Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

[Fisherman]

How do you know they didnt find out his real name, they must have at some point, and therefore felt that there was nothing suspcious.

Do you think that he would have continued this name charade with out beliveing the truth would come out?

Give it up take another break, your OCD is getting worse

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, Trevor, they "must" not have found out his real name. It is not, and never was, a given. And what information we have tells us that the police referred to him as Cross as late as October 19.

These are the simple facts. Your assumtion that the police MUST have found out his real name is no fact, it is, as I said, an assumption only.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, Trevor, they "must" not have found out his real name. It is not, and never was, a given. And what information we have tells us that the police referred to him as Cross as late as October 19.

These are the simple facts. Your assumtion that the police MUST have found out his real name is no fact, it is, as I said, an assumption only.

But you cannot prove they didnt so its a moot point and in the grand schme of things is not reason to make him a suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

As usual, we're going to part ways here because you do not accept standard methodology.

One cannot argue from a lack of information. Such an argument is invalid. So every time you claim that Neil or Mizen or Paul or anyone else would or should or could have mentioned this or that - it is wrong as a basis for argument. We do not know why they did not see fit to mention something. And therefore we cannot use not mentioning something to infer or imply anything. It's only if we have a source that talks about why something was not mentioned, or why something is missing, that we can use THAT information to talk about that particular lack of information.

Also, you've used the phrase "press conference" many times, this is a modern term implying something like an open session where the police invited questions from any and all papers. I don't think that was the case. In your response one sees how you apparently believe that something like that happened and Neil was put before the press corps and told to answer their questions.
It's probably best to not convey such an image until we can positively ascertain that this is what happened.

Some things to note here:
You use the phrase "believed by the police" as though the police were a single entity. It's important to remember that the police was a diverse organisation and that departments, hierachichal levels and individuals within the force could have differences of opinion. Thus, while you believe Neil's statement reveals that "the police" did not believe Paul, that is not necessarily true. Even if his statement meant Paul was not believed, which I do not think it does, it does not follow that "the police" had taken a collective stance on it, had reflected on it, had decided whether to believe or not. It could simply mean that Neil did not believe Paul's statement. So stating as you do that the police did not believe Paul is not supported.

Of course, I cannot establish which parts of the police thought what - but I can establish that Neil fevently denied having been directed to the murder site by Paul and Lechmere and that none of the officers at the press conference on the 2:nd voiced any other take on things. That was what I meant when I said that the police thought there was just the one PC involved. And to be frank, these were the polcemen who forem ost counted since they involved the investigating force and who was believed to be the finder of the body.

To repeat, even if Neil did not know about Mizen being alerted by the carmen, this does not mean that "the police" did not believe Paul. Which is what you've claimed. In order to claim this, you should show some evidence supporting the claim. So far, you've shown a statement from a constable which you interpret as meaning that constable was unaware of Mizen's involvement.

Secondly, I think you misinterpret the part about the constable - Paul is not saying that the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to the beat he was on. He is saying: the policeman I spoke to was not belonging to the beat where the corpse was.

Eh - no. He is saying, and I quote at verbatim: He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. And when he spoke to the PC, that PC was on the beat walked by Mizen, not the beat walked by Neil. One may of course choose as one wants here, but it is not as Paul actually said what you claim he said, and the inference must in my world be that "that" beat refers to the encounter Paul was commenting on.

I did not claim he said it, I paraphrased two interpretations of what he said. Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Since he comes directly from finding the corpse, "that" beat refers to the beat where the woman was. "That" in this case is a demonstrative adjective implying something further away than "this", a constallation known from most european languages (here/there, this/that, hier/da, dies/das, her/der, här/där etc)

Another thing to note is that we do not know what Neil was responding to, precisely. You assume that he is solely concerned with and responding to Paul's statement in that specific paper, but I think it seems that he is responding to a question, like "Is it true that you were alerted to the body by two men?" What we can infer from Neil's statement is only that the fact that Paul and Cross (also) found the body and alerted a constable was known. That is what Neil comments on.

Generally speaking, we know that there were rumours circulating about two men showing a PC the way to the body BEFORE Lloyds Weekly published the interview, so Iīd say that Neil was responding to this persistant rumour, and it seems likely to me that the press conference wanted to give Neil the chance to publically and once and for all put that rumour to bed.
However, there is absolutely nothing to show that Pauls and Lechmereīs alerting Mizen was known to anybody but Paul, Lechmere and Mizen at this stage, so you are wrong there. If that knowledge had been there, then why would Neil paint Paul out as a liar?
An interesting side issue on that score: You know that drawing where Neil finds Nichols? Has it occurred to you that in all the other ficve murders, Tabram included, the drawings in the paper always show the victim and the first finder: Tabram/Reeves, Chapman/Davis, Stride/Diemschitz, Eddowes/Watkins and Kelly/Bowyer. But in the Nichols case, the papers drew Neil finding the body. It tells us what the picture was.

as noted, press conference is probably not the best phrase. And Neil does not paint Paul out as a liar, he simply points out that he found the body without help. Again, that does not mean that he or others in the police believed Paul lied. It at most means that he or someone in the police was anxious to point out that Neil found the body without help.

We cannot know why Neil did not say something he did not say, and so we cannot use it as basis for any inference. As mentioned above, he likely was just commenting on or responding to a question about whether he was the constable alerted by passers-by. It does not follow that he would automatically have mentioned Mizen. As mentioned above, it is possible that he did not know precisely who the other constable was, or he did not have permission to make further comments, or he was in a hurry and did not think to mention it or whatever - we don't know but there could be any number of reasons.

In my world, it DOES follow that he and his seniors would have mentioned Mizen. Neil was under fire for having lied about who was the first finder and for having left his beat, and that was not something the police would let pass uncommented on. it would paint them out in a very bad light. If they could put it right, they would, I have no doubt whatsoever about that.

As pointed out, your world lacks standard methodology. Neil not mentioning something cannot be used to argue anything.

I disagree, there was no problem and no opposing of anyone, and as it turned out, both constables appeared at the inquest and were not in opposition. Why would Mizen inform Neil of the carmen, Mizen did not answer to Neil at all. Even if, as you assumed, Neil did not know Mizen had been alerted by the carmen, it does not follow that the rest of the police, i.e. Neil's and Mizen's superiors, did not know either.

Of course the PC:s were in opposition. Neil said he found the body, Mizen said that the two carmen were the finders. The pictures they paint provide very differing pictures. And once again, if the police had been aware of how the land lay, they would certainly have mentioned it. It was no state secret but instead important information that they had no reason at all to withhold. Presuming that they would keep quiet about it does not work unless you can explain why they did so. And lazyness or forgetfulness is no really rational answer as far as I can tell.

They were not in opposition, and did not paint very differing pictures. I don't know how you come up with these things They were both at the inquest so why not read their testimony - there was not opposition. It was simply an instance of the body being found by two parties independent of one another. Neil found the body AND the carmen found the body. Why do you imagine anyone would have a problem with that? As said, it's possible that Neil was keen on pointing out how he found it first, without help, but this does not mean that he or anyone else disbelieved the carmen or was in any way in opposition to what they said.
And again, while you may be convinced they would have mentioned something, the fact that they didn't does not mean anything. You could fill a library of books witht the things they don't mention, it has no bearing on a valid argument. Like my old professor used to say, they did not mention gravity either, does that mean they were floating around?

No, it does not.

What Neil said does not establish that Neil believed the PC referred to was himself. Not at all. So Neil would not have been concerned about being accused of being outside his regular beat.

The fact that the carmen and Mizen were never mentioned by Neil or his superiors tells us that this was no knowledge they had. Ergo, Neil thought that Paul claimed to have shown HIM the way to the body. And the claim involved having informed him about it at the top of Bucks Row - which was not his beat. The idea that what Neil said was "No, it is not true that I was shown to the body by that carman" actually should be pronounced "No, it is not true that I specifically was shont to the body by that carman", and involving the nudge-nudge, blink-blink unvoiced implication " .... but SOMEBODY ELSE was!" lacks any credibility in my world.
One must consider how Neil said at the inquest that he flagged Mizen and Thain down, clearly showing that he tought that HE was the instigator of Mizens presence. And Mizen had no reason to tell bhim about the carmen, as he too believed that this was so, but for another reason: Lechmereīs claim that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row. If Mizen had known that Neil was not the finder, then he should have reported this to his superiors, but he apparently didnīt.

Something never mentioned by Neil or his superiors does not mean that they did not have the knowledge. Ergo, Neil did NOT necessarily think that Paul claimed he was the pc.
Something that you think he should have reported - but apparently didn't - how do you know? Again and again: the lack of information is not a valid argument. Many files are lost through time and people don't mention all the things that we later would have wanted them to. So we cannot use that as basis for an argument.

No, he of course knew that the carmen were referring to another PC, he simply specified that he had not been the PC alerted by the carmen.

"Of course"? I have provided an alternative scenario that I find a thousand times more likely than yours, so there can be no "of course" Either you or I am right, and the way the evidence looks, I donīt think itīs a tough call, Iīm afraid. You presented a personal take based on a personal idea, and said that you dad "dismantled" my claim and that it was very obvious that you were right. You apparently failed to look at it from Neils perspective. That is not much of a ground to allow for any further of courses.

Of course I did not present a personal take based on a personal idea, and indeed I did look at it from Neil's perspective and the perspective of the sources.

I cannot see that.

And thatīs where we differ. If you can prove my take on things wrong or in any way less likely than yours, then do so.

I can: redo your argument without reference to any missing information and see far how you get. As an exercise in history, one could say.

Neil made a small comment about not being the pc alerted to the body by two carmen. This does not mean and cannot be used to infer that the police did not know there was another pc involved.

Is that "a small comment", though, when someone fervently denies having been shown the way to a murder victim and defending himself against the suggestion that he had left his beat? Eve if you do not like it as such, I fail to see how you can claim that perspective to be wrongful?

not sure what you mean. He just stated that he was not alerted to body by two men, but found it while walking. There was no need to defend himself because there was no suggestion that he had left his beat. So which perspective am I claming to be wrongful?

In fact, it implies the opposite: Neil was perfectly aware that another PC was involved, because otherwise why specify that HE was not the pc alerted?

If Paul said "I showed that policeman the way to the corpse" and Neil knew that was wrong, how on earth would he explain that at the press conference without using the word "I"? Furthermore, why do you lead on that he said "I was not the PC alerted" when he never said that at all, but instead that it was not true that he had been called to the body by two men? It is very misleading and not true. There was no such specification unless he emphasized the word "I" - and to begon with, you donīt know that he did. Plus, as I have pointed out, he would arguably have told about Mizen being the PC involved if that knowledge was there.

Sometimes we paraphrase things while discussing them, Fisherman, I think it was pretty clear from the very short sentence here that that was the case.

In previous discussions, it has been brought up that Paul's statement in Lloyd's was critical of the police, and the headline in for instance Evening News Sept. 3rd reinforces that: "The police at fault".
In that perspective, it is clear why Neil is stating that he actually found the body without help from the public - he is keen to point this out to avoid criticism, perhaps of himself, perhaps of the force in general. It does not mean that he or the police force did not believe Paul or did not know about Mizen being alerted. They perhaps just wanted another perspective out there, namely that of the intrepid constable finding and securing the victim on his own, in order to deflect accusations of being "at fault".

"It is not true" is actually a very clear phrasing. And a very confrontative one, meaning that he should likely not have used it if he knew that Paul was correct. The inference is clear - he didnīt. If he had known, Iīd suggest that he would have explained matters: "There has been an unfortunate mistake in combination with my finding the body of Polly Nichols. In actual fact, the body was first found by two carmen by the names of Paul and Lechmere, and these men later met PC Mizen in Bakers Row and sent him to the murder spot, where I was at that stage in place. The idea that I would have been the PV sent by the carmen is therefore wrong.
Surely you can see that this is what a press conference would establish - if it was actually there to be established.

You are - as anybody else - welcome to your personal view, be that view good or bad. But I dislike having it claimed that it would dismantle my view and that it would in any way be obvious that I am wrong. And I must ask you to refrain from making claims that cannot be substantiated when discussing the matter.

The inference is not clear - and you go on to suggest that he would have explained matters - well, again: such an argument carries no value. We don't even know the circumstances of how he was asked - you paint a picture of a grand press conference - I think you'll find that was not police policy to let constables be interviewed at length. So perhaps Neil simply replied in the negative to a hurried question asked by a pressing reporter.

I would certainly always try to avoid making clams that cannot be substantiated when discussing this case. One would hope that goes for everyone on these boards.

[Fisherman]

But you cannot prove they didnt so its a moot point and in the grand schme of things is not reason to make him a suspect.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I am afraid that any person found alone by the side of a victim with the kind of damage Nichols had and bleeding for the amount of time she did will and should be regarded with a degree of suspicion if that person cannot be cleared and if no other suspect is identified. You ought to know that too.

[Trevor Marriott]

I am afraid that any person found alone by the side of a victim with the kind of damage Nichols had and bleeding for the amount of time she did will and should be regarded with a degree of suspicion if that person cannot be cleared and if no other suspect is identified. You ought to know that too.

But you cannot prove the police suspected him and so your theory falls down, its only what you believe and that counts for nothing because you cannot prove what you keep stating.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

As usual, we're going to part ways here because you do not accept standard methodology.

That beginning begs the question whether it is standard methodology to claim that you have automatically dismantled a suggestion when you have only produced an alternative suggestion. But who am I to meddle in matters like these? Letīs see where your wisdom and insights into these matters lead us!

One cannot argue from a lack of information. Such an argument is invalid.

So when you do not have the information that Mizens role was known to the police, you cannot make that agrument? Or?

So every time you claim that Neil or Mizen or Paul or anyone else would or should or could have mentioned this or that - it is wrong as a basis for argument.

Not in my world. In my world, suggestions can be made about things, and some suggestions are - based on empiri - more likelier than others. If I argue, for example, that a policeman would have taken a person committing a crime into custody, I am making a perfectly logical and empirically based argument.
On the issue at hand, I think I am the one allowing for both scenarios presented by us. You are the one saying that you have dismantled my scenario. Somehow, I feel that is not standard methodology. And if it is, it should not be. So letīs not be silly but instead discuss on equal terms.

We do not know why they did not see fit to mention something. And therefore we cannot use not mentioning something to infer or imply anything. It's only if we have a source that talks about why something was not mentioned, or why something is missing, that we can use THAT information to talk about that particular lack of information.

Then again, you are suggesting that the word "I", uttered by Neil involved how he was quite aware how Mizen was involved.
Maybe a look in the mirror could be useful?

Also, you've used the phrase "press conference" many times, this is a modern term implying something like an open session where the police invited questions from any and all papers. I don't think that was the case. In your response one sees how you apparently believe that something like that happened and Neil was put before the press corps and told to answer their questions.
It's probably best to not convey such an image until we can positively ascertain that this is what happened.

I usually refer to it as a kind of press conference for lack of better words. The police called it, I believe, an interview. The aim was apparently to inform the press about the case, so it was closely related to what we call press conferences.

To repeat, even if Neil did not know about Mizen being alerted by the carmen, this does not mean that "the police" did not believe Paul. Which is what you've claimed. In order to claim this, you should show some evidence supporting the claim. So far, you've shown a statement from a constable which you interpret as meaning that constable was unaware of Mizen's involvement.

I have shown why the police did not believe in Paul: "It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked..." He therefore first establishes that Pauls claim was not a true one, and he then tells us why: he came upon the body alone, as he was walking the street. There were no two carmen showing him the way.

What is YOUR evidence for the claim that the police knew about Mizen and his part? For Neil emphasizing "I", as it were?

I did not claim he said it, I paraphrased two interpretations of what he said. Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Since he comes directly from finding the corpse, "that" beat refers to the beat where the woman was. "That" in this case is a demonstrative adjective implying something further away than "this", a constallation known from most european languages (here/there, this/that, hier/da, dies/das, her/der, här/där etc)

As pointed out to you before, I find it much more likely that Paul spoke of the Mizen territory, and you cannot claim that you must be right, Iīm afraid. As for "paraphrasing", you wrote:
Secondly, I think you misinterpret the part about the constable - Paul is not saying that the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to the beat he was on. He is saying: the policeman I spoke to was not belonging to the beat where the corpse was.
...and Paul never said that at all, so there can be no paraphrasing. All there can be - and all there is - is a reinterpretation grabbed out of thin air. What Paul DID claim to have said is the exact thing you claim he did NOT say: "the policeman I spoke to was not belonging to that beat."
You are welcome to suggest that Paul said something entirely different than what Lloyds wrote. You are even welcome to suggest that he THOUGHT something different that what Lloyds wrote he said. But if we return to the passage where you told me that one cannot argue from a stance of no knowledge, you may - in a best case scenario - realize that you are on very deep water here.
Once more, why would Paul say that the policeman he spoke to did not belong to the beat he walked into after leaving Paul? It would be decidedly odd to make that claim. If you encourage a PC to leave his post and walk into another PC:s beat, it goes without saying that he does. not belong to the beat he walks into.

as noted, press conference is probably not the best phrase. And Neil does not paint Paul out as a liar, he simply points out that he found the body without help. Again, that does not mean that he or others in the police believed Paul lied. It at most means that he or someone in the police was anxious to point out that Neil found the body without help.

Saying that "It is not true" is actually to point out a lie. Or an untruth, if you prefer that word.
To claim that it "at most" meant that someone wanted to point out that Neil found the body woth no aid, is tantamount to claiming that I cannot be correct. And THAT is a lie, letīs make no bones about that.

As pointed out, your world lacks standard methodology. Neil not mentioning something cannot be used to argue anything.

Then welcome to the club of the methodological apostates, Kattrup. You are even fit for the chairmans role, Iīd say!

They were not in opposition, and did not paint very differing pictures. I don't know how you come up with these things They were both at the inquest so why not read their testimony - there was not opposition. It was simply an instance of the body being found by two parties independent of one another. Neil found the body AND the carmen found the body. Why do you imagine anyone would have a problem with that? As said, it's possible that Neil was keen on pointing out how he found it first, without help, but this does not mean that he or anyone else disbelieved the carmen or was in any way in opposition to what they said.

Did you read my post...? I said, very clearly, that they were not in opposition. And I pointed out how that owed to how BOTH men DID believe that Neil was the finder; Neil on account of not being aware of the carmen and Mizen on account of having been lied to be Lechmere. If they had been in opposition, it would be another matter entirely.
Always read first!

And again, while you may be convinced they would have mentioned something, the fact that they didn't does not mean anything. You could fill a library of books witht the things they don't mention, it has no bearing on a valid argument. Like my old professor used to say, they did not mention gravity either, does that mean they were floating around?

Iīm afraid that your suggestion that Neil emphasized "I" and knew about Mizen is equally substanceless in that case. And so, we are down to empiri and logic again. Your logic tells you that Neil would state that he personally wasnīt shown to the body, but he would not say who was although he knew it. And his superiors collectively clammed up about it too.
Fine.
Not logically fine, not empirically fine.
You-are-entitled-to-any-kind-of-notions-fine.
Absense-of-evidence-is-not-evidence-of absense-fine.

Something never mentioned by Neil or his superiors does not mean that they did not have the knowledge. Ergo, Neil did NOT necessarily think that Paul claimed he was the pc.

Of course not. Many things can have alternative suggestions provided, and regardless if that suggestion is daft, it cannot be conclusively written off just as the better suggestion cannot be conclusively accepted. Thatīs the way things are, and we must live with it. We take in, we interpret and we form a picture. Only people like Trevor push points like how the police must have known that the carman was named Lechmere. The rest of us will have to live in a less rigid world.

Something that you think he should have reported - but apparently didn't - how do you know? Again and again: the lack of information is not a valid argument. Many files are lost through time and people don't mention all the things that we later would have wanted them to. So we cannot use that as basis for an argument.
Of course I did not present a personal take based on a personal idea, and indeed I did look at it from Neil's perspective and the perspective of the sources.
I can: redo your argument without reference to any missing information and see far how you get. As an exercise in history, one could say.
not sure what you mean. He just stated that he was not alerted to body by two men, but found it while walking. There was no need to defend himself because there was no suggestion that he had left his beat. So which perspective am I claming to be wrongful?
Sometimes we paraphrase things while discussing them, Fisherman, I think it was pretty clear from the very short sentence here that that was the case.

See the above. And "paraphrasing" away an actual wording to substitute it for a another, more preferred one, is still wrong.

The inference is not clear - and you go on to suggest that he would have explained matters - well, again: such an argument carries no value. We don't even know the circumstances of how he was asked - you paint a picture of a grand press conference - I think you'll find that was not police policy to let constables be interviewed at length. So perhaps Neil simply replied in the negative to a hurried question asked by a pressing reporter.

A grand press conference? Where did I mention "grand"? Is that you reinterpreting things again, Kattrup?

I would certainly always try to avoid making clams that cannot be substantiated when discussing this case. One would hope that goes for everyone on these boards.

Ah - good! Then you wonīt mind me asking this:

Is it true that you have dismantled the suggestion that the police did not know about Mizens role at this stage, or is it merely an alternative suggestion on your behalf? You have certainly questioned my take - but have you actually dismantled it?
And is it totally obvious that I am wrong, as you also claimed, or is that claim more of the same: an alternative suggestion on your behalf only?

Letīs hear it, and lets not be too eloqent about it, a simple yes or no will do in each case.

[Fisherman]

But you cannot prove the police suspected him and so your theory falls down, its only what you believe and that counts for nothing because you cannot prove what you keep stating.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Counts for nothing? That is just what you believe, and so it counts for nothing.

PS. A theory does not fall down because it cannot be proven. It only falls down when it is disproven. Actually, all theories are unproven. If they were not, they would be facts, and not theories. Those are two different things, Trevor.

Hope that helps.

[Fisherman]

Didn't Neil's beat cover Baker's Row from Whitechapel Road to Thomas Street, including the top of Buck's Row?

One more bit on this, Joshua: In the DT, Neil is quoted from the inquest as saying: "The farthest I had been that night was just through the Whitechapel-road and up Baker's-row."
If Neil really did patrol Bakers Row, it begs the question why he looked for a colleague in that direction...?
Maybe he only patrolled the southern part of it, leaving the northern part to Mizen?

[Joshua Rogan]

One more bit on this, Joshua: In the DT, Neil is quoted from the inquest as saying: "The farthest I had been that night was just through the Whitechapel-road and up Baker's-row."
If Neil really did patrol Bakers Row, it begs the question why he looked for a colleague in that direction...?
Maybe he only patrolled the southern part of it, leaving the northern part to Mizen?

Both men patrolled Baker's Row - Neil the eastern side of it, Mizen the western side.

[Fisherman]

Both men patrolled Baker's Row - Neil the eastern side of it, Mizen the western side.

That would seem a possibility, yes. And if so, then Neil would have had some little hope of being able to contact Mizen by way of his lantern, although is was literally a very small hope from the vantage point down at the murder site. Neil would have to walk over to the northern side of Bucks Row to be able to see the outlet.
As for the remark made by Paul about the PC he spoke to not being in his ordinary beat, the implications are much the same if Neil believed he was the PC spoken of - he would still deny that he was shown to the body by two carmen and he would still dislike the inference that he had left his beat.

[paul g]

The canonical five Discovers of a body.
John Davis -Carman
louis Diemschutz -salesman
Edward Watkins - police constable
Charles Cross - Carman
John McCarthy -rent collector or part thereof.

with the exception of P C Watkins all lived locally.
With the exception of possibly J McCarthy all had excuse to put in the early hours.
could any of these be suspects based on what is held against Charles cross or is used to suspect him.
Non used that we know of or had the use of two names only Cross/ Letchmere.
Without going into intense research and only on the surface comparing the 4 above with the exclusion of Cross and using what is used to suspect him I would say the criteria could be matched against the remaining four.
I accept that P C Watkins could be researched if he hasn’t already to check his working periods with the timings of the murders so possibly he could be eventually excluded .
Now before looking at them closely which I have no doubt people have they can’t be fully excluded or indeed included as a suspect .
This applies to cross also surely.
He can be included because he found a body and had a false name or used a secondary legal name.
Without being a builder of a scenario against each one it on the surface seems easy to do.
Murders victim after having a busy evening driving a horse and cart , fancy’s a quickly with a local lady of the night then kills her hears voices thinks quickly as per Cross did runs into club shouting I’ve just found a body
sounds ridiculous but is it any less plausible than crud Letchmere theory.

[harry]

Cannot see the point of your last post to me fisherman,but you repeatedly make comparisons of convicted serial killers to Cross on the basis of them being family men.Yes Cross was a family man who found a body,there can be no dispute about that,but what evidence does that imply as to Cross also being a serial killer as they were? What other fanciful comparisons,and you are brilliant at making them,can you come forward with.Perhaps some stood and waited by their victims untill a suitable witness appeared?Or perhaps Cross was once sighted viciously whipping his horse?Who knows,clever fellow that you are,you may even produce a proven piece of credible evidence

[Fisherman]

Cannot see the point of your last post to me fisherman,but you repeatedly make comparisons of convicted serial killers to Cross on the basis of them being family men.Yes Cross was a family man who found a body,there can be no dispute about that,but what evidence does that imply as to Cross also being a serial killer as they were? What other fanciful comparisons,and you are brilliant at making them,can you come forward with.Perhaps some stood and waited by their victims untill a suitable witness appeared?Or perhaps Cross was once sighted viciously whipping his horse?Who knows,clever fellow that you are,you may even produce a proven piece of credible evidence

I think you may need to read that book of mine, Harry. With any luck, it should help out with the difficulties you have seeing my points.

[Fisherman]

The canonical five Discovers of a body.
John Davis -Carman
louis Diemschutz -salesman
Edward Watkins - police constable
Charles Cross - Carman
John McCarthy -rent collector or part thereof.

with the exception of P C Watkins all lived locally.
With the exception of possibly J McCarthy all had excuse to put in the early hours.
could any of these be suspects based on what is held against Charles cross or is used to suspect him.

Non used that we know of or had the use of two names only Cross/ Letchmere.
Without going into intense research and only on the surface comparing the 4 above with the exclusion of Cross and using what is used to suspect him I would say the criteria could be matched against the remaining four.
I accept that P C Watkins could be researched if he hasn’t already to check his working periods with the timings of the murders so possibly he could be eventually excluded .
Now before looking at them closely which I have no doubt people have they can’t be fully excluded or indeed included as a suspect .
This applies to cross also surely.
He can be included because he found a body and had a false name or used a secondary legal name.
Without being a builder of a scenario against each one it on the surface seems easy to do.
Murders victim after having a busy evening driving a horse and cart , fancy’s a quickly with a local lady of the night then kills her hears voices thinks quickly as per Cross did runs into club shouting I’ve just found a body
sounds ridiculous but is it any less plausible than crud Letchmere theory.

People have been made suspects on looser grounds than living locally. In that respect, yes of course all of these men can be looked at from an agle of possible guilt. In actual fact, all people who were involved in the murders SHOULD be looked upon in that manner. My own conviction is that the Ripper murders stayed unsolved because the police failed to do so.

That being said, there are of course levels to be recognized. To begin. with, if Charles Lechmere had found a cold, long dead body, he would not be a suspect in relation to the finding. But he found a warm body that would go on to bleed for many a minute after he left it. Out of the five you name above, only Diemschitz and Watkins found bodies that were freshly dead, and so Davis and Mc Carthy cannot be seen as suspects on the ground of having found a body. And of course, McCarthy did not find Kelly, Bowyer did, but the same goes for him; the body was long dead and he is no suspect on the ground of finding the body.

Watkins found Eddowes on his beat, and so he would not have been likely to be the killer. Furthermore, if he WAS the killer, it would seem odd that he rushed to Kearly & Tonge and fetched George Morris instead of making good his escape. It makes for a very convoluted scenario to name him the killer, although he cannot be 100 per cent cleared on these grounds.
If we compare him further to Lechmere, it seems he did not give a name that was not the one he was registered by, he did not disagree with anybody about what he had said and done, he didnīt have reason to traverse Spitalfields as far as we know, he has not been linked to St Georges, the Goulston Street rag was not positioned between his home in Eldon Street, Shoreditch and the murder spot in Mitre Square and so on and so on - in other words, his presence at the murder spot is the only point on which he matches the carman.

As for Diemschitz, he lived in Berner Street, so he also fails the bloody rag test. We have no reason to think that he would traverse Spitalfields on a regular basis, he did not disagree with the police over what was said, he did not use an alias as far as we know, he is not linked to the Aldgate/Mitre Square area plus it seems his cart was heard as it arrived and he would therefore have had precious little time to kill Stride. Furthermore, as the other clubbers rushed out, there was a long trail of blood in the yard that would have run for some time. In other words, he only matches Lechmere in his proximity to a murder victim, and it is very unlikely that he was the cutter. There is also the fact that he, just like Watkins, got help instead of leaving the premises.

These exercises have been common ever since Lechmere was first named as the likely culprit: "If finding a body is all it takes, then every finder is as likely a killer as him!", sort of. As we may see, this is not so.

[Kattrup]

Ah - good! Then you wonīt mind me asking this:

Is it true that you have dismantled the suggestion that the police did not know about Mizens role at this stage, or is it merely an alternative suggestion on your behalf? You have certainly questioned my take - but have you actually dismantled it?
And is it totally obvious that I am wrong, as you also claimed, or is that claim more of the same: an alternative suggestion on your behalf only?

Letīs hear it, and lets not be too eloqent about it, a simple yes or no will do in each case.

One cannot answer yes or not to questions that involve two different options.
But it's true that your inferences have been dismantled, and are obviously wrong. It's perhaps not true that we will agree on this.

Since you prefer to discuss using your own rules, it's pretty pointless to continue. I notice you also keep going on about Cross' name