Favorite suspect/s?

[drstrange169]

>>... do we know that Broad Street Goods Station was either closed or handled less traffic on a Sunday? I know that LNWR men and others were agitating for a standard 6-day week in the late 19th century. And passenger trains certainly ran to and from the station 7 days a week.<<

I'm at work, so I'm going by memory (uh oh), but a Reverend "somebody or other" wrote in the 1870's to the papers complaining that animals were left in rolling stock unattended all day Sundays. As a result the railways changed the practice.


>>And while we on the subject of Broad Street, am I right in saying that Lechmere isn't actually recorded as saying he worked at that location for 20+ years? <<

Correct!


>>At the time he would have started working for Pickfofds they were also operating out of Haydon Square in H Division and very close to Mitre Square. <<


I believe they also had a place in or around Half Moon Passage, close to where Crossmere lived in James Street.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would be interested in opinions as to how confident a guilty CL might have been entitled to have felt that he hadn’t gotten any of Polly’s blood on him before he made the decision to wait for the ‘footsteps’ to arrive at the scene?
Even on his hands or his cuffs, maybe from the knife?

It was extremely dark. He had very little time due to the approaching footsteps.

Involving someone else (Paul) would have meant that CL would have been fully aware of the serious likelihood that they would end up looking for a police officer or, even if not, the chance of them walking on together as he knew that they were heading in the same direction.

And so CL, completely unaware of whether he has blood on him or not ( but surely suspecting the possibility) has to avoid this evidence being seen by Paul, a police officer, any passerby who (yes with a touch of bad luck) might have passed him near to a street lamp and his co-workers at Pickford’s.

Fish doesn’t appear to accept doubts. His outlook appears to be “if its not categorically impossible it is therefore possible.” That rather obvious statement/viewpoint can be used to ‘dispel’ any doubts, whether its justified or not.

CL lived out a ‘normal’ life and was never caught or even suspected of being Jack The Ripper. We cant imply from these facts that he was some kind of Moriarty-like figure. But can’t we, at least reasonably, suspect that he had at least some sense of self-preservation, cunning even. Also that he wasn’t a completely out of control, kill on the spur of the moment type. Or do we just dismiss this by regarding him as simply incredibly lucky?

I’m just raising a doubt here. A serious one in my opinion. I just can’t see how a cunning murderer who coped with risky situations and avoided being caught, who showed no other kind of ‘brazen’ behaviour, would have taken such a needless, senseless risk. A risk that must have appeared at the time like one that he was unlikely to walk away from.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This must be the only place in Britain we’re you could say “if only we knew someone who has an extensive knowledge of Pickford’s and also the horse slaughtering trade in London “ and get the response “well, now you come to mention it....”

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I've scoured my Pickfords books but can't find mention of when they stopped operating out of Haydon Square. Annoyingly there is no mention of HS in the index to Traffic and Transport, the more authoritative work on the company, although there are several references to it in the book.

One such says that Pickfords were still renting stables at HS in the 1880s.

Gary

Thanks Gary


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Thanks for the info Gary


Steve

Hi Steve,

I've scoured my Pickfords books but can't find mention of when they stopped operating out of Haydon Square. Annoyingly there is no mention of HS in the index to Traffic and Transport, the more authoritative work on the company, although there are several references to it in the book.

One such says that Pickfords were still renting stables at HS in the 1880s.

Gary

[Abby Normal]

So not only do we agree on the Wallace case AS........

he should change his name to Shmerican Arlock!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it is more likely than not that the ripper is someone we never heard of.

If I had to pick a most likely suspect of those we know I'd say M J Druitt or Kosminski.

Excuse my intrusion

So not only do we agree on the Wallace case AS........

[Harry D]

I think it is more likely than not that the ripper is someone we never heard of.

If I had to pick a most likely suspect of those we know I'd say M J Druitt or Kosminski.

Excuse my intrusion

Hello AS,

I expect a few researchers have glanced his name. They just haven't realised it.

[Abby Normal]

Except nobody has considered the "real" Ripper, the gas-fitter Henry DeFries who lived on Middlesex Street.

hi scott
care to expound? whats he got going for him? : )

[Abby Normal]

How many suspect theories have there been so far - 300+? How many more will there be I wonder?

On my list I have several names I would describe as persons of interest - in the general sense of the term - who haven't yet seen much daylight:

The Tomkins brothers (Smith +),
Thomas Fogarty (Tabram),
Stephen Maywood (Kelly)
Billy Maher (Austin).

There must be thousands more who with a bit of spin could be wrestled into suspect material.

Bring 'em on, I say.

finally a non lech post! LOL.
Gary Im not that familiar with all these-care to expound? perhaps a snippet on each to elaborate their possible suspectness?

[Abby Normal]

There could be any number of reasons why CL wanted to keep his family name out of the press. Maybe he was just a private kind of guy? Maybe he wanted to protect his family from local gossip?

I believe Fisherman's theory is that CL wanted to obfuscate things just enough so that he'd have an innocent explanation if he was caught out on his lie. I don't see the point of a half-truth in this scenario. The man gave his Christian name, home address and place of business, more than enough to identify him. Using his stepdad's surname as some kind of red herring would only arouse suspicion rather than quell it, no?

well, if guilty, he may have thought using his less common name might alleviate any involvment in the ripper case from coming to the attention of friends and family. maybe he thought someone he knew might put two and two together?


but i agree, the more likely explanation is that under the circs-a carman on his way to work-where he was still going by cross-was totally reasonable and or like you said, he just was private and didnt want his family being bugged by press, people etc.

[Sam Flynn]

No intrusion, AS.

At least you're on topic!

[AmericanSherlock]

I think it is more likely than not that the ripper is someone we never heard of.

If I had to pick a most likely suspect of those we know I'd say M J Druitt or Kosminski.

Excuse my intrusion

[Harry D]

I agree, Harry. Furthermore, giving his full address, distinctive forenames, age, occupation and place of work would have risked arousing the suspicion of his neighbours, family, colleagues and employers, if he weren't also known to them as Charles Cross.

Too true, Sam. And like Caz said, if CL was using his job as an alibi, why would he give the police a surname that wouldn't check out at Pickford's?

[Sam Flynn]

The man gave his Christian name, home address and place of business, more than enough to identify him. Using his stepdad's surname as some kind of red herring would only arouse suspicion rather than quell it, no?

I agree, Harry. Furthermore, giving his full address, distinctive forenames, age, occupation and place of work would have risked arousing the suspicion of his neighbours, family, colleagues and employers, if he weren't also known to them as Charles Cross.