Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Sam Flynn 17 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Hunter 29 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 38 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 40 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Trevor Marriott 52 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 1 hour and 12 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (68 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (7 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Rip Don Souden - (1 posts)
Annie Chapman: Annie's scarf - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #911  
Old 02-15-2017, 10:39 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Well, some of cat's meat men who roamed the streets made small fortunes, so there was money to be made in that game. But if snobbery was ingrained in her psyche, she may well have resented the cards she had been dealt.
Itīs not an easy call to make - maybe the fact that she shunned the Cross name in favour of Lechmere has something to tell about it...?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #912  
Old 02-15-2017, 10:54 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,469
Default

Dear All

This thread seems to be spreading out from just the name issue to anything which can be used in the theory that Lechmere was the killer.

In which case let me raise a little issue here.

It has been suggested by many, myself included that Lechmere disturbed the killer and was not the killer himself.

Fisherman has counted that, to me at least, that this would mean that Lechmere, failed to see the killer, move from the body and walk away from the scene away from Lechmere, and such is not reasonable.

There is a question, related to this, I have never fully understood on the theory.

Fisherman has asked why did Lechmere not see the killer rise and walk away? (not a quote, just a summary of what has been posted before, not on this thread i believe.)

However does not the same question need to apply to Robert Paul?


Why did he not see Lechmere rise from the body, if Lechmere was the killer,

Surely if such a question is good for one witness it must stand for the other, given they had both walked down Bucks Row and possibly disturbed a killer

But I hear it said Paul did see Lechmere; However according to Both Paul and Lechmere, Paul only noticed Lechmere as he got reasonably close to him, and he was standing in the middle of the street and then moved towards Paul.

If Lechmere is the killer then he must have move from the body, finishing off the "job" first, having been disturbed by Paul.
This can one assume have been because he heard the explosion of Paul's footsteps approaching down Bucks Row.

Yet Paul did not see any movement or hear any sounds.

Please, please tell me why the same should not be applied to Lechmere and someone he disturbed? Why could such a person not have moved away from the body, and walked away on the edge of the road unseen?


And of course that does not even touch the possibility that one if not both of Lechmere and Paul, may just have not noticed anything at all.

Fisherman while acknowledging such is possible, however does play it down with his talk of persons being in the bubble and suggests that footsteps can be compared to a bomb explosion.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #913  
Old 02-15-2017, 11:06 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,880
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
according to lechs testimony it seems mere seconds that he discovers the body and Paul shows up.

so to me there is still the question of why they didn't notice each other before bucks row. If lech had described a more lengthy actions upon discovering the body-like I went and tried to see if she was alive, tried to help her, looked around for someone etc. then OK fine-enough time has passed for Pauls entrance that they are obviously far enough apart in there trips not to have seen each other on the way.

but the way Lech describes it -it could be mere seconds-he sees something in the middle of the road, stops, takes a look, takes a few steps toward it, stops looks again and then Paul appears. It seems like we are talking mere seconds-5 seconds even-but no more than 20 in my mind.

so to me this point is still unresolved. and still bugs me.
It shouldn't be bugging you Abby! For the following reasons:

1. You ask why Lechmere and Paul didn't notice "each other" but Paul would always have been behind Lechmere so how could Lechmere ever have seen Paul? The only question, therefore, is why didn't Paul spot Lechmere.

2. The only significant stretch of road where Paul might have seen Lechmere prior to Bucks Row is Bath Street but there is no actual evidence that Lechmere even walked down Bath Street. He could have taken a different route. Fisherman's theory is that Parson Street, included in one report of Lechmere's evidence, was a mishearing of Bath Street but he might be wrong. If Lechmere never walked down Bath Street that's the end of it.

3. You haven't established what the visibility was that night. Given that Lechmere and Paul could barely see the body of Nichols who was right in front of them in Bucks Row, would Paul have seen a man even 10 yards in front of him?

4. What about hearing footsteps? Well on that we have the evidence of Lechmere that he only heard Paul's footsteps when he was about 40 yards away from him (but didn’t see him at that distance) Do you accept that evidence? If so, the two men only needed to be 41 yards apart in Bath Street and Paul might neither have seen nor heard Lechmere.

5. But is it possible for Lechmere to have accurately estimated the distance from hearing footsteps? Despite me raising this issue ages ago, not a single person has told me how it could be done. If Lechmere underestimated the distance, then he and Paul were much further away than you assume, and your entire puzzlement disappears doesn't it?

6. You seem to only allow Lechmere 20 seconds to have seen the body, stopped, thought about it and walked to the middle of the road. Previously you allowed 20-30 seconds for this but have inexplicably and rather randomly shortened the time. It seems to me that you haven't factored in any time for Lechmere to have seen the body and slowed down his walk before stopping. While he slowed down, Paul would have been catching him up the whole time. That alone could explain it.

7. Your calculations appear to assume that Paul and Lechmere were walking at the same speed. But if Paul was walking at twice the speed of Lechmere it would mean that they were further apart in Bath Street than they were in Bucks Row wouldn't it?

8. I submit that it is perfectly understandable that Paul didn't spot Lechmere in Bath Street, that there are so many possible reasons why this didn't happen and we simply don't have enough detailed evidence to even suggest that he must have seen him (or was likely to have seen him).
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #914  
Old 02-15-2017, 11:09 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Dear All

This thread seems to be spreading out from just the name issue to anything which can be used in the theory that Lechmere was the killer.

In which case let me raise a little issue here.

It has been suggested by many, myself included that Lechmere disturbed the killer and was not the killer himself.

Fisherman has counted that, to me at least, that this would mean that Lechmere, failed to see the killer, move from the body and walk away from the scene away from Lechmere, and such is not reasonable.

There is a question, related to this, I have never fully understood on the theory.

Fisherman has asked why did Lechmere not see the killer rise and walk away? (not a quote, just a summary of what has been posted before, not on this thread i believe.)

However does not the same question need to apply to Robert Paul?


Why did he not see Lechmere rise from the body, if Lechmere was the killer,

Surely if such a question is good for one witness it must stand for the other, given they had both walked down Bucks Row and possibly disturbed a killer

But I hear it said Paul did see Lechmere; However according to Both Paul and Lechmere, Paul only noticed Lechmere as he got reasonably close to him, and he was standing in the middle of the street and then moved towards Paul.

If Lechmere is the killer then he must have move from the body, finishing off the "job" first, having been disturbed by Paul.
This can one assume have been because he heard the explosion of Paul's footsteps approaching down Bucks Row.

Yet Paul did not see any movement or hear any sounds.

Please, please tell me why the same should not be applied to Lechmere and someone he disturbed? Why could such a person not have moved away from the body, and walked away on the edge of the road unseen?


And of course that does not even touch the possibility that one if not both of Lechmere and Paul, may just have not noticed anything at all.

Fisherman while acknowledging such is possible, however does play it down with his talk of persons being in the bubble and suggests that footsteps can be compared to a bomb explosion.


Steve
When you quote me on where I said that the footsteps could be compared to a bomb explosion, I will gladly answer the question you ask.

It may take some time, as I understand it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #915  
Old 02-15-2017, 11:26 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
When you quote me on where I said that the footsteps could be compared to a bomb explosion, I will gladly answer the question you ask.

It may take some time, as I understand it.


Only too happy.

Now post 768 I think, the debate was regards perception and I suggested that we ignore the ordinary like footsteps.

You replied with the below. My interpretation of that was a comic comparison. Nevertheless in response you did post the following


"Yes, but there will be exceptions. If you are busy reading and in a bubble, I bet uyou will notice if I explode a landmine under your reading chair. There are always reasonable levels in these matters, Steve"

I do assume you were being comical?

And of course as others do point out you do attempt to avoid answering. Just as you did to me last Friday.

So be it.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #916  
Old 02-15-2017, 11:27 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Only too happy.

Now post 768 I think, the debate was regards perception and I suggested that we ignore the ordinary like footsteps.

You replied with the below. My interpretation of that was a comic comparison. Nevertheless in response you did post the following


"Yes, but there will be exceptions. If you are busy reading and in a bubble, I bet uyou will notice if I explode a landmine under your reading chair. There are always reasonable levels in these matters, Steve"

I do assume you were being comical?

And of course as others do point out you do attempt to avoid answering. Just as you did to me last Friday.

So be it.

Steve
I cannot see where I say that the steps sounded like bombs exploding, Steve. Can you?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #917  
Old 02-15-2017, 11:47 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,469
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I cannot see where I say that the steps sounded like bombs exploding, Steve. Can you?
The discussion was that the ordinary we often ignore such as footsteps.

Your reply to that, was as posted.

Taking the txt in the context of the previous posts it seemed clear to me that you were suggesting that footsteps were not ordinary .

And if there was not an intention to suggest that something so out of the ordinary as an explosion was somehow comparabable to to the ongoing discussions; I then fail to see the relevance of mentioning explosions when discussing footsteps

If I misinterpreted what you meant sorry, however that is how I read it. Personal interpretation like much of your theory.

And of course that should not prevent a fully reasoned and logical answer to my question.



Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #918  
Old 02-15-2017, 12:09 PM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,985
Default

I would just point out that we cannot be at all certain as to when Polly was murdered. PC Neil said that blood was "oozing" from the wound. However, Dr Biggs pointed out, "sometimes a wound will be 'propped' open by the position of the body..." And, "It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound/gravity conditions were right..."(Marriott, 2013).
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #919  
Old 02-15-2017, 12:11 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
The discussion was that the ordinary we often ignore such as footsteps.

Your reply to that, was as posted.

Taking the txt in the context of the previous posts it seemed clear to me that you were suggesting that footsteps were not ordinary .

And if there was not an intention to suggest that something so out of the ordinary as an explosion was somehow comparabable to to the ongoing discussions; I then fail to see the relevance of mentioning explosions when discussing footsteps

If I misinterpreted what you meant sorry, however that is how I read it. Personal interpretation like much of your theory.

And of course that should not prevent a fully reasoned and logical answer to my question.

Steve
So it appears I never said that the footsteps sounded like bomb explosions then? Well, whaddoyuknow? It seems it was just another case of presenting ludicruous information under the pretense that I was behind it.

What I said and exemplified, was that there WILL be a level of sound where anybody will be taken out of whatever "bubble" they are in. Naturally, I could not suggest that this level was a soft tap on a window or a cat walking though a room, could I?

The question you appear to want to have answered is this, I take it, and please correct me if I am wrong:

Please, please tell me why the same should not be applied to Lechmere and someone he disturbed? Why could such a person not have moved away from the body, and walked away on the edge of the road unseen?

A/ We may at any rate conclude that the murder took place in much darkness, so it would not be possible to discern any person at the murder spot visually, until you were quite close by. My own guess is that you would need to be no further away than, say, twenty-odd yards to be able to see anything. Personally, I think this was why Lechmere chose thirty or forty yards, to optimize things - way too close for Lechmere to be the killer, and far enough off for Paul not being able to see a iot at the scene.

B/ So! Apparently the gift of sight was not what Lechmere relied on when he said that as soon as he entered Bucks Row, he would be able to make out if anybody stirred down at the murder place. It will therefore instead have been his hearing he relied on - it was dead calm and absolutely silent, and therefore, Charles Lechmere made a great point.

C/ ... but it was only a great point if the killer did not move with no sound at all, and was able to stay moving silently throughout. And that would have been something nobody would have expected - everybody would have thought that IF Lechmere was innocent and IF he had entered the street, disturbing the killer, then that killer would have gotten up on his feet double quick, and then he would have very loudly legged it out of Bucks Row. And he would NOT, incidentally, have started out by hiding the wounds he had produced!
This was the scenario Lechmere would have hinted at.
However, I think that he himself - if he was the killer, mind you - would have decided to bluff it out, started out by silently pulling the clothes over the wounds and pocketing his weapon, and then he would have gotten to his feet and very slowly and silently crept out a step or two into the street. Ideally, he would have wanted to reach the other pavement, but I donīt think he would have had the time to do so, and therefore, he stopped backing off when he felt that Paul would soon get into eyeshot.

And then they would both leave together, their steps sounding like nuclear bombs repeatedly going off in the silent night.

Not.

Last edited by Fisherman : 02-15-2017 at 12:13 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #920  
Old 02-15-2017, 12:11 PM
MysterySinger MysterySinger is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
I'd already drafted this, so I won't waste it:

I'm sure you know that in 1861 Charles Lechmere (shown as Charles Cross) was living in Thomas Street, in the area that at that time was known as Tiger Bay.

Thomas Street was later renamed Pinchin Street and by 1888, a large part of it had been demolished to make way for various railway improvements.

However, part of the north side of the street, where according to the 1861 census enumerator's route, the 'Cross' family had lived, was still standing. Although not directly 'opposite' the house where Charles had lived as a child, the 1889 torso was found on what had been the opposite side of Thomas Street, a very short distance from his childhood home.

Fish,

I have a slightly different take on where in Thomas Street the family lived. I know Ed is currently researching the question.

One error I think I did make is in saying that Maria married a younger man. I dont know where I got that from. A bit of fake news doing the rounds of the boards, perhaps.

Gary

From at least 1877 to 1883 (possibly longer), the Forsdikes lived at 23 Pinchin Street. In the 1881 census, that's Maria (Lech's Mum), Joseph (Lech's step dad) and Mary (Lech's own daughter). I've yet to understand why Mary lived with her grandma all those years.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.