Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Columbo]

I'll say again that we simply do not know if he gave only the name Cross at the inquest, if he gave both names: Cross and Lechmere, or five names, three of which we haven't learned. All we can rely upon are demonstrably inaccurate press reports as the official records no longer exist.

I'll readily admit that I simply do not know. I can only say what I think is likely, plausible, what makes sense with the minimum of assumption and invention.

Initially, l found the name issue suspicious. Even as we understand references like Annie Sivvey and Kate Conway tell us how identification was not then what it is now, I found it interesting. Yet, in researching it, I found it much less so. In fact, I convinced there are 100 more likely scenarios that explain the "name issue" before we suspect the man of being a serial killer.

You're post did remind me of the references you mentioned, so that's a point I didn't associate with Cross. I do recall reading about the constant alias' thrown around in the east slums, so I can't discount that Cross/Lechmere may have done the same thing, except with a legal name.

And again you're reminder that we don't have the official documentation to know what he said is a stick in the mud we can't ignore. Interesting.

But if he didn't say Cross at the inquest, where did the papers get that name from? It was obviously correctly associated with him so they must've heard it somewhere.

Columbo

[Patrick S]

Hi David,

Point taken. I didn't mean to imply you don't have new ideas, it was directed at the constant redundancy of the timing discussion. I've read a lot of your previous posts and really respect what you have to say. I apologize for any perceived dis-respect. There was none intended.

I asked about the torso murders to you specifically because I thought your opinion would be an interesting read. I appreciate the reply.

Columbo

You did not "imply" that David didn't have new ideas, Columbo. You flatly stated it. And you now you apologize for any perceived "dis-respect" and say that there was "none intended"?

[David Orsam]

If I have not said that it is a fact that there was a gap, you have no point, David. And I have not said that.

Why on earth do you keep repeating this? I'm not saying now, and never have said, that you have said "as a fact" that there was a gap.

Isn't that clear enough for you?

I recognise that your preferred wording is that "it seems" there is a major gap. I understand that. I have acknowledged it. I have quoted it.

But I challenge your claim that "it seems" that there is a major gap.

I want to go forward in this discussion on the basis that you are saying that "it seems" there is a major gap. I am not saying you have ever said anything else!

I cannot make myself any clearer. What is the problem?

[Patrick S]

You're post did remind me of the references you mentioned, so that's a point I didn't associate with Cross. I do recall reading about the constant alias' thrown around in the east slums, so I can't discount that Cross/Lechmere may have done the same thing, except with a legal name.

And again you're reminder that we don't have the official documentation to know what he said is a stick in the mud we can't ignore. Interesting.

But if he didn't say Cross at the inquest, where did the papers get that name from? It was obviously correctly associated with him so they must've heard it somewhere.

Columbo

Are you serious? Did someone say he didn't give the name "Cross" at the inquest? Do you think that I said that?

[Ben]

Hi Columbo,

But since he wasn't a suspect, why would what he called himself at work come to the attention of the police?

Because by projecting himself as Cross to all and sundry, it was only a matter of time before people - work colleagues perhaps - registered the fact that "Cross" was none other than their fellow carman, Lechmere. If I was Crossmere the Ripper, I'd be very careless to assume that not a single person who noted the connection would divulge as much to the police or press.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

I've only just read this Columbo, being addressed to another poster, and what you say about me is not true. Why do you think I have any interest in getting Fisherman to "say he's wrong"?

Actually, I am trying to help Fisherman to understand why he attempting to do something impermissible. The timing issue in the TV documentary, with him and the former police officer walking from Doveton Street to the murder scene, followed by the dramatic voiceover that a "major gap" had been discovered in the timings was a very important part of persuading people about Lechmere's guilt.

I have no problem with an argument about Lechmere's guilt but it needs to be soundly based. And I would be saying this to Fisherman if I was the strongest advocate of Cross as JTR. I would never make such an embarrassingly bad argument as the one he is trying to make based on approximate timings. If he is going to publish his own case he presumably wants to persuade and convince his readers but an argument of the nature he is trying to put forward is only going to alienate due to the fact that he is basically creating his own timing gap and then using that gap in support of Lechmere's guilt.

When I first joined this forum I made a number of posts in support of Lechmere's candidacy as a JTR suspect because I can see that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of Cross compared to Mizen which few other people were prepared to accept. But I also said that the "9 minute gap" was a fiction which should be dropped. I thought Fisherman had at least taken this on board so it was disappointing to see him basically repeating the same mistakes recently, hence my very reluctant return to the debate.

Ultimately I'm trying to persuade Fisherman of my point. There's no point being nice or diplomatic about it and I don't want him to like me but I do want him to at least understand me, something he hasn't shown signs of doing.

You tell me that I should be coming up with "new ideas". With all due respect, that's not for you to be saying and I am perfectly entitled to challenge posts that I read on this forum. Having said that, I believe I have noticed a new point in favour of Lechmere's candidacy as JTR (on the timing issue of all things!) from some information I discovered about a year ago. It was posted on this forum but I think Fisherman might have missed it so if he wants to know what it is he only has to ask.

Finally I think that (for some reason) you asked me to state my views about the torso killings but I have no view on those.

Hi David
I have also in the past been intrigued by the possible time gap argument, but in your debating you made me realize something I had not thought of before-that if lech had only stated he was late for work AFTER he dallied around in Bucks row, then that may be the reason he said he was late and not because he left home late. Subtle point but well taken.

I'm still undecided on the issue, but if someone can show at what point he said it in his travels then it would be a substantial argument.

Having said that, I believe I have noticed a new point in favour of Lechmere's candidacy as JTR (on the timing issue of all things!)

I'm not sure if Fish will, but I will ask-what is it?

[Fisherman]

Why on earth do you keep repeating this? I'm not saying now, and never have said, that you have said "as a fact" that there was a gap.

Isn't that clear enough for you?

I recognise that your preferred wording is that "it seems" there is a major gap. I understand that. I have acknowledged it. I have quoted it.

But I challenge your claim that "it seems" that there is a major gap.

I want to go forward in this discussion on the basis that you are saying that "it seems" there is a major gap. I am not saying you have ever said anything else!

I cannot make myself any clearer. What is the problem?

That you cannot make yourself any clearer. So far, you have utterly failed to impress upon me that you have any sort of viable point. Unless that point is that we sometimes get timings wrong. In which case it is not exactly any revolutionary thinking you bring to the table.

And you "want to go forward in the discussion"...? Thanks, but no thanks. Enough is enough.

[David Orsam]

That you cannot make yourself any clearer. So far, you have utterly failed to impress upon me that you have any sort of viable point. Unless that point is that we sometimes get timings wrong. In which case it is not exactly any revolutionary thinking you bring to the table.

And you "want to go forward in the discussion"...? Thanks, but no thanks. Enough is enough.

Your answer convinces me 100% that you now wish to end the conversation due to the serious difficulties that you perceive you will face in answering the questions I have asked you. The excuse for not answering them that you have given in at least your last three posts is revealed as wholly bogus.

Feel free to run away from this conversation Fisherman; at least I will have the satisfaction in knowing that you realize your arguments on the timing issue are indefensible.

[Fisherman]

Your answer convinces me 100% that you now wish to end the conversation due to the serious difficulties that you perceive you will face in answering the questions I have asked you. The excuse for not answering them that you have given in at least your last three posts is revealed as wholly bogus.

Feel free to run away from this conversation Fisherman; at least I will have the satisfaction in knowing that you realize your arguments on the timing issue are indefensible.

No, you won´t. You are merely making the assumption that this is so. You think it "seems" to be so.
But it can be the other way around. And according to the exact reasoning you employ, you are therefore now making an argument that is indefensible.

Karma´s a bitch, David.

[Columbo]

Are you serious? Did someone say he didn't give the name "Cross" at the inquest? Do you think that I said that?

No, actually you said we don't know if he gave Cross at the inquest. That we only have newspaper accounts.

My question is: if he didn't give the name Cross at the inquest, then where did the papers get it from if not from Cross himself?

You didn't say anything to the contrary, I was just asking.

Columbo

[Columbo]

You did not "imply" that David didn't have new ideas, Columbo. You flatly stated it. And you now you apologize for any perceived "dis-respect" and say that there was "none intended"?

I don't intentionally disrespect anyone, I simply stated, I guess rather poorly, that I didn't think you, David and others brought any new ideas to this thread. I didn't mean for that to imply you or David didn't have new ideas. There was just this tedious going around about timing that really should've ended several pages back and nothing fresh was coming out of that tedium.

Columbo

[Pierre]

That you cannot make yourself any clearer. So far, you have utterly failed to impress upon me that you have any sort of viable point. Unless that point is that we sometimes get timings wrong. In which case it is not exactly any revolutionary thinking you bring to the table.

And you "want to go forward in the discussion"...? Thanks, but no thanks. Enough is enough.

Hi Fisherman,

The procedure you are discussing with David, or trying to discuss, since David is unclear, is a normal scientific procedure and there are real words for it.

What you have done, researching Lechmere, is:

1. Data collecting (data for Lechmere and for the murders)
2. Using explicit and systematic methods for data analysis (I hope)
3. Interpretation(s) of the data

David has done no data collecting for Lechmere as far as I know.

And he is trying to give everyone here the impression that he is offering another interpretation - which he is not, since he has not used any explicit and systematic method(s) for analysis of your data.

So ask him what his methods are.

Has David performed an internal and external source criticism?
Has David analysed all the sources systematically?
What sorts of perspectives, classifications and operationalisations of concepts from the sources is David using for his analysis?

And so on and so forth.

He must have used those to get to his "results".

I do not believe that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper but I believe that academic thinking can help us find Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

No, you won´t. You are merely making the assumption that this is so. You think it "seems" to be so.
But it can be the other way around. And according to the exact reasoning you employ, you are therefore now making an argument that is indefensible.

Karma´s a bitch, David.

You seem to me to be rambling now Fisherman, in a pretty incomprehensible way. Just thought you should know.

[David Orsam]

Hi David
I have also in the past been intrigued by the possible time gap argument, but in your debating you made me realize something I had not thought of before-that if lech had only stated he was late for work AFTER he dallied around in Bucks row, then that may be the reason he said he was late and not because he left home late. Subtle point but well taken.

I'm still undecided on the issue, but if someone can show at what point he said it in his travels then it would be a substantial argument.

Hi Abby,

Cross running late for work comes from the inquest evidence of Cross reported in the Daily Telegraph when the coroner asked him if the other man (Paul) told him who he was, to which Cross replied:

"No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself."

So this is certainly referring to a point in time after stopping to examine the body and possibly referring to a conversation between the two of them as they continued to walk for work and were discussing who should go and look for the policeman. The very fact of stopping to look at the body could have knocked Cross off his timetable and now made him late for work.

Consequences? Well if he had left reasonably on time, say shortly after 3.30, it would mean he would not necessarily have been walking quickly. He might have been strolling to work but the delay caused by finding the body made him late. In other words, the 7 minutes that Fisherman has timed the walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row might have been 8 or 9 minutes.

It should be noted incidentally that, contrary to what was stated in the TV documentary, the route from Doveton Street to Bucks Row is not the same today as it was in 1888 so timings cannot be made with any degree of certainty. And it would only have needed Cross to be delayed by something like having to tie his shoelace or waiting to cross the road until some carriages had passed down the street and a whole minute or two could easily have got swallowed up.

[David Orsam]

I'm not sure if Fish will, but I will ask-what is it?

I'm sure Fish will ask! He has to...