Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Fisherman]

Exactly, Edward.

If the police told the press that both Thain and Mizen had told their superiors that neither man had seen any man leaving Buckīs Row, then why on earth would we use this to conclude that the police misinformed the press?

We also have Neil believing that he had found the body first, just as we have the police asking him whether he had been directed to the place by two mysterious men - which is EXACTLY in line with Mizen not reporting the carmen.

The only alternative to the simple and reported course of events, would be a totally elaborate web of lies, a conspiration as it were.

Are you going to take that path, David? Or are you fine with what is reported in very clear words - Mizen chose not to mention the carmen when asked by his superiors.

Drop the shuddas once and for all, David, and move with the evidence. You will find it strangely compelling and interesting, I can assure you.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Wait, I have no theory. I'm questioning yours.

In fact I have. But nothing to do with Crossmere.

[DVV]

Drop the shuddas once and for all, David, and move with the evidence. You will find it strangely compelling and interesting, I can assure you.
The best,
Fisherman

But precisely, Fish, I try to move with all evidences. And a long list of shuddas tends to become an evidence.

[Fisherman]

David:

"I try to move with all evidences. And a long list of shuddas tends to become an evidence."

Then evidentially, I am correct. You shudda admitted as much long ago.

Seriously, David ... our conceptions of what people should have done or said is not and will never be evidence. Sadly! Because if you were correct, we would have no murders, no robbers, no thieves, no disagreements, no earthquakes, no floodings and no stray cats. Everything wudd have been as it shudd have been.

Come to think of it, we wudd have no Hutchinsonians either.

Let me think the proposition over, David!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Seriously, David ... our conceptions of what people should have done or said is not and will never be evidence.
Fisherman

It is. Because it's not about ordinary people in their daily life.
It's about people, some of them on duty, in an official investigation.

[Fisherman]

Will you please listen to yourself and what you are saying, David? You are saying that when we deal with people, some of them on duty, in an official investigation, then we are free to regard our conceptions of what we think they should have done as evidence that they actually did this precise thing.

In other words, our notions about how we expect people to act is useful evidence that they actually will act this way. Abra-kadabra!

Are you perhaps trying to say that people on duty, in investigations will NORMALLY act in the manner the rules they work by prescribe for them?

If so, yes, you are correct - but that does not mean that we should regard it as proven that Mizen did not hide the fact that he had met two carmen. It only means that it would be out of the ordinary if he did so. And therefore, those who aim to throw forward that he DID act in such an irregular fashion have the onus to prove that they are correct. They therefore need evidence to bolster their take.

And what do we have, David? Exactly, we have a situation where even you admit that we have this evidence. We have it black on white, once again, that Mizen denied having seen anybody leaving Buckīs Row.

And since it could be suggested that this could be an error on behalf of the reporting paper, we must also point out that all the surrounding factors of the case ALSO support what we say. Neil did NOT know about the two men, instead believing he had been the first person to find the body, Helson et al had gotten wind of Pauls interview and therefore subjected Neil to serious questioning, Paul had pointed Buckīs Row out as the place where he met the PC, meaning that Neil was implicated - every single bit of evidence supports our take, many sources and many incidents are totally in line with each other and not a single source - not one! - tells us that Mizen DID spill the beans. The only party saying that this must have been so is you.

Bow to reality, David. It helps.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Will you please listen to yourself and what you are saying, David? You are saying that when we deal with people, some of them on duty, in an official investigation, then we are free to regard our conceptions of what we think they should have done as evidence of what thy did.
Fisherman

Absurd.
You really fear my objections to your unshakeable theory.
But wait. I have some more.
Time to walk my dog.

[Fisherman]

Letīs just say, David, that if you were to be correct, and I really did fear your objections - then yes, that would be absurd! In the extreme, even.

Now go walk that dog of yours, David. And make it a long walk. Nice, fresh air sometimes work miracles.

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

Then evidentially, I am correct. You shudda admitted as much long ago.



The best,
Fisherman

Hi, Fisherman,

I'm BAAAAACK!

Actually, Fisherman, you have proven two of your arguments incorrect. I've waited about 24 hours for either you or Lechmere to go the next obvious step after patting yourselves on the back for proving that the police knew nothing about the carmen until Sunday evening.

Nothing, still the same old arguments from the two of you. So, here is what your latest "research" shows.

Cross/Lechmere left his home for work around 3:30 a.m. Most people who get up that early, also go to bed very early.

Likely, by the time the police figured out they needed to find the carmen, C-L was in bed preparing for his early Monday work.

Somehow, he was located on his way to work on Monday morning and diverted to the inquest.

Therefore, the reason for his appearing in his work clothes is very simple -- he was on his way to work.

Despite the fact that Dave had two cases in October -- just one month after the Nichols inquiry -- where people were taken off the streets straight to inquest, you and Lechmere the poster can not understand this makes sense and deny it.

Well, thankfully, the two of you have now proven it!

Plus, your so-called "Mizen scam" makes it appear that Mizen the policeman was the one pulling the scam and not Cross/Lechmere.

So, thanks, you've proven the point your "naysayers" have been trying to get the two of you to even consider.

Your latest "find" guts much of your arguments.

The Best,

curious

[Fisherman]

Hi Curious!

You are wrong again, as is often the case. Iīll show you why!

"...here is what your latest "research" shows.
Cross/Lechmere left his home for work around 3:30 a.m. Most people who get up that early, also go to bed very early."

Mmm. Canīt see how that topples our theory, especially since you yourself say that "most people" do so. But letīs generalize, for theoriesī sake!

"Likely, by the time the police figured out they needed to find the carmen, C-L was in bed preparing for his early Monday work."

The police would have gotten wind of the carmen by means of the Paul interview. That means we have a point of time somewhere on Sunday afternoon, justaboutish. I donīt think Lechmere had gone to bed at that stage!

"Somehow, he was located on his way to work on Monday morning and diverted to the inquest."

For reasons given a myriad of times, no, he was not fished out of the East End Streets and whisked off to await the inquest for many an hour. Nor was Paul, mind you - and that should tell you something.

"Therefore, the reason for his appearing in his work clothes is very simple -- he was on his way to work."

Wrong again, I believe. For reasons given a myriad of times again.

"Despite the fact that Dave had two cases in October -- just one month after the Nichols inquiry -- where people were taken off the streets straight to inquest, you and Lechmere the poster can not understand this makes sense and deny it."

In some cases it may make sense. Here it does not.

"Well, thankfully, the two of you have now proven it!"

Finally - something interesting! Yes?

"Plus, your so-called "Mizen scam" makes it appear that Mizen the policeman was the one pulling the scam and not Cross/Lechmere."

Eh - wait. You forgot to show how we proved ourselves wrong! Letīs hear it!

And how did we prove that Mizen was pulling a scam...?

"So, thanks, you've proven the point your "naysayers" have been trying to get the two of you to even consider."

Whatīs the time in the US? Are you sober, Curious?

"Your latest "find" guts much of your arguments."

Iīve never heard less coherent reasoning. Either you are a genious and way, way ahead of me...

...or not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Curious, I have this uneasy feeling that you somehow think that Mizenīs omission to mention the carmen asserts us that he would have been the one that scammed Lechmere.

I DO hope I am wrong on this ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Fisherman and Lechmere,

I am talking specifically about Dew's memoirs. It can be proved conclusively that Dew expressed an opinion in his memoirs that utterly contradicted the views of his police superiors. Dew's opinions cannot, therefore, be considered to be reflective of those of the police seniority at the time of the murders. They're not - fact. You are both wasting presumably precious time cautioning me against rejecting "all" memoirs, because I have done nothing of the sort. I'm talking specifically about the folly of converting Dew's controversial independently-held opinions into accepted police wisdom from 1888.

Rocket science it oughtn't to be!

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

You could have saved yourself some effort here. Nobody is saying that Dews memoirs must be fact altogether. Many points have been challenged, like for example the slipping-in-the-blood incident. So we cannot be sure that we are dealing with facts.

But we CAN be sure that memoirs from working lives reflect experiences, discussions, sentiments etc genuinely experienced by the writer AS A GENERAL RULE. After that each and every point is open to discussion - but that mainstream rule is not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Wikipedias take on Dew:

"He published his autobiography 'I Caught Crippen' in 1938. This contained factual errors as many of the events described were being recalled sometimes more than fifty years later; Dew himself admitted this in the book. However, compared to many of the memoirs written by Dew's contemporaries about the same events, it is "broadly accurate"."

Same picture, thus - admitting, as we must, that factual errors are around, the book is broadly accurate - and in fact trumphs many of the memoirs written by contemporaries on the same events. A very important source, thus - or so says Wikipedia.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

To just dismiss this oddity as of no consequence is to my mind ridiculous.

But hardly anyone apart from you and Fisherman agrees that it is an oddity, so a reassessment may be in order, especially considering that Cross was the actual name of his real stepfather, as opposed to an alias plucked from the aether - which is what legitimately suspicious characters and actual serial killers have done. Most consider the Cross/Lechmere name use as entirely inconsequential, and understandably so. Likewise, hardly anyone thinks there was any "scam" involving PC Mizen. It's an interesting idea, but highly unlikely, hence it being rejected by most who have read the proposal. It is infinitely more likely that Mizen misremembered one small piece in the chain of events that night, and when corrected by Cross at the inquest, offered no protest, evidently in acceptance of his error.

All uniquely fascinating, but the latest incarnation of the Cross theory amounts to little more than doing a bad Hutchinson.

And no, Fleming's alias (far more suspicious because it has no apparent basis, such as a stepfather's surname, which would give it some legitimacy) was not apparently known about until some years after the murders.