So would he have run?

[MrBarnett]

Ed,

A male hen is an oxymoron and your cocks just don't doodle it for me. However, it's too late on a Sat night (Sun morn) to do justice to your lengthy post, so I will reconvene tomorrow, if that's ok.

MrB

[Fisherman]

Ben:

So you're saying it's all Edward's fault for coming up with bad arguments that you're now eager to distance yourself from?

Not at all - Edwards arguments are extremely sound. What I DID say was that you got things wrong factually.
You claimed that Edwards arguments were MY arguments, and I corrected you.

A bit of disunity in the Crossmere ranks is not unhealthy, though.

And it all evens out. Edward doesn't like your "went to Pickfords after Mitre Square" explanation, and made that very clear on the recent GSG thread.

That cheating bastard - he tells me that he favours another explanation but think my explanation perfectly viable.
I never knew he "didn´t like it" (that IS a damning judgement!), so it´s a good thing that good old reliable Ben tells me about Edwards scheming...

... reliable in the sense that you seemingly always get things backwards, that is.

I'm genuinely not trying to be horrible or divisive here...

You´re not having much sucess, though. Are you genuinely expecting that you will have an influence on what Edward thinks and reasons? Or on what I think and reason?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

DVV
the person who spoke to Mulshaw was probably Tomkins or one of he other House Slaughterers

Thanks for what almost looks like a scoop, Lechmere, but the truth is that you simply don't know.

What happens ? Are you about to agree that if this mysterious man has nothing to do with the slaughterhouse, his behaviour is definitely more suspicious than that of your carman in Bucks Row ?

Indeed, if he was the ripper, he was not foolish enough to look for a bobby.

[Lechmere]

Crikey DVV you need to apply for Inspector Clouseau's old job.
So your good suspect - perhaps a truncated Flutchinson, eh? - escaped unseen and then gratuitously drew attention to himself by telling a renowned member of the night watch that there was a murdered women around the corner.
I suppose this is consistent behaviour with for example
gratuitously
turning up at a police station to be not interrogated.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, if he was the ripper, he was not foolish enough to look for a bobby.

No, he goes looking for a night watchman instead.

Fisherman

[DVV]

Nope. He passed by, and never stopped.

[Fisherman]

Nope. He passed by, and never stopped.

Conclusion: If you go looking for a night watchman, and pass him by (speaking to him as you do so) without stopping, then you have not gone looking for a night watchman.
It is only people you stop by that you can have gone looking for.

Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice. Maybe you should give it a rest, David. You are producing some pretty odd arguments now.

Then again, maybe you don´t worry about that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Not at all - Edwards arguments are extremely sound

Oh I see - "extremely" sound, just not quite sound enough for Fisherman to agree with.

They would have to be super fantastic MEGA sound for that to happen, presumably.

That cheating bastard - he tells me that he favours another explanation but think my explanation perfectly viable.

I never said anything about "cheating". He simply rejected your suggestion, and conciliated you with the obligatory salute to the co-theorist. That was my impression anyway, and I suspect others' too.

[Fisherman]

Oh I see - "extremely" sound, just not quite sound enough for Fisherman to agree with.

They would have to be super fantastic MEGA sound for that to happen, presumably.



I never said anything about "cheating". He simply rejected your suggestion, and conciliated you with the obligatory salute to the co-theorist. That was my impression anyway, and I suspect others' too.

Like I said on another thread: I can´t be arsed to discuss garbage like this.

But hey, maybe Edward CAN - and then you will have found another butt-crack deep rift between us.

Fisherman
suddenly very tired of this

[caz]

But was Charles Lechmere a windy carman?
Are there any ****-a-Doodles to suggest that we can sustain this blot on the escutcheon of the venerable family of Lechmere? Should their pelican crest be adorned with a white cockerel feather?

Of course there isn’t the slightest hint that he was windy.
In fact when Paul approached him from behind, after Lechmere had spied the prone body of a woman, he went up to Paul and displayed no hint of alarm. It was Paul who thought he was about to be mugged. If anything this is one ****-a-Doodle to suggest that Lechmere was not a flapper and that those frightful hundred yards of Boothoid blackness on Wentworth Street would hold no fears for him.

So the suggestion that Lechmere might have been windy and avoided the Old Montague Street route or that he gave the name Cross to avoid retribution from the dreaded High Rips or their ilk is baseless conjecture.
In contrast the suggestions that he was a careful and controlled person and that his mother was a dominant figure in his life are conjectures that have some basis to them.

Hi Ed,

Funny how this controlled, unflappable, non-windy killer of yours suddenly becomes a big girl's blouse in Buck's Row, and instead of walking swiftly away on Paul's approach, or alternatively using his murder weapon to threaten, wound or kill this genuinely windy "please don't mug me" stranger, he plays out a complex four-scene drama (scene one at the scene; scene two with a policeman; scene three down the cop shop; and scene four waxing lyrical at the inquest) because - according to you - psychopathic prostitute killers go all wobbly when faced with a live male to tackle.

So what do you think Lechmere would have done if someone had looked like they were going to mug him as he walked to work down one of these mean streets in the small hours? Fled incontinently one presumes. Used his knife to defend himself? Oh dear me no!

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Caz
It’s not really funny at all.
Serial killers who target vulnerable victims generally never-ever turn on an able bodied person. Even an apparently windy passer by.
But this doesn’t mean Lechmere went all wobbly. It is a bit silly of you to put that spin on it.
Getting into a knife fight in the street is not exactly the action of a stealth killer is it now!
Knife fights tend to get noisy.
The girls’ blouse response would have been for Lechmere to flee like an utter shower at the approach of Paul.
The flighty approach that you repeatedly suggest would have been most un-Ripperish and utterly stupid.
It would have fatally endangered Lechmere’s neck should PC Neil have appeared from around the corner of the Board School just as Paul got to the body and uttered the traditional East End late night cry of ‘Oh murder’.

If he had threatened Paul with his knife then what?
It would soon transpire that there had been a murder.
Paul would probably come forward and say he had been threatened by a man with a knife.
There would be a big search for Lechmere. He would inevitably be found. He would be hung.
That wasn’t much of a suggestion Caz!

When Lechmere turned to face Paul did he anticipate that it was merely the first scene in a four act play?
I rather doubt it.
As they walked off it would have been quite possible for them not to have met a policeman on the way.
As it is they got past Mizen unscathed. Scene two passed with flying colours!
Then the inquest opened and the newspapers were full of the police version of events – with Lechmere and Paul altogether missing from the record. Hooray!
It was only Paul’s vanity exercise in Lloyds Weekly News that brought on scenes three and four.

There was nothing inevitable about scene one (at the crime scene) leading to scenes two through to four. That’s just how it worked out in practice.

[caz]

Serial killers who target vulnerable victims generally never-ever turn on an able bodied person. Even an apparently windy passer by.
But this doesn’t mean Lechmere went all wobbly. It is a bit silly of you to put that spin on it.
Getting into a knife fight in the street is not exactly the action of a stealth killer is it now!

So what's the answer to my question then, Ed? If someone had tried to mug Lechmere on his way to work one early morning, and he had his sharp knife on him, what do you think his reaction would have been? Fight or flight? I take it even you wouldn't say 'bluff it out' on such an occasion.

The flighty approach that you repeatedly suggest would have been most un-Ripperish and utterly stupid.

So if Lechmere knew beforehand that fight or flight would not be options if he was disturbed, or nearly disturbed, in his horrible work by someone's approach, he must have been ready to go through the whole 'bluff it out' scenario, surely?

If he had threatened Paul with his knife then what?
It would soon transpire that there had been a murder.
Paul would probably come forward and say he had been threatened by a man with a knife.
There would be a big search for Lechmere. He would inevitably be found. He would be hung.

Inevitable? How? And I think you meant 'hanged'.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

Serial killers who target vulnerable victims generally never-ever turn on an able bodied person. Even an apparently windy passer by.

But "generally" only means generally, Lechmere.
And the Ripper murders are likely to have been committed by a self-confident person. Confident that he could manage to run away quickly if necessary, and/or confident that he could face any kind of trouble.
Whereas Cross in Bucks Row, assuming he was the murderer, proved unable to walk away although it would have been the best and less risky thing to do.

[Lechmere]

Caz
This is a very weird line of questioning.
If Paul had walked up to Lechmere and attacked him then I guess he would have defended himself and possibly used his knife.
If Lechmere (as the culprit) was wandering about one night and someone unexpectedly attacked him, and he had his knife on him, then yes he might use his knife.
But that wasn't what was happening was it?
In a scenario where he is attacked the other person has made the choice to initiate a violent scene. Lechmere would have no option but to defend himself - which could end in a ruckus.
In the instance under scrutiny - Paul timidly walking down Bucks Row, there was no such need.

I think perhaps that underlying your confusion and resort to ridiculous comparisons is the very expression 'fight or flight'.
The 'fight' part need not necessarily literally mean 'fight'.
The expression is merely a short hand for describing the alternative human responses to a stress situation.
The expression provides these options -
- You either 'fight', turn and face head on the situation to control the event as much as possible, to figuratively fight it out. In military situations or even with football hooligans and such like the fight is literal.
- Or you fly, you run you avoid the confrontation and put it off, you become the hunted, vulnerable to others; a cork bobbing in the sea, blown this way and that; a sprat running with the tide, to escape or end up in the mouth of a killer whale.

And yes my guess would be that Lechmere would have had the name Cross up his sleeve for just this eventuality - I am sure I have already told you that.
But he wouldn't now what that eventuality might be would he, so he wouldn't be able to plan it very much in advance.
I would suggest that most culprits would have had a similar strategy in the back of their minds.

[Sam Flynn]

And I think you meant 'hanged'.

I'm not so sure, Caz. Ed knows a lot about the man