Lechmere validity

[JeffHamm]

Looking at Monty's book,"Capturing Jack kthe Ripper" he shows the official beat map that Mizen would have covered, H division beat number 4.

In it all sides are covered. This was essential as locks, doors, etc. had to be checked. Obviously only one side of Brady, Bakers and Whitechapel would be covered, but the rest should be part of Neil's beat. One possible answer is that Monty also says beats could be split in half at night, so the Echo may have been printing the day time beat.

Or perhaps J division had a different system to H?

Hi drstrange,

Yes, Brady, Whitechapple and Baker's Row are the bits that are only covered once in the calculations. the side streets (like Winthrop, Wood's Building, Nelson Court, Court Street, the southern portion of Thomas, Cross, and Queen Anne are all covered both sides. It's just the norther section of Thomas that becomes hard to do twice if he enters Thomas from Baker's Row, but it can be done both sides if he enters Baker's Row -> Whites Row -> Thomas, and I think that's the one that ends up with a patrol speed of 2.8 mph. The above critical sections, though aren't affected by that choice and remain the same streets to consider, and the range of locations I checked were for speeds of 2.5 to 2.8, and both produce the same general outcome - PC Neil is in the Queen Anne Street section when the carmen meet and greet and leave and then PC Neil returns to Buck's Row none are the wiser.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Looking at Monty's book,"Capturing Jack kthe Ripper" he shows the official beat map that Mizen would have covered, H division beat number 4.

In it all sides are covered. This was essential as locks, doors, etc. had to be checked. Obviously only one side of Brady, Bakers and Whitechapel would be covered, but the rest should be part of Neil's beat. One possible answer is that Monty also says beats could be split in half at night, so the Echo may have been printing the day time beat.

Or perhaps J division had a different system to H?

[Cogidubnus]

In much of the circuit he doesn't have the opportunity to cover both sides, but presumably would alternate sides of the street each cycle. The smaller side streets he would presumably walk down one side and return on the other.

If the distance is calculated with both sides of every street being covered, it's hard to work out how he could do that

I remember, quite a long time back, being one of a number of folk postulating this with regard to PC Long and the GSG...viz when was the apron piece first there? Our arguments were not, I seem to recall, altogether accepted...interesting that you should reach the same conclusion here...don't worry I'm not about to thread creep...just felt an old familiarity about the situation!

Dave

[JeffHamm]

Bobbies on the beat had to cover both sides of every street, just wondering do your timings take that into account?

Hi drstrange,

In much of the circuit he doesn't have the opportunity to cover both sides, but presumably would alternate sides of the street each cycle. The smaller side streets he would presumably walk down one side and return on the other. In what I've described above, he could cover both sides of Cross, Queen Anne, and Elizabeth Place, but from Baker's Row through Thomas and into Buck's Row, he would only be on one side. But the patrol speeds are based upon the distance including both legs of those "double covered" streets if that's what you mean.

If the distance is calculated with both sides of every street being covered, it's hard to work out how he could do that and with the large increase in distance his patrol speed would be 4-5 mph. Although having him exit Baker's Row into "White's Row" then into Thomas would allow for Thomas to be patrolled on both sides with the increase in distance from doubling that being made up for as he's not out covering Baker's Row to get to the northern entrance to Thomas for a single pass.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Bobbies on the beat had to cover both sides of every street, just wondering do your timings take that into account?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I think it was just the way in which (smaller) streets were notated/indicated back then. In various newspaper accounts we see "Buck's Row, Thomas Street", as in, for instance, the Woodford Times of 7 September: "As the constable was walking through Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel,...". Or the Weekly Herald of the same date, which also includes: "Bucks Row is a narrow passage running out of Thomas Street, and contains…" The reason why they put it like that and not as "Buck's Row, Baker's Row" is that the stretch between Baker's Row and Thomas Street wasn't called Buck's Row (but White's Row) until a number of years before 1888, as the map below shows.

Before I read the beat as given in the Echo of 21 September, I thought that Neil and the carmen didn't see each other because Neil came up through (the southern part of) Thomas Street from Whitechapel Road while the carmen had already passed it, but now knowing the beat as it was given in the Echo, I'm quite convinced he came from the northern side of Buck's Row and, because of what I've written above, have come to think he was either in Elizabeth Place or a little north of it in Queen Ann Street and was directly (i.e. without returning to Thomas Street) going down to Buck's Row from there when Lechmere and Paul passed Queen Ann Street. That would allow Neil to arrive at the crime spot well before Mizen could (and Thain to have come & gone).

All the best,
Frank

Thanks for that Frank!

The most sensible one to me is up Baker's Row, right into Thomas, down to Cross and cover that and back to Thomas, down to Buck's Row, over to Queen Anne and then norther to cover that E.Place, back and then on to Nichols (or he could cover Cross during his coverage of Queen Ann Street). That would have him initially enter Buck's Row from Thomas. What that would mean, though, is that he's in Buck's Row as he goes from Thomas to Queen Anne, and working out where Cross/Lechmere and Paul would be at that time will be important. If they're at the body, I would think they would have seen him. They can't be too far away though, as they have to get there, have their interaction, check her out, and then leave before he returns from his patrol of Queen Anne.

If we go with 3 minutes for Cross/Lechmere and Paul to get to Mizen, and a minute or two for their examination of Polly and the preceding interaction (i.e. waiting for Paul to catch up), then at the time (using the above) PC Neil would look to be in the Northern end of Queen Anne Street. And, he's been in Queen Anne Street for between 3 and 4 minutes. So, it does look like this would be the squence:
1) PC Neil exits Thomas Street into Buck's Row
2) Goes to and enters Queen Anne Street
3) a minute or two later, Cross/Lechmere spots Nichols, stops, hears Paul
4) Waits for Paul and they examine Polly
5) They head off to find a PC - at this point, PC Neil is at the top of Queen Anne (having also patrolled Elizabeth Place)
6) Cross/Lechmere and Paul pass by Queen Anne Street and PC Neil is somewhere around Elizabeth Place and Cross Street
7) Cross/Lechmere and Paul are close to (or have) entering Baker's Row as PC Neil exits Queen Anne Street into Buck's row
8) Cross/Lechmere and Paul arrive at PC Mizen and PC Neil discovers Nichols.

That seems to fit the testimonies as given, is based upon PC Neil's patrol speed of 2.5-2.8 mph (as calculated by his time and the distance of his beat, and as based upon Police procedures of the time) and Cross/Lechmere and Paul walking around 3.6 mph (based upon calculating his speed from his residence to the crime scene and using Fisherman's recreated walk time of 7 mins 7 seconds - and noting how that speed also can get him to work by 4:00, and it works for the journey to PC Mizen+examination of Polly taking "no more than 4 minutes").

And using those bits of evidence, we end up with estimated relative locations between PC Neil and the carmen that indicate they were not in positions to see each other.

That's really cool.

And, if JtR was still there when PC Neil exited Thomas Street, he might have had just enough time to exit Buck's Row to the east before Cross/Lechmere and Paul enter it (particularly if he ran off, but there's noise and him being spotted to consider there). However, he could have left just a few minutes earlier, exited south into Whitechappel, for example, and missed PC Neil altogether while he was still in Thomas Street. In either case, the escape from Buck's Row looks to be as tight as the escape from Mitre Square.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

Mizen didn't say he saw others, but then again Mizen didn't say a lot of things.

That's, indeed, the thing that stands out with Mizen, Dusty.

[FrankO]

I still prefer that he is north of the bend in QA, coming south. If he is in Elizabeth Place or still going north, it means he arrives so long after the carmen leave, Mizen should be there first, and his not.

We're on the same page here, Steve.

Just finished the last draft of the book in the last 30 mins, just a bit of tiding up, and checking of all the hyperlinks to do.

I look forward to it!

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Yah, I'm trying to work out the nitty gritty, and not quite sure how to fit that in. I've been thinking alone 3 general lines:

1) the "from Thomas-street to Brady street" is just to indicate direction of travel only (which fits what I've got). I don't like this, though, as Baker's Row is the more
"main" street to use as a direction marker, etc. and it feels like dismissing the testimony out of hand. I would rather explore other options first to see if something sensible can be made of it.

2) I've got the detail of the beat wrong (probably) and he goes up and down Thomas street, then over to Queen Anne and and down it, but he spotted the body before going up Queen Anne. Not sure I'm happy with that as Polly's body is described as being in the dark and hard to see from a distance, but that's by Cross/Lechmere who's not on patrol but walking to work. Maybe it was more visible to PC Neil as he's looking for things out of the ordinary?

3) Another way I could have the beat wrong is that upon reaching the "Buck's Row-Queen Anne" intersection he then returns up Queen Anne back over to Thomas, and then back down to Buck's Row. That way, all portions of those northern streets are covered twice (both sides of the street) and he covers the section of Buck's Row I've left not covered. That adds another 165.8 yards (151.640 metres), which would make his patrol speed 2.8 mph, again, slightly below average walking speed. That's sort of my current favorite option, but I may have overlooked other options. If we go with that, then rather being at the red line, he's would now be just starting to head West on the cross street between Queen Anne Street And Thomas (which, funnily enough, is called Cross Street). But, that really starts threading the needle as he's going to reach the other end of Cross Street turn south on Thomas and reach Buck's Row in 1 minute, and Cross/Lechmere will only have reached the end of Queen Anne Street. However, given the margin of error in the timings, that's actually pretty close. If Cross/Lechmere leave a minute earlier, they end up passed Thomas and almost out of Buck's Row before PC Neil re-emerges out of Thomas and into Buck's Row again.

Happy to get some suggestions. Obviously, there is the possibility the newspaper has the beat wrong, but again, I would rather not dismiss something if it actually does make sense.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I think it was just the way in which (smaller) streets were notated/indicated back then. In various newspaper accounts we see "Buck's Row, Thomas Street", as in, for instance, the Woodford Times of 7 September: "As the constable was walking through Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel,...". Or the Weekly Herald of the same date, which also includes: "Bucks Row is a narrow passage running out of Thomas Street, and contains…" The reason why they put it like that and not as "Buck's Row, Baker's Row" is that the stretch between Baker's Row and Thomas Street wasn't called Buck's Row (but White's Row) until a number of years before 1888, as the map below shows.

Before I read the beat as given in the Echo of 21 September, I thought that Neil and the carmen didn't see each other because Neil came up through (the southern part of) Thomas Street from Whitechapel Road while the carmen had already passed it, but now knowing the beat as it was given in the Echo, I'm quite convinced he came from the northern side of Buck's Row and, because of what I've written above, have come to think he was either in Elizabeth Place or a little north of it in Queen Ann Street and was directly (i.e. without returning to Thomas Street) going down to Buck's Row from there when Lechmere and Paul passed Queen Ann Street. That would allow Neil to arrive at the crime spot well before Mizen could (and Thain to have come & gone).

All the best,
Frank

[Patrick S]

Should Cross be considered a suspect simply because Fisherman describes him as such? Was Cross a suspect in 1888?.Suspect implies guilt.Now I have no argument with Fisherman useing the term.He(Fisherman) states his is a theory,not an actuality.In other words if a number cicumstances could be proven to be true,Cross could be considered suspect.He is correct.I,on the other hand,do not believe the circumstances have or can been proven to be of a guilty nature,so I would not use the word suspect.Simple as that.
I have suspicions of Patrick Mulshaw,a witness in the Nichols Murder.Do I claim he should be a suspect.I do not.However,should the necessary evidence surface to prove those suspicions,that would change.

This is my thinking, as well, Harry. This is the reason I always use "suspect" and/or "candidate" in quotations unless the person in question was, in fact, considered a suspect by the police in 1888 or shortly thereafter. Alas, my rules are not "the rules".. by any stretch of the imagination... and virtually anyone can be a "suspect" when it comes to "Jack the Ripper", "Ripperology", etc. So, I understand and accept that we have people like Lewis Carroll, Walter Sickert, Prince Albert Victor, Dr. John Williams, etc. I do not consider Cross to be among this - in my view - "bottom rung" of "celebrity" candidates. For me he's just above, among the group of witnesses or ancillary characters that are suggested as having been Jack the Ripper. I do view him as among the weakest of the "witnesses turned suspects" that have been proposed over the years. I don't consider Barnett, Hutchinson, John Richardson, or Mulshaw, who you mentioned, or even Mann, to be excellent or likely "suspects", but I do consider them of better quality than Cross.

I view Cross as someone who warranted investigation. Of course, we do not know to what extent he was investigated by the police at the time. But, at least in my view, there's been nothing found in more contemporary investigations of him that suggests he was anything more than what we've always thought him to be. In my opinion, investigation of the facts of the case, and of his life, serve more to lead one away from the idea of him as "The Ripper". Of course, if we subscribe to Christer's theory we must bring a BELIEF that he was Jack the Ripper with us. As well, we must bring a supposition that he was a psychopath, otherwise his actions in the Nichols' matter seem consistent with his NOT having been her killer. Thus we're led to this "bluffing" and "scamming" which, to me, seems so utterly silly. And THEN we're asked to believe certain things about the actions and character of OTHERS involved, otherwise - even if we suspect Cross of being a killer a psychopath - it all falls apart. Paul must be dishonest (except when it comes to his "exact" time as his honesty is essential here), anti-police and "big-upping". Mizen must be honest and correct (except when it comes to HIS time because that MUST be an honest mistake as THAT'S essential, as well)... and down the rabbit hole we go. We must fill in ALL the blanks in JUST THE RIGHT WAYS... to fit Cross up as Jack the Ripper. And we must even make him the Torso Killer, and responsible for other murders of limited renown... otherwise we're left to wonder why so successful a killer who lived to be 71... simply stopped in 1888.

[Harry D]

It's definitely an enticing prospect: The first witness in the first canonical murder was the killer all along! And I think researchers like Christer Holmgren and Edward Stow have done a commendable job of bolstering the case against Lechmere with the little they have. However, to push Lechmere as the Ripper suspect par excellence, nevermind calling it case closed, requires a serious amount of evidence. Christer would argue a man found alone with a freshly killed victim for an indeterminate period of time, whose evidence contradicted the police fits the bill, but that is not enough to establish guilt. Two carmen came into contact with the body in quick succession. there was nothing unusual about Lechmere's proximity to the body, quite the opposite. In fact, Paul was not even aware of the victim until the supposed killer went out of his way to alert him to this. Although Christer argues that this is typical behaviour for a psychopathic serial killer, he hasn't provided any examples to support it, apart from his go-to Jeffrey Dahmer. Dahmer's circumstances were not the same. Dahmer's victim was ALIVE and WITH the police. He had to think fast in that situation otherwise the game was up. He might have relied on his psychosis to bluff the situation out, along with police incompetence, but in this scenario Dahmer acted more out of necessity and self-preservation than for the thrill of it.

We should also not assume that Lechmere lied to PC Mizen, because that is not factual, and only a Lechmerian would believe so. It's possible Lechmere lied for some reason, be it because was the murderer or because he didn't want any further hold-up on his way to work, it could be that PC Mizen lied to save face for his lack of urgency, or it was a simple misunderstanding.

[drstrange169]

>>All well and good Jeff,but isn't it a fact that the majority of posters on this thread,submit posts explaining why Cross should not be considered a suspect ... <<

No, that's the propaganda Christer pushes out. Most posters believe that some of the evidence put forward about his guilt is of poor quality. He still is, and will always, I suspect, remain a person of interest.

[drstrange169]

>>Can we take it then,that Cross is not a suspect...<<

He is a person of interest.

It is possible for him to be the killer Mrs. Nichols, but the available evidence we have at our disposal supports his story.

[harry]

All well and good Jeff,but isn't it a fact that the majority of posters on this thread,submit posts explaining why Cross should not be considered a suspect,and if he is not considered as such,why label him so. Because that has always been the case,appears to me,a weak argument.

[drstrange169]

>>""Correcting"? What you said, and it is on print in post 229 on this thread, is "Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence".<<

As Gut has already explained he IS correct.

The fact that Christer appears not to understand that Gut is right is puzzling, so looked for what Christer defines as "inconsistent" with innocence and I found it in post #357,

"... it was not and could never be consistent with innocence to disagree with a PC the way Lechmere did." (My emphasis)

So apparently, by Christer's definition, anybody who disagrees with the police force cannot be considered innocent!?!

One wonders if he walked through some African American neighbourhoods telling people this, how he would fare?

Police perjury is so significant a problem, that the police themselves have given it a name, "Testilying". You can read about it here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_perjury

Police accused John Piser of being jtr, should we now consider the case closed?

Rather than admit Gut is correct, this is the level Christer has chosen to argue his case at.



>>So it is not as if you "have only ever said" that the disagreement "isn´t inconsistent" with innocence.<<

A boy named Liam Allen was recently accused and prosecuted for rape (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8184916.html).
After it was found out the police had withheld vital evidence that proved his innocence the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service publicly apologised to Allen.

Question for Christer (that he will not answer I'm betting), was Allen's denial of the rape charge ever not consistent with his innocence?



>>... Dr Strange wants to claim that I am tampering with the truth for pointing that out, while he has no problems at all claiming that it is proven that Jonas Mizen either lied or misled the inquest.<<

I am not "claiming" anything. I am pointing out the evidence of your lack of honesty in this thread.

I have never written that it was "proven that Mizen lied". I have challenged Christer cite were I made that claim to which Christer acknowledged that that his statement is untrue (post# 359) and yet he still continues to write it.

How then should we judge the honesty of a someone who knowingly continues to write things they have publicly acknowledged to be untrue?



>>One has to ask oneself how he can put these two things together and add it up to a reason to say that I am the one making factually questionable statements...<<

I don't believe anybody can question your lack of ethics in my previous point.

And, sadly, it is not the only example of this sort of behaviour by Christer. As always, when it's called out he becomes abusive as can be verified by simply reading Christer initiating personal abuse from post# 284 onward though this thread.

These are not semantic arguments, these are facts that can be verified.



>>Whatever comment you may choose to make about all of this, you - and not least Dr Strange - will find that it goes unanswered by me. Now you know why.<<

We do indeed know why, because you are in the wrong and you don't have the intestinal fortitude to face up to and own your behaviour.