Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Ben]

Dew remembered some details correctly, yes, Fisherman.

You, of course, said it was "riddled with mistakes" and cautioned me not to listen to it.

However, we're not talking about his recollection of detail. We're talking about his actual opinions, and these can be shown to contradict those of the police at the time. Hence, any claim that his views reflected those of the police would be hopelessly incorrect.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Sorry, Ben, but itīs just the one opinion you are talking about here, that about the GSG. And opinions as such are not something we are wrong to have. We are all allowed this privilege. That is why we have these boards, by the way.

But what we were discussing was whether Dew would correctly mirror the opinions of his colleagues at the time, and that is another thing altogether.

What I have said about Dew earlier is also somewhat redundant, since we have it very clearly recorded that the general opinion on him and his book is that it is, and I quote, "broadly correct". That would encompass his ability to justly and correctly mirror the sentiments, feelings and stances among his colleagues back in 1888.

Besides, Ben, since you rarely lend much credence to my views, this is an excellent opportunity for you to accept the common view (a broadly correct and very useful source) over my old post. Enjoy!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

And there we are, this is how the somewhat strained efforts to gainsay the Lechmere bid goes today.

Ben says that we should not regard it as odd that our man used the name Lechmere in all other contacts with the authorities that we know of (around 90 of them), whereas he gave the name "Cross" in connection with the murder.

Ben also recommends that we should not award Walter Dew any credence at all when he writes about the sentiments and feelings inbetween colleagues he himself worked with, a cop among coppers, back in 1888.

David thinks that if we only add enough shuddaīs, they will suddenly turn into evidence - just like that! (Thank you Tommy Copper!)

And Curious tells me that we have imploded our own theory, and proven it wrong - but forgets to tell me when and how that happened.

Next, please!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

And there we are, this is how the somewhat strained efforts to gainsay the Lechmere bid goes today.

You can convince yourself all you want that those "efforts" are "strained", Fisherman, but as far as most contributors (and no doubt most observers) are concerned, those same efforts are entirely valid and sustained. I've tried to explain to you on a number of occasions that nobody should be expected to care how highly you value your own theory. It's meaningless. You say "next, please!" as though you've thoroughly convinced yourself that you've dispensed with the latest volume of criticisms that your brand new Cross theory has recently faced, but as far as the vast majority are concerned, you haven't.

Lechmere used his stepfather's name, as he had on a previous occasion. There's nothing suspicious about at all about this. He simply didn't wish for his most commonly used name to be splashed about the papers in connection with a violent crime, however innocent his role in it.

That would encompass his ability to justly and correctly mirror the sentiments, feelings and stances among his colleagues back in 1888.

But he didn't do this.

Nor did he ever so much as hint that this was his intention.

He was expressing personal opinions only, and in the instance of the GSG, his opinion just happened to be completely different to that held by his police superiors at the time of the murders.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"You can convince yourself all you want that those "efforts" are "strained", Fisherman, but as far as most contributors (and no doubt most observers) are concerned, those same efforts are entirely valid and sustained."

I donīt HAVE to convince myself, Ben - itīs spinal stuff. A cluster of shuddaīs dont turn into evidence, biographies reflect empirically gained information, using false names IS odd and claiming that a theory has been blown out of the water takes substantiation.

"He was expressing personal opinions only"

Thatīs YOUR convenient take on it. Myself, I accept that if he says that the police were worried, thatīs because they WERE worried, if he says that the police were eager to catch the killer, then thatīs because they WERE eager to catch the killer etcetera.

But all in all, these are things that warrant no need for discussion. So you are going to have to discuss it on your own.

The very best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

A cluster of shuddaīs dont turn into evidence

Damn right they don't.

So no matter how much TL might like to claim that Crossmere 'shudda'

* used the name 'Cross' to elude the cops and bamboozle his illiterate and (apparently if we accept that 'shudda' remarkably dim) wife. And whilst supplying genuine information by which he could easily be traced by anybody.

*used an entirely hypothetical and variable routes to work to snare and kill Ripper victims

*dumped the Pinchin Street Torso on his mother's doorstep to make a point

* Lied to Mizen

* Resented his stepfather

* Had a domineering mother

*Been a mental case who liked to slice up tarts

It is only conjecture.

Pretending otherwise has advanced our understanding of the case exactly not at all.

Nor will it.

[Fisherman]

You never change, do you Sally?

The namechange is evidence - it was there.
The scam is evidence - it was reported.
The routes are evidence - they existed.
The Torso is evidence - it was there and it was dumped near his motherīs (though I have not said he did so to make a point, actually)
Resent towards his stepfather? Possibly. Not I nor Edward have said that this is in evidence.
Domineering mother? Same thing.
A mental case ... wait ... what IS this...? Kelly was sliced up and so were the torso victims - that IS evidence. But who says it is evidenced that it was Lechmere who did it?

There you are - it is not all conjecture at all. There are heaps of evidence to support the theory I propose. There is no proof as such that it is correct, but the theory is evidencebased to a very large degree.

What David suggested was that many collected shuddaīs will turn into evidence. That is another thing entirely - and entirely untrue. Just because most people believe that Mizen SHOULD have told his superiors that he had met Paul and Lechmere, this never turns the suggestion/wish into a reality.

But why do I have to tell you this? It ought to go without saying!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

You never change, do you Sally?

Neither do you.

By the way, its 'should have' - not 'shudda'

Sloppy....

[DVV]

Wanna play shuddas, Fish ?
Here are some, according to the theory of yours :

-Mizen should have been asked why he went to Bucks Row, but he was not

-Mizen should have told his superiors about the carmen, but he did not

-Mizen should have been asked by Baxter why he didn't give that important info before Inquest Day 2, but he was not

-Mizen should have been banned (from the boards) for the commited offence, he was not

-The Lloyds reporter should have told the police about the carmen, he did not

-The police should have known about the carmen (since the Lloyds reporter proves that the story had leaked out as soon as Friday afternoon or evening), but they knew nothing

-The Lloyds reporter should have been Chief-Inspector, he was not

Of course, there are some more. That is just a short and quick list.

We should also play shuddas, or shuldas, with Paul's interview, Fish.

Because if Cross was the Ripper, he should have never touched Paul's shoulder.

Was your Ripper cunning or not ?

[Sally]

Mizen, along with every other policeman on the streets of Whitechapel, routinely saw drunk prostitutes - often in a critical condition - on those streets.

Every time his attention was called to one of these unfortunates, he was tasked with taking her to the police station for processing - to sober up, sleep it off; or, if one of the worse cases, to take her to the infirmary.

When presented with news of a woman who was 'dead or drunk' its a distinct possibility that he thought 'Gawd, not another 'un' and couldn't be arsed to rush.

A mundane, simple, and quite likely explanation for his tardiness.

How was he to know the woman had been murdered? He wasn't.

[Garry Wroe]

"It was a statutory requirement imposed by the 1870 Education Act."

Aha - I did not know that, Garry, so thank you for informing me!

My pleasure, Fish.

Five shillings per day makes for a weekly salary of 30 shillings, so a carman apparently was not that bad off.

Given that the minimum income considered sufficient to keep the average East End family out of poverty was twenty-one shillings, Fish, it would appear that Cross was doing a good deal better than the third of East Enders who struggled daily to pay for basic food and shelter.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

" its 'should have' - not 'shudda' "

Not nowadays and here, Sally - itīs shudda, cudda, wudda on the Lechmere threads. And that was not my idea..

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"Wanna play shuddas, Fish ?"

Yes, letīs!

"Mizen should have been asked why he went to Bucks Row, but he was not"

He may well have been - and said he was signalled by Neil. Then again, he may just have nodded when Neil was asked about it.

"Mizen should have told his superiors about the carmen, but he did not"

As evidenced!

"Mizen should have been asked by Baxter why he didn't give that important info before Inquest Day 2, but he was not"

Or it would have been in the records, most probably.

"Mizen should have been banned (from the boards) for the commited offence, he was not"

Not your choice, or mine. And sometimes it is wiser not to cause too much smoke, since the public will sense the flames. Any which way, there you are.

"The Lloyds reporter should have told the police about the carmen, he did not"

We donīt know, David. He may have - but he may have waited for Lloyds to be sure of an exclusive. After that, he may have told the police - thereīs no knowing. But the evidence is in accordance with him keeping the information back.

"The police should have known about the carmen (since the Lloyds reporter proves that the story had leaked out as soon as Friday afternoon or evening), but they knew nothing"

That all depends on the character of the leak. Letīs theorize that Paul knew a Lloyds reporter and told him he had a smashing story - for a very cheap payment. Thatīs just one explanation, hundreds of others may exist.

"The Lloyds reporter should have been Chief-Inspector, he was not"

Easy, David, easy ... donīt let your frustration get the better of you!

"We should also play shuddas, or shuldas, with Paul's interview, Fish."

Any day, David. Any day.

" if Cross was the Ripper, he should have never touched Paul's shoulder."

Which hand, David? And are you saying that he "must" have had blood on it?

"Was your Ripper cunning or not ?"

In many a sense, he was.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Yes, Fish. Cudda been the solution, but it's not.

What about the Shulda ? Paul's shoulda, I mean.

edit : can't delete, sorry (just saw reply)

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Mizen, along with every other policeman on the streets of Whitechapel, routinely saw drunk prostitutes - often in a critical condition - on those streets."

Maybe so. And?

"Every time his attention was called to one of these unfortunates, he was tasked with taking her to the police station for processing - to sober up, sleep it off; or, if one of the worse cases, to take her to the infirmary."

If it was bad enough, yes. And?

"When presented with news of a woman who was 'dead or drunk' its a distinct possibility that he thought 'Gawd, not another 'un' and couldn't be arsed to rush."

Yes, Sally. And?

"A mundane, simple, and quite likely explanation for his tardiness."

Absolutely. And?

"How was he to know the woman had been murdered? He wasn't."

Of course not. And?

The best,
Fisherman