So would he have run?

[Sally]

This all goes very well to show why Eldon Street was where the carters would have entered and excited Pickfords.

Exited, surely Fish?

If the carmen really were excting Pickfords, we'd be looking at a very different picture...

[Fisherman]

The by far most instructive post you have made so far, Dr Strange, will be post 108. Not for the reasons you posted it of course, but nevertheless.

If you (in the lower picture) take a look at the two parallel entrances you did NOT encircle in red, you will note that they belong to a car park.
Now look at the signs - there are three of them.
The first, large, one is situated right over the brick wall, on the facade that is angled ninety degrees to the street. It says NCP Car Park, and has an arrow pointing left.
That sign was there to tell motorists travelling east on Eldon Road that there was a car park coming up soon.
The next two signs are situated where the entrance to the car park is. And that is where I think that the Pickfords goods depot and Pickfords yard were situated in 1888.
Now, there is a blue, modern, sign pointing the motorists to the left, into the building. But there is also a yellow, older, sign, that says NCP car parking and that points the motorists DOWN, to a parking level below street level.

There are TWO openings in the pavement, and we can safely deduct that the motorists will enter the building through one of them and leave it through the other one.
The same will have applied for the carts back in 1888. If it had been an entrance on street level, the carters could have used just the one hole in the wall, since there would be no risk of them running into each other.
But with a depot situated below street level, and with the angle of the ramps leading down and up, two openings into and out of the depot were an absolute necessity to avoid meeting colleagues on their way up and down.

I think this picture of yours tells the whole story. The fact that underground premises are not on the map is neatly illustrated by the vaults and arches you posted latest - they are there, but where are they on the map?

This post of yours also shows the level difference: in the foreground, we can see the street level, and that street level is much further up than the level the parked cars on the yard are on.

This all goes very well to show why Eldon Street was where the carters would have entered and excited Pickfords.

And - once more - even if this had not been the case, it still applies that Lechmere could have used Old Montague Street. And would have, if he was a/the killer and b/not stupid.

Incidentally, your stance that Old Montague Street would have been infested with semi-criminal and vicious people since they were poor kind of swears against what was said about George Yard, where it was stated that the people who lived there were the poorest of the poor but patently honest.

I think you need to find yourself something else than a Booth map to illustrate your point about how dreaded and dangerous the street was.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I am just as unsure about what you mean about speculation on my behalf as I am about what your picture - taken in the 1980`s - is supposed to tell us about whether there was a wall dividing the covered tank from the yard or not.

Are you saying that it is speculation that the goods depot and the Pickfords yard were situated below the Broad Street goods terminal? And are you promoting a new solution to the "where is door?-problem". If so, I´m beginning to loose track of them.

All the best,
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

Here are old and new photographs of the arches, taken from almost the same spot.

Note the numbering.

Number 1 is closest to Appold Street and ascending to the highest number nearest Eldon Road.

[drstrange169]

Here's a closer view note the row of arches alongside the railway track.

The originally had cranes that lowered the freight from the trains to the lower levels.

[drstrange169]

I've amassed so many photos of the Broad Street goods yard that I'd clog up casebook if I post too many more. So I'll make these next few my last.

This is from the 1980's note the "doorways" towards Appold Street.
(big circle)

Above that is Skinner Street.
(small circle)

Apparently, there was a Stable between there and Primrose. I discovered this from a post at a Broad Street site from a guy whose grandfather was killed in an accident there in 1910.

[drstrange169]

Hello Fisherman,

"We can all see that there is an opening in the pavement lading into the building, and we know that there were two levels involved, since the Pickfords yard and goods depot was situated on the lower level.
The wall we can see was obviously there, but not on the low level."

That's great speculation, but yet again the facts don't support it.

The two entrances next to my circled one, have no "wall" marking yet were also part of a two level building, as the photographs clearly show.

[drstrange169]

Hello Lechmere,


I think Ben has covered basically what I wanted to say, but ...;-)


That Cross/Lechmere went to work along Hanbury Street is a unbiased researchable fact.

Against that, to fit a wanted outcome, "could have" "plausible" and "possibilities" are being proposed. That's interesting stuff, but it's all just speculation without a shred of actual evidence and needs to be recognized as such.



"... Booth’s colour codes were an indication of poverty not crime"


Booth's colour code, on black,"Very poor, lowest class ... Vicious, semi-criminal."(my emphasis)

[Ben]

I just re-measured the routes and the Old Montague Street route is a good 100 yards shorter than any northern route.

And I just jumped into my time machine and found out it was Hutchinson.

Seriously though, Lechmere, you're quite wrong about Old Montague Street being the shortest route.

It just wasn't.

The shortest route went Hanbury Street – Spelman St – Booth St – Princelet St – Wilkes St – Fournier St – Commercial St – Dorset St – Raven Row – Whitegate St – Bishopsgate St, and then Skinner Street through to Pickfords.

I here credit the sterling efforts of Frank in confirming that which I'd long suspected - that Cross probably cut through the terminus building, thus absolving him of the need to enter Broad Street from the south, as the dangerous, longer Old Montague Street route demanded.

For there to be a case it merely has to be shown that the Old Montague Street was a plausible route for him to take.

Yes, this is better.

Say that next time.

It's not impossible that he took Old Montague Street on occasion, I agree, but given that his only known route to work took him onto Hanbury Street, the parsimonious assumption is that this was the route he always took. It was the quickest and the safest, on balance. We just need to be mindful that these points are acknowledged; otherwise "factoids" take root, such as the erroneous claim that he can "be linked to all crime scenes", including Mitre Square and George Yard, which he certainly can't be, according to any reliable evidence.

Regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

I just re-measured the routes and the Old Montague Street route is a good 100 yards shorter than any northern route.
For someone coming back from work it has a lot more logic to it - emergi0g from Liverpool Street into Bishopsgate you just walk straight across into Devonshire Street.
Apart from the dog leg of Harrow Alley it is a straight route.
When he lived at James Street (until mid June 1888) his route may well have taken him down Devonshire Street - the last quarter of the route would probably have been the same.

But the specifics do not actually matter. For there to be a case it merely has to be shown that the Old Montague Street was a plausible route for him to take. And it clearly was.

[Lechmere]

"... if a series of dead bodies started appearing down your shortest route ..."
Is two a series? And which exactly is the shortest route and is it short enough to be meaningful?
That wasn’t the question I asked – in fact there were three b the time of the Nichols murder.
A things stand – at the state of play of our current knowledge – it was the shortest route. The meaningful thing about this is that it was a very plausible route for him to take at roughly the time the murders took place. Why is there the basic denial about the relevance of this? The resistance, that amounts to a phobia to say ‘OK he may well have taken that route on the nights in question’. Which other suspect can even be placed on the streets anywhere near at the relevant time?

"... if you were found next to one of the bodies ..."
You mean, if you went out of your way to raise the alarm after discovering a possibly unconscious or dead body.
Again, that’s not what I asked.
But now you mention it, who went out of his way to raise the alarm after discovering a possibly dead or unconscious body? Charles Lechmere didn’t, unless you mean he walked back a few yards and spoke to Paul, and then they both left the body and went to work – not out of their way at all, and then spoke to Mizen who they bumped into and certainly raised no alarm with him. Is that what you regard as going out of ones way and raising the alarm?

"... you gave Caraxticus as your name ..."
And you were known by that name and you also gave your correct address and work place.
Again not what I asked.
You have no idea whether he was known by that name. Just brushing aside the name swap and not being able to fathom out any potential reason why a guilty party might have given a false name but genuine address and workplace to would be foolhardy in a genuine investigation to say the least.

"... the first policeman you met said you said one thing while you claimed to say another ..."
And your version was backed up by an independent witness. And that independant witness questioned the integrity of the policeman.
Yet again not what I asked.
Yet again it wasn’t quite as simple as your picture. You have an independent witness who gave two versions of what was happened, and who was clearly anti police and so quite possibly prone to not casting Mizen in a good light.

"... would you expect to come under suspicion?"
Not really:-)
I’m glad you are not in the police as you would never catch anyway and believe what everyone says and think everyone is innocent.

It's all a matter of spin. My version states the known facts, yours interprets them.
No you put an innocent spin and interpreted the facts to make Lechmere innocent. Is that what a policeman, for example, would be expected to do?

Regarding the Appold Street entrance – various maps do show the walls in lighter colours where there are entrances – such as at Eldon Street. Eldon Street was indisputably the entrance – you even picture what would have been cart entrances.
In any case the Appold Street entrance would take someone to the boundary of Broad Street Station not to the Goods depot. From the Appold entrance he would have had to negotiate his way through the station to get to the goods depot.
It remains that the simplest, shortest and easiest way to get to his workplace would have been down Old Montague Street.
You have no idea whether it was a more dangerous route. Booth’s colour codes were an indication of poverty not crime. Unless you also subscribe to his view that poverty equals crime and danger.
Lechmere didn’t flap after supposedly seeing a body lying in the street for the first time and then being approached from behind by a man (unlike Paul who hadn’t even seen the body at that point). So he didn’t seem to be a worrier.

Incidentally the final part of his route would have been the same as he took when he lived at James Street

[Fisherman]

Hello Lechmere,


"This shows a close up of the yard and the wall that separates the building and entrance from the yard."

And by that reasoning, this shows a wall that separates an entrance in Eldon Street on the same map.

One could say that Edwards reasoning on two levels, Dr Strange. We can all see that there is an opening in the pavement lading into the building, and we know that there were two levels involved, since the Pickfords yard and goods depot was situated on the lower level.

The wall we can see was obviously there, but not on the low level.

Up at the covered tank, however - were there two levels too?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman,

" ... Lechmere grew up very close to Old Montague Street..."
[/B][/I]
Of course these judgements are relative, but I would strongly disagree. The addresses were all the other side of Whitechapel Road and the only one that "I" would describe as vaguely close would be Sion Square and Cross/Lechmere was very young then and so was unlikely to have known Old Montague Street. As he grew up his family moved further and further away.

Lechmere was around ten when he lived in Sion Square. And that is an age when you explore. And Old Montague Street was a stiff hundred yards away, so I don´t think he would have been totally unaquainted with it.
Besides, no matter how we cut things, ALL of his pre-Doveton Street addresses were always very much closer to Old Montague Street than to Hanbury Street.

To top things off, much as Sion Square WAS on the other side of Whitechapel Road, the latter WAS a road and not a brick wall. And it was not trafficed heavily by fierce Ferraris - you could cross it if you felt like it...

Just as you say, judgements will be relative. The Old Montague Street/Hanbury Street juxtaposition will however not. If it was one street he was always nearer to, it was the former.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fish, I note that you started this topic raised on a "General Suspect Discussion" board. Was it to save time?

Saving time is not what there boards are about, Gareth - hadn´t you noticed? Out here, we mostly WASTE time.

The best,
Fisherman

[drstrange169]

"... if a series of dead bodies started appearing down your shortest route ..."

Is two a series? And which exactly is the shortest route and is it short enough to be meaningful?


"... if you were found next to one of the bodies ..."

You mean, if you went out of your way to raise the alarm after discovering a possibly unconscious or dead body.


"... you gave Caraxticus as your name ..."

And you were known by that name and you also gave your correct address and work place.


"... the first policeman you met said you said one thing while you claimed to say another ..."

And your version was backed up by an independent witness. And that independant witness questioned the integrity of the policeman.


"... would you expect to come under suspicion?"

Not really:-)

It's all a matter of spin. My version states the known facts, yours interprets them.