Criteria for plausibility

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"Semantics, Fish...You're very clever at it (as befits a good journalist)...but pure semantics all the same...and yes I expect you to persist in arguing on the same track...so carry on showboating by all means!"

Youīre not so bad with semantics yourself - you just turned my argument into "showboating", and thatīs a clever enough thing to do.
Look, Dave, many people would have used aliases in the East End of 1888, I am not opposing that. They would have been around in thousands. What I AM opposing is that it would have been a thing the man and woman on the street normally did.
You write "when talking to the authorities, almost every denizen of the East End used an alias", and that is simply wrong. I would recommend a thorough look at the Booth map of street statuses. In it, the streets are coloured according to what kind of status the people living in them upheld. The different ratings were:
-Lower class; vicious, semi-criminal
-Mixed; some comfortable, others poor
-Fairly comfortable; good ordinary earnings
-Middle class; well-to-do
and
-Upper middle and upper classes; wealthy
Now, much as the truly wealthy stayed in other parts of London (although there were people who earned good money and kept servants and so forth in Whitechapel), the other classes are all richly represented. The well-to-do middle class, for example is very dominant along Whitechapel Road. And these were people who would emphatically NOT use aliases.
Dr Llewellyn, for example - what do you propose he called himself, talking to the police? And all of the other doctors living in the area, Killeen, Blackwell etcetera? And you donīt need to speak only of doctors or more high-ranking members of society. What did Mrs Maxwell call herself when speaking to the police? George Lusk, did he use aliases? George Morrison? Timothy Donovan? Patrick Mulshaw? Sven Olsen? Joseph Lawende? Fanny Mortimer?
These are all people who are there in the birth registers, recorded by their true names and giving the same names to the police when speaking to them (well, to be fair, Lawende did change his name, but that was in order to make it easier for the Brits to understand).
The victims of the Ripper all lived their lives in the East-End underworld. They lived in doss-houses in streets that were classed as vicious and semi-criminal by Booth. And thereīs your correlation for you: Semi-criminal/Use of aliases. The witnesses the police were handed, also came from the exact same background to a very large extent. They too were living under "vicious, semi-criminal" circumstances. Therefore, the share of people involved in the investigation is not representative of the East-end as a whole - a much more law-abiding and much less alias-using community.
We must also realize that poverty did not have to equal using aliases or being semi-criminal. The inhabitants of George Yard Buildings, for example, were described as the poorest of the poor - but patently honest people. Meaning that John Saunders Reeves, Elizabeth Mahoney and Alfred Crow had been given these names at birth (or marriage, in Mahoneyīs case), and stayed with them throughout their lives.
... and if that is showboating, then Iīm Mother Goose.

The best,
Fisherman

[sleekviper]

Criteria for most cases? Nit wit with a butter knife, and three semi sane witnesses. For this case:
12 detectives drawing(guns)
11 prostitutes peeking
10 lords a leering
9 ladies fainting
8 news men musing
7 sheriffs shooting(guns)
6 cameras snapping
5 not so gold rings(in his pocket)
4 calling "HELP!"
3 french tourists
2 famous artists
and a victim clutching a sleeve.
That should pretty much put at least somebody in print, picture, and art, with a few witnesses in case he is missed with all the gunfire.

[Tom_Wescott]

Once again, Harry makes the most amount of sense with the least amount of words.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[harry]

Fisherman,
If the Ripper wasn't seeking victims.then wha t w as his state of thinking before each kill,and if Cross had not set out solely with the intention of going to his place of employment,what had been been his intentions?I believe the state of mind of both,can,be seen in what was said and done.

[mariab]

Most probably. Thanx for the warning, lol.

[Tom_Wescott]

Heard through the grapevine that Trevor Marriott is even gonna give a talk on this subject at the Hull.

I'd be careful about using the 'H' word, as I think Mike Covell owns the rights to it. You owe him a shilling now.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Heard through the grapevine that Trevor Marriott is even gonna give a talk on this subject at the Hull... (lol) err, the York conf in September. Personally I prefer his ledgers talk, wonder why that is.

[Tom_Wescott]

I knew it! Then perhaps, Mr. Reeks, you'll have some insight into the new 'giant tampon' theory making the rounds on threads relating to Eddowes and her apron.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

You should be careful, Fish, because I'm wondering that 'Garry Wrote' might just be....wait for it.....

An alias!!!!

Okay, Tom, you've got me bang to rights. In reality I'm the internationally recognized expert in feminine hygiene, Fanny Reeks.

[Cogidubnus]

'Garry Wrote' might just be....wait for it.....

An alias!!!!

Hi Tom

Just so long as it's not another bloody anagram!

All the best

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

I must agree that Garry Wroe is the biggest cyber bully the Casebook has ever seen, second only to Robert Charles Linford. You should be careful, Fish, because I'm wondering that 'Garry Wrote' might just be....wait for it.....

An alias!!!!

And if that's the case, none of us are safe.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Semantics, Fish...You're very clever at it (as befits a good journalist)...but pure semantics all the same...and yes I expect you to persist in arguing on the same track...so carry on showboating by all means!

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"Be careful when you make sweeping statements like that!"

I canīt. It is impossible to make sweeping statements and be careful at the same time.

"almost every denizen of the East End used an alias or lied on general principles."

Be careful when you make sweeping statements like that!

"How can I explain to you the immense distrust East-Enders (particularly in Whitechapel/Wapping) felt for the authorities (especially but not exclusively the rozzers) right up into the nineteen fifties and sixties..."

Well, Dave, the good news is that you donīt have to - I already know that, just as I know that the police was very positive about the useful response and helpfulness the self-same East-enders awarded them during the Ripper scare.

It is not a "sweeping statement" to claim that people who had something to hide were more likely to use an alias than people with nothing to hide. It was true back then, and it is true today. No disrespect towards your great great grandfather, Dave, but I am not speaking of him here - I am speaking of a generalized picture in a case where we may allow ourselves to generalize.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"So do you still maintain that you have not ‘dubbed Lechmere the Ripper at this stage’?"

Garry, you are much too clever for me! Listing them quotes really point to me being of the meaning that Lechmere was the killer, I have to give you that!
And what a fascinating discussion it makes for - Iīm sure that all and sundry are very happy to have me dissected instead of engaging in Ripperology!

Would it be okay with you if I make a slight distinction here? I do think that Lechmere was the Whitechapel killer, yes. Unfortunately, that does not mean that he must have been so. You see, I am not saying that he WAS the killer - I am saying that I personally BELIEVE that this was the case.

Of course, if my belief is all it takes to dub Charles Lechmere the Ripper, then we can all go home. Somehow, however, I suspect that this will not be enough.

A wide variety of people have done the exact same thing that I do. They have investigated a suspect, and come to the conclusion that their man would probably have been the Ripper. Almost all of them - the exceptions are few - have refrained from saying "I must be correct". This is due to an insight that the evidence involved is not enough to convict their suspects. I differ in no way on this point - I am of the meaning that Lechmere was the killer, but I cannot prove it conclusively since there is not enough evidence. This is why I say "the way I see things", "I think Lechmere killed Nichols" and things like that. What I do NOT say is that I can be certain that he was the killer.

Would you like me to say that, Garry? That I am certain of it? I canīt help but feel that you are after me personally here. Tom Wescott hinted earlier at the possibility that some people seem to prefer attacking the theorist instead of the theory. I realize what he means.
In your case, some time back, you could have chosen to ask why I did not mention some sources. Instead you chose to imply that I had disregarded these sources in favour of the ones that fit my reasoning.
Now you are campaigning to point me out as untruthful about my convictions.

I would, if you donīt much mind, respectfully ask you to try and refrain from such things. If you want to discuss the case, fine. If you have useful criticism, so much the better - it will advance our knowledge and insights.

But if you only wish to make condescending personal remarks, I think you are doing the purpose of the boards an injustice.

Finally, letīs not leave you in any doubt: I think that Charles Allen Lechmere killed Polly Nichols in the early morning hours of the 31:st of August 1888, and lied his way out of the situation. When/if you read my upcoming dissertation, you will have me stating that I think that Lechmere is the best bid by far for the Ripperīs role, you will have me suggesting that we (well) may finally have run the killer to the ground, and you will have me saying more or less outright that what we are left with after a thorough investigation of Lechmere is the Ripper.
So, Garry, three different levels of accusations, sort of. How will you deal with that, I wonder? By giving my theory a long good afterthought, after which you bring up caserelated details only - or by accusing me of inconsistency? Only one approach will make for a useful discussion, mind you.

All the best, Garry!

Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

because they lived shady lifes on the shady side of society! Prostitutes, thieves, murderers, con artists, pimps, people who owned loan sharks money ... that kind of people used aliases. An upstanding, honest carman did not.

I think you'll find that, when talking to the authorities, almost every denizen of the East End used an alias or lied on general principles...How can I explain to you the immense distrust East-Enders (particularly in Whitechapel/Wapping) felt for the authorities (especially but not exclusively the rozzers) right up into the nineteen fifties and sixties...Phil Carter (and doubtless others) will tell you...For the majority of people the police weren't a reassuring presence...in the mid to late 19th century they were still the enemy...

My great great grandfather was a McCarthy ...there's no particular proof he was any more or any less crooked than his neigbours...but when he felt like it and when he came up against authority, (even on his marriage certificate for example), he was suddenly Carty...

Be careful when you make sweeping statements like that!

Dave