The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[GUT]

I think I am wise to throw any "guarantees" offered out the nearest window. They are probably not worth the cyberpaper they are written on anyway.

Yep like all the ones you make about Cross. Like this.

Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
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.

[Fisherman]

>>With professional witnesses, I mean people working for the society, and not people employed by private employers.<<

Which, of course would rule out Thomas Ede, as he worked for the "privately" owned East london Railway Company.

>>Interestingly, with that distinction, my reasoning does not fall down.<<

As just shown, it not only falls down it gets run over by a passing train.

It seems almost everything you've posted in this thread has been disproven by the available evidence.

This is the importance of actually doing some research.

>>That is the litmus paper to go by, if you are discerning enough to care about the details.<<

I agree that's how I knew the East London Railway Company was "privately" owned and you didn't.

Umm ... now what exactly was it Ludwig Mies van der Rohe said:-)

Your idea that I was not aware that the railway company was privately owned is baseless. That was why I wrote that he MAY have been regarded as an official witness, since railway employeees may have been looked upon as civil servants.

But that mistake on your behalf aside, tell me why Thomas Eadeīs address was not taken down by any paper!

He would have been GUARANTEED to do so, according to your friend Gut. So letīs assume he did: My name is Thomas Eade, I live in X-street nr YY, and I am employed byt the railroad company ZZ.

Look at all the other unprofessional witnesses in the case, Edward Walker, Tomkins, William Nichols, Emily Holland, Mary Ann Monk, Emma Green, Walter Purkiss, Robert Paul - they told the inquest where they lived. Many a time, it is perfectly evident that the reporters were not able to make out the exact addresses or their exact names, but they took it down as best as they could anyway.

When you are having difficulties hearing what is said, but nevertheless take it down, then it is apparent that you are SUPPOSED to do so - having at least made the effort was more important than having gotten it all correct.

So why do you suggest that Thomas Eades address was not taken down by a single newspaper?

Was it because they suddenly felt that they had earned the right to skipt it over in his case?

Was it because he spoke the address so very unclearly - but all fo the rest perfectly clearly - that they all failed to hear even a single syllable, and nobody encouraged Eade to speak up?

Or was it because he gave no address? Or because he was looked upon as a civil servant?

There is a glaring discrepancy between him and Lechmere, as compared to all ot the other witnesses. And in Lechmeres case, we have the Robert Paul litmus paper - apparently, carmensī addresses WERE supposed to be taken down.

Which is your rational explanation to it all?

[Fisherman]

So to sum up so far, it has been shown with contemporary examples that there was nothing unusual or suspicious about having another name in a court or inquest.

It has been shown that newspapers did regularly leave out witnesses addresses from their reports even though they did in fact give them in the court.

Witnesses like Thomas Ede were not exempt from giving addresses because they were "professionals" as defined by Christer.

No reasonable reason has been given as to why xmere would need to hide his identity or how he could have succeeded in doing so with his deposition and testimony.

The police had enough information to check him out.

Pickfords had enough information to identify him.

His family had enough information to identify him.

This IS all something that can be concluded by the information available.

All else requires leaps of faith so where, exactly, is the problem?.

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]

Well, according to Paul, Cross was standing in the road. To that extent, allowing for poor visibility and considering the lighting conditions, he was arguably only a few feet closer to the body than Paul was when the latter entered Buck's Row. If we're not careful with our language, the impression might be taken that Cross was only inches away from the body, when - by a strict reading of the evidence - he apparently was not.

He was close enough for him to have been the killer.

How is that?

[GUT]

Your idea that I was not aware that the railway company was privately owned is baseless. That was why I wrote that he MAY have been regarded as an official witness, since railway employeees may have been looked upon as civil servants.

But that mistake on your behalf aside, tell me why Thomas Eadeīs address was not taken down by any paper!

He would have been GUARANTEED to do so, according to your friend Gut. So letīs assume he did: My name is Thomas Eade, I live in X-street nr YY, and I am employed byt the railroad company ZZ.

Look at all the other unprofessional witnesses in the case, Edward Walker, Tomkins, William Nichols, Emily Holland, Mary Ann Monk, Emma Green, Walter Purkiss, Robert Paul - they told the inquest where they lived. Many a time, it is perfectly evident that the reporters were not able to make out the exact addresses or their exact names, but they took it down as best as they could anyway.

When you are having difficulties hearing what is said, but nevertheless take it down, then it is apparent that you are SUPPOSED to do so - having at least made the effort was more important than having gotten it all correct.

So why do you suggest that Thomas Eades address was not taken down by a single newspaper?

Was it because they suddenly felt that they had earned the right to skipt it over in his case?

Was it because he spoke the address so very unclearly - but all fo the rest perfectly clearly - that they all failed to hear even a single syllable, and nobody encouraged Eade to speak up?

Or was it because he gave no address? Or because he was looked upon as a civil servant?

There is a glaring discrepancy between him and Lechmere, as compared to all ot the other witnesses. And in Lechmeres case, we have the Robert Paul litmus paper - apparently, carmensī addresses WERE supposed to be taken down.

Which is your rational explanation to it all?

Well why was Cross' taken down. Ohh that's right because he didnt give it.... but the press still got it... oh what a tangled web we weave.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
In answer to your post 433.What needs to be proven.You often claim you have found the killer.

Find me one place where I said that I have found the killer, and I will find you a thousand places where I say that I THINK I have found the killer.

Can you see the distinction? If not, I will remind you. Always.

That Cross is the best suspect.He was never a police suspect,so what your ramblings are about that I don't know.

No, you donīt. And thereīs the rub.


In an earlier post(finaly) you claimed there was no proofs,that your case would not stand up in court.Why not? What proofs were you referring to?Enlighten us.

Did I say that it would not stand up in court? Really?

How interesting.

I have said, and I stand by:

1. Scobie - who has probably forgotten more about legal proceedings than you will ever learn about them - says that there is a court case, implicating him as the killer.

2. I have said that there is a lot of evidence but no conclusive proof.

3. I have also said that if I was to judge the case on what we have today, I would let him go - but I would feel pretty convinced that I would be turning a killer loose.
This is a lot to take in, some of it subtle. You may need to give it time before you comment on it next time.

You do not know what I think.

It may come as a shock to you, but that does not keep me awake during the nights.

I do not think you should leave the boards. Your presence is welcome,your attempts to prove Cross a killer,highly amusing. Stay on,I need a good laugh now and again.

How we differ. Your efforts are much more likely to have me crying.

George Hutchinson? He was probably the fellow in the shadows,leaving as Cross approached?

Yes, thatīs highly likely. Together with Levy, Kosminski, Druitt, Tomkins, Chapman, Kelly, Barnett and the rest of the gang.

[Fisherman]

Well why was Cross' taken down. Ohh that's right because he didnt give it.... but the press still got it... oh what a tangled web we weave.

Explain to me why the papers all took down Pauls address (in various spellings) whereas only one took down Lechmeres.

Explain to me why this one and only paper got the address completely correct. when the others were at a complete loss to hear it at all.

And explain to me why you waste space out here.

[GUT]

Explain to me why the papers all took down Pauls address (in various spellings) whereas only one took down Lechmeres.

Explain to me why this one and only paper got the address completely correct. when the others were at a complete loss to hear it at all.

And explain to me why you waste space out here.

But couldn't spell Baul's name....

Simple answer one paper had a line to fill, I thought you'd know all about column inches.

We know who's wasting space.

[Kattrup]

Explain to me why the papers all took down Pauls address (in various spellings) whereas only one took down Lechmeres.

They appeared on different days so there were different reporters present? You yourself have conjectured that the journalists' experience could influence whether addresses were included or not.

[Kattrup]

So why do you suggest that Thomas Eades address was not taken down by a single newspaper?

Was it because they suddenly felt that they had earned the right to skipt it over in his case?

Was it because he spoke the address so very unclearly - but all fo the rest perfectly clearly - that they all failed to hear even a single syllable, and nobody encouraged Eade to speak up?

Or was it because he gave no address? Or because he was looked upon as a civil servant?

There is a glaring discrepancy between him and Lechmere, as compared to all ot the other witnesses. And in Lechmeres case, we have the Robert Paul litmus paper - apparently, carmensī addresses WERE supposed to be taken down.

Which is your rational explanation to it all?

Eade and Robert Paul appeared on a different day than Cross.

The rational explanation is that witnesses addresses could be included or not at the whim of the paper.

The papers were unde no obligation to include them, unlike what you imply "carmen's addresses WERE supposed to be taken down".

Again, please check other inquests and note how doctors's addresses are generally included, even though according to you they were "professional witnesses".

The distance to the crime scene has nothing to do with including it or not.

To reiterate: witnesses' addresses are usually, but not consistently included. There is nothing extraordinary about Cross' address not being reported.

[Harry D]

Why would anybody catch a murder victim?

Just pulling your leg, Harry.

You do realize that the question you ask is unanswerable, donīt you? Any wish to claim it canīt happen goes down the drain, Iīm afraid.

Killers, especially serial ones, habitually flee the crime scene, Fish. Lechmere's actions are perfectly congruent with a witness who has found a murder victim, your convoluted attempts to hoist guilt on him be damned.

[Fisherman]

Kattrup: Eade and Robert Paul appeared on a different day than Cross.

They did - but the probable thing is that the reporters were the same, more or less. Thatīs how papers cover these kinds of things, using the same reporter. Iīve been a journalist for more than thirty years, and I have seen these things and how they are handled.

The rational explanation is that witnesses addresses could be included or not at the whim of the paper.

No, that is not any rational explanation at all, since we should have a similar praxis treatment of all witnesses. What we would not have is a picture where ninety per cent of the unprofessional witnesses were quoted on their addresses while a single witness was not.

I donīt know how you define "rational", but is seems to differ from the rational definition of the word.

The papers were unde no obligation to include them, unlike what you imply "carmen's addresses WERE supposed to be taken down".

Go check all the trials you can find in cases from these years, and where carmen appear. Then check to what extent they give their addresses. THEN come back and argue your case.

Again, please check other inquests and note how doctors's addresses are generally included, even though according to you they were "professional witnesses".

Like this?

FRANK FRAZER . I am a Doctor of Medicine, and practise at Lee, in Kent—I saw the body of a female child on Sunday, 24th January, at the Railway Hotel at Penshurst...

Or this:

EYRE IEVERS . I am a doctor, of Tunbridge—I attended Harold Augustus Sylvester, a medical man, at Tunbridge in his last illness; he died on 10th July.

Or this:

WILLIAM REEVE . I am a doctor—I have been attending Mr. Edmund Rae—I saw him the day before yesterday; he was then in bed suffering from influenza—I would not allow him out to-day, as it would be dangerous.

Or this:

JAMES SAUNDERS . I am a doctor—I was called to the prosecutor and found him in' bed—he had an incised wound over the right eyebrow; I put a stitch into it—there was a small lacerated wound under the right eyelid; the left eye was also bruised—he complained a good deal of pain in his chest—he is still suffering a good deal from nervous excitement.

Or this:

MAHOMMED YUSSEF KHAN . I am a doctor of medicine—I am not registered in London; I have been a surgeon in the army in the Indian Medical Service—I am M. D. of Calcutta—I have left the service...

Or this:

MARTINDALE KINSLADE WARD . I am a doctor of medicine, master in surgery, a member of the College of Surgeons, and a surgeon of the Metropolitan Police—I saw the deceased on 11th...

All examples from 1885 to 1895. That is how "general" their giving their addresses is.

Many DO give their addresses, though. I would suggest that ALL witnesses were asked to give their personal information, but that proffesional witnesses were not required as such to respond to it, when it comes to their addresses.


The distance to the crime scene has nothing to do with including it or not.

I do not know why you claim this like something I said. I never did.

To reiterate: witnesses' addresses are usually, but not consistently included. There is nothing extraordinary about Cross' address not being reported.

To reiterate: All of the unprofessional witnesses addresses in the case were taken down by the newspapers and given in text, but for two examples, one of which may have been a witness regarded as a civil servant due to his work at the railway, Thomas Eade.

The other example is Lechmere.

We have another example from the same inquest, with the same occupation: Paul. And his address was given by all the papers, in varying degrees of correctness.

To suggest that there is nothing at all odd about how Lechmereīs address was left unconsidered by all papers but one equals doing ripperology with a paper bag over your head.

If itīs any comfort, you are not alone. You will cheered on as a top notch researcher and a truly discerning man by people who would give me a real fright if I had them on my side.

Congratulations. Welcome to the bog.

[Fisherman]

But couldn't spell Baul's name....

Simple answer one paper had a line to fill, I thought you'd know all about column inches.

We know who's wasting space.

The reporters were taking things down in shorthand, and would not have known what exact space they would be given. If they had any directions, it would have been in the shape of the overall space: Like 500 words, 800 words, 3000 signs or so.

I am the journalist out here, and I know how these things go down. Your suggestion is very enlightening as to your insights in a journalistīs occupation.

If something was to be cut away, it would be ALL addresses or NO addresses.

You are embarrasing yourself, Iīm afraid.

[Fisherman]

Killers, especially serial ones, habitually flee the crime scene, Fish. Lechmere's actions are perfectly congruent with a witness who has found a murder victim, your convoluted attempts to hoist guilt on him be damned.

Too dumb to be taken seriously. Try again.

[Fisherman]

A healthy excercise for Harry D:

Of all those who have singlehandedly found victims of extensive sharp violence - how many did this when the victim was still bleeding five minutes after they found them?

One out of a thousand?

Try and understand the potential importance of this parameter - still bleeding five minutes after being found. What does that tell us?

Now, single out this theoretical group of people who have found victims of extensive sharp violence, and where the victim was still bleeding five minutes after being found. Then look at how many of them gave an alternative name, instead of the names they were registered by.

Finally, look at how many people there are who have been involved in murder cases in any shape or form, check how many of them have presented themselves to the police under a name that was not the one they were registered by - and see how many of these people were proven to be guilty in retrospect.

Donīt bring Lechmere into the discussion, just do it as a useful exercise for your overall understanding of how these thigs generally work. Try to outline the correlation between using alternative names and being a criminal; there is of course such a correlation, but try to establish how general it is.

You need to have some sort of insight into these matters before you try to make any useful points.