The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[David Orsam]

Agreed, David, but - again, comparatively speaking - there's really not "much" press coverage of the Nichols murder in terms of column inches, either.

Well that's where I disagree. I think there was a lot of press coverage of the Nichols murder in terms of column inches.

[Fisherman]

But the acoustic problem didn't go away. Lechmere's route to Bucks Row isn't correctly reported and there is an inconsistency in the reporting between whether he left his house at 3.20 or 3.30.

In a way. We donīt know if "Parson Street" was a name that was used with those who lived there - although I think it was Bath Street. And regardless if it was a case or two of sudden bad accoustics, we know that then papers made an effort to write it in the articles.

But NOT the address.

Thatīs why I am saying something is wrong.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: The problem with Fisherman's approach is more fundamental than whether Lechmere was 'found' or 'seen' standing in the street.

Let me take this sentence which Fisherman does not include in his post:

We know for certain that Lechmere found the body of Nichols.

Fisherman would not like this sentence because his theory is that Lechmere murdered Nichols and he didn't 'find' her body at all.

I would not like it - correct.

But that is for another reason. It is because we donīt know for certain that he found the body of Nichols. If he did, then he cannot be the killer. Therefore, saying that we know that he found the body of Nichols is wrong. It may well be that he found Nichols very much alive, looking for business.

My sentence, that he was found in Bucks Row with the freshly killed body of Nichols, not far from the body, is actually undisputably true.

But perhaps someone could develop a theory that the murder was committed by Paul and Lechmere as a team. In which case, Paul did not see Lechmere standing close to the body because he was with him killing Nichols. There is no proof that this did not happen.

So suddenly this 'fact' of which Fisherman is so 'certain' is not a certain fact after all.

How can any of this be resolved?

Well I suggest we can say that on the evidence it is certain that Lechmere found the body of Nichols and that he pointed out the body of Nichols to Paul.

Not at all. It may have been a case of Paul arriving first, killing Nichols and swearing that he would kill Lechmere too if he did not say that he was first.
You see, if we allow ourselves full freedom to conjure things up, we get a much wider scope of potential truths.

[Fisherman]

Also, serial killers don't hand themselves over to the police.

No, that is strictly forbidden in the serial killing code. You are supposed to leg it, no matter what.

[David Orsam]

In a way. We donīt know if "Parson Street" was a name that was used with those who lived there - although I think it was Bath Street. And regardless if it was a case or two of sudden bad accoustics, we know that then papers made an effort to write it in the articles.

But NOT the address.

But I have a feeling that it was a single reporter (the one for the Morning Post/Morning Advertiser/Evening Standard) who referred to "Parson Street".

So why not argue that the Lechmere never mentioned "Parson Street" in his oral evidence and the reporter who included it in his report got it from a clerk or the police, taken from Lechmere's police statement?

[Fisherman]

Kattrup: Your personal anecdotes of work at a (I'm guessing) Swedish provincial paper ca. 1975-2005 are not relevant when discussing editorial processes of a London paper in 1888.
Geographically, culturally and chronologically they are completely different.

So they did not use the same person to cover a number of days of an inquest back then? They changed reporters, to let them all have a go?
Try again.

The addresses were generally included, but sometimes not. Each paper could decide for itself whether to include or exclude it. Usually, it was included, but sometimes not.

That is the rational explanation. There is nothing implied by an address' inclusion or exclusion.

You have a very poor understanding of the word rational, Kattrup. If it was all a toss-up in the air, we would have a mixture of one paer giving the addresses, three doing so, nine, eleven doing so, seven doing so.
But what we have is something very specific and completely different.

I suggest you learn from it.

I'm not inclined to do so, as I've nothing to prove or substantiate in this. You wish to show that Cross somehow avoided giving his address. Fine. The onus is on you to prove it.

You are not inclined to do so. So much for a genuine interest.

Or doctors Bagster Philips, Bond, Saunders, Sequiera, Brown, Llewellyn etc. who were all mentioned in various papers with their address when giving evidence at a Ripper-inquest.

Yes. Or those doctors. So much for "generally speaking". Either or, Kattrup.

You did:

That has nothong to do with distances. It has to do with the fact that Llewellyns quarters were directly invilved in the events. It would hold true regardless if they were in Kuala Lumpur.


I don't have much to add to this. My general point is that one needs an empirical basis to construct a theory. You don't have one. The various "odd" omissions you claim are not odd at all, as several counterexamples have demonstrated.

For instance, if a witness' address is referenced only by one paper that you've found, you wish to portray this as suspect. Well, when it's extremely easy to find other witnesses treated similarly, then it immediately becomes clear that it is not suspect at all.

Not if the other witnesses cannot be shown to have mentioned their addresses at all - like Eade. Or if they were proffesional witnesses. like Neil, Mizen, Thain - or Mulshaw.

Once that is cleared up, the picture that remains is in perfect accordance with what I say.
But never mind, Kattrup - you donīt have to hunt Lechmere down. You would be the Closeau of the case, and I would not want that to stand in my way.

[Fisherman]

I believe you missed the point, I was referring to W H Bury turning himself into the police.

!

[David Orsam]

My sentence, that he was found in Bucks Row with the freshly killed body of Nichols, not far from the body, is actually undisputably true.

It may have been a case of Paul arriving first, killing Nichols and swearing that he would kill Lechmere too if he did not say that he was first.

How are those two sentences, found in the same post, not contradictory?

[Fisherman]

I don't believe this is true at all Fisherman.

The day of the resumed Nichols inquest, on 17 September 1888, just happened to be the first day of the Parnell Commission. This was regarded as a far more newsworthy event especially as, by this date, most of the the excitement generated by the Nichols and Chapman murders had died down.

Consequently the top newspaper court reporters were evidently sent to the Royal Courts of Justice that day, not back down to Whitechapel.

Most of the press used the same agency report when reporting on the inquest that day. It's why it's very difficult to find independent accounts of Paul's evidence.

Much as there can always be changes in these matters, the principle has always been that the reporter that is read up on an errand and has former experience of it, is the reporter that handles the sequels too.

Not in Kattrups distant world, where this was something that was sooooooo different, of course - but in mine it is.

[Fisherman]

I came across this guy a few days ago:


Link

Seems he used one name all his life, except for a few minutes in a different official context. Even so, he was not a serial killer.

...and in ALL other walks of life, he was NOT Thornaby. He did not use it otherwise. He was not a man sharing his life in an official and an unofficial part, using one name for the official business and another at the pub.

Useful example, that.

[David Orsam]

So they did not use the same person to cover a number of days of an inquest back then? They changed reporters, to let them all have a go? Try again.

He doesn't need to try again. Take the London Evening Post with which I'm very familiar. I'm quite sure that it sent its (only) court reporter down to the Nichols inquest when Cross was giving evidence. But when it came to 17 September, its court reporter was clearly at the Parnell Commission, so it used an agency report from the inquest in its afternoon issue that day.

[Fisherman]

But I have a feeling that it was a single reporter (the one for the Morning Post/Morning Advertiser/Evening Standard) who referred to "Parson Street".

So why not argue that the Lechmere never mentioned "Parson Street" in his oral evidence and the reporter who included it in his report got it from a clerk or the police, taken from Lechmere's police statement?

Because I fail to see why he would have hidden which way he took.

[Fisherman]

How are those two sentences, found in the same post, not contradictory?

They are not. I was not aware that we were going to enter La-La Land until you started to speak about the Lechmere/Paul double act.

To be frank, I STILL think that sentence a represents the truth, but I have to admit it does not cover the grass/acid/funny mushroom "truths".

[David Orsam]

Much as there can always be changes in these matters, the principle has always been that the reporter that is read up on an errand and has former experience of it, is the reporter that handles the sequels too.

Not in Kattrups distant world, where this was something that was sooooooo different, of course - but in mine it is.

No but in the actual world of Victorian England most of these papers probably only employed a single court reporter. They couldn't be in two places at once and the start of the Parnell Commission was far more newsworthy that day. The excitement of the Leather Apron murders had completely died down by 17 September. We wouldn't even remember them today had it not been for the double murders at the end of the month, followed by the Kelly murder of course.

[David Orsam]

Because I fail to see why he would have hidden which way he took.

Perhaps he was having an affair with a woman in Parson Street?