Charles Cross (Lechmere)

[clark2710]

I’ll keep this one open due to Gary’s point for discussion above, but going forward please try to use one of the many existing threads on Lechmere/Cross rather than starting a new one.

Thanks

JM

my apologies i posted this after doing a marathon of documentaries on JtR and typed but didn't check if it'd been done before. My mistake

[Abby Normal]

Are you out the closet as a Lechmerian now, Abby?

lol. maybe more of a lech apologist.

[drstrange169]

I’m confused by Christer’s last post, Ripperologist Magazine #169, post #35.

He purports to answer my post, but once you take all the personal insults out and read what’s left he doesn’t actually address any of the issues I raised!


1: >>For some reason, Dusty (drstrange169) transferred the debate over to another thread …<<

I made it very clear why I transferred my answer over here at the beginning of my post #28 here,

“Rather than dominate yet another thread with all things Lechmere, I've brought my reply over here.”

So why wonder?



2:>>Dusty does not bring up a number of matters …<<

Which was an odd thing to write when my closing comment of post #28, specifically said

“The above are, but two examples … I’m happy to supply more.”

Christer has habit of bulking out his replies with insults and diversions to avoid dealing with specifics, as his latest post demonstrates.
That is why I post only a couple of points at any one time, plus I don’t think anyone, other than Christer, is really interested in this silliness.



3: When Christer’s was challenged in the review about his claim Paul was about a hundred yards down Buck’s Row, when he noticed Cross. He wrote,

>>What I say is that this is a possibility, but I also point out how there are of course other possibilities.<<

I asked where did Christer claim on page 64 of his book that Paul’s 100 yard sighting was only “a possibility”? And where on that page does he,”also point out how there are of course other possibilities”?

He didn’t answer and I think it’s clear why to anyone who reads the page. Instead, he meandered through some sidetracking, presumably to distract from dealing with the actual issue raised. And, unfortunately his meandering made it worse.

He defined what he meant by "corroborate",

>>We … had a situation where the carmen were able to corroborate what the other man said.<<

So by using Christer’s own definition, which carman said Paul was 100 yards down Buck’s Row when he saw Cross and which carman "corroborated" that?
Neither, of course, it’s story Christer made up and told his readers was “corroborated”. Hence the justification of Steve’s review on this matter.

Perhaps the most bizarre piece of Christer’s reply was this,

>>I never wrote that Paul FIRST noticed Lechmere as he had walked a hundred yards down Bucks Row, did I? I wrote, and I quote:
"When he had walked about a hundred yards down Buck’s Row, making his trek on its northern pavement, he noticed a man standing in the street.”<<

So from Christer's sentence, where are we supposed to conclude where Paul was when he "first" saw Cross?

Leaving his home in Foster Street?

Walking along Bath Street?

Crossing Brady Street?

If is Christer is claiming saw him before 100 yards, why mention 100 yards?

Remember Christer has told us all this passage in his book was "corroborated" by the two carmen.

????


4: >>In order to try and resuscitate her, Robert Paul now suggested that they should prop her up<<

Back again to Christer's explicit definition of “corroborated”,

>>We … had a situation where the carmen were able to corroborate what the other man said.<<

Where did Cross claim Paul wanted to resuscitate her? And most important of all where did Paul "corroborate" it?

The facts are, we only have Cross’s statement that "He (Paul) then said, "Sit her up,". Christer has already explained that Cross’s word alone is not to be considered trustworthy, but Paul never "corroborates" Cross's story about sitting Mrs Nichols up. So why did Christer claim he did?

Cross does not say anything about Paul explaining why he wanted to sit her up. It is Christer's theory, as he has just told us, that Paul wanted to resuscitate her, but it is NOT, as he claimed, "corroborated" by either man.

Theories are fine this field of research is littered with them. But when you tell your readers that your theory is "corroborated" when it’s not, you are by definition, misleading them.

Just a quick aside how do you resuscitate someone by sitting them up, that you can’t do better whilst they are lying down?

It seems clear that Christer isn’t interested in acknowledging or addressing his mistakes so time to move on.

[Columbo]

I’m confused by Christer’s last post, Ripperologist Magazine #169, post #35.

He purports to answer my post, but once you take all the personal insults out and read what’s left he doesn’t actually address any of the issues I raised!


1: >>For some reason, Dusty (drstrange169) transferred the debate over to another thread …<<

I made it very clear why I transferred my answer over here at the beginning of my post #28 here,

“Rather than dominate yet another thread with all things Lechmere, I've brought my reply over here.”

So why wonder?



2:>>Dusty does not bring up a number of matters …<<

Which was an odd thing to write when my closing comment of post #28, specifically said

“The above are, but two examples … I’m happy to supply more.”

Christer has habit of bulking out his replies with insults and diversions to avoid dealing with specifics, as his latest post demonstrates.
That is why I post only a couple of points at any one time, plus I don’t think anyone, other than Christer, is really interested in this silliness.



3: When Christer’s was challenged in the review about his claim Paul was about a hundred yards down Buck’s Row, when he noticed Cross. He wrote,

>>What I say is that this is a possibility, but I also point out how there are of course other possibilities.<<

I asked where did Christer claim on page 64 of his book that Paul’s 100 yard sighting was only “a possibility”? And where on that page does he,”also point out how there are of course other possibilities”?

He didn’t answer and I think it’s clear why to anyone who reads the page. Instead, he meandered through some sidetracking, presumably to distract from dealing with the actual issue raised. And, unfortunately his meandering made it worse.

He defined what he meant by "corroborate",

>>We … had a situation where the carmen were able to corroborate what the other man said.<<

So by using Christer’s own definition, which carman said Paul was 100 yards down Buck’s Row when he saw Cross and which carman "corroborated" that?
Neither, of course, it’s story Christer made up and told his readers was “corroborated”. Hence the justification of Steve’s review on this matter.

Perhaps the most bizarre piece of Christer’s reply was this,

>>I never wrote that Paul FIRST noticed Lechmere as he had walked a hundred yards down Bucks Row, did I? I wrote, and I quote:
"When he had walked about a hundred yards down Buck’s Row, making his trek on its northern pavement, he noticed a man standing in the street.”<<

So from Christer's sentence, where are we supposed to conclude where Paul was when he "first" saw Cross?

Leaving his home in Foster Street?

Walking along Bath Street?

Crossing Brady Street?

If is Christer is claiming saw him before 100 yards, why mention 100 yards?

Remember Christer has told us all this passage in his book was "corroborated" by the two carmen.

????


4: >>In order to try and resuscitate her, Robert Paul now suggested that they should prop her up<<

Back again to Christer's explicit definition of “corroborated”,

>>We … had a situation where the carmen were able to corroborate what the other man said.<<

Where did Cross claim Paul wanted to resuscitate her? And most important of all where did Paul "corroborate" it?

The facts are, we only have Cross’s statement that "He (Paul) then said, "Sit her up,". Christer has already explained that Cross’s word alone is not to be considered trustworthy, but Paul never "corroborates" Cross's story about sitting Mrs Nichols up. So why did Christer claim he did?

Cross does not say anything about Paul explaining why he wanted to sit her up. It is Christer's theory, as he has just told us, that Paul wanted to resuscitate her, but it is NOT, as he claimed, "corroborated" by either man.

Theories are fine this field of research is littered with them. But when you tell your readers that your theory is "corroborated" when it’s not, you are by definition, misleading them.

Just a quick aside how do you resuscitate someone by sitting them up, that you can’t do better whilst they are lying down?

It seems clear that Christer isn’t interested in acknowledging or addressing his mistakes so time to move on.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but it is also disputed whether it was Cross or Paul who suggested sitting Nichols up.

I may be speaking out of turn but I believe Christer meant sitting her up may wake her up or jar her out of her current state when he said resuscitate, which is a perfectly correct way to use the word as I understand the definition.

Columbo

[drstrange169]

I don't have a problem with that, just Christer's claim it was corroborated.

[Columbo]

I don't have a problem with that, just Christer's claim it was corroborated.

I agree. I also agree with the review that there should have been footnotes with sources. Too bad.

[Abby Normal]

I don't have a problem with that, just Christer's claim it was corroborated.

no. you did have a problem with that. which is why you asked how you do it by sitting someone up. you know just as quick aside.

[drstrange169]

No I didn't.
Which is why I CLEARLY labeled it an "aside" question.

[Abby Normal]

No I didn't.
Which is why I CLEARLY labeled it an "aside" question.

so you cant admit to your mistakes which is what you accuse others of doing, which also makes you a hypocrite.

[The Baron]

God knows I hate to admit this, but Fisherman and Abby have the upper hand here, it was wrong to say "pure imagination" it was a mistake I wished Dusty didn't get involve here, and I also believe that Elamarna was not the right one to review Fisherman's book.



The Baron

[The Baron]

David Orsam's "Breaking Point" is a good balanced and unbiased overall take on Fisherman's book, I am sure most of us have already read it, if not here is the link:

https://www.orsam.co.uk/breakingpoint.htm

The Baron

[Fiver]

You've seen it mentioned (possibly by me on numerous occasions) that Pickfords employed van guards to protect valuable and easily portable goods and have assumed they did so on every journey of every cart in their fleet, irrespective of what the load was?

I've only see you mention vanguards in response to posts by me, so don't go patting yourself on the back. I didn't find out about vanguards from anyone on this site. The 1891 Census record for Charles Lechmere shows his son was working as a vanguard. Old Bailey records involving Pickfords also frequently mention van guards or van boys and shows they were helpful in detecting theft. Old Bailey records also show that criminals were not targeting valuable goods.

[Fiver]

Picture the scene: Lechmere rocks up at Harrison, Barber's railway arch with a van load of fresh horse flesh and HB's men look askance at him because he has what appears to be a blood smear on his apron. He in turn has his suspicions about them because they have incriminating-looking stains on their clothes.

You do understand that Harrison, Barber was a chain of horse slaughterhouses? You do understand what slaughterhouses do? It's not to receive shipments of fresh, bleeding meat. It's turn live horses into meat, bones. hooves, hair, and hides. If Charles Lechmere ever carried horseflesh he'd be picking it up from Harrison, Barber slaughterhouses, not delivering it. And horse fkesh was not shipped raw, it was cooked by Harrison Barber.

[Columbo]

no. you did have a problem with that. which is why you asked how you do it by sitting someone up. you know just as quick aside.

Curiously I wonder if either actually tried to wake Polly by giving her a gentle pat on the face, or talking to her? I know it's not mentioned but it seems the natural thing to do to a unconscious person.

[MrBarnett]

You do understand that Harrison, Barber was a chain of horse slaughterhouses? You do understand what slaughterhouses do? It's not to receive shipments of fresh, bleeding meat. It's turn live horses into meat, bones. hooves, hair, and hides. If Charles Lechmere ever carried horseflesh he'd be picking it up from Harrison, Barber slaughterhouses, not delivering it. And horse fkesh was not shipped raw, it was cooked by Harrison Barber.

You don’t seem to know very much about the London horseflesh trade.

You will find a lot more info here: https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/vict...e-slaughterers than in the source you’ve quoted.