Tweet
Monty
You ask for facts and then answer with utter pie in the sky supposition, moulded byu a burning desire to find innocent explanations. I would suggest that a modren policeforce would not operate in such a manner or they would never apprehend, let alone suspect, anyone.
If Lechmeer left home at 3.30 he wpould have passed the murder scene at about 3.37 and been well down Old Montague Street (or Hanbury Street) by the time Paul apeared at Brown's Stable Yard.
That is not conjecture.
You say we don't now how long he took to walk, whether he had ailments or whether he wanted to stop off on the way. Maybe he liked zig-zagging down te road - eh?
We know that Cross kept up with Paul when he walked from Brown's Stable Yard to where they met Mizen which took four minutes including the time they spent over Polly's body.
We know he kept up with Paul up to Corbett's Court.
He claims he was in work by 4 am.
I think Monty your conuecture's in answer to Fisherman's point about timings are utterly baseless.
You think the timings aren't relevant? Are you being serious? Having the opportunity to commit the crime due to the timings is quite obviously relevant.
You then seem to completely miss the point about the Tabram, Chapman and Eddowes reference with regard to the positioning of Polly's garments. With the three aforementioned victims, the garments were left 'up' displaying the abdominal wounds. In the case of Nichols, the garments were left 'down' hiding the abdominal injuries. This difference can be explained by the cuplrit being disburbed and wishing to disguise somewhat what had transpired. As Cross seen by Paul very close to the body prior to Cross raising the alarm, this should be a matter of interest and would be I am sure to any half efficient police force today - were this case to be tranported 124 years into the future.
Then you say that Hanbury Street is the natural direction for Broad Street. Hmmm. I rather think the 'natural' direction is the shortest route - don't you?
You say the time difference is min imal. It isn't excessive but it is sevral minutes amndf if you ar elkate for work the presumption would be to take the shortest and quickest route.
Let me also tell you that a carman of twnety years local expirence would absolutely certainly have known the shortest and quickest routes. It was their job to know such things.
I think we can assume Cross was headed for Broad Street as he worked there and that is where he said he was going.
Again you conjecture that Cross may have had other tasks to perform in the market (Spitalfields I pressume) or may have stopped off for sustainence.
Again - Cross himself claimed to have got to work by 4 am . This actiually was impossible unless he sprinted but if he stopped off after leaving Paul he would have been even later. In other words Cross's own testimony makes your conjecture unfounded.
The relevance to Cross as the culprit is that by going down Hanbury Street he discovered where Paul worked and the next body appeared 100 yards from Paul's workplace. By going down Hanbury Street Cross also avoided going down Old Montague Street when he left Mizen - in the direction where Tabram's body had been found a few weeks before. I will spell out the implication here. It could have lit a little light in Mizen's mind if he had walked off in that direction and Mizen may have thought afterwards - 'hold on a minute...'
Lechmere is an anglicised name. The family name is as old as the Norman Conquest. There is a saying that when there are no more Lechmere in Worcestershire, there will be no more apples in Worcestershire.
You then seem to say that giving a fake name to the police doesn't matter so long as the police don't find out about it. A novel approach.
One extra factlet for you - Mizen referred to him as 'Cross' at the inquest but Mizen also said he only found out his name was Cross that morning... at the inquest...
No doubt that is of no significance.
You say you have no idea why the following implicate Cross:
"Mizen testified that Lechmere had claimed that another policeman awaited him in Buckīs Row.
" He also claimed that Lechmere had worded this in a passive mode, not giving away that Lechmere himself had found Nichols.
"Lechmere himself said that he and Paul had felt Nichols hands and face for warmth, but that he had rejected to help prop her up. "
By saying another policeman wanted him, Mizen did not feel the need to take Cross's name and address. If you cannot see that this would be to the advantage of a murderer, well what can one say?
By implying that he did npt find the body himself would again defuse any possible reason for Mizen to take his details.
By avoiding propping Polly up, Cross ensured that Paul did not see the massive neck injury that would have immediately become apparent and the fact of Polly's grusome death would have been obvious, which was not the case up to then. If it did become obvious, then Paul might insist on knocking neighbours up and making an immediate fuss. A murderer would want to avodi that possibility.
What you have actually done is come up with some innocent explanations for Cross/Lechmere's behaviour - but interpretations that are mostly based on factual falsehoods or extremnely unlikley possibilities that dramatically fail the 'reasonableness' test.
I know some of this duplicates Fisherman's post.
You ask for facts and then answer with utter pie in the sky supposition, moulded byu a burning desire to find innocent explanations. I would suggest that a modren policeforce would not operate in such a manner or they would never apprehend, let alone suspect, anyone.
If Lechmeer left home at 3.30 he wpould have passed the murder scene at about 3.37 and been well down Old Montague Street (or Hanbury Street) by the time Paul apeared at Brown's Stable Yard.
That is not conjecture.
You say we don't now how long he took to walk, whether he had ailments or whether he wanted to stop off on the way. Maybe he liked zig-zagging down te road - eh?
We know that Cross kept up with Paul when he walked from Brown's Stable Yard to where they met Mizen which took four minutes including the time they spent over Polly's body.
We know he kept up with Paul up to Corbett's Court.
He claims he was in work by 4 am.
I think Monty your conuecture's in answer to Fisherman's point about timings are utterly baseless.
You think the timings aren't relevant? Are you being serious? Having the opportunity to commit the crime due to the timings is quite obviously relevant.
You then seem to completely miss the point about the Tabram, Chapman and Eddowes reference with regard to the positioning of Polly's garments. With the three aforementioned victims, the garments were left 'up' displaying the abdominal wounds. In the case of Nichols, the garments were left 'down' hiding the abdominal injuries. This difference can be explained by the cuplrit being disburbed and wishing to disguise somewhat what had transpired. As Cross seen by Paul very close to the body prior to Cross raising the alarm, this should be a matter of interest and would be I am sure to any half efficient police force today - were this case to be tranported 124 years into the future.
Then you say that Hanbury Street is the natural direction for Broad Street. Hmmm. I rather think the 'natural' direction is the shortest route - don't you?
You say the time difference is min imal. It isn't excessive but it is sevral minutes amndf if you ar elkate for work the presumption would be to take the shortest and quickest route.
Let me also tell you that a carman of twnety years local expirence would absolutely certainly have known the shortest and quickest routes. It was their job to know such things.
I think we can assume Cross was headed for Broad Street as he worked there and that is where he said he was going.
Again you conjecture that Cross may have had other tasks to perform in the market (Spitalfields I pressume) or may have stopped off for sustainence.
Again - Cross himself claimed to have got to work by 4 am . This actiually was impossible unless he sprinted but if he stopped off after leaving Paul he would have been even later. In other words Cross's own testimony makes your conjecture unfounded.
The relevance to Cross as the culprit is that by going down Hanbury Street he discovered where Paul worked and the next body appeared 100 yards from Paul's workplace. By going down Hanbury Street Cross also avoided going down Old Montague Street when he left Mizen - in the direction where Tabram's body had been found a few weeks before. I will spell out the implication here. It could have lit a little light in Mizen's mind if he had walked off in that direction and Mizen may have thought afterwards - 'hold on a minute...'
Lechmere is an anglicised name. The family name is as old as the Norman Conquest. There is a saying that when there are no more Lechmere in Worcestershire, there will be no more apples in Worcestershire.
You then seem to say that giving a fake name to the police doesn't matter so long as the police don't find out about it. A novel approach.
One extra factlet for you - Mizen referred to him as 'Cross' at the inquest but Mizen also said he only found out his name was Cross that morning... at the inquest...
No doubt that is of no significance.
You say you have no idea why the following implicate Cross:
"Mizen testified that Lechmere had claimed that another policeman awaited him in Buckīs Row.
" He also claimed that Lechmere had worded this in a passive mode, not giving away that Lechmere himself had found Nichols.
"Lechmere himself said that he and Paul had felt Nichols hands and face for warmth, but that he had rejected to help prop her up. "
By saying another policeman wanted him, Mizen did not feel the need to take Cross's name and address. If you cannot see that this would be to the advantage of a murderer, well what can one say?
By implying that he did npt find the body himself would again defuse any possible reason for Mizen to take his details.
By avoiding propping Polly up, Cross ensured that Paul did not see the massive neck injury that would have immediately become apparent and the fact of Polly's grusome death would have been obvious, which was not the case up to then. If it did become obvious, then Paul might insist on knocking neighbours up and making an immediate fuss. A murderer would want to avodi that possibility.
What you have actually done is come up with some innocent explanations for Cross/Lechmere's behaviour - but interpretations that are mostly based on factual falsehoods or extremnely unlikley possibilities that dramatically fail the 'reasonableness' test.
I know some of this duplicates Fisherman's post.
Comment