Criteria for plausibility

[Lechmere]

If I may (and at risk of being accused of being Fisherman's secret double identity... again) I think Fisherman meant that while it is not hard to find people who lived in the East End in the late Victorian period (and indeed today) who adopted an alias, it was not the normal practice. The overwhelming majority did not adopt an alias.

Furthermore may I add that most people who adopted an alias did so because they lived on the other side of the law - prostitiutes, petty criminals, people who wished to mislead the police and so on. Normal law abiding people did not tend to adopt aliases - then or now.
Also the police tended to be aware of people's true identities. We know that various people adopted aliases primarily because we know their real or alternative name. And we nearly always know their real or alternative name because the authorities at the time discovered it.

Apart from in the case of Cross/Lechmere.

[Mr Lucky]

"I had a totally jawdropping experience some time back, and thatīs what lies behind my upcoming article in Rip - so there IS more behind my stance.
Letīs just say that I took a look at something that has been looked at before, but from a different angle, and came up with something that - at least in my view (trying desperately to be as un-grandiose as possible here!) has been inexplicably overlooked. And for the life of me, I canīt understand why no other poster have seen the same thing. Itīs so obvious itīs flabbergasting.

Hello again Fisherman,

Maybe not everyone!, I've noticed a few things myself that have left me scratching my head, so I'm most intregued to find out what this one is. Best of luck with the article, Fisherman, I for one can't wait to read it.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"Does your jaw-dropping experience relate to the Nichols murder or to one of the others? Mitre Square perhaps?"

It relates strictly to the Nichols murder, Bridewell.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"So there would've been thousands of men and women on the street using aliases...but the man and woman on the street generally wouldn't...I'm sorry...am I the only person seeing a contradiction here?"

I hope so, Dave! Because "thousands of men and women" does not mean "the largest part of the population", does it? 900,000 people lived in the East End with 80,000 in Whitechapel. Of these, 75,000 were poor; 100,000 were very poor; and, about 11,000 were below very poor. Poor was one who earned a regular income of 18 - 21 shillings per week. In addition to the workhouses, 233 common lodging-houses roomed about 8,500 people.
This is the general picture we are looking at. Surely you realize that what I am saying - that the users of aliases came from the doss-house realm, the underworld, the "semi-criminal" parts of East End - is totally compatible with a picture where these alias-users came in thousands, whereas the ones who did NOT use aliases counted by the hundreds of thousands!

"Fish, you're obviously a great guy (certainly more approachable than some of the allegedly great debaters on here), but with respect you do tend as Gary Wroe suggests, to slant your statements to suit the particular argument you're making at the time..."

I can only say that I try to stay away from it, Dave. In the present issue, I hope that the figures I have given you now shows you what I mean and how I reason. 186000 of the East-enders were poor, very poor or even below very poor. That leaves us with more than 700000 East-enders that were NOT poor, and who were not economically pressed to find ways out of their misery that were not in accordance with the law.
Among the 186000 poor people, there must also have been a large amount of people who did not live lifes that called for using aliases. As you can see, around 8500 people stayed in the common lodging-houses, and this is the ground where we find our girls, Polly, Annie, Liz and Kate, forced by the circumstances to prostitute themselves by the looks of things, and therefore using aliases from time to time, trying to steer clear of the police.

This is how I look upon it, Dave. I am not in any fashion claiming that none of the 714000 NOT poor people used aliases, but I am convinced that it would not have been the general rule here, just as I am convinced that there will be a very clear connection between living under very harsh economical circumstances and committing crimes or engaging in prostitution. Likewise I am convinced that the ones who were committing crimes and engaging in prostitution, were also the ones who used aliases on a regular basis. Have a look at Tom Wecottīs fascinating Danish aquaintance, for example: Charles Le Grand, Christian Nelson, Briscony, Charles Grandy, Captain Anderson etcetera - he is a nice example of what I am saying here.

In conclusion, Iīd say that aliases were a lot more common back then than they are now, but that would relate to poor circumstances being much more common back then than they are now.

"being prepared to admit it is a different thing..."

The snag here, Dave, is that I donīt feel I have anything at all to admit. I think it is a case of you being convinced that you are right, and me being convinced that I am right. Therfore, you are trying to get me to "admit" that I was wrong all along, while I am waiting for you to "admit" that I was RIGHT all along.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. Just noticed that Lechmere (the poster) chipped in here too. I can only say that I think heīs right on both counts: Using an alias pointed to being on the wrong side of the law, and he is not me. Nor am I him.

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"Maybe not everyone!, I've noticed a few things myself that have left me scratching my head, so I'm most intregued to find out what this one is."

I would not be surprised if you are touching on the same thing that I am looking at, Mr Lucky - like I said, I am a lot more baffled by the fact that nobody else have done so.

"Best of luck with the article, Fisherman, I for one can't wait to read it."

Thanks a lot, Mr Lucky - thatīs very nice of you. And since I believe you are doing an article of your own on Lechmere as the culprit, I take the liberty to wish you the same!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally!

Your punch line down below - the Wellesley quotation - hasnīt been spelt correctly. It says "Beng" instead of "Being", and "beng" in colloquial language in the parts where I live means "stupid". Not that you would employ Swedish, I take it, but you may want to fix it anyway.

I hope you will appreciate my article, so thanks for sharing your anticipation!

The best,
Fisherman

Well Gee Fish - I'm amazed - 'Beng' means 'Stupid' in Sweden? Who knew? You learn something new every day eh? I may indeed fix it (as a minor point it's more of a signature than a punchline) or maybe I'll find a new one - what your observation really tells me is that I need new glasses, I fear.

As to your greatly anticipated article, Fish, well - if its everything you say it will be, then I'm sure I will appreciate it, yes.

But who can judge before the main event? I wouldn't even attempt it.

You know what they say (in England) - the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I guess that's why a pudding maker should avoid over-egging as a general principle.

And now its time to go to Specsavers...

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"...if its everything you say it will be..."

I canīt remember saying what it WILL be, Sally. Where did I do that? If you would be so good as to lay it out in text here, I know what you expect me to live up to!

"But who can judge before the main event?"

One would think that is a hard thing to do, but some actually have that talent! Garry, for example, fears that my analytical blindsight will lead me to formulate a set of conclusions that will be rejected by almost everyone else, and advices me to drop my "grandiose claims" (since my article is not yet published, it is quite a feat to foresee this!) and concentrate on presenting a noncommittal case, since that may save me a lot of embarrasment.
So, on the whole, we may need to accept that some articles - not necessarily all of them - CAN be judged in advance.

"'Beng' means 'Stupid' in Sweden?"

Only in colloquial language, and mainly in my part of our long-stretched country. "Beng i roten" is often used here, meaning "with a stupid root", root alluding to the head. The further north you come in Sweden, the lesser the expression will be used. Whether that ows to other colloquialisms being used up there or if the northerners are simply smarter than the rest of us is really not for me to say. Besides, if this applies, I would get things wrong anyway and thus I would probably deny it, right?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"...if its everything you say it will be..."

I canīt remember saying what it WILL be, Sally. Where did I do that? If you would be so good as to lay it out in text here, I know what you expect me to live up to!

Oh I don't think so Fish, do you? I don't think it's my responsibility to point out to you what you yourself have said about your forthcoming article. If you don't remember, the multitude of posts on the matter - on multiple threads - which you have been good enough to share with Casebook will surely remind you.

I thought it had something to do with presenting new evidence - but I may be mistaken.

"But who can judge before the main event?"

One would think that is a hard thing to do, but some actually have that talent! Garry, for example, fears that my analytical blindsight will lead me to formulate a set of conclusions that will be rejected by almost everyone else, and advices me to drop my "grandiose claims" (since my article is not yet published, it is quite a feat to foresee this!) and concentrate on presenting a noncommittal case, since that may save me a lot of embarrasment.
So, on the whole, we may need to accept that some articles - not necessarily all of them - CAN be judged in advance.

No Fish, nobody can judge before the event. That would be untenable. Anticipate, perhaps. Likewise, nobody can judge your article without first reading it. Are you quite sure that this is what has been going on here?

"'Beng' means 'Stupid' in Sweden?"

Only in colloquial language, and mainly in my part of our long-stretched country. "Beng i roten" is often used here, meaning "with a stupid root", root alluding to the head. The further north you come in Sweden, the lesser the expression will be used. Whether that ows to other colloquialisms being used up there or if the northerners are simply smarter than the rest of us is really not for me to say. Besides, if this applies, I would get things wrong anyway and thus I would probably deny it, right?

That's not for me to say, Fish. But thanks for the cultural lesson, fascinating.

[curious]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;223719]
In conclusion, Iīd say that aliases were a lot more common back then than they are now, but that would relate to poor circumstances being much more common back then than they are now.
All the best,
Fisherman

Hi, Fisherman,
Are you sure about that statement?

Aren't most people on this website and numerous others using aliases?

Just finding it ironic.

curious -- an alias

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I don't think it's my responsibility to point out to you what you yourself have said about your forthcoming article."

Sally, you said that you were interested to see whether my article will be everything I have said it will be. And I have emphatically not said what my article will be. I have mentioned that it revolves around Lechmere, and that will be easy to live up to. I have also said that I have been amazed by a detail that has been seemingly overlooked, and that detail will of course also appear. Furthermore, I have said that I myself consider the detail as an amazing thing, whereas I have recognized that others may disagree.

Is this what you think I have said my article will be? Or have you spotted any more "promises"?

You know what, Sally? My feeling here is that you want to imply that I have made substantial promises about revealing the Ripper and such things, so that you can tell me afterwards that I didnīt reach my goal. But you see, my primary goal is another one: it is to share what I have seen, and have it commented upon, in order to establish what people think about it. Actually, I firmly believe that is what Ripperology is about - or SHOULD be about.
What it should NOT be about is what you just did: Falsely imply that I have promised a whole lot about my article, and then you donīt produce the goods to establish that this is so.

Maybe, Sally, we are quite simply here for different reasons. However that applies, I will refrain from further posting against you until after the article is published.

All the best, Sally!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Aren't most people on this website and numerous others using aliases?"

We are! But I bet you donīt call yourself "curious" every time you need to speak to the police after having committed a murder ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

...then again, maybe you do:

"Iīm curious, who did it..."

Fisherman

[curious4]

Aliases

Hello all,

Are we talking aliases or people changing their names here? Mine has changed several times over the years (more due to circumstances than choice for the most part). Due to Facebook etc I have been in touch with many childhood friends and it is surprising how many are now using different christian names.

If you need any help with proof reading, Fisherman, let me know. I have completed Ordfrontens kurs i korrekturläsning - in Swedish, of course, but have done a fair amount in English as well. (just an excuse for an early peek lol.)

Best wishes,
C4

[Abby Normal]

Tom W:

"I can't speak for everyone, but I must confess I find it very curious that you have managed to become convinced that Cross was the Ripper on so very little circumstancial evidence when the rest of us are still trying to figure out which women were and weren't killed by the same man, etc. "

Tom, it is emphatically NOT "very little circumstancial evidence". And I have not become as convinced as I am - however much that is; people seem to have differing views of it, and few seem interested in hearing my own take - on the presented evidence only!
I had a totally jawdropping experience some time back, and thatīs what lies behind my upcoming article in Rip - so there IS more behind my stance.
Letīs just say that I took a look at something that has been looked at before, but from a different angle, and came up with something that - at least in my view (trying desperately to be as un-grandiose as possible here!) has been inexplicably overlooked. And for the life of me, I canīt understand why no other poster have seen the same thing. Itīs so obvious itīs flabbergasting.
Then again, people are flabbergasted by different things, are they not? And we are speaking Ripperology here, so I feel pretty certain that some people will be flabbergasted - without wanting to admit it. Others may perhaps think that there is nothing to my "find", if we are to call it such a pretentious thing. I donīt know. Perhaps somebody will prove my article faulty and useless for some reason I have overlooked myself - anything can happen.

Tom, Simon!

My feeling that Lechmere was the Ripper rests very much on the Nichols case. I cannot place him at the other murder sites per se - but since I think I may know how he did the Nichols deed and got away with it, I simply look at the geographical line-up of the other deeds, and recognize that Lechmere would have moved along paths that took him close to these sites too, as has been stated before. The geography and timing is there, and I donīt believe in a whole set of eviscerating killers roaming the streets of London, only to simultaneously disappear afterwards.

So, Simon: " Done one, done 'em all" applies in my world to a very significant extent. Not totally, though - I leave the door ajar for alternative takes, although I think that at the very least Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, falling prey to somebody who wished to eviscerate, in all reasonability and probability ought to be regarded as victims of the same killer until any useful proof to the contrary surfaces.

I feel convinced that the research into Lechmere - sadly overlooked for way too many years - will increase in years to come, and I firmly believe that it will turn up interesting data, none of which points away from Charles Lechmere. I think the difficulties to find any hard evidence at all linking any of the other suspects specifically to the murders owes to the fact that they did not do it, simple as that - Lechmere did.

There - now I will have Garry all over me like a rash again for holding a belief. Oh, well ...

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
So your "jaw dropping find" is not new evidence but an interpretation of existing material?

[Abby Normal]

Tom
I agree that if the Ripper tended to abort his attacks if things didn't feel right, does not imply that the double event was carried out by different hands.
Psychologically it is one thing to stop before you have started.
It is quite another to stop after you have started - once the blood and adrenalin start flowing.
The idea that two knife murders of similar victims by two different perpertrators took place within walking distance of each other and within a realistically narrow timeframe (i.e. one that neatly allowed the same person to do both) is barely credible.

Simon - if I may...
Evidence for Cross/Lechmere killing the others (with presumptions - naturally):
C2 - on the route he took on the morning of 31st August with Paul. Body found 100 yards or so from where Paul worked. Paul raided soon after. Cross did it to implicate Paul.
C3 - committed earlier than the others on Sunday morning - a non work day. Body found very close to Cross/Lechmere's mother's house, where his daughter also lived. Body found on route home to his own house from his mother's house. He killed her after visiting his mother and second step father and getting in a rage.
C4 - due to unsatisfactory outcome of C3 attack he followed his old route to work (he used to live near the C3 attack as well) to where he knew was a popular stamping ground for prostitutes, and also to a location well away from his home. He left apron and graffiti on his direct route home from C4 site - using chalk borrowed from his school student daughter.
C5 - pretty much on his normal route to work.
Furthermore Tabram and Mackenzie were on his normal route to work. (I'm not a fan of the C5 limitation).
The Pinchin Street Torso was found very near his mother's house at a time when she was possibly engaged in the cat meat business.

Obviously the 'evidence' behind these connections are much weaker than in the C1 instance. However he can be plausibly put at each of these crime scenes. Can any other Ripper suspect be placed at more than one crime scene? Most can't be placed at any!
I rather think that if this were a modern day investigation, given the amount of knowledge we have about each potential suspect, the person who would top the list of people the police would want to talk to would be Cross. It is almost certain that they failed to interview him properly at all in 1888.

Hi Lech!

Evidence for Cross/Lechmere killing the others (with presumptions - naturally):
C2 - on the route he took on the morning of 31st August with Paul. Body found 100 yards or so from where Paul worked. Paul raided soon after. Cross did it to implicate Paul.
C3 - committed earlier than the others on Sunday morning - a non work day. Body found very close to Cross/Lechmere's mother's house, where his daughter also lived. Body found on route home to his own house from his mother's house. He killed her after visiting his mother and second step father and getting in a rage.
C4 - due to unsatisfactory outcome of C3 attack he followed his old route to work (he used to live near the C3 attack as well) to where he knew was a popular stamping ground for prostitutes, and also to a location well away from his home. He left apron and graffiti on his direct route home from C4 site - using chalk borrowed from his school student daughter.
C5 - pretty much on his normal route to work.
Furthermore Tabram and Mackenzie were on his normal route to work. (I'm not a fan of the C5 limitation).
The Pinchin Street Torso was found very near his mother's house at a time when she was possibly engaged in the cat meat business.

Not bad at all. I like it! While I dont neccessarily agree, you have provided a succinct and rational explanation for part of your theory here. Hopefully you havent stole too much of Fish's thunder.


It is almost certain that they failed to interview him properly at all in 1888.[/

This. Not so much.