Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Joshua Rogan 1 minute ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Abby Normal 2 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 4 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Abby Normal 11 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 13 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Walter Dew's account...... - by RockySullivan 48 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (36 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (21 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (11 posts)
Research Related: Henry Kelly - (5 posts)
Non-Fiction: Walter Dew's account...... - (4 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-24-2018, 09:20 AM
Roy Corduroy Roy Corduroy is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,579
Default

Good morning Christer,

I posted up the transcription of Gary's find here to demonstrate that yes, Charles Cross is the name the carman used in his capacity as a driver. Surely everyone at Pickford's, plus his customers instantly know who that is. It's Charles Cross.

Recall that the finding of the name Lechmere happened a decade or so before you and Ed turned it into anything suspicious. Your "aha" moment was him using the name Cross at the Nichols inquest this one and only time to the exclusion of all other times ever in recorded history.

Turns out that's not so. The 'aha' moment becomes a nothing burger. Sorry.

And no him not giving his address in this instance is not suspicious in the least bit. He gave his address in the Nichols inquest because he was a pedestrian on the way to work when he discovered her body. By contrast, for the accident inquest, his home address is not asked for nor given. He is identified as the Pickfords driver. The other addresses are given because they are germane to the story. Those people live/work there in the immediate vicinity of the accident. Likewise the father's address. Poor dad, he is upset, rightly and initially wants to blame the driver. But note the verdict, an accident.

Roy
__________________
Sink the Bismark
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-24-2018, 10:30 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
My Alternatives are for the most part backed by historical sources, they are not the product of imagination. Those that are not backed are clearly signposted as conjecture.


Steve
Which "historical sources" back up a single one of the alternative innocent explanations that you have suggested over the years, Steve?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-24-2018, 10:37 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
No misrepresentation at all.

The thread on Mizen's inquest testimony #6 contains several historical untruths. Not a question of interpretation, basic untruths.


Steve
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 won´t do, quite simply.

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?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-24-2018, 10:51 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
Good morning Christer,

I posted up the transcription of Gary's find here to demonstrate that yes, Charles Cross is the name the carman used in his capacity as a driver. Surely everyone at Pickford's, plus his customers instantly know who that is. It's Charles Cross.

Recall that the finding of the name Lechmere happened a decade or so before you and Ed turned it into anything suspicious. Your "aha" moment was him using the name Cross at the Nichols inquest this one and only time to the exclusion of all other times ever in recorded history.

Turns out that's not so. The 'aha' moment becomes a nothing burger. Sorry.

And no him not giving his address in this instance is not suspicious in the least bit. He gave his address in the Nichols inquest because he was a pedestrian on the way to work when he discovered her body. By contrast, for the accident inquest, his home address is not asked for nor given. He is identified as the Pickfords driver. The other addresses are given because they are germane to the story. Those people live/work there in the immediate vicinity of the accident. Likewise the father's address. Poor dad, he is upset, rightly and initially wants to blame the driver. But note the verdict, an accident.

Roy
1. The witnesses´addresses are not germane at all to the event, I´m afraid. Anybody who had witnessed the event and had relevant information to offer was asked to do so - not on account of where they lived but on account of what they had seen.

That was why the addresses were given, and that was why Cross´ address was equally interesting.

2. We do not know that the Charles Cross that run over the boy was Charles Lechmere.

3. If he WAS, then it still applies that he on a regular basis said his name was Lechmere - not Cross - when speaking to all sorts of authorities, and it applies that it is an anomaly that he suddenly opts for Cross when violent death is involved.

4. I - or Edward - can´t turn a name change into "something suspicious". It either is or it is not, and that is not on account of what I think about it. It is an anomaly, and that fact remains. Whether that anomaly points to guilt or not is not establishable.Certainly, the MORE anomalies involved, the LESS the chance that a suspect is innocent. That is a generalized but neverthless universal truth.

5. It is not established that Lechmere gave his address to the inquest - one paper only had the address, and they could have gotten it from a clerk. Compare the person most similar to Lechmere, Robert Paul, and check how many papers made an effort to publish his Foster Street address.

6. I had already noted the verdict. Just as I have noted how all verdicts are not justified verdicts. Nota bene that I am not saying that it seems not to have been an accident, and I for one have never suggested that it was a wilful thing. But I am not daft enough to accept a verdict as representing anything else but a legally reached stance, a stance that can have been reached on correct, wrongful, insufficient, good, bad, biased, brilliant and/or thick grounds.

7. No, I don´t think you are sorry at all. That lies in the future, if you ask me.

8. Now I have got a football match to watch, so you must forgive me for not participating any further in this. Maybe it´s just as well, going by the mistakes you made in your post.

Sor.... No, I´m not
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-24-2018, 12:12 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Which "historical sources" back up a single one of the alternative innocent explanations that you have suggested over the years, Steve?
Ask for a specific example and i will happily oblige.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-24-2018, 12:42 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
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 won´t 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 at 12:45 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-24-2018, 01:14 PM
Kattrup Kattrup is online now
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

I think thar the fact that the carmans address does not figure in an article where the other witnesses´addresses 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".
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-24-2018, 02:20 PM
Roy Corduroy Roy Corduroy is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,579
Default

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.

Quote:
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
__________________
Sink the Bismark
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-24-2018, 04:01 PM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lyme Regis, Dorset
Posts: 1,475
Default

Quote:
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-24-2018, 10:28 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,170
Default

Quote:
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 let´s face it - if there was, i would not have the pleasure of debating you about it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.