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:
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Michael W Richards 2 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by c.d. 5 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Robert St Devil 11 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Michael W Richards 11 minutes ago.
Audio -- Visual: Mention of JtR in recent episode of "The Flash" - by GUT 15 minutes ago.
Audio -- Visual: Mention of JtR in recent episode of "The Flash" - by Pcdunn 17 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (41 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - (13 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (11 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (7 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (7 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (5 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 > Police Officials and Procedures > General Police Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #211  
Old 08-12-2017, 05:05 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
And saying this you have to ignore all the problems with such an idea pointed out by David Orsam.

His dear boy Pierre
Not ignore Pierre, just consider, analysis, question and hopefully explain away.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 08-12-2017, 05:23 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Hi John,

Didnt have this one so great.
It shows Bakers Row as such in 1872, so still not clear how church street becomes Church Row, again possible misreporting.
.

And additionally no sign of a Campbell Street, so josh is probably correct it was a mistake by the reporter.


Steve
Thanks Steve,

As Joshua points out the change in place names is a bit confusing, particularly as my sense of geography isn't great anyway. Managed to find Bucks Row and Bakers Row eventually, right in the corner of that square of the map, but it took me a little while!

And I've just noticed that my post to Frank said "I've you looked", when it should have been "have you looked", of course. I'm beginning to hate predictive text!

Last edited by John G : 08-12-2017 at 05:25 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 08-12-2017, 05:28 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Thanks Steve,

As Joshua points out the change in place names is a bit confusing, particularly as my sense of geography isn't great anyway. Managed to find Bucks Row and Bakers Row eventually, right in the corner of that square of the map, but it took me a little while!

And I've just noticed that my post to Frank said "I've you looked", when it should have been "have you looked", of course. I'm beginning to hate predictive text!
me too. especially when on the mobile phone. today at present on laptop.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 08-12-2017, 05:29 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

[quote=Elamarna;425191]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

yes but it would be his word against theirs, and could be written off as a misunderstand, as it seems it was.

Far better to have a dispute on those grounds, than one on other issues.

Steve
Hi Steve,

Do you think it would have been a problem if he'd simply said that he'd been told there was a woman lying down seriously injured, possibly dead? And that he decided this was sufficient cause to merit a response?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 08-12-2017, 05:29 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Not ignore Pierre, just consider, analysis, question and hopefully explain away.

Steve
Steve,

have you also considered the research David has done on the historical use of alternative names at inquests?

Cross did not mention that his other name was Lechmere, as did others in his situation.

Why did not Cross tell the court his name was "Cross, otherwise Lechmere"?

That was what we can call a lie or, if being more modest, not the whole truth.

And which hypothesis is the best one and why:

(1) that Cross did not tell the whole truth, something for which we have data

- or

(2) that Mizen did not tell the whole truth, something for which we have no data?

I know you can not say what you base your interpretation on, but why is the first hypothesis (1) not the best one for you?

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 08-12-2017, 05:56 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Steve,

have you also considered the research David has done on the historical use of alternative names at inquests?

Cross did not mention that his other name was Lechmere, as did others in his situation.

Why did not Cross tell the court his name was "Cross, otherwise Lechmere"?

That was what we can call a lie or, if being more modest, not the whole truth.

And which hypothesis is the best one and why:

(1) that Cross did not tell the whole truth, something for which we have data

- or

(2) that Mizen did not tell the whole truth, something for which we have no data?

I know you can not say what you base your interpretation on, but why is the first hypothesis (1) not the best one for you?

Pierre


One could say that we do not know what name he actually gave, the wording of such is not recorded in the press reports, one example of why the original transcript would be useful.

However one cannot build a case on maybes, well one can but you don't get far.
So my opinion is that Cross was not a false name, he had been officially recorded under it at one point. indeed if we looked at that census return we could end up asking what happened to young Charles Cross, if not for the Nichols murder.

It was a name he wished to use at that point, the reason for such being unknown, but maybe just to keep his family out of the spotlight of the press. i see nothing sinister in the use of the name.

Indeed most of the rest of his testimony is corroborated by Paul, or even in some places by Mizen. There is no corroboration for Mizen on this particular issue of being wanted by another policeman.

Of course there is more which leads me to believe that Mizen told what was for him a white lie, The lie if it was one, was purely to protect himself from public ridicule and possible disciplinary action. it in no way had any effect on the outcome of the inquest, or the reputations of others until Lechmere was suggested has a suspect in recent years.


Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 08-12-2017 at 06:03 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 08-12-2017, 06:01 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,709
Default

[quote=John G;425198]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post

Hi Steve,

Do you think it would have been a problem if he'd simply said that he'd been told there was a woman lying down seriously injured, possibly dead? And that he decided this was sufficient cause to merit a response?
That is the issue john, did he respond to the information he was given.
also it would not cover his not taking down details. and while he may have got away with such, once he did not say such on the 31st, his hands were tied after the inquest on the 1st and by the lloyds report

Its interesting the more i discuss this the more confident i feel. and to think i almost tossed the idea away.


Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 08-12-2017 at 06:04 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 08-12-2017, 06:10 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Not sure if this has been posted before but here's an extremely detailed map from 1868: http://london1868.com/weller32.htm
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 08-12-2017, 06:26 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

[quote=Elamarna;425206]
Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post

That is the issue john, did he respond to the information he was given.
also it would not cover his not taking down details. and while he may have got away with such, once he did not say such on the 31st, his hands were tied after the inquest on the 1st and by the lloyds report

Its interesting the more i discuss this the more confident i feel. and to think i almost tossed the idea away.


Steve
Hi Steve,

Yes, its obviously possible he had no intention of responding, until he was possibly signalled by PC Neil.
However, in any subsequent lie, intended to indicate that he did take Cross and Paul's information seriously, and responded accordingly, I'm struggling to see why "woman lying down seriously injured" is any less of an explanation than "wanted by another officer", particularly as the former is much closer to the actual truth.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 08-12-2017, 06:31 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,709
Default

[quote=John G;425217]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post

Hi Steve,

Yes, its obviously possible he had no intention of responding, until he was possibly signalled by PC Neil.
However, in any subsequent lie, intended to indicate that he did take Cross and Paul's information seriously, and responded accordingly, I'm struggling to see why "woman lying down seriously injured" is any less of an explanation than "wanted by another officer", particularly as the former is much closer to the actual truth.

i see your issue, the effect of saying he is wanted by another officer takes the onus away from the questions he does not want asked, thats the issue to me.
and of course just saying there's a woman lying does not excuse him from taking down some basic details.

i hope it will be clearer soon.


steve
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 04:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.