Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

I agree.



I agree.

I knew what I said made perfect sense!

[Elamarna]

We have sources for the historical fact that Lechmere was a liar.

Pierre my friend,

Yes there are sources that he used two names, however that does not make him a liar!

It is how one interprets the fact that he gave a name, which he had a family connection to. Different people see different reasons for it, that I fully understand.

However to say he was a proven liar is not correct!

It is true however to say that he used a name, which he MAY not have used in everyday life.
It is true to say he MAY have been trying to distance himself from the murder.

However he was entitled to use the name Cross, it was the name of his step father. It did not hide his identity, he was traceable.


I do not wish to get back on the did he lie merry go round, which never gives an answer all agree on. There will never be a consensus view!

Therefore this is my only comment on this issue.

Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Posts #75 and #76?

You deciding something wasn't so doesn't automatically make it not so.

Want to try again?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Posts #75 and #76?

You deciding something wasn't so doesn't automatically make it not so.

I didn't "decide" anything Simon. I explained why the idea of Mizen wanting to provide Neil with an "alibi", by inventing something Lechmere said to him, makes absolutely no sense. Not only did you not respond to any of my points, you didn't answer the single question I asked you ("alibi for what?") but that is no surprise because we've discussed this before and I know that you will refuse to expand on what you mean or explain it.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Mizen's statement put PC Neil in Bucks Row at 3.45 am.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Mizen's statement put PC Neil in Bucks Row at 3.45 am.

So what? Why did PC Neil need to be in Bucks Row at 3.45am?

And if by "Mizen's statement" you mean that part of his evidence in which he said that Lechmere told him that a police officer wanted him in Bucks Row, it wasn't the best "alibi" in the world was it, considering that Lechmere was always going to deny having said such a thing to Mizen and both Lechmere and Paul were obviously going to deny having seen Neil. Not only that, but Neil never claimed to have seen or spoken to Lechmere or Paul either! So a more stupid, foolish, unnecessary and implausible "alibi" one cannot imagine. Therefore: it makes no sense.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

As usual, you've got things completely back to front.

PC Neil needed to be in Bucks Row at 3.45 am in order to discover the body at that time.

But he wasn't in Bucks Row at 3.45 am. He was obviously elsewhere.

Cross did not encounter a policeman, other than Mizen, that morning.

That Cross told Mizen he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row was a porkie, a lie, a fib, which put PC Neil where he should have been at 3.45 am.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

As usual, you've got things completely back to front.

PC Neil needed to be in Bucks Row at 3.45 am in order to discover the body at that time.

But he wasn't in Bucks Row at 3.45 am. He was obviously elsewhere.

Cross did not encounter a policeman, other than Mizen, that morning.

That Cross told Mizen he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row was a porkie, a lie, a fib, which put PC Neil where he should have been at 3.45 am.

Wow! That is complete gibberish Simon. Usually your wacky conspiracy theories, albeit invariably based on misunderstandings of the evidence, are at least internally coherent but this one has no coherence whatsoever. It also, to repeat myself, makes absolutely no sense.

Firstly, why did PC Neil need to discover the body at 3.45 am? Why not, say, 3.47am or 3.50am?

Secondly, why was PC Neil "obviously" elsewhere at 3.45am? If, as Abberline said in his report, Cross discovered the body at 3.40, isn't it possible that PC Neil did discover the body at that time?

Thirdly, why would Cross want to put PC Neil in Bucks Row at 3.45am?

Fourthly, in saying that "Cross told Mizen he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row" you are contracting yourself because in #74 you said "Perhaps PC Mizen lied to give PC Neil an alibi". So who was it who lied on your account, Mizen or Cross?

Fifthly, which officer was first to the body? Neil, Mizen or Thain? If Neil, why did he need "an alibi"? If anyone other than Neil, what actually happened and why did Thain go for the doctor and Mizen for the ambulance?

Clearly Simon you haven't thought this through. Unless you answer all my questions and tell us what really happened that morning in a way that makes some kind of sense, I can only conclude that this is a badly written fairy tale you have dreamt up, albeit one that you didn't feel was important enough to include in your book.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I respectfully suggest that you seek treatment for your disorder.

Good luck.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

Pierre my friend,

Yes there are sources that he used two names, however that does not make him a liar!

It is how one interprets the fact that he gave a name, which he had a family connection to. Different people see different reasons for it, that I fully understand.

However to say he was a proven liar is not correct!

It is true however to say that he used a name, which he MAY not have used in everyday life.
It is true to say he MAY have been trying to distance himself from the murder.

However he was entitled to use the name Cross, it was the name of his step father. It did not hide his identity, he was traceable.


I do not wish to get back on the did he lie merry go round, which never gives an answer all agree on. There will never be a consensus view!

Therefore this is my only comment on this issue.

Steve

Hi Steve,

OK. So how about this, do you think Lechmere was misleading?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

OK. So how about this, do you think Lechmere was misleading?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

That is entirely possible, however we cannot know that for sure.

The reason he gave the name Cross is the key to that and we simply do not know that?

Different people may see it in entirely different ways.
Some will come up with reasons which are entirely criminal, some with a degree of misleading and some innocent reasons,

It could have been related to his step father having been a police officer himself, and his wanting to get on the police side, after all, the finder of a body is on occasions considered a suspect.


If he had used a false name, then you and others who consider he lied, would have a far stronger case.
The truth is he did not use a false name, he used one he was entitled to use Cross given it was his step fathers surname.

While the available sources indicated that on the whole he used Lechmere; we have know way of knowing if he used Cross on occasions? If he did, how often? the sources sadly do not exist..?

I strongly feel that we cannot say hand on heart that he was a proven liar! The question certainly has to be asked, however the answer is certainly not clear and requires a great deal of guess work.

I would therefore, after considerable consideration, say that, he gave a name, which possibly was given with the intent of deception, however it is no more than a possibility.


I finish by restating what I said before, this is an issue, which I honestly believe we will never have a consensus view on.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;384832]

Pierre

That is entirely possible, however we cannot know that for sure.

The reason he gave the name Cross is the key to that and we simply do not know that?

Different people may see it in entirely different ways.
Some will come up with reasons which are entirely criminal, some with a degree of misleading and some innocent reasons,

It could have been related to his step father having been a police officer himself, and his wanting to get on the police side, after all, the finder of a body is on occasions considered a suspect.

Yes, you are speaking in very general terms here. And that could be right, but thinking i general terms has not led to finding Jack the Ripper.

If he had used a false name, then you and others who consider he lied, would have a far stronger case.

Well, I am not really interested in Lechmere, he just happened to have a testimony which might be explained by other sources, and I am not interested in "explaining Lechmere". That is the job of Fisherman!

The truth is he did not use a false name, he used one he was entitled to use Cross given it was his step fathers surname.

I know, and as I have said before people were probably often worried about being witnesses in murder cases. So using the name Cross could have been convenient for him for that reason only. But then there is the statement about the policeman. And there is no explanation for that. That is the problem. So I think the tendency in his testimony is that he tries to protect himself. If he had just said that his name was Lechmere, that hypothesis would perhaps be weaker. I donīt know. On the other hand, it could have been stronger, since you could have claimed that he was a man who told the truth.

While the available sources indicated that on the whole he used Lechmere; we have know way of knowing if he used Cross on occasions? If he did, how often? the sources sadly do not exist..?

And we can not make a wish list for them.

I strongly feel that we cannot say hand on heart that he was a proven liar! The question certainly has to be asked, however the answer is certainly not clear and requires a great deal of guess work.

I think it is only a matter of definition. If he had something to gain or made a rational choice (good theories for this) it would have been that no one would find a "Lechmere" at his adress. Why would he have wanted that?

I would therefore, after considerable consideration, say that, he gave a name, which possibly was given with the intent of deception, however it is no more than a possibility.

But the consequences are the most important since it is an historical fact that he called himself Cross:
1) What was the consequences of his giving his name as Cross?

And I do not mean what "could have been" the consequences.

What do you think about this, Steve?

Regards, Pierre

[Mayerling]

Yes, you are speaking in very general terms here. And that could be right, but thinking i general terms has not led to finding Jack the Ripper.

Yes, and repeatedly carping on this ridiculous point will (despite your attempts to appear wise) not lead to finding Jack the Ripper either.

Well, I am not really interested in Lechmere, he just happened to have a testimony which might be explained by other sources, and I am not interested in "explaining Lechmere". That is the job of Fisherman!

No, what is apparent to everyone reading your windy, self-righteous questions is you are trying to appear to be smarter than any of us (or anyone at all) without really caring about what everyone else might wish to say. So we fully realize you care less about "explaining Lechmere" than you would be about what you will have for dinner on next Christmas morning.

I know, and as I have said before people were probably often worried about being witnesses in murder cases. So using the name Cross could have been convenient for him for that reason only. But then there is the statement about the policeman. And there is no explanation for that. That is the problem. So I think the tendency in his testimony is that he tries to protect himself. If he had just said that his name was Lechmere, that hypothesis would perhaps be weaker. I donīt know. On the other hand, it could have been stronger, since you could have claimed that he was a man who told the truth.

Actually you approach rationality here Pierre, but I wonder, what if a suddenly driven witness - feeling he must make a clear break to everyone in the inquest - had said, "My name is Letchmere, but I am also known as Cross to many people due to a family connection." Cudos for his honesty, but how many people listening to someone admitting to using a secondary name as a pseudonym will be trusted by their hearers as telling the truth?

And we can not make a wish list for them.

No we cannot make a wish list for the key of this dual name business? Nor can we make any realistic wish list for almost any mystery on any subject connected to this case. To believe that running to some hitherto unexpected outside source will give us a final piece of the puzzle, and prove our particular theory regarding the case is to pursue a will-of-the-wisp. Especially if one goes around claiming that only one piece of evidence remains to be placed before naming the real Ripper. Actually if one did years of slowly writing up researches one has conducted, and presenting them for peer review, one would be better approaching some constructive answers. Yes, we can't make selective wish lists.

I think it is only a matter of definition. If he had something to gain or made a rational choice (good theories for this) it would have been that no one would find a "Lechmere" at his address. Why would he have wanted that?

Plenty of reasons for that desire:

1) he owed money to various bookies and did not want them to find him;
2) he owed tax money to the government;
3) he had gotten several young women into trouble and feared being traced by their relatives;
4) he was planning to have his name legally changed;
5) he found another "Letchmere" lived nearby and he was getting pestered with mail and visits meant for this other party - so he'd use the name "Cross" instead.

Yeah, there are plenty of reasons. And we can go on like this until the cows come home. Unless somebody does a really nice job studying "Letchmere/Cross" in detail there is no way we can begin to comprehend his use of two names. To explode the question again and again without such research is useless, even if it satisfies an ego.

But the consequences are the most important since it is an historical fact that he called himself Cross:
1) What was the consequences of his giving his name as Cross?

Who really knows? Have you a real idea about this??? I feel you don't, but it must make you feel great that you are doing this and blowing smoke in our eyes? I'll make up an answer, though it is one I really don't believe. Letchmere was laying the groundwork for eventually claiming the copywrite profits for novels like "Middlemarch", "Silas Marner", "The Mill on the Floss", "Romola", "Daniel Deronda", "Felix Holt, Radical", "Adam Bede", and "Scenes from Clerical Life". These had been written by Mary Ann CROSS, who also liked to use a second name - "George Eliot". You may take that or leave it!

And I do not mean what "could have been" the consequences.

I have the strongest feeling that had Letchmere/Cross had any idea of how this matter of his use of an assumed name would be blown out of proportion on such a small basis in 2016, over 125 years after it occurred, he might have decided to call himself "Mr. X" or "Mr. Anonymous" or just surrender and call himself "Lechmere". He was testifying, and the police most likely knew how to contact him again - what was the real harm by doing it?

Oh - it enabled someone to appear wise trying to poke us all into interpreting it in detail without any real information. There is harm in that.

What do you think about this, Steve?

My deepest apologies to you Steve, and everyone else on this thread, except one ridiculous party.

Regards, Pierre

Have a nice night Pierre.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

I know i'm repeating myself and others, but, at least as far as i know, the police itself decided not to analyze any lead originating by the supposed "Mizen Scam". This should not suggest that the police itself was convinced that it was just a big red herring?

I mean, back in the few days after the murder, the police had every element to decide whatever the should investigate further about Lechmere, Paul, Mizen, Neil or whoever else. Are we really entitled to think that the police was so incompetent that they decided, say, to let Lechmere walk away without having at least considered, and ruled out, the possibility that he was the culprit?

[Fisherman]

Wow - I donīt even have to do the hijacking myself these days...