Charles Cross (Lechmere)

[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

[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.

[drstrange169]

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

[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.

[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.

[drstrange169]

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

[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’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.

[Abby Normal]

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

lol. maybe more of a lech apologist.

[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

[drstrange169]

>>I’m lost - how do we have evidence that leans in favour of his having an alibi? He was a cart driver, delivering who knows what to who knows where or when. In a twelve-hour shift, say, do we imagine he never had the opportunity to leave his cart to answer a call of nature or to get a bite to eat or a drink?<<

So his modus operandi wasn't to kill on the way to work after all?

[drstrange169]

Moving another post over from the same thread ...

>> i agree with fish that els past history with fish and his theory, the well known contentiousness and disagreements theyve had over the years, really should have precluded him for being the one to have written the review<<

Steve has written, to date, the definitive book on Buck's Row. That, I would have thought, made him eminently qualified to review Christer's book. He had a duty to be fair and honest in his review and as far as I can see he was.

"Cutting Edge is a necessary book. We have needed a clear and ordered presentation of the Lechmere theory, and Christer Holmgren is the very best person to have given it to us. There is no question in my mind that it’s a book every serious student of the case should have on their bookshelf."
Steven Blomer Rippoerlogist 169

What author would not want a review that wrote that?

As to Christer's complaints about the review, they have been shown to be incorrect. Rule of thumb with reviews is, controversy sells more books, I can't see a problem.

[drstrange169]

Over on the Ripperologist Magazine #169 - July 2021 thread

(https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-169-july-2021)

Christer made some claims that Steve Blomer’s review of his book “Cutting Point” in that issue, were factually in correct. Rather than dominate yet another thread with all things Lechmere, I've brought my reply over here.

In said review, Steve wrote,

“Some of it is pure imagination, such as his claim that Robert Paul was a hundred yards or more from Lechmere when he first became aware of him.”

Christer countered,

“You (Steve Blomer) write that I state "pure imagination" as fact when saying that Robert Paul was a hundred yards or more away from Lechmere when the latter first became aware of his presence. What I say is that this is a possibility, but I also point out how there are of course other possibilities. I do not claim any of them as a factually proven distance, so I am a bit flummoxed when you say that I do.”

So is Christer complaint correct?

On page 63 of “Cutting Point” with regards to Paul meeting Cross he wrote,

“Here is the corroborated version …”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "corroborate" thus,

Corroborate - to support with evidence or authority : make more certain.

So when Christer claimed (page 64 Cutting Point),

“When he (Paul) had walked about a hundred years down Buck’s Row”

He was NOT “say(ing) is that this is a possibility” nor was he “also point(ing) out how there are of course other possibilities”. It is therefore legitimate for a reader to believe meant it as a “factually proven distance”.

Who corroborated this distance? Not Lechmere, he couldn’t possibly know. Not Paul, as nowhere, in either his Lloyds interview nor his reported witness testimony, does he say where he was when he first saw Cross.

Conclusion one: Steve Blomer was justified in using the term “pure imagination" in regards to Christer’s allegedly corroborated claim.

Conclusion two: Christer has no justification in claiming it.

Conclusion three: There is no claim by Paul of where he was when he first saw Cross and there is not and cannot be any corroboration of a false claim.


Is there anything else in this passage on page 64 that could be described as “pure imagination”?
Two thirds of the way down page 64 of "Cutting Point" and still within Christer's defined category of corroborated evidence is this sentence,

“ In order to try and resuscitate her, Robert Paul now suggested that they should prop her up”

Nowhere in anybody’s testimony is the claim of resuscitating her made let alone corroborated.

In fact, even the claim that Paul wanted to sit her up is not corroborated, as only Cross made that claim.

Conclusion four: the use of the word resuscitation can jus=tifibly described as "pure imagination".

Conclusion five: The story of Paul wanting to move Mrs. Nichols is not corroborated
The above are, but two examples which justify Steve Blomer’s review.

I think the point is made but, I’m happy to supply more.

[JeffHamm]

Hi MrBarnett,

Any talk of an alibi for Chapman is pretty meaningless unless it’s based on evidence that makes it highly improbable that Lechmere could have been in the vicinity of Hanbury Street around 5/5.30.

Hi MrBarnett,

I've been thinking a bit more about this and it's really just struck me that you're presenting a modified version of Fisherman's theory, which I hadn't fully appreciated earlier, so some of the implications change. Fisherman insists Chapman was murdered before Cross/Lechmere gets to work, that she was murdered well before 4:00 and that the eye/ear witness statements are wrong (either mistaken or deliberate falsehoods, wouldn't matter which). There are a number of threads and posts by him where this is absolutely clear. I could be wrong, and maybe he's changed his mind on this, but I've not seen him say that he now believes Chapman was murdered at the time indicated by the eye/ear witnesses and have only seen him argue strongly that the doctor's estimate of the ToD by touching the body is accurate, placing her murder at a time that Cross/Lechmere is still going to work, not after he started.

But you are suggesting that Cross/Lechmere murders Chapman while doing his job, not while walking to work (references to his cart being parked up around the market, etc, all mean we're talking of him committing murder while doing his deliveries, or on his return trips). While Fisherman will not agree with you on that, and has made it very clear that in his theory Chapman is long dead by the time Cross/Lechmere starts his days work, we can still work with that modified idea.

Also, I've seen you question whether or not Cross/Lechmere's start time was always 4:00 am. Again, that's a key aspect of the whole theory, that he's killing on his walk to work, at least to cover Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman. Stride and Eddowes are during a day off, while he's at his mothers (something like that), and Kelly I'm not sure of, I think, but could be mistaken, that she's supposed to be killed while he walks to work as well, although there's the Lord Mayor's Day and some have suggested that he might have had a day off? Others that it would be work as per normal.

Anyway, again, by arguing for a variable start time you are again modifying Fisherman's theory, which I believe he argues for a standard start time. And, what I've noticed is that both of these modifications (kills on way to work or during work; variable start time for work) are creating a less specific theory than Fisherman's original theory (kills on way to work; starts work at 4:00 am). The more specific a theory's statements are, the more testable it becomes. It "risks" being falsified because by being specific it creates situations that just should not happen. If the theory is true, of course, those risks will never result in evidence that falsifies the theory because while the disconfirming evidence won't be found.

However, in order to account for the Chapman murder you've had to modify the original theory presented and create a more relaxed, less specific, explanation than Fisherman does. Effectively, by doing so, you have rejected Fisherman's original account and are agreeing that the theory's predictions are not upheld by the evidence we have and so requires modification to take into account the "alibi evidence" (for lack of a better description). You are effectively agreeing that such information poses a sufficient challenge to the theory, as originally presented, that something must give.

In short, we agree, you've presented a new, modified, less specific theory than the original, which indicates you agree the "alibi evidence" is not accounted for by the original explanation - it provided evidence against it. Your modification, simply demonstrates how the "alibi evidence" we have is not sufficient to completely shut down the whole thing (which I've agreed with in my previous posts).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

So, Jeff, he was as likely to have been in Hanbury Street as anywhere else in a London? I’m sure Christer will be happy to hear that.

The fact is, that we don’t even know what his start time was on 8th September. The 4.00 start on 31st August is suggestive of a delivery to early morning markets. Perhaps he had a regular route or routes, perhaps not. Perhaps the goods he carried were sufficiently valuable to warrant a van guard, perhaps not. Perhaps his daily routine involved numerous trips back and forth from Broad Street with a loaded/unloaded van and afforded the opportunity of a brief stop off somewhere, perhaps not.

Any talk of an alibi for Chapman is pretty meaningless unless it’s based on evidence that makes it highly improbable that Lechmere could have been in the vicinity of Hanbury Street around 5/5.30.

Hi MrBarnett,

I may have not phrases it very well. His odds of being in Hanbury street is 1 in how ever many places there are in London he would go to. Meaning, unlikely.

Also, to apply the same arguments, all talk of him being in Hanbury Street is pretty meaningless unless it is based on evidence that makes it more probable than not that he was there. And as the evidence suggests it is more unlikely than likely he was there, it means in favour of his innocence.

Basically, everything you note is weak about his alibi applies double to the claim he was in Hanbury Street.

And as I've said all along, the alibi would need further confirmation, but there's more on the side of innocent than guilt.

- Jeff