Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our Charles Cross

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Again misleading, the post in question were posted over a week ago, 15th June.
    You were not asked just when you were away for a day or two but on the 15th.
    That you did not bother to reply is your choice.
    However to claim that a holiday taken a week after the posts is being used to get at you, is just more of the same old tales of being treated unfairly, such as we both are ver0y well aware is untrue.


    Steve
    Well, itīs good to have it established that you entered this part of the debate with the prejudice that I am deceiving myself if I think I an be honest. After that, it is up to others to say whether that is a fair stance to work from or not, and if it has any influence on this particular debate, where - incidentally - you claim that I have said that the DT and the DN support me on the blood issue, although I have quoted in full exactly what they said so that anybody can check for themselves.

    That is what your debating amounts to.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Give me an example of something i have claim is probably true, rather than just a possible alternative to one of your suggestions and i will supply evidence to make my view.


    Steve
    But it is not a question of you having said something is probably true, it is a question of you claiming that you lean against factual evidene whereas I do not.

    And all along, it is instead a question of you suggesting alternative innocent explanations that have nothing at all in the way of evidence going for them.

    Thatīs what I dislike. When somebody gets on his high horses and calims factual superiority, then that someone needs to be a lot better equipped for that trip than you are.

    Example: Lechmere disagreed with Mizen about what he had said on the murder night. If Mizen was right, it furthermore applies that what Lechmere said, was a perfectly shaped phrasing to take him past the police unsearched.

    Does that fact go away because you come up with the idea that Mizen could have lied? No. That is speculation only, which tells it apart from the facts of the case. It is of very limited value until proven.

    See what I mean?

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    ... where I have answered it, noticing that you used my vacation to claim that I "avoided" this.

    Anything that rocks your boat, Steve ...
    Again misleading, the post in question were posted over a week ago, 15th June.
    You were not asked just when you were away for a day or two but on the 15th.
    That you did not bother to reply is your choice.
    However to claim that a holiday taken a week after the posts is being used to get at you, is just more of the same old tales of being treated unfairly, such as we both are ver0y well aware is untrue.


    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Pick any of them, Steve. In what case have you used factual grounds to suggest an innocent explanation where I point to the possibility of a guily one?

    Or is the factuality just one of "we know this has happened in other instances, so it could have happened here too"?

    Is that what your factuality stretches to?
    Give me an example of something i have claim is probably true, rather than just a possible alternative to one of your suggestions and i will supply evidence to make my view.


    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Allen?

    If your Sunday best (form-filling) name is Charles Allen Lechmere and your workaday one is Charlie Cross, what is the most likely name you would provide to a coroner?

    From most to least likely, I'd say:

    Charles Allen Lechmere aka Charles Cross
    Charles Allen Lechmere
    Charles Cross
    Charles Allen Cross

    For me the 'Allen' sits uncomfortably with the 'Cross'. He felt it necessary to give his middle name but not his real surname?

    If an official asked me my name, I'd probably say Gary Barnett. If he asked me for my full name I'd add my middle name. At that point, if my birth cert actually said Gary Gobbledegook, I'm pretty sure I'd mention that.
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-25-2018, 12:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    There MIGHT be all kinds of reasons for just about anything, but it usually boils down to the overwhelmingly likely one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    What had he to gain from doing so? What would he have been trying to hide by only giving his work address? Was he afraid that someone was going to come forward and say, "Yeah. That Charlie Cross from 32 Acacia Avenue is always running kids over"?

    He was identified as a Pickfords driver, and that was good enough. The attribution of a sinister motivation is preposterous.
    You are not answering or commenting on the part you quoted, Gareth. You quote a post where I speak to Steve about how he says that he has factual grounds for what he says out here (implying that somebody else has not).

    But never mind! it is clear what you are saying anyhow.

    I agree with you, as a matter of fact, to a degree at least. It would be wrong to assume that there was a sinister motive behind the lacking address.

    Then again, I am not assuming that there was. I am saying that there MAy have been such a motive, not least since we have a possible correlation with the inquest material, where it seems the Star reporter could have gotten his home address from a clerk. If this was so, then we have two instances of sudden, violent death with a carman named Charles Cross involved. And in both instances, it seems possible that he omitted to give his home address, whereas others did.

    Could be perfectly trivial, could be that the Star reporter was the only one interested in writing his name down in the article and so on and so forth - but it could also be that there WAS a sinister reason. And it IS a tad strange that there are all these things that are so very useful for anyone who makes a case against Lechmere.

    But donīt think that I am saying that it is a proven thing that it had a sinister reason - others will take care of that for you, Iīm sure. It is a very common thing to misrepresent what I say like that. It seems like the lifeblood of the criticism aimed at the theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Pick any of them, Steve. In what case have you used factual grounds to suggest an innocent explanation where I point to the possibility of a guily one?
    What had he to gain from doing so? What would he have been trying to hide by only giving his work address? Was he afraid that someone was going to come forward and say, "Yeah. That Charlie Cross from 32 Acacia Avenue is always running kids over"?

    He was identified as a Pickfords driver, and that was good enough. The attribution of a sinister motivation is preposterous.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    I appears you do not fully read what is posted in response to your own posts.
    I refer to your post # 6 in the thread on Mizen's inquest statement, and my post's 7,8,9 &10.
    I have followed this up with another post this evening on the same thread.


    Steve
    ... where I have answered it, noticing that you used my vacation to claim that I "avoided" this.

    Anything that rocks your boat, Steve ...
    Last edited by Fisherman; 06-24-2018, 11:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Ask for a specific example and i will happily oblige.


    Steve
    Pick any of them, Steve. In what case have you used factual grounds to suggest an innocent explanation where I point to the possibility of a guily one?

    Or is the factuality just one of "we know this has happened in other instances, so it could have happened here too"?

    Is that what your factuality stretches to?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    The reason I asked was because you stated with certainty that the carman omitted to give his address "all the other witnesses supply their addresses but the carman ommits to mention where he lives."

    So.

    It would seem obvious that such a statement cannot be based on the article alone, at least not if one adheres to a coherent methodology.

    I therefore expected you to have some other source with which to back your claim. But I see now that you've moderated your statement, so it's only "indicative".
    Since that is what we have to go on, yes. it IS indicative of the carman not having given his address. I often wish there was decisive proof in every twist and turn of the case, but letīs face it - if there was, i would not have the pleasure of debating you about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
    Gary, first of all, thanks again for finding this news clip in the first place. I believe it is you also who has raised the question about not giving his, the driver's home address. On this very thread.



    You opened a can of worms with your comment about "addresses." Knowing you, I don't think you typed your 'address' posts from a bag phone at 5.58 am from the moors of Stonehenge. No, knowing you Gary, you have an ace in the hole. In addition to this find, you have also found a newspaper report from the 1870's - 1880's covering an inquest into a vehicular accident on the streets of Metropolitan London involving a fatality, and contained in this other news report, in addition to stating the name and company affiliation of the commercial van driver involved, the report also prints the driver's home address. You have found such a report. Haven't you.

    Roy
    Not sure I'm following you, Roy.

    If I had found such a report, I would probably have worded my post a little more strongly than '...intriguing. Nothing more than that.'

    But it's perhaps worth looking for reports of similar incidents to see whether the omission of the driver's address was the norm.

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy Corduroy
    replied
    Gary, first of all, thanks again for finding this news clip in the first place. I believe it is you also who has raised the question about not giving his, the driver's home address. On this very thread.

    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    It goes without saying that the absence of an address for the Pickfords man need not be significant. But it could be. And I find the fact that every other person mentioned in the report has an address quoted intriguing. No more than that.
    You opened a can of worms with your comment about "addresses." Knowing you, I don't think you typed your 'address' posts from a bag phone at 5.58 am from the moors of Stonehenge. No, knowing you Gary, you have an ace in the hole. In addition to this find, you have also found a newspaper report from the 1870's - 1880's covering an inquest into a vehicular accident on the streets of Metropolitan London involving a fatality, and contained in this other news report, in addition to stating the name and company affiliation of the commercial van driver involved, the report also prints the driver's home address. You have found such a report. Haven't you.

    Roy

    Leave a comment:


  • Kattrup
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    I think thar the fact that the carmans address does not figure in an article where the other witnessesīaddresses do, is indicative of him not having supplied it.
    The reason I asked was because you stated with certainty that the carman omitted to give his address "all the other witnesses supply their addresses but the carman ommits to mention where he lives."

    So.

    It would seem obvious that such a statement cannot be based on the article alone, at least not if one adheres to a coherent methodology.

    I therefore expected you to have some other source with which to back your claim. But I see now that you've moderated your statement, so it's only "indicative".

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    I was not pointing you out as the single source of misrepresentations. But when you speak of self deception on my behalf when I describe how I do my work on Lechmere, you are overstepping the line. For example. And the same goes for being "astonished" by how I check whether Lechmere can be guilty or not - and then whining about how I picked you up on that particular word.

    It wonīt do, quite simply.


    Unfortunately you have not described how you do your work on Lechmere, I have no idea how you work.
    However real research, data collection, should not be confused with personal opinions that masquerades as historical anaylisis

    I used the word astonishing just once, in the following context:

    "Now logically we would think if it were the same man it would imply he used the name Cross at work. However what has occurred from some pro Lechmere "researchers" is truly astonishing.

    It has been suggested that :

    He used the name Cross when he was in trouble (if he used it at work all the time, such of course fails).

    That he may have deliberately run over the child, and it was not an accident.

    Or that he decided at a very early age to use the alias "Cross" at work to allow him to hide his identity when he wanted."


    It was used to describe how several proLechmere researchers have responded over the last few months, since the discovery of the Puckfords "Cross"


    Yet in your post #39 you mentioned it 4 times in various forms of the word.

    There is no overstepping of any line, if one is going to propose historical, or any form of research for that matter, theory in a public forum, so long as there are not attacks on the person of a personal nature or similar comments about their family; then all critism, if honest, is justified.
    That includes obseravations and critism of the methodology used.



    Now, instead of hinting at things, go ahead and produce the EXACT things where you claim I am lying about Mizen, more or less. Surely, that cannot be asking too much from a poster who claims that I avoid issues?


    I appears you do not fully read what is posted in response to your own posts.
    I refer to your post # 6 in the thread on Mizen's inquest statement, and my post's 7,8,9 &10.
    I have followed this up with another post this evening on the same thread.


    Steve
    Last edited by Elamarna; 06-24-2018, 12:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X