Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Billiou;377589]Is this a valid summary of the "marks" against Cross/Lechmere (I am not saying they are signs of "guilt", just possible marks):

a) He is found near to the (possibly still alive but fatally wounded) body of Polly Nicholls

Not possibly still alive: Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyn: "(The) incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae."

b) He and Paul leave behind a woman who they think may only be drunk lying on the pavement alone in the dark, instead of one of them staying to look after her while the other fetches a policeman

Not quite. There seems to have been some agreement regarding her condition. Robert Paul says this in Lloyd's Weekly: "I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle." Upon reaching Mizen in Baker's Row, Cross testified that he said this to the PC: "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."

c) Lechmere is identified as Cross in the Inquest reports and this is never corrected

If by reports you mean media reports, then that's correct. The inquest testimony (i.e. the official documentation) has not survived.

It's worth noting also that the media reports refer to "Lechmere" as "Chas. Andrew Cross", and "George Cross". The also call Robert Paul "Baul". Thus, it's hard to put much faith their accuracy.
d) Cross doesn't state his address out loud during the Inquest

Impossible to know. Again, the media do not contain his address. However, he did give his correct employer apparently, and this was reported.

e) The five canonical murders happen either on the way between his house and his place of work, or nearby to an area were he used to live and would therefore know well

Again, this takes some inference and assumption. For instance, we must assume that Lechmere was, say, visiting his mother on the night of the double event as those murders do not fit with his 'route to work'. As well, the Chapman murder was likely somewhat late to have occurred while he was on his way to work, so we may have him killing Chapman while his cart was being unloaded at the nearby market. This takes assumption as well as we have no idea what Cross delivered, where he delivered it, when, etc. And I must admit that I don't if this is still a part of the current theory.

f) By at least three newspaper accounts, according to Mizen, Cross "informed him that has was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row" (or words to that effect), when we know there was no policeman in Buck's Row when Cross was there.

That's correct. Three sounds about right. Two or three. In any event, this is a prime element in the "The Mizen Scam". Lechmere tells Mizen that another PC is in Buck's Row and Mizen is left to assume that the two men (Paul and Lechmere/Cross) have been "cleared" and therefore are left free to go, unsearched, and having not been asked to identify themselves. Keep in mind that it's also required belief that Lechmere said this to Mizen out of Paul's earshot, as Paul would have disagreed in that this was clearly not true.

I would suggest that Mizen was less than truthful as he was simply trying to explain the lack of seriousness and urgency in his response to what Paul and Lechemere had told him. Lechmere stated at the inquest: " He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on." Paul in Lloyd's: I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead." [QUOTE]

Comments bold.

[Fisherman]

Is this a valid summary of the "marks" against Cross/Lechmere (I am not saying they are signs of "guilt", just possible marks):

a) He is found near to the (possibly still alive but fatally wounded) body of Polly Nicholls
b) He and Paul leave behind a woman who they think may only be drunk lying on the pavement alone in the dark, instead of one of them staying to look after her while the other fetches a policeman
c) Lechmere is identified as Cross in the Inquest reports and this is never corrected
d) Cross doesn't state his address out loud during the Inquest
e) The five canonical murders happen either on the way between his house and his place of work, or nearby to an area were he used to live and would therefore know well
f) By at least three newspaper accounts, according to Mizen, Cross "informed him that has was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row" (or words to that effect), when we know there was no policeman in Buck's Row when Cross was there

Please feel free to add anything to this.

May I add for discussion, why would Cross state "He [Paul] then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, “No, let us go and tell a policeman”.", which was also reported as Cross "refused to touch her" or that "[Cross] would not do so" or "[Cross] said, “I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him.”". Paul makes no mention of this in his own statement to the Inquest, but why would Cross state this when it [may] make him look in a bad light? He had afterall, already said that he had touched her hand himself (and in one newspaper account he said he also touched her face).

In the thread "The Lechmere trail - so far", at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9056
31 points are listed against Lechmere.

As an aside, since you discuss how many papers mentioned the ghost policeman in Bucks Row, suggesting it was at least three, you can find this detail in the Daily News, the Daily Telegraph, the East London Observer, the Echo, the Illustrated Police News, Lloyds Weekly, the Star and the Times, for starters...

As for how Lechmere admitted to not having helped to prop Nichols up, I am thinking that he may well have thought that once Paul was brought in, he would give that information away, and so Lechmere decided to be proactive.

[David Orsam]

I wouldn't mind Hercule, but you've misunderstood the argument. I'm not saying that Cross didn't do it!

[David Orsam]

Fisherman, it seems you can't even work out what your argument is.

First you say: "going by appearances, it seems there WAS a time-gap."

Which, a few sentences later, becomes "there was probably a gap".

But whichever words you use to express it, what you are trying to argue, put simply, is that there was (or is) a gap; the reason being to support the guilt of Lechmere.

My point about "winning", about which you have become so agitated, is not so that I can run around saying "I win, I win" or have any personal satisfaction but to try to hammer home to you that my objective has only been to demonstrate that there is an alternative scenario which fits with all the evidence. I shouldn't have bothered because you are focusing on my language rather than the issue here.

Just to clarify: I do not claim that my scenario demonstrates the innocence of Lechmere. But you clearly claim that your scenario demonstrates his guilt. That is why our objectives are different and why I am allowed to adjust the timings to whatever I want while you are not.

Let me ask you these two simple questions to try and sort this all out:

1. Are you saying that Lechmere probably left his house at exactly 3.30am?

2. Are you saying that Paul probably walked into Bucks Row at exactly 3.45am?

I'd be grateful if you could answer these questions yes or no. Because if the answer is "yes" to both then all you are doing is adjusting the evidence (which is that the times were approximate) to fit your own belief that there was a gap which is basically what you were criticising me for doing. In other words, if you set the parameters so that there must be a gap then of course there "probably" will be one.

If, on the other hand the answer is "no" to one or both then what are you saying?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, it seems you can't even work out what your argument is.

First you say: "going by appearances, it seems there WAS a time-gap."

Which, a few sentences later, becomes "there was probably a gap".

But whichever words you use to express it, what you are trying to argue, put simply, is that there was (or is) a gap; the reason being to support the guilt of Lechmere.

My point about "winning", about which you have become so agitated, is not so that I can run around saying "I win, I win" or have any personal satisfaction but to try to hammer home to you that my objective has only been to demonstrate that there is an alternative scenario which fits with all the evidence. I shouldn't have bothered because you are focusing on my language rather than the issue here.

Just to clarify: I do not claim that my scenario demonstrates the innocence of Lechmere. But you clearly claim that your scenario demonstrates his guilt. That is why our objectives are different and why I am allowed to adjust the timings to whatever I want while you are not.

Let me ask you these two simple questions to try and sort this all out:

1. Are you saying that Lechmere probably left his house at exactly 3.30am?

2. Are you saying that Paul probably walked into Bucks Row at exactly 3.45am?

I'd be grateful if you could answer these questions yes or no. Because if the answer is "yes" to both then all you are doing is adjusting the evidence (which is that the times were approximate) to fit your own belief that there was a gap which is basically what you were criticising me for doing. In other words, if you set the parameters so that there must be a gap then of course there "probably" will be one.

If, on the other hand the answer is "no" to one or both then what are you saying?

David, David - we were supposed to finish our debate. Don´t you remember? Last time over, you reprimanded me for not doing so. Otherwise, I would have been able to set you right on the issues you raise. You are wrong, you see.

[David Orsam]

Evasion

David, David - we were supposed to finish our debate. Don´t you remember? Last time over, you reprimanded me for not doing so. Otherwise, I would have been able to set you right on the issues you raise. You are wrong, you see.

I never reprimanded you: simply pointed out that you kept saying you weren't going to respond but kept responding. Suddenly I ask you two simple questions which could have resolved this debate and you run away.

Funny that.

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Columbo;377243]

I'm an American, too, Columbo. And I'm not really interested in your thoughts on Jack the Ripper, European/Swedish senses of humor, or much of anything else for that matter. I don't recall asking for them. You may have more fun in "Pub Talk". You asked why I was dismissive of "Fisherman's" Lechmere theory,

Oh well. I think I'll hang around anyway. Keep up those informative, neutral and mature posts.

I bet your babysitter hopes your parents will come home early. I'm sure she won't tell them you went over your computer time limit.

Columbo

Let me see if I understand this. You actually clicked "Submit Reply" after writing this? I must ask. How old are you, Columbo?

In all seriousness, I don't think you're equipped to keep up here, Columbo. I'm not sure what you've contributed aside from the wholly original "babysitter and parents" bit you so courageously and - seemingly without embarrassment or shame - posted here. Of course, I encourage you to continue in the conversation. I'll be looking forward to your first post that can't be boiled down to something like, "I agree with Mr. Holmgren" and/or "I'm an American, so if you insult me it's getting ugly because I'm a tough guy" or some such foolishness.

I am curious, though, as to what you're on about, identifying me as being so mean and nasty to poor Christer. I'm confident enough that any post I make (while not in the same league as your prose posted here) is at least 85% informative and/or lucidly stated opinion (and identified as opinion) and 15% acknowledgment and commentary directed at "Fisherman's" condescending arrogance. In any event, why don't cut and past an example of something particularly mean and offensive I've directed at Fisherman on this thread. I'll concede that I was overly harsh in the thread concerning my desire to debate "Mr. Holmgren". And while I will state that my offer to debate (at any Ripper event in North America or Europe), and pay for the venue, food, drinks, and let Christer keep any proceeds still stands (and will always stand as far as I'm concerned), I will not belabor the point further on these pages, and have not for months. You will find more examples of me complimenting Christer's research and resolve than you will examples of me outright insulting the man. I think it's wonderful that you've found a new hobby and that you are interested in making new friends with people from countries like Sweden. I support that. Just, try and be rational? And adult?

[Fisherman]

I never reprimanded you: simply pointed out that you kept saying you weren't going to respond but kept responding. Suddenly I ask you two simple questions which could have resolved this debate and you run away.

Funny that.

Run away? You must be joking. I merely felt a bit uncertain whether you wanted to debate with me or not - you seemed sad that I did not fulfill my intention to leave.

But once that is resolved, you shall of course have your answers - and a bit more.

Let´s begin with the bit more, shall we? That requires that I step in at this remove in your post:

I do not claim that my scenario demonstrates the innocence of Lechmere. But you clearly claim that your scenario demonstrates his guilt.

Not true. Which is why I keep saying that you are re-inventing the wheel for no purpose at all.
I am not saying that my scenario for the timeline demonstrates that Lechmere is guilty. I am saying that I find my scenario is a very likely one (likelier than yours, for example), and that if it is not only likely but also true, then it adds much weight to the perspective that Lechmere was the killer.

I am not predisposing that my scenario must be correct. I think it stands a very good chance to be roughly so, but I cannot know that for sure.

Now, do you follow me? Can you see why I find your criticism moot?

Next sentences by your hand:

First you say: "going by appearances, it seems there WAS a time-gap."

Which, a few sentences later, becomes "there was probably a gap".

If it appears there was a gap, then there was probably a gap. Maybe there was not, that´s a possibility too - but things are more often than not what they appear to be. See what I mean?

Next: you are focusing on my language rather than the issue here.

No, I am not. I find language useful in many a way, but I do not focus on language first and foremost. The issue is more important, but the two parameters may be very much intertwined at times.

Now, what more? Ah, yes - the two questions! Let´s not forget them!

1. Are you saying that Lechmere probably left his house at exactly 3.30am?

2. Are you saying that Paul probably walked into Bucks Row at exactly 3.45am?

I'd be grateful if you could answer these questions yes or no.

I´m sure you would. But a simple yes or no does not always cover what needs to be said.

Question 1: I am not saying that Lechmere MUST have left his house at exactly 3.30 - but I am saying that when we form a timeline, it is the best point to work from. Not 3.27 and not 3.33, since the epicenter of the timing is 3.30. It MAY have been before and it MAY have been after - but when we are given the approximation 3.30, then that is what we should work from. That´s how I see it.

Question 2: Here we know that Paul said that he DID walk into the street at exactly 3.45, and that must carry weight, regardless of the fact that it was stated in a paper interview. We also know that he seemingly said at the inquest that he left home just before 3.45, and it becomes very compelling to think that he counted backwards from a knowledge of having walked into the street at exactly 3.45. The time is also more in line with the doctor´s evidence than 3.40 would be, if we celebrate my idea that the time spoken of must function as a centrepoint around which we should concentrate.

I am sorry if I disappoint you when not saying "yes" or "no" only, but I am certain that you will realize that more than so must be said at times.

Basically, I think your crusade is directed against something that does not exist - a certainty on my behalf that I must be correct. There is no such certainty - but I do believe that my timeline is shaped from as neutral a standing point as possible, altering no times and using no extremes when "around" has been added to the timings. They remain the epicenter nevertheless, if you take my meaning.

Now, I could of course get cocky and ask you if there is nothing else you need to know, but I really think it would be much better if you recognized that you are not barking up the wrong tree - you are barking up a non-existant one...
So how about calling it a day? You have fought an uncalled for war for a noble cause, and that´s not half bad.

[David Orsam]

I am saying that I find my scenario is a very likely one (likelier than yours, for example), and that if it is not only likely but also true, then it adds much weight to the perspective that Lechmere was the killer.

Your failure to answer my two questions with a simple yes or no answer is absolutely devastating Fisherman. It really is. One minute you are telling me that there is "probably" a time gap then the very next minute you can't tell me when Cross and Paul "probably" left their respective houses. If you can't see the contradiction then I suspect everyone else can.

But for this post I will just concentrate on the above quotation. Here is what you are doing.

1. You are (in effect) saying that if Lechmere is guilty he probably left his house at 3.30.

2. Then you are saying that if Lechmere left his house at 3.30 he is probably guilty!!!

Whether you even understand that is what you are doing I don't know but that is what you are doing, even if you pretend there is some sort of scientific basis for choosing the departure time of 3.30 and even if you use words like "more weight".

Your statement that you think your scenario is more likely than mine is ridiculous. We are both working from approximations so it's impossible for either scenario to be "more likely", but I repeat that I am not using my scenario to support Lechmere's innocence whereas you, absurdly, are using yours to support his guilt. You cannot do it. You've created a timing gap yourself by choosing the exact time of departure of 3.30 and then you are pointing to that gap to add "more weight" to Lechmere's guilt. That's all you've done! Why you think a cheap magic trick like that is of any value I can't understand.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Your failure to answer my two questions with a simple yes or no answer is absolutely devastating Fisherman. It really is. One minute you are telling me that there is "probably" a time gap then the very next minute you can't tell me when Cross and Paul "probably" left their respective houses. If you can't see the contradiction then I suspect everyone else can.

Nonsense, David.

But for this post I will just concentrate on the above quotation. Here is what you are doing.

1. You are (in effect) saying that if Lechmere is guilty he probably left his house at 3.30.

No, I am not saying that.Must like you yourself have pointed out, he may have left at any time. If he is guilty, then he is a liar, and if he is a liar, he may well have lied about the timings too.

2. Then you are saying that if Lechmere left his house at 3.30 he is probably guilty!!!

Don´t be daft, please. I am saying that leaving his house at 3.30 works well with the guilty scenario I have outlined.

Whether you even understand that is what you are doing I don't know but that is what you are doing, even if you pretend there is some sort of scientific basis for choosing the departure time of 3.30 and even if you use words like "more weight".

"Some sort of scientific basis"? Of course one must work from the time given, even if it is an approximation. Maybe you think it more scientific to conjure up any other time...?

Your statement that you think your scenario is more likely than mine is ridiculous.

Nope.

We are both working from approximations so it's impossible for either scenario to be "more likely", but I repeat that I am not using my scenario to support Lechmere's innocence whereas you, absurdly, are using yours to support his guilt.

Once again, no. Did you not read what I said? You are on a useless and moot crusade.

You cannot do it.

And have not done it other than in an if/so suggestion. But you refuse to accept that, don´t you - otherwise it would be painfully obvious that all your efforts have been in vain since you missed out on the facts from the very outset. Since then, you have been banging on about how I have presented a part of a theory as fact - which is not and was never true.

You've created a timing gap yourself by choosing the exact time of departure of 3.30 and then you are pointing to that gap to add "more weight" to Lechmere's guilt.

More nonsense - it is and was always a case of if/so. That, by the way, is what theories are about. Unless you know.

That's all you've done! Why you think a cheap magic trick like that is of any value I can't understand.

No, that is not all I´ve done. I have done a lot, actually. You, however, have contributed the amazing insight that timings are not always exact.

Bravo!

I am stopping this charade here and now, David. It´s for your own good. You are welcome to take up any other issue you wish to, but this one has been turned inside out like an empty pocket for far too long now.

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;377609]

Let me see if I understand this. You actually clicked "Submit Reply" after writing this? I must ask. How old are you, Columbo?

In all seriousness, I don't think you're equipped to keep up here, Columbo. I'm not sure what you've contributed aside from the wholly original "babysitter and parents" bit you so courageously and - seemingly without embarrassment or shame - posted here. Of course, I encourage you to continue in the conversation. I'll be looking forward to your first post that can't be boiled down to something like, "I agree with Mr. Holmgren" and/or "I'm an American, so if you insult me it's getting ugly because I'm a tough guy" or some such foolishness.

I am curious, though, as to what you're on about, identifying me as being so mean and nasty to poor Christer. I'm confident enough that any post I make (while not in the same league as your prose posted here) is at least 85% informative and/or lucidly stated opinion (and identified as opinion) and 15% acknowledgment and commentary directed at "Fisherman's" condescending arrogance. In any event, why don't cut and past an example of something particularly mean and offensive I've directed at Fisherman on this thread. I'll concede that I was overly harsh in the thread concerning my desire to debate "Mr. Holmgren". And while I will state that my offer to debate (at any Ripper event in North America or Europe), and pay for the venue, food, drinks, and let Christer keep any proceeds still stands (and will always stand as far as I'm concerned), I will not belabor the point further on these pages, and have not for months. You will find more examples of me complimenting Christer's research and resolve than you will examples of me outright insulting the man. I think it's wonderful that you've found a new hobby and that you are interested in making new friends with people from countries like Sweden. I support that. Just, try and be rational? And adult?

Well the joke was old. I apologize.

I've studied the Ripper for several years, and that's just what it is a hobby. Every once and a while I see new theories and have forgotten quite a bit really, so I'm not near as studied as people on this thread simply because I don't have the time.

I don't care if you insult Fisherman, he's a big boy and can take care of him self. You asked me a question and I gave my opinion. Alot of your comments come off as jealous and angry. Why do a separate thread to challenge him to a debate? I just answered your question, that's all.

You've made some terrific points on this thread that I agree with and some not. I've disagreed on some points with Fisherman and have given credit where credit is due.

Let's start over and not waste this thread picking at each other OK? we're way above wasting time with petty bickering.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

You, however, have contributed the amazing insight that timings are not always exact.

Considering that I have quoted you in this thread as saying that Lechmere left his house "at 3.30" and, on this basis, you have said that you believe there is a timing gap, it seems that my contribution that timings are not always exact has been an important one.

Bearing in mind your constantly shifting explanations as to what it is you are arguing for - there was a gap, there probably was a gap, if something happened there was a gap, if Lechmere is guilty there was a gap - and bearing in mind your abject failure to answer two very straightforward questions, I honestly now don't know quite what point you seek to make about the timings in this case.

But I will try with one more question: Do you agree with the statement from the documentary that "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere’s timings"? From your posts in this thread (which I have read unlike you not reading mine) I couldn't say whether your answer would be "yes" or "no" although I suspect that you will say it is too complicated to be answered in such a clear way.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;377575][QUOTE=Pierre;377574]

Once again, let´s leave Lechmere out of the equation. Let´s compare an anonymous Ripper to a likewise anonymous Torso killer.

I don´t know about any studies with that approach. Do you know any systematic study with comparisons between the two different sets of murders?

What are the similarities, do you think?

The evidence I have is not up for grabs as of now. It will be, though.

So for once, we are on the same level - we say we´ve got the goods, but we don´t display it. It´s a new feeling to me.

No problem.

What I will say is that I think I have the source of inspiration for the killings, just as I have numerous forensic bits of evidence, all pointing to a shared identity. To me, the case seems a clear one.

I think it is funny that you say so. I am not as sure as you are. That is, there is always room for doubt in my research. Funny that you think the case seems "a clear one". Even if I do note the word "seems".

How´s that, Pierre? It is - I am sorry to say - a helping of your own medicine...

No problem, Fisherman. Such an approach is better than "Here is the serial killer Jack the Ripper!" based on very little data.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Considering that I have quoted you in this thread as saying that Lechmere left his house "at 3.30" and, on this basis, you have said that you believe there is a timing gap, it seems that my contribution that timings are not always exact has been an important one.

Bearing in mind your constantly shifting explanations as to what it is you are arguing for - there was a gap, there probably was a gap, if something happened there was a gap, if Lechmere is guilty there was a gap - and bearing in mind your abject failure to answer two very straightforward questions, I honestly now don't know quite what point you seek to make about the timings in this case.

But I will try with one more question: Do you agree with the statement from the documentary that "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere’s timings"? From your posts in this thread (which I have read unlike you not reading mine) I couldn't say whether your answer would be "yes" or "no" although I suspect that you will say it is too complicated to be answered in such a clear way.

It is from the documentary, David. I was never the scriptwriter nor the narrator of it.
If you need to bring that on stage in order to try and snare me - which has so far miserably failed - things are really in a sad state.

Then again, who is amazed?

Goodnight. If you wish to once more point out that timings can be inexact, I will see if I can muster the will to once more say "I know" tomorrow. But don´t take that as a promise - you have a flair for overinterpreting things, but try to fight that off this time, please.

[David Orsam]

More Evasion

It is from the documentary, David. I was never the scriptwriter nor the narrator of it.
If you need to bring that on stage in order to try and snare me - which has so far miserably failed - things are really in a sad state

I know where it came from Fisherman, I even stated that in my post. I said "Do you agree with the statement from the documentary...". I know you are not the author of the statement but I am asking you if you agree with it. You have failed to answer. You have ducked yet another question.

It's interesting that you think I am trying to "snare" you by asking you if you agree with a simple statement. It doesn't matter where it came from, do you agree with it? That statement is "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere’s timings". It's not a difficult question.