Leaving one's beat

[Elamarna]

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

[John G]

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!

[Elamarna]

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

[John G]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425191]

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?

[Pierre]

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

[Elamarna]

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

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=John G;425198]

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

[John G]

Not sure if this has been posted before but here's an extremely detailed map from 1868: http://london1868.com/weller32.htm

[John G]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425206]

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.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=John G;425217]

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

[John G]

And here's what appears to be a detailed map from 1850: http://london1850.com/crossnb.htm And Bakers Row is still there!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425202]

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.

1. We know that the name Lechmere is nowhere in the press. It is a well established fact.

2. Absence of sources is not a reason for imagining a source on which to build an hypothesis.

However one cannot build a case on maybes, well one can but you don't get far.

Or on none existing sources.

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.

Otherwise Lechmere. Always Lechmere. But not in the press from the Nichols inquest and not in the police papers. Cross. Not "Cross, otherwise Lechmere".

And as you are pointing out here, that is the only occurence in the sources of Cross except from the source for young Charles Cross.

So again, why Cross, and not as others did, stating the whole truth, in his case: "Cross, otherwise Lechmere"?

We do not need to ignore this question for fear of supporting the theory of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

It was a name he wished to use at that point,

Obviously, yes. One step forward to a motive...he wished to use it in order to...- what?

the reason for such being unknown,

You mean motive.

but maybe just to keep his family out of the spotlight of the press.

And what people is he trying to make himself and his family invisible to? His wife, kids, mother?

Or "all other people" who did not know the name Cross?

And why?

i see nothing sinister in the use of the name.

Sinister meaning harmful or evil. No. On the contrary. What we have here is sources indicating a rational subject in the past. Rational choice. So Cross did not have a sinister motive.

He had the best motive he could have.

Or do you think he wanted to harm himself or his family? Was Cross not a rational subject wanting to acchieve the best possible outcome? Any sources for that?

Yes, there are sources for that. He was aware of the importance of being sworn when testifying. We know this since he did not call himself Smith. We know this since he gave his true addresses. So Cross was not a false name, just as you say. It was just half the truth. Why? What did he gain from it? Since there is good evidence he was a rational subject.

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.

And Paul came to the inquest day 3, after Mizen and after Cross. And he was not asked.

Therefore we can not expect any corroboration. So what we have is the statements of Mizen. And Cross.

Of course there is more which leads me to believe that Mizen told what was for him a white lie, that is it was not aimed to do any harm to any other person.

You now "believe" your own construction the "white lie" on the part of Mizen. And Fisherman believes his own construction the "black lie" on the part of Lechmere.

And here is the theoretical symmetry in itīs perfection. White against black. Steve against Fisherman.

Are you a free thinker, Steve? I do think you are. And you do have integrity, I have seen it here many times. And therefore it will be very interesting to see your results, on which you are working so hard it seems, and when they are published here I do hope, but who am I to hope, they are not just a negative of the so called theory of Fisherman.

As for Mizen, 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.

White King against Black King. Mizen against Cross. Steve against Fisherman.

Sources about historical carman Lechmere being the catalyst of social bias in 2017.

And there is the past talking to us from the pages of the press. What does it say?

Cheers, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425221]

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

Hi Steve,

Look forward to reading your take on things. My issue is why would being told he was wanted my another officer exonerate him from a failure to take down basic details? And if it doesn't, why not give a version closer to the truth?

[Elamarna]

1. We know that the name Lechmere is nowhere in the press. It is a well established fact.


2. Absence of sources is not a reason for imagining a source on which to build an hypothesis.

That does not mean it was not given, as we both know the press reports are not exact.
However you are right, one cannot build an hypothesis on such, and i do not try to

Otherwise Lechmere. Always Lechmere. But not in the press from the Nichols inquest and not in the police papers. Cross. Not "Cross, otherwise Lechmere".

And as you are pointing out here, that is the only occurence in the sources of Cross except from the source for young Charles Cross.

So again, why Cross, and not as others did, stating the whole truth, in his case: "Cross, otherwise Lechmere"?

We do not need to ignore this question for fear of supporting the theory of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

One is not ignoring it, at least not in my main work, here i have just put it on the side burner for now, one can't discuss all every time.

Obviously, yes. One step forward to a motive...he wished to use it in order to...- what?


You mean motive.


And what people is he trying to make himself and his family invisible to? His wife, kids, mother?

Or "all other people" who did not know the name Cross?And why?

We do not know. you suggested in the past from the killer, others suggest from the authorities. If you were able to elaborate on your idea then we would have a possible reason.

Of course he is easily traceable having given both home and work place.

I just say from the press and public in general,

Or do you think he wanted to harm himself or his family? Was Cross not a rational subject wanting to acchieve the best possible outcome? Any sources for that?

No not at all.

Yes, there are sources for that. He was aware of the importance of being sworn when testifying. We know this since he did not call himself Smith. We know this since he gave his true addresses. So Cross was not a false name, just as you say. It was just half the truth. Why? What did he gain from it? Since there is good evidence he was a rational subject.

Anonymity for his family, and maybe himself, but he could be traced by someone if they really wanted to.

And Paul came to the inquest day 3, after Mizen and after Cross. And he was not asked.

Therefore we can not expect any corroboration. So what we have is the statements of Mizen. And Cross.

I disagree, while the Lloyds article is unreliable in many places, particularly where Paul puts himself at the forefront of events or criticizes the police, it never the less does provide corroboration for actions of both Lechmere and Mizen, and their inquest statements at various points similarly provide corroboration for Paul.

You now "believe" your own construction the "white lie" on the part of Mizen. And Fisherman believes his own construction the "black lie" on the part of Lechmere.

And here is the theoretical symmetry in itīs perfection. White against black. Steve against Fisherman.

To Ignore the possibility would be wrong, let others decide if they think it as merit. however if others do not agree I am happy to revert to my previous postilion of a simply misunderstanding.

Are you a free thinker, Steve? I do think you are. And you do have integrity, I have seen it here many times. And therefore it will be very interesting to see your results, on which you are working so hard it seems, and when they are published here I do hope, but who am I to hope, they are not just a negative of the so called theory of Fisherman.
White King against Black King. Mizen against Cross. Steve against Fisherman.

I sincerely hope not myself, am not looking to be negative to Fish, however such is the by product in some areas.

The very point that this take on the Scam started out completely differently leads me to hope i am seeking a possible truth rather than just arguing for the sake of it.
In short it began when looking at alternative beats for Neil and how such would affect the arrival times of both he and Mizen at the murder site.

This lead me to question just how fast Mizen responded, it was only when working on the testimony of Neil that the light flashed at me so to speak.
which resulted in further research to see if such a proposal was even possible.

Sources about historical carman Lechmere being the catalyst of social bias in 2017.

And there is the past talking to us from the pages of the press. What does it mean?

Cheers, Pierre

Not being an historian i hope others will help on that one


steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=John G;425227]

Hi Steve,

Look forward to reading your take on things. My issue is why would being told he was wanted my another officer exonerate him from a failure to take down basic details? And if it doesn't, why not give a version closer to the truth?

on the first issue, if he was told another policeman had sent them , he could reasonably assume that such details ha d already been taken.

However there is more to the argument than simply not taking of names.

The press could have made his life very bad, if the version i hold to had come out.


Steve