So would he have run?

[Fisherman]

Responding is usually dependent on there being a sensible point worth responding to.

Thatīs true - and thereīs nothing much of that commodity in Benīs post, sadly.

I think that opening up by demanding evidence that a carman with twenty years of experience would know his way around the East End streets is very symptomatic for the level of understanding that is applied: a very poor and limited one.

If I had said that a specific heart surgeon would know how to perform a heart operation on a specific patient, it would be equally wise to say that I have no evidence for it.

If I had said that a specific car repair man would be able to repair a specific car, it would be just as gifted to say that I could not prove it.

If I had said that a specific oceanograph would be able to describe a certain part of an ocean, it would be as useful to point out that I could not prove that either.

In the (extremely) short perspective, it is of course correct to say that I do not have the evidence attaching to the specific cases. But most people would realize that I bank on a heart surgeon being trained in heart surgery - it is his area of expertise.
Equally, a car repair manīs area of expertise is repairing cars, and an oceanograph is very knowledgeable about oceans - it is HIS area of expertise.

So letīs ask ourselves: What on earth could be a carmanīs area of expertise? Could it perhaps be to know the streets of the town where he works?

I would suggest that this is exactly where a carmanīs area of expertise lies.

Could it also be that his knowledge abouyt these streets will increase with every year of service he has under his belt? Yes, that is exactly so.

Would it be fair to propose that if he had grown up in the area at hand before he became a carman in the area at han, he would be even more prone to be an expert as regards the streets of that area. Strangely, yes - there seems to be such a connection.

So, in fact, all we know about this carman with twenty years of working as a carman behind him and a decade of experience of the area, generally speaking, tells us that he would be extremely well aquainted with the streets in that area.

And still, this is contested, apparently? Itīs mindboggling.

Demanding evidence (A masters degree in streetology? A signed reference from the Pickfords managers, saying that Lechmere actually did learn what all carmen learnt?) in such a case is ridiculous, useless, counterproductive and a total letdown of the minimum standard we must demand from our fellow posters.

So yes, I agree - there are no sensible points to answer to in the post.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Or here

[Lechmere]

To facilitate measuring distances here is the entrance to Broad Street Goods Station on Eldon Street...

[FrankO]

I can't believe, and Frank should burn his map, if h's a gentleman.

So, you think I should get rid of the map containing the example below too, David?

[Wickerman]

But according to those who study to defend Hutchinson, all a nocturnal loiterer needed to say, if collared by a copper, was that he was sauntering around in the wee hours because he couldn't get into his lodgings, and didn't want to crash in a doorway or stairwell because that's too naughty. If that isn't taxing on the oesophagus, I don't know what is.

Nevertheless Ben, it is a fact.
Just treat it like all the other facts you don't like, just ignore it.

[DVV]

Hi Ben,

Does it mean that the peaceful married carman named Cross wasn't the Hanbury Street butcher ?

I can't believe, and Frank should burn his map, if h's a gentleman.

Slainte !

[Ben]

Blimey, Frank, what a fantastic find!

I agree entirely, Skinner Street appears to have been an ideal cut-through to Pickfords, and would make your "Hanbury Street route 3" the shortest one possible for Cross to have taken.

All's well here too!

Best regards,
Ben

[FrankO]

Good to see you here, and I hope all's well!

Hi Ben!

Good to see you too, all's well here and I hope that you are too!

On the subject of travelling through the terminus building of Liverpool Street Station, here's a 1894 plan of the station. As you'll see there seems to have been a possibility to take a left turn on Skinner Street that would take you directly to Liverpool Street.

Cheers Ben,
Frank

[Lechmere]

Responding is usually dependent on there being a sensible point worth responding to.

[Ben]

But he WAS an equivalent of a taxi driver. He would have all the streets and distances in his head. It was a working tool of his. Other suggestions are unviable.

"All the streets"..?

"Would have"...?

Let's see the evidence please, Fisherman.

Let's hear your explanation as to why he “would have” found occasion to familiarise himself with the smaller roads north of Whitechapel High Street, between Doveton Mews and Pickfords. I submit that he had no reason to become conversant with the routes and distances associated with any roads other than the ones he traversed on his own route to work, and the larger thoroughfares most probably associated with his carting. Taxi driver analogy "unviable", I'm afraid.

"There is every reason to accept that he would have used the shortest thoroughfare to his job, since that is what people normally do for time-saving reasons."

Old Montague Street was not "the" shortest route. Hanbury Street and Wilkes Street (etc) was certainly no longer. There is not the slightest reason to believe he took any other route than the one he used on the morning of the Nichols murder - a simple, direct, crow-flies route that was relatively safe. The fact that this is only objected to by those who have already convinced themselves of Cross’s guilt should give you some sort of clue to the implausibility of its alternative.

“Plus, as I said, Old Montague Street is Tabram territory, whereas the canonicals are not Old Montague Street material.”

I don’t do “canons”. Never touch the stuff. I thought you accepted Tabram as a likely ripper victim.

“In the Buckīs Row vicinity, not a single one of this huge group of men was to be found.

Except, of course, the individual who was actually responsible for the murder. Statistics (and, frankly, common sense) inform us that this individual was one of the thousands of men who lived within the area circumscribed by the outer crime scenes. Don’t shoot the messenger, but rather take your objections up with Kim Rossmo and David Canter, along with all the serial killers who formed the basis of their conclusions. The fact remains that whoever the real killer was, he didn’t need any other “reason”, beyond a desire to kill prostitutes, to be out on the streets in the small hours.

“Now, take some time and explain to us all why a serial killer with enough time on his hands would not kill on his working trek! What exact parameter would stop it automatically?”

Well, it’s really rather simple. In the context of serial killers, a “comfort zone” relates to their hunting ground; the location in which the victims are selected and/or disposed of. The fact that not a single known serial killer in history has ever made a “comfort zone” out of his route to work and then killed enroute there - despite it being more than feasible in a number of cases - tells me that none of them thought it was a particularly clever idea. The reasons for this must surely be obvious – pressure to get there on time (which Cross would not have done if he killed Chapman and Kelly), bloodstains, to say nothing of viable locations at the workplace for stashing freshly extracted innards. I must say, your assumption that there “must have” been a convenient hidey-hole at Pickfords for such a purpose seems dreadfully fanciful and unlikely to me. No offense.

“He had very little experience of that area, whereas he had decades of experience of for example the Pinchin Street/James Street/Berner Street area.”

Too bad for his suspect candidacy that this wasn’t the general area of the riper murders either. Berner Street was an obvious outlier to the other crime scenes, being the only one committed south of the two main thoroughfares, Whitechapel High Street and Commercial Road. That’s assuming it was a ripper crime at all, and as you’ve argued heatedly for many years prior to 2012, it may not have been.

“Answer: Phillips. Or an errand later in the day. No big deal. No small deal, even. No deal at all.”

Only if you want to reply on highly improbable explanations to dismiss valid objections.

Are you of the opinion that the Chapman mutilations occurred in the dark of night, i.e. without the emerging daylight?

“I remember when the British newspapers used that headline with a picture of Wayne Rooney, preceding a football game that us Swedes won; "Be scared. Be very, very scared" or something like that.
Funny how such things regularly fall flat to the ground when they are put to the test, donīt you think?”

Like the Crossmere-the-ripper theory, for instance! If Team Sweden is supposed to represent you in the above footie comparison, it’s just a pity they’ve scored so many own goals for your theory, with ill-advised criticisms of Hutchinson that apply far more accurately to Crossmere.

“But when I come back, I am going to want my answer to the question about what mechanism it is that steps in and hinders killers from killing en route to work”

It’s not so much a mechanical hindrance, so much as a total lack of evidence of a single serial offender in history killing on his way to work. Did it never occur to a single one of them? (Ludicrous) Were no other serial killers in history able to kill on their way to work? (Not the case). OR…was it simply eschewed as a very obviously bad idea? (Sensible).

“Lechmere did his work trek in the dead hours of the night, when the streets were much deserted but for the odd night-rambler or prostitute - it would have been the best time available for a street killer.”

Actually, it would have been the “best time available for a street killer" who wasn’t due at work a few minutes after the time at which he intended to kill and dump his victims, and who didn’t have the problem of encountering work colleagues with pocketed innards, and in a potentially blood-stained condition.

“He would quite possibly be able to add some little time to the time needed just to reach Pickfords, and thus enable him to kill and eviscerate, which was a swift enough affair in his case.

We donīt know what awaited him up at Broad Street - he could have been first to arrive, he could have his own premises etcetera - he was a faithful and quite possibly trusted employee, and so he could have had the perfect premises to stash trophies and clean up.”

“Could haves” and “quite possiblies” just aren’t good enough, Fisherman, and nor is making a prime suspect out of that which we don’t know. The likelihood, of course, is that there probably wasn’t a convenient makeshift organ-repository located a Pickfords. You’ll note that in the minds of the majority, your “could have” and “quite possibly” are better substituted with “probably couldn’t” and “probably didn’t”. Let’s not change the goalposts, incidentally, by demanding that others demonstrate why Cross could not possibly have killed on the way to work. That’s Srawmania. It has simply been observed that the real killer was unlikely in the extreme to have done so, and common sense and criminological insight has been used in this observation.

“Lechmereīs working trek provided him with a Lechmereīs working trek provided him with a prime opportunity to approach prostitutes and folllow/lead them to secluded areas.”

And the occupancy of one of the many dwellings within the murder zone would have given many thousands of men a “prime opportunity to approach prostitutes and folllow/lead them to secluded areas”, and they would only need an alibi to explain their presence on the streets on the small hours if they were accosted by the police. A non-carman could have come up with any old nonsense if spotted by a copper; he could, for instance, have pretended that after a long walk from Romford, he found himself locked out his lodgings, compelling him to walk about all night.

“If Hutchinson and Fleming wanted to have a drink, then surely they would avoid having it in Old Montague Street”

The Victoria Home was situated opposite the Princess Alice, which sits on the corner of Commercial Street and Old Montague Street. The latter had a very poor reputation, and was likely to be avoided by lone travellers in the small hours, when most pubs weren’t open. A casual pint in the evening on the extreme western end of the street was worlds apart from traversing its entire length in the small hours, as some have suggested that Cross did…without any evidence.

Now you enjoy your holiday, and don't spoil it by continually checking in online to monitor the responses. It'll only frustrate you that you're not in a position to address them straight away. You might also miss a crucial bite or a bend in the rod if consistently checking iphones etc.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

You have no evidence whatsoever that Hutchinson or Fleming ever went in the Princess Alice or went down Old Montague Street and it is stomach churningly nauseating to claim otherwise.

Had I claimed to be in possession of evidence that Hutchinson and Fleming once stood on Old Montague Street, I agree, that would have been positively bilious of me. All I observed, however, were that these men were far more likely than Cross to have done so, considering that they lived less than ten feet from the street's entrance.

Similarly being out on those deserted dark streets without good reason during the autumn of terror would be an incitement to arrest with all those beat coppers about

But according to those who study to defend Hutchinson, all a nocturnal loiterer needed to say, if collared by a copper, was that he was sauntering around in the wee hours because he couldn't get into his lodgings, and didn't want to crash in a doorway or stairwell because that's too naughty. If that isn't taxing on the oesophagus, I don't know what is.

Booth's map did address the issue of crime, or else he would not have characterized the darkest shaded areas as "vicious (i.e. vice-ridden), and semi-criminal".

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Frank,

Good to see you here, and I hope all's well!

On the subject of the "shortest route", I'm reminded of your excellent finding:

"Hanbury Street – Spelman St – Booth St – Princelet St – Wilkes St – Fournier St – Commercial St – Dorset St – Raven Row – Whitegate St – Bishopsgate St: 1,380 meters/1,509 yards"

As you observed, this route was no longer than Old Montague Street, and as I later observed (on the original thread in question), it was probably shorter, considering that the latter route meant going further south then necessary and then "upwards" from Liverpool Street. "Your" route, on the other hand, gave Cross the option of crossing diagonally through the terminus building of Liverpool Street Station to get to Pickfords.

So Old Montague Street was probably not the shortest route at all.

Regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Dr Strange's northern route is a little different to that, and actually is different to any considered before - I am a bit busy at the moment and can't give this matter proper attention - and I can't find my detailed maps!

[FrankO]

You'd planned to post something like this, Dusty? Measured the distances with Google Maps.

All the best,
Frank

[drstrange169]

Whoops, sorry, pressed the wrong button.
Ignore this post!