The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

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.

The principle of coverage still remains. As I said, things may come up to make a change - but not of the overall principle. And that principle was not different then from now, which was what Kattrup implied.

[Fisherman]

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.

See my former answer.

[Fisherman]

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

Ah - we are back in La-La Land again!

You may need a rest. I know I do.

[David Orsam]

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".

You can call them what you like but the point is that we don't know anything for certain. We only know anything "for certain" based on the evidence in the case. Based on the evidence in the case we can be certain that Cross found the body of Nichols.

But you see Fisherman that doesn't mean that he didn't murder her. We don't know who murdered her which means that in truth we know nothing for certain.

PC Mizen, PC Neil, Paul, Cross, Inspector Spratling and just about every other man in London (and woman too if you like) is a suspect for the murder. Everyone at the inquest could have been lying. The police could be corrupt. Paul and Cross could have been part of a murdering criminal gang. Nichols could have been wrongly identified and was another woman entirely.

That's why we need to stick to the evidence in the case if we are to talk about certainties.

[David Orsam]

Ah - we are back in La-La Land again!

But Fisherman, as you know, there are plenty of people here who would say that YOU are in La-La Land for believing that Cross murdered Nichols.

And there are even more people here (me included) who would say that you are in La-La Land for believing that Cross withheld his address from the inquest because he was trying to keep his identity a secret from his wife.

I do happen to think that is a fantasy and your entire theory about Lechmere using a "false name" is a mistake.

[David Orsam]

The principle of coverage still remains. As I said, things may come up to make a change - but not of the overall principle. And that principle was not different then from now, which was what Kattrup implied

Who cares about "the overall principle"? Given the existence of the Parnell Commission, Kattrup is right. The reporters at the inquest on 17 September were different to those on 3 September, or at least there were far fewer of them. And when it comes to the Star we don't have any surviving report at all, so how is it possible to make any comparisons?

[Fisherman]

You can call them what you like but the point is that we don't know anything for certain. We only know anything "for certain" based on the evidence in the case. Based on the evidence in the case we can be certain that Cross found the body of Nichols.

But you see Fisherman that doesn't mean that he didn't murder her. We don't know who murdered her which means that in truth we know nothing for certain.

PC Mizen, PC Neil, Paul, Cross, Inspector Spratling and just about every other man in London (and woman too if you like) is a suspect for the murder. Everyone at the inquest could have been lying. The police could be corrupt. Paul and Cross could have been part of a murdering criminal gang. Nichols could have been wrongly identified and was another woman entirely.

That's why we need to stick to the evidence in the case if we are to talk about certainties.

One problem with this philantropic approach of yours is that the man in whom the truthfulness of the evidence must rest, is the same man that I think killed Nichols.

You see, I am inclined to think that if he was the killer, he is not to be trusted. I have this sneaking feeling that he may have been the type of criminal that could see his way through to lying about it.

So therefore, I try to check the parameters where he could NOT distort the evidence.

Like, for example, what paths he would have used. Would they perhaps be POTENTIALLY compatible with the paths of the killer?

Or the blood evidence. I mean, if a renowned forensic specialist like Jason Payne James suggests that Nichols would be more likely to bleed for three or five minutes than seven, and if the evidence suggests that she did bleed for at least six or seven minutes, then that would not be something Lechmere would have been wrongly accused of lying about. It would be scot free of any Lechmere contamination and quite admissible as evidence.

That is how I try to do my work. And, moreover, that is how I believe I SHOULD do my work.

Whether you like it or not is - I am sorry to say - a tad immaterial to me. I don´t think you are a very good judge of these matters, although I admire your overall certainty that you are. It is something that will not always lend you an air of being in the know - kneel, Sir Galahad! - but it IS a trait that certainly will give you the last, wrong word many a time.

[Harry D]

Come on then, you've obviously done a "google", name them.

Ed Kemper, Wayne Adam Ford, Keith Jesperson, Andrei Chikatilo originally handed himself in but the police didn't believe him.

However I think I've made my point, where the behaviour of serial killers are concerned there are always exceptions to the rule.

Except we're talking about different rules. There's a difference between a serial killer psychologically breaking and approaching the authorities, and a serial killer denying the impulse to leave the crime scene after a fresh kill.

Doesn't make a bit of difference. If he was JTR then he knew full well that not only would he be questioned regarding his wife's murder, but he would be questioned regarding the Whitechapel murders also. That's exactly what transpired.

See above.

[Fisherman]

Who cares about "the overall principle"? Given the existence of the Parnell Commission, Kattrup is right. The reporters at the inquest on 17 September were different to those on 3 September, or at least there were far fewer of them.

This is served as an established truth? Yes?

Goodnight.

[GUT]

How do you reconcile

"he told the police his address, but they agreed to keep it secret" (but one paper got it)

V

"He never told the police his name"

[David Orsam]

One problem with this philantropic approach of yours is that the man in whom the truthfulness of the evidence must rest, is the same man that I think killed Nichols.

But in pretty much every murder case the person who finds the body is a suspect. So, on your view, we can never say that we know "for certain" who found the body.

In my own list of certainties with the Nichols murder, based on the evidence, number 1 is that Cross found the body.

[David Orsam]

This is served as an established truth? Yes?

Well yes and I'll tell you why. When I was researching this point, I checked every single newspaper in existence at the time for reports of the inquest on 17 September (specifically for reports of Paul's evidence). I found that about 90% of them were by the same agency reporter.

So it must be an established truth that there was a much smaller number of reporters at the inquest that day than there had been on 3 September.

[David Orsam]

...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.

I think it is a useful example. If he married under the name Thornaby, then his wife was surely Mrs Thornaby. If they had children (and we don't know if they did or didn't) one can certainly appreciate that legally they should have been registered under the name Thornaby.

You can surely start to see why a man might use one surname under some circumstances and another surname in different circumstances.

[Harry D]

You can surely start to see why a man might use one surname under some circumstances and another surname in different circumstances.

Unless those circumstances are that he was Jack the Ripper? No, I don't think he can.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

You really should stop and read your posts before pressing "submit reply".

Why on earth would anyone in 1888 regard an employee of a company as a public servant?

It seems you're so desperate to patch up a collapsing theory you will write anything.

A railway employee was not a public servant, full stop. We are dealing with facts here not your fantasies.

We are talking about an inquest where legal precedents are set out for people to follow.

Since part of Pickfords job was to deliver parcels for the Post Office, if anyone was going to be considered as possibly/may/perhaps/mistakenly a public servant it possibly/may/perhaps/ mistakenly would have been Xmere.

Your reasoning is simply ridiculous.




>>Look at all the other unprofessional witnesses in the case ...<<


Pointless, let's instead look at something relevant, Patrick Mulshaw a night porter for the Whitechapel District Board of Works, someone who really might justifiably be considered a "professional" by your definition.

He gave his address as 3 Rupert St.

Shhh ... what's that I hear in the distance? Another of your bizarre theories crashing to the ground.

Do you really not see the damage you are doing to your credibility with all this nonesense?