have been required to do so.

That is not what I think happened. I think that each unprofessional witness was told to state name, address and working place. I am sure somebody on the boards can confirm or deny this, but I believe a phrase like " State your name, address and place of work" was uttered when a witness took the stand. And that would have been the case for Lechmere too.
However, I believe he may have skipped over the adddress, and that it may have passed unremarked upon.

If you think that cannot have happened - and if that stance on your behalf is correct - then I am wrong. Myself, I find it entirely possible.

But if Cross did (deliberately) mumble his address so that it was inaudible to everyone in court and the Star reporter needed to speak to a clerk to confirm it, then every single court reporter could have done the same. How could Lechmere possibly have known that this would not happen? Was he an expert in procedure in such cases?

This is something that has formerly not been suggested, and it is not half bad, actually. Maybe this was what DID happen. Letīs work from the presumption, at least.
Could Lechmere in such a case have banked on only one, possibly no reporter asking the desk clerk for the address?
Of course he couldnīt.
But I am not saying that it would have governed whether he would kill again or not on such a case - I am saying he was doing as best as he could to keep his real name from the papers, and if it did not work, he had to live with it. I am speaking of an intention to hide his true identity, coupled with a hope that it would work.
Much as it is a circular reasoning, it can be said that if this was what went down, then he did have a lot of success with the enterprise.

If every single court reporter had confirmed the address then Cross' address would have been printed in every newspaper, thus entirely defeating the whole point of him supposedly giving a 'false' name (i.e. to hide his identity from his wife).

What it would have defeated would have been the effort as such - he would not have succeeded to keep the address under wraps, and therefore he ran a very obvious risk to have the name swap given away too. And that would have been counterproductive if his aim was to keep himself incognito from, say, his wife and family. He would instad end up with them having more of a reason to suspect him.

Then again, David, when people gamble, there is always the risk they will come out shortchanged. And to me, it is obvious that if Lechmere did what I think he did, he DID gamble, and he must have known it. He took a chance, and he could loose. We should look at the alternatives, but first I would like to say that since I regard the killer as a psychopath, I think it is fair to say that gambling psychopaths regularly work from the presumption that they will come out on top - it is the nature of the beast. And that should be weighed in.

Now, the alternatives!

1. He succeeded to give a false name and keep his address from the papers.

Obviously what he would have been shooting for, if I am correct.

2. He succeeded to give a false name, but failed to keep his address from the papers.

He would be discernible for those he tried to keep out of the loop, but would it be a catastrophy? Could he not just tell people that he didnīt want to have his real name in the papers, since he didnīt want people to come looking for him, reporters and killers alike?

What I am doing is trying to make sense of what we have. And I am trying to see if what we have can be part of an overall picture where Lechmere answers to the role of the murderer, as implicated by a good many things.

If he was innocent, it makes sense that he may have used the Cross name on account of being unwilling to get his family name caught up in the Ripper business. Or he used the Cross name regularly, but never in official circumstances but for murder case involvements. It would be odd, but is not impossible. If he was innocent, he may have been mumbling and hard to hear and that could explain how all the papers missed out totally on the address - although they should have heard SOMETHING, but assuming they could not - fair enough, if the Star reporter used a desk clerk to get the name. It works as a suggestion.

If he was guilty, it makes sense that he would try and hide his name if he felt somebody in his near vicinity could potentially latch on to what he did. It is a logical suggestion - if you engage in criminal activity, then the fewer who have a chance to understand it, the better.
If he was guilty, then obscuring his address would follow for the same reason.

So we both have reasonable arguments to offer. And neither argument can be disproven - or proven. And please donīt do what Caz does - point to how there would have been risks involved, and claim that a killer would NEVER take a risk!

I find myself that there are a number of other circumstances pointing to a potential guilt on account of the carman, and therefore I tend to think the name issue is part and parcel of it. I think that there are too many parameters involved that need to be explained away for the carman not to be the probable culprit.

Some say that I therefore try to twist matters into a picture of guilt.

I say that it takes no twisting at all, the puzzle pieces are there. To me, it takes a lot of twisting and denial to dissolve the puzzle picture.

I am not opposed to the idea that this will go on, therefore. And it should.