So would he have run?

[Fisherman]

I don't see why he would have been necessarily more familiar with OM St than Hanbury St.

MrB

Because the latter was much further away, how about that? I don´t know about others specifically, but where I live, I tend to know the roads close to my house a lot better than those in the other end of town.

Coming from his home, every time he wanted to visit Hanbury Street, he had to cross Old Montague Street. To get to know both streets equally well, we must work from the presumption that every time he came up to Old Montague Street, he would also proceed up to Hanbury Street.

I would have thought it was simple logic that Old Montague Street was a lot more familiar grounds to him than Hanbury Street.

But everything can be contested, absolutely everything. I know that too from experience.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: I was reacting to to the assumption that there were only two possible routes between Doveton Street and Broad Street. If we factor in concerns over safety and familiarity, a third appears (albeit slightly longer).

There were a million routes and more to Broad Street. One of them would take him via Rome, Aruba and Silly... sorry, Scilly islands.

We all know that.

What I am saying is that the two LOGICAL routes if one wanted to reach Broad Street with a minimum of time loss, were Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street.

Amongst other things, that is why Lechmere is such an appealing suspect.

When his blood was up our killer was demonstrably reckless. But does it follow that on the thousands of days when he did not kill on his way to work he did not consider his personal safety?

Why are we having this discussion? Is it for real? Or am I tucked up in the cozy corner of some looney bin, imagining away?

How do these "arguments" surface, even?

How am I supposed to deliver an answer to such a question? By saying that he was half crazy, doing the Hanbury/Old Montague trips every other day?

How can I possibly know?

I will just leave that question unanswered, if you don´t much mind.

I wonder if anybody ever asked Ridgway if he dared go to the Sea-Tac strip on days when he didn´t kill, if he felt uneasy there...? Did anybody come up with the idea of asking? I doubt it.

What was your aim in asking me this?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Obs,

Do you happen to have one of the Godfrey reprints of the OS map for Whitechapel and Spitalfields? On the back they show the Post office directory entries for the principal streets of the area. I'm pretty sure Commercial Street would be covered. Sadly my copy seems to have gone walkabout.

That in conjunction with the Goad map (available online) for the street numbers and the Booth map should provide the info you are after.

That's the rather cumbersome way I would go about it, but there
are probably any number of real researchers on here who can suggested a better solution .

Cheers ,

MrB

Hi Mr B

No havn't got any of the Godfrey maps. As I said, for what it's worth, the electoral roll is the answer. I believe they are to be found in the libraries local to the streets you wish to search.

Regards

Observer

[Fisherman]

By the way, if Whitechapel Road is what you propose as a "safe road", Mr Barnett, you may want to consider the Old Bailey registers again. From 1887-1890, that road figured in 21 crime reports, amongst them larceny, sexual offenses and multiple cases of robbery.
Maybe we should paint the houses along that stretch black on our maps?

All the best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish,

It was a simple question: does it necessarily follow that Lech as Jack must have been totally fearless.

There is only one answer to that - NO. So both innocent Lech and Jack Lech may have factored personal safety into their route. In which case there is a third route that should be considered: along the Whitechapel Road.

As for the relative proximity of OM and H streets, I think I have already explained my doubts in that respect, but to rephrase them in your favoured 'Scilly Isles' style:
'Because I live London, does it necessarily follow that I am more familiar with Middlesborough than Crete?'

MrB

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: Hi Fish,

It was a simple question: does it necessarily follow that Lech as Jack must have been totally fearless.

No, that´s not a simple question. Simple questions are questions where we all have the answers.

When we cannot possibly have the answers, then the questions are not simple.

The only way to answer that question would be if we could get into the head of the killer, and we can´t.

He could have been totally fearless, and he was perhaps not. That´s all we can say at the present stage.

There is only one answer to that - NO. So both innocent Lech and Jack Lech may have factored personal safety into their route. In which case there is a third route that should be considered: along the Whitechapel Road.

I´m afraid the possibility will always remain that Lech and Jack Lech may not have factored in personal safety.

What you do here is to ask "does it NECESSARILY follow that...?", and once you have answered that, you say that the killer MAY have factored it in.

It´s a game of semantics, nothing else. It does not take us one step closer to what the killer actually thought. It only tells us that we cannot be sure either way.

That would have become apparent if you had instead asked "does it necessarily follow that Jack or Lech Jack WOULD have factored in personal safety?"

You would have to answer that question with a "no" too! And that´s when we know it is all a very futile exercise.

... and you should read up on the criminal offences commited in Whitechapel Road. It´s appalling, to say the least.

As for the relative proximity of OM and H streets, I think I have already explained my doubts in that respect, but to rephrase them in your favoured 'Scilly Isles' style:
'Because I live London, does it necessarily follow that I am more familiar with Middlesborough than Crete?'

There´s the "does it necessarily follow" question again! The better and more fruitful question is whether it is more likely that you will know about surroundings in your own country than in others, all other parameters excluded.

... and in Lechmere´s case, we were speaking about walking distances, which is another issue entirely.

Does it necessarily follow that you will continue this debate?

Of course not.

But let´s see what happens, shall we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Fisherman,

Do you not understand about circular arguments?

You must stop resorting to them if you intend to make headway with this suspect theory of yours.

You're now saying that if Cross was a psychopathic serial killer, then of course he walked down Old Montague Street.

Great.

If my auntie had bollocks, then of course she'd be my uncle.

Problem is, you seem to have forgotten the entire rationale for trying to tie Cross to Old Montague Street in the first place. Your argument, remember, was that Cross would have used that route to work had he been innocent. You then went on to claim that he deliberately took the longer Hanbury Street route to work, and that, wow, isn’t that terribly suspicious, and that he must have done it to pin the blame on Robert Paul (the scheming rogue), and that he cunningly avoided Old Montague Street in order to conceal that road's "link" to Tabram, and all that stuff that nobody found convincing.

That was your argument.

According to you, it’s deeply suspicious that Cross didn’t use Old Montague Street on the morning of the Nichols murder, as an innocent Carmen would have done…according to you.

Since those accusations were made, however, we’ve discovered that OMS was not the quickest route, and that there were good reasons for avoiding it even if it was. The route he actually took was a very quick, safe, and direct route, and there is no reason at all to assume he used any other since his recent arrival in Doveton Esplanade. As far as Old Montague Street being dangerous is concerned, yes, Charles Booth’s evidence tells us so. A “vicious” and “semi-criminal” district is irrefutably a dangerous one, and Charles Booth’s contemporary characterization of the street and its inhabitants counts for immeasurably more than a modern theorist’s biased naysaying. You ignore my point about the futility of determining street dodginess according to Old Bailey records. They only apply to instances in which the offender has been apprehended. This would not have occurred in the overwhelmingly vast number of occasions where a crime – robbery, assault, whatever – went unsolved or, even more likely, unreported.

Regards,
Ben

[Observer]

So far I have been working on the digitised version of the revised 1898/9 poverty map on the LSE website.

But the website also provides a link to a version of the first, 1889, edition of the map, digitised by the University of Michigan. This shows no black in Old Montague Street, the vast majority of it is a sort of grey colour used to denote 'mixed'.

Perhaps fish could extend his (scientific enough for me) Old Bailey research forward a decade to see whether the area had deteriorated significantly.

MrB

Hi again Mr B

Ah yes, more of the smoke and mirrors pervading ole Casebook. I too looked at the 1889 edition of the map, and guess what, you're correct, there are no black segments in Old Montague Street. Some posters seem to think there are. I wonder what's going on.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

I notice Mr B that in the 1898/99 map the vast number of buildings in Old Montague Street are are shaded pink.

Observer

[Ben]

The entire south-western end is surrounded by black. Yes, there are a few yards of grey between the mass of black and the street itself, and this must have proven an impenetrable barrier to any poor criminal struggling to access the street itself. Same story across the road - plenty of black shading over what is now the Flower and Dean estate.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

You're now saying that if Cross was a psychopathic serial killer, then of course he walked down Old Montague Street.

Am I? When did I say that?

I think you once more got it factually wrong. You´re like clockwork in that respect, so it´s little surprise.

I never said that he would "of course" use Old Montague Street if he was the killer.

I said that if he was the killer, then we may not need to worry about him getting scared by the unpleasant rumours that we still have no evidence of.

Your argument, remember, was that Cross would have used that route to work had he been innocent.

No, it was not. My argument was that Cross may have used that route AND/OR the Hanbury Street route, no matter if he was innocent or not.

So you got it factually wrong again!

You then went on to claim that he deliberately took the longer Hanbury Street route to work, and that, wow, isn’t that terribly suspicious, and that he must have done it to pin the blame on Robert Paul (the scheming rogue), and that he cunningly avoided Old Montague Street in order to conceal that road's "link" to Tabram, and all that stuff that nobody found convincing.

No, that was Edward claiming that. I however concurred that it is strange if a late worker with extensive knowledge about the street patters would choose a longer route over a shorter one.

So you got it factually wrong again!

That was your argument.

No, it was Edwards argument, that I to a very large extent embrace. I am a little less convinced about Lechmere pinning the blame on Paul than Edward is, for example. But don´t take that as having proved that I am totally against the suggestion - no facts à la Ben, please!

According to you, it’s deeply suspicious that Cross didn’t use Old Montague Street on the morning of the Nichols murder, as an innocent Carmen would have done…according to you.

No, according to me it is not deeply suspicious, just rather odd. If he was innocent, he may have liked the thought of getting company, and so he could have chosen the Hanbury Street path for that reason.

I am not the fundamentalist here. And you got it factually wrong. Again.

Since those accusations were made, however, we’ve discovered that OMS was not the quickest route, and that there were good reasons for avoiding it even if it was.

You have discovered neither thing, Ben. But the rest of us have discovered how you produce facts where there are none, or even in direct conflict with other evidence.

You ignore my point about the futility of determining street dodginess according to Old Bailey records.

I ignore a lot more than so when it comes from you, Ben. And wisely so.

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I notice Mr B that in the 1898/99 map the vast number of buildings in Old Montague Street are are shaded pink.

Observer

The whole of Whitechapel Road is "innocently" coloured - but it nevertheless harboured seven times as much criminality as Old Montague Street, going by the Old Bailey Records.

Can we please let go of the idea that poverty equalled crime and danger? Please?

And can we please admit that the whole issue is a meta discussion? The idea of street criminality most probably never entered the killer´s head, so let´s not pretend it must have.

(I´m not shooting you down, Observer, I am making a general remark about a weird discussion)

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Decide for yourselves folks the area to the South Western end is actually coloured dark blue, very poor, casual. As said Old Montague Street itself, is shaded pink, mixed, some comfortable, some poor.

http://www.umich.edu/~risotto/

You'll have to navigate to Old Montague Street using the links folks couldn't get a straight link to the OMS section

Old Montague Street finishes at Osbourne Street, if you travel west you enter Wentworth Street, there is a very small section of black shading as you enter Wentworth Street. I'm reliably told that workers on their way to work donned a crash helmet, and ran along this section, for fear of being robbed, once they cleared this section they were safe to continue.

[Observer]

No worries Fish. I realise as well as you do that a local man on his way to work, as long as he stuck to the main thoroughfares wouldn't have gave a fig which route he took

Regards

Observer

[Fisherman]

No worries Fish. I realise as well as you do that a local man on his way to work, as long as he stuck to the main thoroughfares wouldn't have gave a fig which route he took

Regards

Observer

Going by how much space this absolute non-issue has been awarded, it has something to say for how many good arguments there are against Lechmere´s candidacy...!

In reality, I should be pleased. Three years have passed and the best they´ve been able to throw at me is that an eviscerating killer could have been intimidated by the thought of using a street where we don´t even know about one single violent crime in the period we are looking at, and that he could have been known as Cross colloquially, albeit he never used that name when signing papers in communications with authorities.

I think that´s a good rating as anybody could hope for!

All the best, Observer. Good to hear you didn´t take offense!!

All the best,
Fisherman