Cross Theory II

[Fisherman]

Post 112 has been noted Christer.

And actioned.

Thanks

Monty

Fine, fine, Monty - it was an invitation to a civil discussion, as I take it you noticed? I would very much want you to contribute to it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Fine, fine, Monty - it was an invitation to a civil discussion, as I take it you noticed? I would very much want you to contribute to it.

All the best,
Fisherman

Do me a favour Christer, don't work in the diplomatic community.

You seem to struggle with the word civil. Its almost as bad as the word 'evidence' and 'guilt'.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Do me a favour Christer, don't work in the diplomatic community.

You seem to struggle with the word civil. Its almost as bad as the word 'evidence' and 'guilt'.

Monty

I cannot be arsed to take an interest in this, Monty. I have asked you to join the discussion about Lechmere, and that stands. You used to be able to contribute to such discussions.
If you find the invitation civil or not is something I don´t care about, as long as you parttake in the discussion instead of spending your time trying to understand the degree to which I am diplomatic/civil/honest.

I´ve asked this before of you and you have answered by saying that you do as you please. If that is your answer this time too, you can save yourself the trouble of saying it again; I already know that.

If, on the other hand, you would do me and the rest of the posters the honour of discussing the case, I couldn´t be happier.

All the best, Monty!
Fisherman

[Monty]

I didn't realise I was here to make you happy Christer, it seems I hae a cause.

I'll join in as and when I wish, thank you.

All the best.

Monty

[Mr Lucky]

Because this was the thread Mr Evans chose to post on.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

Fair enough, I didn't mind you replying, it was you announcing to the world that the thread had changed course that I objected to.

[Mr Lucky]

I didn't realise this thread was reopened to get back at me for criticising aspects of Tumblety's candidature - on another forum altogether!

Oh ! well thanks for letting me know, I had wondered what had happened.

But I will open a new thread to save Mr Lucky's one from further desecration.

Much appreciated.

[Mr Lucky]

The theorists then, amazingly, go on to claim that Lechmere/Cross gave the false surname of Cross instead of his real name to avoid identification.

Well, I have no real idea why he gave the name Cross instead of Lechmere,
in the context of the Nichols murder itself I attach very little importance to it.

The theorists, however, claim that the police failed to check him out, merely accepting what he said, despite the fact that he had been the first person upon a murder scene, such a person always being looked upon, initially, with some suspicion. And the investigation was headed up by the hugely experienced Abberline.

Actually, I don't claim that at all.

Cross turned up at the inquest and was allowed to give testimony. He was then interviewed by the police, this is the version as recorded by Dew in his autobiography

In Dew's version of events the police have clearly ironed out some of the discrepancies between his statement, as recalled by Dew, compared to the press reports of his inquest testimony and the 'Remarkable statement' of Robert Paul.

Including-
1) Seen 'standing where the woman was' by Paul
2) In Dew, the 'fact' that the two men left Nichols together as given at the inquest by Cross, now turns back into one fitting with both Paul's remarkable statement, and the Star journalist Friday report, that the two men split up;- 'The couple parted, ______ promising, as he walked away, to call a policeman.'
3) Curiously , Dew doesn't even give us a surname just "Charles ______".

Another point worth considering is the difference between the two different accounts of the meeting between the two men as given by the press reports of the inquest, and by Dew.

First Cross's version of their meeting given at the inquest.

He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down. The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." - The Daily News 4 Sept. 1888

Here, Cross gives the impression that he had frightened Paul on his approach. However Dew recalls things slightly differently;-

'The carman shook the woman. She did not stir. He decided it was a case of a woman who had fainted following assault, and, making a mental note to report the matter to the first police constable he saw, he went on his way. A curious thing then happened. The carman had gone but a short distance when he saw another man on the opposite side of the street whose behaviour was certainly suspicious.'

This 'suspicious' other man was Robert Paul. (Note - Cross examined the woman on his own, in Dew's version.)

The other man seemed to seek to avoid the carman, who went over to him, and said: "Come and look here. Here's a woman been knocked about."

I wonder if Robert Paul got 'fetched up in the middle of the night' by the police because they thought he was 'suspicious' ?

As we see, Paul was soon traced by the press and interviewed, so if this was Lechmere's reasoning it obviously worked. The report on Paul's interview started, '...Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement...", indicating that the press had got hold of his address and were waiting for him there in order to interview him.

He made his statement on his way home from work, presumably using the same route he used that morning, bumping into the press near the scene, see the similarity with Charlotte Colvilles statement on the same page in Lloyd's.

The press could not have got hold of his address, as no one knew his name at this point (as said by Cross at inquest).

[Mr Lucky]

I didn't realise I was here to make you happy Christer, it seems I hae a cause.

You're here to make us all happy !

[Fisherman]

I didn't realise I was here to make you happy Christer, it seems I hae a cause.

I'll join in as and when I wish, thank you.

All the best.

Monty

Like I said, you could have saved yourself the trouble, Monty ...

Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

From this it is obvious that the criticism of Mizen carried in the press report was generally known and was an uncomfortable factor for Mizen.

Mizen gave testimony on Monday the 3rd September, so these press reports you refer to that carried criticism of Mizen must pre-date that. Which press reports mention Mizen prior to the 3rd?

Thus it is not strange to see that he tries to minimize his lack of immediate response in attending Buck's Row and also states that the carman had told him that there was already a police officer there (thus reducing the urgency) a fact of which neither Lechmere/Cross nor Paul were aware, and would certainly have not stated as Mizen suggested.

Never the less Mizen had clearly told the court, whilst under oath, that he was wanted by a policeman;-

when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row - Daily Telegraph 4 Sept 1888

Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. - The Times 4 Sept. 1888

when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." - Daily News 4 Sept 1888

when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." - Echo 3 Sept 1888

Cross told him a policeman wanted him. He did not say anything about murder or suicide. - The Star 3 Sept. 1888

a carman passing by, in company with another man, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman. A woman is lying there." - Illustrated Police News 8 Sept. 1888

Ect.

So let's get this straight, the claim you're making is that Mizen deposed that he was told he was wanted by a policeman, when he wasn't, and furthermore this is "not strange".

An inquest juryman had obviously picked up on the point. Another report gave the exchange as follows, Juryman, "Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?" Mizen, "No; I finished knocking up one person." When Lechmere/Cross gave his evidence a juryman, presumably the same one, said, "Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?" Lechmere/Cross replied, "No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row," and this, of course, was a fact confirmed separately by Paul.

Paul wasn't at the inquest that day, so he would be unable to confirm (or deny) this or for that matter, anything else said by Cross or Mizen that day.

For the benefit of those not familiar with what Paul had actually stated in Lloyd's in his 'Remarkable statement' on Sunday 2 Sept.;-

'so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row'

This is quite contrary to the claim made above that Paul had confirmed what Cross had said when he deposed "I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row" Clearly Paul had confirmed nothing of the sort, as he claimed that the policeman he spoke to was 'just at the top of Buck's-row'

The situation on the 3rd Sept, after Cross gave testimony, would be;-

Paul in Lloyds on the 2nd, stated that there was a policeman in Buck's-row.
Neil (beat policeman for Buck's-row) on Sunday 2nd, denied being lead to the body by two men.
Mizen deposed on the 3rd, that he was told that there was a policeman in Buck's-row
Mizen also deposed, that there was a policeman in Buck's-row when he arrived there
Cross denied saying this and he deposed "I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row"

The Lechmere/Cross theorists turn this aspect around and say that Mizen was spoken to by Lechmere/Cross who told him that 'a fellow PC awaited his arrival.'

No, I'm not turning anything around at all, I'm just quoting what Mizen actually said whilst giving testimony as recorded in the press.

The reason for this, they speculate, was that Lechmere was the killer and was 'still carrying the murder weapon on his person' and was therefore keen not to be searched and did not want to be 'forced back to the murder site'; 'that was why he invented a fictive PC, something that made Mizen accept that the carmen had already been cleared.' This idea obviously does not make sense. First Lechmere/Cross had plenty of time to run off when he heard Paul approaching, which he did not do and he even brought the situation to the attention of the other man. Secondly he could have left the scene in a different direction to Paul stating he would also look for a PC to alert, and thirdly he would hardly have told PC Mizen that there was another policeman already at the scene in front of Paul who would have immediately contradicted it.

This appear to be something directed at Fisherman /Lechmere's viewpoint.

No, it is obvious that the claim that there was another PC with the body (which there was by the time Mizen arrived) suited Mizen in minimizing his lack of immediate action, which had already been prominently noted in the press and also, no doubt, by his superiors.

The first reference to the two men, who had found the woman before PC Neil can be dated to Friday afternoon (as it was written when Nichols was still unidentified), which pre-dates any possible need for Mizen to 'minimizing his lack of immediate action , which had already been prominently noted in the press and also, no doubt, by his superiors.'

So, to put this in simple terms - Mizen is either telling the truth (my version) or he is lying before there is any actual need to.

For those not familiar with the first reference to the men who found the body before PC Neil;-
‘Half-way down the street is the house of Mrs Green. Next to it is a large stable yard, whose wide closed gateway is next to the house. In front of this gateway the woman was found by two men, who first supposed her to be drunk, but closer inspection showed first a pool of blood in the gutter just before her, and then the deathly whiteness of the woman’s face stained with blood. One of them remained by her, while the other found Constable Neil.’ - Sunderland Daily Echo 1 Sept. 1888

Cross only needed to tell Mizen that a woman had been found, the information regarding the policeman arriving at the seen is for Paul's benefit alone, as Cross needed an explanation as to why he had left the scene, after being left there, while Paul went to find a policeman.

"so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw" (Robert Paul - Lloyd's 2 Sept 1888)

[Mr Lucky]

It seems as if fact and logic are things of the past, we truly are dinosaurs.

Facts and Logic - fantastic

Here's some 'facts'

So it's the third day of the Nichols inquest, Robert Paul is giving evidence, the press who are attending who record his testimony are working independently. The journalists write down the witnesses words, and periodically these notes are then sent via messenger to the telegraph office a few door away, from there sent to various newspapers and news agencies to then be set into type which we can still read today.

And here's some 'logic'

Whilst giving testimony Paul would be under the oath he had taken, 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' and therefore what he said should be constrained by logical conditions imposed on it by the oath, for example the condition 'nothing but the truth' should mean that nothing he deposed, by definition is self-contradicting. And the condition 'the whole truth' means nothing should be edited out of the Testimony.

The expected result would be that the various press reports of Robert Paul's Testimony should be largely consistent with each other.

Ok, Here's some more facts regarding a specific part of Robert Paul's Testimony, the part when the two men leave Nichols;-

Some of the press of Paul's testimony have Paul walking with Cross to find a policeman;-

'The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman.' - Lloyd’s 23 Sept. 1888

Other reports make it quite clear that they both left together;-

They agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met. They both walked on and met a policeman at the corner of Montague street. - St James Gazette 18 Sept. 1888

Though it appears from other press sources, that this was actually an interjection by the Coroner;-

'By the Coroner: The morning was cold. Witness and the man who had stopped him walked down buck’s row to find a policeman which they did in a few minutes.' - Birmingham Daily Post 18 Sept. 1888

However there are some reports written in the first person, as if recording literally what Paul said, stating quite clearly;-

'I sent the other man for a policeman.' - The Morning Post 18 Sept. 1888

So what's going on ? How do you fit the 'facts' in with the 'logic' or at least the constraints imposed on what he can say by the oath he had taken, How do "I sent the other man for a policeman" and "they both left together", fit coherently together in one witness statement and still be "the whole truth".

The likeliest plausible explanation is that Paul had actually said "I sent the other man for a policeman" but then the Coroner interjected with the two men left together and met a policeman section, which is exceptionally fortunate as without that interjection Paul's evidence would have failed to corroborate what Cross had said earlier on the 3rd September, and it would need to do so, in order to help facilitate a successful conviction for the murderer of Nichols, at such a time as his apprehension.

But then there's also Robert Paul's 'Remarkable Statement' given the day the murder occurred, and re-confirmed as being the truth by Paul -"Every word he had said was true"- on Saturday evening after Neil had testified that he was the finder of the body - "so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw." According to Paul in various sources, he left Cross with Nichols, Cross left him with Nichols, and they both left together.

So, to put this in sequence, Robert Paul on the day of the murder, at first tells us he left Cross alone with the woman (this is before anyone noticed the woman had any injuries or there was blood at the scene), he then whilst giving testimony, tries the 'I sent the other man for a policeman' line only to be told by Baxter, that in fact, the two men left together

Apparently, if only I had some 'common sense' then I would simply expect the testimony of a witness, like Robert Paul, in an inquest to make no sense whatsoever, and still be allowed to stand and attach no significance to this at all.

Apparently, If I had some 'common sense' then I would be openly accusing Mizen of lying under oath during a investigation in to a murder for no good reason whatsoever, and then declaring that this was "not strange"

Unfortunately rather than 'common sense', I know how English Law works, or should work.

[Phil H]

To me it simply shows that one ha to be very careful in using press reports and assuming them to be reliable.

The inquest evidence has to be paramount (or at least take precedence).

Hence my advice elsewhere to be discriminating and not to mix evidence from various sources without careful consideration.

Phil

[Mr Lucky]

To me it simply shows that one ha to be very careful in using press reports and assuming them to be reliable.

That is just an irrational belief system you have adopted, you don't agree with what the press say, so you accuse them of unreliability.

The fact remains they were at the inquest that day, and you weren't.

The inquest evidence has to be paramount (or at least take precedence).

Hence my advice elsewhere to be discriminating and not to mix evidence from various sources without careful consideration.

Your 'advice' is quite frankly, worthless and is simply not required, and the counterpoint to your claims that the existing evidence should simply be ignored can be gauged by the reaction to some of your own claims, such as Morganstone was Astrokhan man.

[Phil H]

It's difficult to know where to start, Mr L.

Rudeness, misrepresentation, ignorance your post seems to encompass them all.

That is just an irrational belief system you have adopted, you don't agree with what the press say, so you accuse them of unreliability.

Hardly irrational - sifting and evaluating evidence is surely one of the fundamental principles of scholarship. though apparently uyou are ignorant of that.

The press clearly got names wrong, or mixed up, and they were not being briefed by the police. On the other hand, they picked up some witnesses and local rumours we have from no other source. Press testimony is useful but has to be scrutinised rigourously.

You will find nowhere where I say that I don't agree with what the press say in any blanket way - I can assert that because I recognise the value of press reports if properly treated. BUT I am aware that:

a) the press have a tendency then and now to sensationalise: their business is selling papers, not truth;

b) they had an agenda in part, in seeking to make something of the Spitalfields murders;

c) at inquests their reports are as accurate as their reporters' hearing - hence on occasion obviously garbled or misheard reports emerged.

The fact remains they were at the inquest that day, and you weren't.

What has that childish observation to do with anything. I was not AT the battle of Gettysburg, but i can study it, seek to make sense of sometimes conflicting evidence from people who were there, reflect on intentions, means and decisions using often incomplete evidence. That is the historian's job, isn't it?

Quote:
The inquest evidence has to be paramount (or at least take precedence).

Hence my advice elsewhere to be discriminating and not to mix evidence from various sources without careful consideration.

Your 'advice' is quite frankly, worthless

Your opinion. I disagree. It seems to me that you, in particular, reveal a real need to listen to me.

and is simply not required,

You don't have choice, I'm afraid - these are public boards and within the rules I am as free as you to express an opinion. I will continue to do so.

and the counterpoint to your claims that the existing evidence should simply be ignored can be gauged by the reaction to some of your own claims, such as Morganstone was Astrokhan man.

What an odd and uninformed juxtaposition of ideas. Why should a throw away comment in a thread I posted some weeks ago, be relevant to evidence being ignored through the medium of reactions to my "claims".

I have "claimed" nothing about Morganstone and Astrakhan man. I did ask a question (partly linked to another thread I started around the same time about the "Controllers of Spitalfields" and also to the new research by the Sheldens on MJK's Breezer's Hill connections).

Reactions to anyone's posts on these boards are hardly relevent. We have underinformed posters and experts (by which i mean published authors and researchers) we have monomaniacs and enthusiasts. One learns to discern the members one values I find - the views of others 9such as yourself are of no account and get flushed away quickly). Just in case you thought I respected you. .

Finally, the real point of my response to you. You state: your claims that the existing evidence should simply be ignored.

Where have I EVER stated that evidence should be ignored? I have consistently argued for the proper treatment of evidence and would never suggest evidence should be ignored. I have talked about giving predence to some sorts of evidence and I have soken of the parmountcy of some evidence. I have discussed evaluating, scrutinising and being discerning about all evidence. Not recently, but in the past I have written about using internal criticism of written evidence as is customary in the study of literature
and historical documents.

But you claim I want to ignore evidence: how wrong could you be.

I think I must value evidence more highly than you, because I believe time and effort needs to be expended on it. You appear to perceive it as an undefined lump.

On the contrary, I believe that there is and must be, a clear HIERARCHY of evidence. First hand evidence, inquest testimony, medical reports, the official files, clearly have a priority over memoirs (where there may be elements of self-justification or hindsight involved. Swanson and Anderson might have a slight advantage over magnaghten because he came later, the first two were involved in 1888.

Written sources always take priority over oral sources. Primary sources (or equivalent) always over secondary.

Second hand reporting (journalism) has a place but needs to be checked for accuracy, later corrections, and coherence and consistency with other sources.

I say all this, because it is essential to the study of history. I certainly do not say that any evidence can be ignored without careful forethought, explanation and justification. An example - I think we all accept that ostrog has been sidelined in a way Druitt and Kosminski have not been, because of research carried out. That notwithstanding the fact that Ostrog is mentioned on the official file. The final decision always rests with peer review and acceptance.

So please eat your words. I did not say and never have, what you claimed.

[Mr Lucky]

It's difficult to know where to start, Mr L.

Rudeness, misrepresentation, ignorance your post seems to encompass them all.

Let 's clear this up, as was only pointed out to you the other day, your behaviour is directly responsible for people leaving this forum, so where you get the idea you are in some sort of position to lecture others about their behaviour comes from I don’t know but your total lack of self-awareness appear to be at least partially responsible.

That is just an irrational belief system you have adopted, you don't agree with what the press say, so you accuse them of unreliability.

Hardly irrational - sifting and evaluating evidence is surely one of the fundamental principles of scholarship. though apparently uyou are ignorant of that.

Actually I'm the one doing just that, finding previous unknown newsprint, and new points of interest about the Buck's-row murder, the first mention of leather apron on the first of September, German "Moggs" and Margaret German, the story from Friday about the two men who found the body and then split up, the stuff about Robert Whiffen and the stolen ring, the story about the two men who were hanging around on Buck’s row at three o’clock, the mention of a William Connolly etc.

What you do is read 'jack the ripper' books and then troll newbs on the internet.

The press clearly got names wrong, or mixed up, and they were not being briefed by the police. On the other hand, they picked up some witnesses and local rumours we have from no other source. Press testimony is useful but has to be scrutinised rigourously.

You will find nowhere where I say that I don't agree with what the press say in any blanket way - I can assert that because I recognise the value of press reports if properly treated. BUT I am aware that:

a) the press have a tendency then and now to sensationalise: their business is selling papers, not truth;

b) they had an agenda in part, in seeking to make something of the Spitalfields murders;

c) at inquests their reports are as accurate as their reporters' hearing - hence on occasion obviously garbled or misheard reports emerged.

Again, this is just part of your irrational belief system, how does “I sent the other man for a policeman” in contrast to “they left together”, fit in with a press ‘agenda’ ‘seeking to make something of the Spitalfields murders’ or with the claim that the papers ‘have a tendency then and now to sensationalise’. I cannot begin to imagine what kind of sad existence could lead anyone to seriously suggest that an inquest witness saying “I sent the other man for a policeman” is some kind of press sensationalism, yet that is your counter argument to my suggestion above. - oh dear.

And they’re ‘not garbled or misheard’ either.

The fact remains they were at the inquest that day, and you weren't.
What has that childish observation to do with anything. I was not AT the battle of Gettysburg, but i can study it, seek to make sense of sometimes conflicting evidence from people who were there, reflect on intentions, means and decisions using often incomplete evidence.

I'll look forward to your inevitable suggestion that Lincoln was Astrokhan man

Quote:
The inquest evidence has to be paramount (or at least take precedence).

Hence my advice elsewhere to be discriminating and not to mix evidence from various sources without careful consideration.

Your 'advice' is quite frankly, worthless

Your opinion. I disagree. It seems to me that you, in particular, reveal a real need to listen to me.

and is simply not required,

You don't have choice, I'm afraid - these are public boards and within the rules I am as free as you to express an opinion. I will continue to do so.

You can offer an opinion, I didn’t say you cannot offer an opinion, what I don’t want is “your advice”, as in my opinion it’s worthless.

This is what I said, read it again and note the lack of the word ‘opinion’

Your 'advice' is quite frankly, worthless and is simply not required

What an odd and uninformed juxtaposition of ideas. Why should a throw away comment in a thread I posted some weeks ago, be relevant to evidence being ignored through the medium of reactions to my "claims".

I have "claimed" nothing about Morganstone and Astrakhan man. I did ask a question (partly linked to another thread I started around the same time about the "Controllers of Spitalfields" and also to the new research by the Sheldens on MJK's Breezer's Hill connections).

I’m basing my claims around the contemporary press reports connected to the Buck’s row murder ,for example, I’m basing my claims that the two men split up after finding Nichols, because I found a press report that said exactly that, while you base your claims around Morganstone/ Astrokhan man on something you’ve imagined. That’s the difference between the two of us.

Finally, the real point of my response to you. You state: your claims that the existing evidence should simply be ignored.

Where have I EVER stated that evidence should be ignored?
<Snip>

So please eat your words. I did not say and never have, what you claimed.

Here, from your last post -

Hence my advice elsewhere to be discriminating

Or don't you understand what discrimination is.