Cross The Ripper?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"You're comparing yourself to Gallileo now? "

No - I am comparing Galileos expreiences to the ones I am having. I trust you can see the difference - subtle though it may seem to you?

" I set up the poll to reflect degrees of opinion"

You set up a disgrace of a poll - but thatīs water under the bridge by now. I have already taught you how to use numbers and do it properly, so I have high hopes (joke) for your next effort.

"5 minute wonder, I shouldn't wonder"

Letīs see, Sally. Til then, I will stay away from debating with you as much as possible, since you do not focus on the case itself. Like I said earlier - it totally shows. If that changes, Iīll be a lot more easy to engage in debate - but only on caserelated issues.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom:

" a non-starter suspect..."

Wow - that was not what you used to say. Sour grapes, Tom..?

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Why is it a "disgrace" of a poll?

Monty

[Fisherman]

Because, Monty, categories like "possible" and "improbable" tend not to rule each other out. And one of the catgories, "possible", is in fact something that goes for ALL four choices, since none of them rules this out. Somebody who thinks it is deeply, deeply improbable that Lechmere was the Ripper, may find it strange that the next "best" alternative also covers his choice.
A poll like this will be a lot clearer if you use a set of numbers, say 1-10, 1 representing "Must have been the Ripper" and 10 "Could not have been the Ripper". and then you just find a place on the scale. If you need to be more realistic, 1 can be "Almost certainly was the Ripper" and 10 "Almost certainly not the Ripper".

This way, the categories wonīt float into each other and the result you get will be much more useful.

The best,
Fisherman

[m_w_r]

Hi Fisherman,

That may be right, but you can still perform a mathematical analysis on the results as they stand. If you use a scale of ... 4 = Very likely; 3 = Possible; 2 = Improbable; 1 = Highly unlikely ... then the mean average response so far is 2.06 (from 51 responses).

Do you consider the poll to be a 'disgrace' because it doesn't show what you want it to?

Regards,

Mark

[Fisherman]

Mark:

"Do you consider the poll to be a 'disgrace' because it doesn't show what you want it to?"

No - because it COULD have been much more informative, but is not. The mid categories leave a lot to ask for. It is however very obvious that more people will choose a very negative stance to whether Lechmere was the Ripper than the ones who are very positive, and thatīs fine by me; no qualms.

If I had been saddened by not having people agree with me, Iīd be heading for kindergarten. Iīm a big boy, Mark.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

And in the end, a poll wonīt tell us who the Ripper was, will it? Thatīs why I normally stay away from them - but if they must be there, they may as well be as correctly and usefully shaped as possible.

The best,
Fisherman

[m_w_r]

Well, fair enough. Unfortunately, this poll doesn't say who has stayed away from it and who hasn't.

Just to be sure, would the poll still be a disgrace if the average response was running at, say, 3.5?

Regards,

Mark

[Fisherman]

Please Mark...?

Read what I am telling you - the alternatives are not excluding each other, and therefore the poll is not correctly made. The outcome of it is irrelevant to this.

But this you would already know, I think.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

Fisherman!

No - I am comparing Galileos expreiences to the ones I am having. I trust you can see the difference - subtle though it may seem to you?

Oh yes, because the idea of Cross being the Ripper is so revolutionary and we flat-earthists out here in the 'Old School' wilderness have our heads so far up our arses that we can see out of our own mouths? Ok then.

All I see is an average - at best (lucky for you I'm in a generous mood today, eh?) suspect; pushed along by you and your pal Ed with very little actual substance. Considering how damning you have been of suspect theory in the past, it's a little ironic, to say the least.

You set up a disgrace of a poll - but thatīs water under the bridge by now. I have already taught you how to use numbers and do it properly, so I have high hopes (joke) for your next effort.

Yes, Yes, heard it all before. Of course you would say that, wouldn't you? As Mark has demonstrated - and Colin too, for that matter - it makes no difference, weight of opinion is against you.

And don't patronise me Fisherman. I know perfectly well how to use numbers - I certainly don't need instruction from you. Had I wanted to use a numerical scale, I would have done so.

Letīs see, Sally. Til then, I will stay away from debating with you as much as possible, since you do not focus on the case itself. Like I said earlier - it totally shows. If that changes, Iīll be a lot more easy to engage in debate - but only on caserelated issues.

Whatever. Nothing more than bluff and distraction, as usual. How is it that anybody who disagrees with you either has an 'agenda' or a personal crusade against you - in your very vocal opinion?

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Oh yes, because the idea of Cross being the Ripper is so revolutionary and we flat-earthists out here in the 'Old School' wilderness have our heads so far up our arses that we can see out of our own mouths? Ok then."

If somebody regards it in this way, then I feel sorry for them. Lechmere is a very, very natural bid - he was alone with a murder victim, there are heaps of anomalies built into his testimony and the other murders happened at places and times that correspond with where he would/could logically have been - and when. So no, Sally, Iīm afraid that no matter where you have your head (no details, please!), Lechmere remains a very common suspect, with a case built on very common grounds. As a suspect, he is nothing at all out of the ordinary when it comes to serial killers.

"All I see is an average ... suspect"

Oh, so heīs advanced from "crackpot suspect" then...? Progress - good!

"Of course you would say that, wouldn't you? As Mark has demonstrated - and Colin too, for that matter - it makes no difference, weight of opinion is against you."

Yes, that is evident, at least when it comes to the extremes - but since the poll is poorly construed, we donīt get a very useful result on the whole.

"And don't patronise me Fisherman. I know perfectly well how to use numbers - I certainly don't need instruction from you."

It does not matter who tells you how to do it, long as you get it right, Sally.

"Had I wanted to use a numerical scale, I would have done so. "

Then why did you not do just that, if you had the knowledge that it makes for a better poll?

"How is it that anybody who disagrees with you either has an 'agenda' or a personal crusade against you - in your very vocal opinion? "

Point me to the place where I have said this, please? I donīt think this for a second. Many, many people disagree with me over many subjects, but most of them do so in a constructive and productive manner, so why would I object to that? Criticism and fair testing is what I want from Casebook. Itīs not until people get very aggressive and scornful that I find it a tad sad - and that mostly happens when I wonīt accept what THEY think must be right. Works both ways, thus, wouldnīt you say?

"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

What makes you think I canīt? Have you ever seen any sign of the contrary?
But you see, I generally think that it is not I or you that is to be debated out here, but instead the Ripper case. I donīt think that you do that very much - you seem hellbent on criticizing me instead of criticizing my theory in a productive manner. Thatīs why I often bow out of the discussions with you, Sally. If you take a look at this latest post of yours, you will understand what I mean.

The best,
Fisherman

[sleekviper]

Fisherman,
Isn't that backwards? it would be an increase in difficulty to keep laws of name in the state that they currently reside, not easier. What I mean is, today we have global passport mandates, credit cards, credit reports, credit history, school transcripts, sexual offender registers, computer fraud, drivers license, identity cards, missing kids, and on and on that require a one global identity for each person. Bringing Cross to the present is where the problem lies, keeping him in 1888 is key. So how does it become different for Cross in 1888, than it does now under more watchful laws? What I mean is, rather than bring Cross to the present, what rule has changed to alter his ability to use whatever name that he chooses in 1888? We have become instructed that single identity is important for safety of body, finances, and personal history, it was not as important in 1888 as today, why actions can seem odd when they were just part of life in the past. I thought that they aimed at the history part, rather than the end user part; enforcing rules at the birth as to the name of a person. So someone can decide to be named a symbol if they choose,(Prince), but try and name a child Adolf Hitler and it could come at a steep price(loss of child).

[Fisherman]

Sleekviper:

"Isn't that backwards? it would be an increase in difficulty to keep laws of name in the state that they currently reside, not easier. What I mean is, today we have global passport mandates, credit cards, credit reports, credit history, school transcripts, sexual offender registers, computer fraud, drivers license, identity cards, missing kids, and on and on that require a one global identity for each person."

Indeed it may seem a bit "backwards". Itīs just that I know that here in Sweden, legislation has allowed very little before and very much now, and so I made the - perhaps uneducated - guess that this applies in other countries too. Iīll see if I can substantiate it, and get back to you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Took all of five minutes to find some information, Sleekviper!

From the net:

"6. Change of name declarations 1939-1945
During the Second World War, people wanting to change their name had to make a declaration to that effect and publish details in the London, Edinburgh or Belfast Gazette, 21 days beforehand. This was to allow the National Registration records to be altered and an identity card and ration book to be issued in the new name.
The original declarations were destroyed when National Registration was abolished in 1952 but you can search the London, Edinburgh or Belfast Gazettes online for the published details.

7. Changes of name by foreigners in the UK 1916-1971
In 1916, enemy aliens resident in Britain were forbidden to change their names. In 1919 the ban was extended to all foreigners in Britain and was only removed in 1971.
Exceptions to this rule were:
if a new name was assumed by royal licence
if special permission was given by the Home Secretary
if a woman took her husband's name on marriage
It may be useful to search the London Gazette as it was often used to advertise changes of name in the first two instances.

8. Royal licences
Royal licences to a change of name were common in the 18th and 19th centuries, but in later years would be issued where:
an inheritance depended on someone taking the deceased's name
marriage settlement required a husband to adopt his wife's name
a change of name also required a change to a coat of arms
Information relating to Royal licences can be found in:
The National Archives
The London Gazette
The Royal College of Arms
The National Archives holds a small number of warrants for Royal licences to changes of name in the following series of records (please note they are not searchable online):
SP 44 for the period up to 1782
HO 38 from 1782 to February 1868
HO 142 from February 1868 onwards
There is also some correspondence describing individual examples of changes of name in:
HO 45 for the period 1841-1871
HO 144 for the period 1868-1959
The London Gazette can be searched by name for any references to changes of name.
The Royal College of Arms has records relating to Royal licences. From 1783, applications for a Royal licence were either made through, or required a report from the college. Use their enquiry form to request more information.

9. Private Acts of Parliament
Some changes of name were made by a private Act of Parliament - usually for the same reasons as those made by Royal licence (see above). This was fairly common in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, but since 1907 has only been used once.
Acts of Parliament are published in printed volumes arranged by year. The National Archives library has a set as do some other libraries. It may be helpful to:
search the following Chronological Table of Private and Personal Acts (1539-2006)
confirm if an Act was passed and in which year
consult the appropriate volume of the printed series of Acts
For more information on where to see copies of private Acts click on the link and scroll to point 6.
The Parliamentary Archives also has records relating to change of name by Act of Parliament. See their website for details of how to visit.

10. Phillimore and Fry Index to Changes of Name 1760-1901
The Index to Changes of Name for UK and Ireland 1760-1901 by WP Phillimore and Edward Alex Fry is made up of information from the following sources:
Private Acts of Parliament
Royal Licences published in the London and Dublin Gazettes
notices of changes of name published in The Times after 1861 with a few notices from other newspapers
registers of the Lord Lyon [King of Arms] where Scottish changes of name were commonly recorded
records in the office of the Ulster King at Arms
some private information
It does not include
changes by Royal licence not advertised in the London Gazette
changes by deed poll that were enrolled but not advertised in The Times

+++

Sounds a bit more troublesome to me!

Iīll go on and try to find more.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Next up:

"just for your info., the reason they became willard from bonvouloir is because bonvouloir means "good will"--there was a family reunion in the 30's, and there was family there from as far west as washington state, and a lot of the bonvouloirs switched at that time--my family had already switched, and they are your family, too--my ancestor is noel from st. joseph's parish in toledo, who changed his first name, too, to christopher--i was informed by the courthouse that legal name changes were not common before the 1950's, so people did this stuff at big reunions, etc., like this, so there is no record of the change. makes it fun!"

The best,
Fisherman