The Mizen scam

[Lechmere]

Monty
Re read that passage. It states a few facts.
It does not state that Charles Lechmere could walk at such and such a pace.
I have walked that distance and timed it several times. I know how long I could take to walk it, slowly or briskly. We can use those times to estimate how long Charles Lechmere might also have taken. Is that illegitimate. Is it illegitimate to present those findings to suggest that Charles Lechmere could or should have been at Bucks Row a lot earlier than Paul? I don't think do and I don't think any reasonable person would disagree.
Once again to citified the Cross/Lechmere theory you gave picked up a piece of nonsense. Find something credible to attack the theory with.
I am the first to admit it isn't 100% watertight - but then it would be unreasonable to expect it to be.

Sally
So Lechmere hasn't been previously regarded as a serious suspect so he cannot be now? A novel approach there Sal! Case closed. Phew.

[Monty]

Nonsense?

Ok mate. Its nonsense.

The fact you have no idea of Cross' size, gait, ailments (if any) nor route, you state boldly that Cross could not have left at a set time and arrived as he stated he did. This based on the evidence that YOU walked the alleged route?

This is amazing and highly disturbing.

Damn right it isn't 100% watertight. However to condem surely it must be beyond doubt.

Obviously it isn't.

Enjoy your endless debate.

Monty

[Jenni Shelden]

Sorry if this is off topic, but, what evidence have we got to suggest Cross was dodgy - that he used the name Cross and not Lechmere? Surely that was not a sign that he was dodgy, yes Lechmere was the name he was born with but when his mother remarried he took the name of his stepfather which was Cross, lots of people do this to this day and it is perfectly normal. I seem to recall from somewhere (Casebook Wiki?) that Cross had been using that name since about 1860 - so by 1888 not only was it his name to all intents and purposes but it was also the name he had been known by for longest. Our instance in calling him Lechmere because we have discovered it was his birth name is surely disrespectful to his step father who's name he had taken when he married his mother?

I dont see how from this we can infer anything.

Have I missed something
Jenni

[Fisherman]

Monty:

“I can say that it is a fact that Lechmere stated a time (3.20 or 3.30) for the departure from his home that would - if he walked at normal walking pace and made no stops - have taken him past Browns Stable Yard somewhere around 3.26-3.37.”

That is a fact? "

It is a fact that Lechmere stated that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30 - there are two different times given in different versions. What I am not saying is that he left home at 3.20 and 3.30 - I state that the inquest reports in the papers tell us that Lechmere left home at this stage.

It is a fact that if he walked the way he said he walked, and if he did so in normal walking pace and made no stops, then if he departed at 3.20 he should have been at Browns Stable Yard at around 3.26-3.27, whereas he should have been there at around 3.36-3.37 if he departed at 3.30.

"No matter how many times Christer, Lechmere, whoever stamp their feet....reason remains."

Letīs hope so, Monty. And letīs hope that your own footstamping doesnīt change that either. And frankly, the latter seems more likely to occur - for as far as I can see, I have not flown of the handle the way you have, I have not told you to go waddle in the pile of **** you have produced and I have not claimed that you are turning fiction into fact. These are all your achievments, not mine. The same goes for poster Lechmere, by the way - if you want to find something cooler than him, go look in your freezer.

So the one who is stamping his feet ferociously here seems to be you, Monty. And just like I have already pointed out to you that we seemingly have different takes on what rationality means, it would seem that I must also do so with the term "reason". Is it reason to stamp your feet in desperation and then claim that it is others who do so, for instance? I donīt think so.

And once again, Iīd prefer to discuss the case as such.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Fisherman,
I think part of the problem with this is the definition of normal walking pace. What is a normal walking pace.
Sometimes when I set off somewhere I what I consider a normal walking pace with my husband he ends up going off in what i consider a speedy fashion, when I tell him to slow down as he is running away, he gets very annoyed sometimes and points out he is walking at a normal pace.
If I were to set off on my own and walk at what I considered normal pace I would say it would take 5-10 minutes longer than if he did likewise.

If Charles Cross described his pace as normal at best we can infer that he was not running he was not late or going quickly for any reason. We cannot infer a speed from it, however much we would like to, as we have nothing to use as a basis for how quickly he would have walked.

If Cross stated that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30 it must be because he didnt know exactly what time he left. It was not important to him when he left his house he knew he was in good time to get to work and it was somewhere around there. I think I am correct in thinking he would have been unlikely to own watch

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

ps also if Cross was not sure at what time he left how quickly he walked is irrelevant in terms of how long it would have taken as we do not have an accurate start time. He was working on an estimation which is more likely to be off at the beginning where nothing significant happened than at the end when he discovered a body, surely?

[Fisherman]

Jenni Shelden:

"Have I missed something"

Yes you have - or so it would seem. There are about twenty instances recorded when our man signed his name on official documents inbetween the 1861 census listing where young Charles was recorded as "Cross" - in all probability signed that way by his stepfather Thomas Cross - and the events of 1888. And these signatures invariably read "Charles Lechmere".
There is one instance and one instance only recorded where we have him down as Charles Cross, and that is the 1861 census listing mentioned above. At that stage, Charles was around eleven years of age, and - just like I said - his name was probably signed by his stepfather. Apart from this instance, which, if the stepfather signed for him, does not prove in any manner that he referred to himself as Cross, there are no other instances recorded when he actually DID use the name Cross, but for one - in combination with the murder inquest relating to Polly Nichols.

In conclusion, I think there is no reason at all to accept that he "had been using that name since about 1860 - so by 1888 not only was it his name to all intents and purposes but it was also the name he had been known by for longest." There is in fact no evidence that he himself EVER used that name. But there are around 80 signed documents telling us that he DID use the name Lechmere.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jenni Shelden]

What name did he use on the occasion of his marriage?

[Fisherman]

Jenni Shelden:

"I think part of the problem with this is the definition of normal walking pace. What is a normal walking pace. "

There can be different descriptions, yes. But even allowing for rather fringe descriptions, he should have been a long way up Hanbury Street instead of at Browns Stable Yards.
Letīs also keep in mind that he claimed to have been late - that would normally not mean that he lingered.

"If Charles Cross described his pace as normal at best we can infer that he was not running he was not late or going quickly for any reason."

But Charles Lechmere did not claim that he walked in a normal pace. He said he was late, he described the route he took, he said nothing about stopping or lingering, and he kept up with Paul along Hanbury Street, and Paul stated that he "hurried along", since he was late for work too. This does not mean that we KNOW that Lechmere walked fairly briskly - but it points to it.

"If Cross stated that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30 it must be because he didnt know exactly what time he left."

Not really. There may also have been a confusion among the papers. He could have said that he normally left at 3.20 but on this morning he was late, and so he left at 3.30.
That is one possibility.
Another is that he said that he left at 3.20 or 3.30. Then the time added to the unexplained amount of time is increased. Whichever way, we are left with a scenario where we must accept that his schedule cannot be shown to have been too tight to squeeze in a blitz style mureder - on the contrary.

"It was not important to him when he left his house he knew he was in good time to get to work and it was somewhere around there."

He knew no such thing, apparently, since he said to Paul (and the inquest) that he was behind time.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jenni Shelden:

"What name did he use on the occasion of his marriage?"

Lechmere. And the same goes for whenever he baptized one of his many children. Itīs Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere all the way to the horizon - with the only exception of the inquest. Before it: Lechmere, twenty or so signatures recorded, after it: Lechmere, sixty or so signatures on record.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Fisherman,

that is all well and good but you just spent the proceeding two pages arguing about what a normal walking pace was.


You were the one who started going on about a normal walking pace, not me!

Nonetheless, we still cant say at what the rate of his walking pace was as we do not have anything to compare it to. I am sure old ladies have a normal walking pace and a quick walking pace and I am also sure I could overtake them doing either walking at a slow pace.

It remains to be seen, how did Cross come to the conclusion that he left the house at 3.20 or 3.30, did he have some form of guidance on time?
Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Fishman

thank you for your answer, I see that on the 1891 census he used Lechmere and that all his children were called Lechmere so point taken. (Accept that people didnt put their signatures on their children's baptisms.)

I still think him using the name Cross isnt as surprising or objectionable as using the name - say anything that had never been associated with him in his life. Also seems to have given his address so doesnt point to hiding too much in one way, but equally I see your point.

(Without wishing to sound bad, where does the name Lechmere originate from? Might he have used Cross because it was easier to say and sounded 'less foreign' which may have prejudice him to Police.)

Anyway, I dont know why I butted into this thread it was already more heated than a Jacuzzi at a hen do

Jenni

[Fisherman]

Jenni Shelden:

" we still cant say at what the rate of his walking pace was as we do not have anything to compare it to."

Absolutely true - we cannot lay down exactly how quick he walked. But then again, I donīt think that anybody has done so. What I am saying is that if he walked in what is defined as a normal walking pace, and if he did not stop off, then he was at Browns far too late. After that, we may suggest dozens of scenarios in which he had reason to be at Browns when he was there - but that does not alter the fact that the time he gave for his departure seems to implicate that he did not spend the minutes leading up to his arrival at Browns Stable Yard walking along at what is generally described as a normal walking pace. There are seemingly a good many minutes left unaccounted for, and that fits very well with the suggestion that he was the killer.
If he had said that he left home at close to 3.45, the problem would not have surfaced for him. As it stands, it inevitably does.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

The same goes for poster Lechmere, by the way - if you want to find something cooler than him, go look in your freezer.

Ok Fisherman -so it's not Polly that your wife might cite as the 'other woman', it is apparently Lechmere ( the poster).
Amazing. I've always imagined him as being quite hot.

[Fisherman]

Jenni Shelden:

"I see your point."

Not everybody does - amazingly. Itīs 80 to 1 in favour of Lechmere, and the only exception is when he spoke to the authorities about a murder he himself had discovered. So I am glad to hear that you see what I am talking about, Jenni!

"Without wishing to sound bad, where does the name Lechmere originate from? "

From a very rich family of landowners in Herefordshire, Jenni. Charles Lechmere counted an archbishop and Nelsonīs closest admiral colleague among his ancestors. His grandfather squandered the family fortune, however, by the looks of things, and his father ended up in the East End, followed by his son.
The name Lechmere was something to be proud of, thus.

The best,
Fisherman