The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Elamarna]

I cannot see where I say that the steps sounded like bombs exploding, Steve. Can you?

The discussion was that the ordinary we often ignore such as footsteps.

Your reply to that, was as posted.

Taking the txt in the context of the previous posts it seemed clear to me that you were suggesting that footsteps were not ordinary .

And if there was not an intention to suggest that something so out of the ordinary as an explosion was somehow comparabable to to the ongoing discussions; I then fail to see the relevance of mentioning explosions when discussing footsteps

If I misinterpreted what you meant sorry, however that is how I read it. Personal interpretation like much of your theory.

And of course that should not prevent a fully reasoned and logical answer to my question.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Only too happy.

Now post 768 I think, the debate was regards perception and I suggested that we ignore the ordinary like footsteps.

You replied with the below. My interpretation of that was a comic comparison. Nevertheless in response you did post the following


"Yes, but there will be exceptions. If you are busy reading and in a bubble, I bet uyou will notice if I explode a landmine under your reading chair. There are always reasonable levels in these matters, Steve"

I do assume you were being comical?

And of course as others do point out you do attempt to avoid answering. Just as you did to me last Friday.

So be it.

Steve

I cannot see where I say that the steps sounded like bombs exploding, Steve. Can you?

[Elamarna]

When you quote me on where I said that the footsteps could be compared to a bomb explosion, I will gladly answer the question you ask.

It may take some time, as I understand it.

Only too happy.

Now post 768 I think, the debate was regards perception and I suggested that we ignore the ordinary like footsteps.

You replied with the below. My interpretation of that was a comic comparison. Nevertheless in response you did post the following


"Yes, but there will be exceptions. If you are busy reading and in a bubble, I bet uyou will notice if I explode a landmine under your reading chair. There are always reasonable levels in these matters, Steve"

I do assume you were being comical?

And of course as others do point out you do attempt to avoid answering. Just as you did to me last Friday.

So be it.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Dear All

This thread seems to be spreading out from just the name issue to anything which can be used in the theory that Lechmere was the killer.

In which case let me raise a little issue here.

It has been suggested by many, myself included that Lechmere disturbed the killer and was not the killer himself.

Fisherman has counted that, to me at least, that this would mean that Lechmere, failed to see the killer, move from the body and walk away from the scene away from Lechmere, and such is not reasonable.

There is a question, related to this, I have never fully understood on the theory.

Fisherman has asked why did Lechmere not see the killer rise and walk away? (not a quote, just a summary of what has been posted before, not on this thread i believe.)

However does not the same question need to apply to Robert Paul?


Why did he not see Lechmere rise from the body, if Lechmere was the killer,

Surely if such a question is good for one witness it must stand for the other, given they had both walked down Bucks Row and possibly disturbed a killer

But I hear it said Paul did see Lechmere; However according to Both Paul and Lechmere, Paul only noticed Lechmere as he got reasonably close to him, and he was standing in the middle of the street and then moved towards Paul.

If Lechmere is the killer then he must have move from the body, finishing off the "job" first, having been disturbed by Paul.
This can one assume have been because he heard the explosion of Paul's footsteps approaching down Bucks Row.

Yet Paul did not see any movement or hear any sounds.

Please, please tell me why the same should not be applied to Lechmere and someone he disturbed? Why could such a person not have moved away from the body, and walked away on the edge of the road unseen?


And of course that does not even touch the possibility that one if not both of Lechmere and Paul, may just have not noticed anything at all.

Fisherman while acknowledging such is possible, however does play it down with his talk of persons being in the bubble and suggests that footsteps can be compared to a bomb explosion.


Steve

When you quote me on where I said that the footsteps could be compared to a bomb explosion, I will gladly answer the question you ask.

It may take some time, as I understand it.

[David Orsam]

according to lechs testimony it seems mere seconds that he discovers the body and Paul shows up.

so to me there is still the question of why they didn't notice each other before bucks row. If lech had described a more lengthy actions upon discovering the body-like I went and tried to see if she was alive, tried to help her, looked around for someone etc. then OK fine-enough time has passed for Pauls entrance that they are obviously far enough apart in there trips not to have seen each other on the way.

but the way Lech describes it -it could be mere seconds-he sees something in the middle of the road, stops, takes a look, takes a few steps toward it, stops looks again and then Paul appears. It seems like we are talking mere seconds-5 seconds even-but no more than 20 in my mind.

so to me this point is still unresolved. and still bugs me.

It shouldn't be bugging you Abby! For the following reasons:

1. You ask why Lechmere and Paul didn't notice "each other" but Paul would always have been behind Lechmere so how could Lechmere ever have seen Paul? The only question, therefore, is why didn't Paul spot Lechmere.

2. The only significant stretch of road where Paul might have seen Lechmere prior to Bucks Row is Bath Street but there is no actual evidence that Lechmere even walked down Bath Street. He could have taken a different route. Fisherman's theory is that Parson Street, included in one report of Lechmere's evidence, was a mishearing of Bath Street but he might be wrong. If Lechmere never walked down Bath Street that's the end of it.

3. You haven't established what the visibility was that night. Given that Lechmere and Paul could barely see the body of Nichols who was right in front of them in Bucks Row, would Paul have seen a man even 10 yards in front of him?

4. What about hearing footsteps? Well on that we have the evidence of Lechmere that he only heard Paul's footsteps when he was about 40 yards away from him (but didn’t see him at that distance) Do you accept that evidence? If so, the two men only needed to be 41 yards apart in Bath Street and Paul might neither have seen nor heard Lechmere.

5. But is it possible for Lechmere to have accurately estimated the distance from hearing footsteps? Despite me raising this issue ages ago, not a single person has told me how it could be done. If Lechmere underestimated the distance, then he and Paul were much further away than you assume, and your entire puzzlement disappears doesn't it?

6. You seem to only allow Lechmere 20 seconds to have seen the body, stopped, thought about it and walked to the middle of the road. Previously you allowed 20-30 seconds for this but have inexplicably and rather randomly shortened the time. It seems to me that you haven't factored in any time for Lechmere to have seen the body and slowed down his walk before stopping. While he slowed down, Paul would have been catching him up the whole time. That alone could explain it.

7. Your calculations appear to assume that Paul and Lechmere were walking at the same speed. But if Paul was walking at twice the speed of Lechmere it would mean that they were further apart in Bath Street than they were in Bucks Row wouldn't it?

8. I submit that it is perfectly understandable that Paul didn't spot Lechmere in Bath Street, that there are so many possible reasons why this didn't happen and we simply don't have enough detailed evidence to even suggest that he must have seen him (or was likely to have seen him).

[Elamarna]

Dear All

This thread seems to be spreading out from just the name issue to anything which can be used in the theory that Lechmere was the killer.

In which case let me raise a little issue here.

It has been suggested by many, myself included that Lechmere disturbed the killer and was not the killer himself.

Fisherman has counted that, to me at least, that this would mean that Lechmere, failed to see the killer, move from the body and walk away from the scene away from Lechmere, and such is not reasonable.

There is a question, related to this, I have never fully understood on the theory.

Fisherman has asked why did Lechmere not see the killer rise and walk away? (not a quote, just a summary of what has been posted before, not on this thread i believe.)

However does not the same question need to apply to Robert Paul?


Why did he not see Lechmere rise from the body, if Lechmere was the killer,

Surely if such a question is good for one witness it must stand for the other, given they had both walked down Bucks Row and possibly disturbed a killer

But I hear it said Paul did see Lechmere; However according to Both Paul and Lechmere, Paul only noticed Lechmere as he got reasonably close to him, and he was standing in the middle of the street and then moved towards Paul.

If Lechmere is the killer then he must have move from the body, finishing off the "job" first, having been disturbed by Paul.
This can one assume have been because he heard the explosion of Paul's footsteps approaching down Bucks Row.

Yet Paul did not see any movement or hear any sounds.

Please, please tell me why the same should not be applied to Lechmere and someone he disturbed? Why could such a person not have moved away from the body, and walked away on the edge of the road unseen?


And of course that does not even touch the possibility that one if not both of Lechmere and Paul, may just have not noticed anything at all.

Fisherman while acknowledging such is possible, however does play it down with his talk of persons being in the bubble and suggests that footsteps can be compared to a bomb explosion.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Well, some of cat's meat men who roamed the streets made small fortunes, so there was money to be made in that game. But if snobbery was ingrained in her psyche, she may well have resented the cards she had been dealt.

It´s not an easy call to make - maybe the fact that she shunned the Cross name in favour of Lechmere has something to tell about it...?

[MrBarnett]

Thomas Roulson was indeed a butler, so I take your point. However, if Ma Lechmere was instead a shrewd businesswoman, dealing in horseflesh as a wholesale commodity, her father would perhaps spin a little less in his grave...

I almost missed the wholesale bit.

[MrBarnett]

Thomas Roulson was indeed a butler, so I take your point. However, if Ma Lechmere was instead a shrewd businesswoman, dealing in horseflesh as a wholesale commodity, her father would perhaps spin a little less in his grave...

Well, some of cat's meat men who roamed the streets made small fortunes, so there was money to be made in that game. But if snobbery was ingrained in her psyche, she may well have resented the cards she had been dealt.

[Fisherman]

One thing that would be interesting (for me) to have confirmed is the occupation of old ma Lechmere's father. It looks like 'butler' on the 1872 marriage cert to Joseph Forsdike.

Another interesting little fact to add into the mix. If that was the case, then although it would have been 'below stairs' her upbringing would have been in complete contrast to the years she spent in Tiger Bay, Cable Street and the Ratcliffe Highway.

Just think of the indignity of a butler's daughter selling cat's meat on the corner of Artichoke Hill.

Thomas Roulson was indeed a butler, so I take your point. However, if Ma Lechmere was instead a shrewd businesswoman, dealing in horseflesh as a wholesale commodity, her father would perhaps spin a little less in his grave...

[MrBarnett]

One thing that would be interesting (for me) to have confirmed is the occupation of old ma Lechmere's father. It looks like 'butler' on the 1872 marriage cert to Joseph Forsdike.

Another interesting little fact to add into the mix. If that was the case, then although it would have been 'below stairs' her upbringing would have been in complete contrast to the years she spent in Tiger Bay, Cable Street and the Ratcliffe Highway.

Just think of the indignity of a butler's daughter selling cat's meat on the corner of Artichoke Hill.

[MrBarnett]

I'd already drafted this, so I won't waste it:

I'm sure you know that in 1861 Charles Lechmere (shown as Charles Cross) was living in Thomas Street, in the area that at that time was known as Tiger Bay.

Thomas Street was later renamed Pinchin Street and by 1888, a large part of it had been demolished to make way for various railway improvements.

However, part of the north side of the street, where according to the 1861 census enumerator's route, the 'Cross' family had lived, was still standing. Although not directly 'opposite' the house where Charles had lived as a child, the 1889 torso was found on what had been the opposite side of Thomas Street, a very short distance from his childhood home.

Fish,

I have a slightly different take on where in Thomas Street the family lived. I know Ed is currently researching the question.

One error I think I did make is in saying that Maria married a younger man. I dont know where I got that from. A bit of fake news doing the rounds of the boards, perhaps.

Gary

[Fisherman]

I'd like to hear more about the torso found "opposite" Lechmere's "childhood home". It sounds like - as you say - an interesting story.

In 1861, Lechmere was eleven years old, and lived together with his stepfather and mother in 13 Thomas Street, soon to be renamed Pinchin Street. The railway arch in which the Pinchin Street torso was found, would have been a few yards to the east and then straight across the narrow street from that address. We are speaking of a distance of about some ten or twelve yards, if I am correct. I believe 13 Thomas Street was the fourth door from the west in the building complex on the northern side of the street - at least if the numbering equalled the one in old Thomas Street.
If I am wrong, I´m sure there will be those who can correct me.

[Fisherman]

And I didn't need you to repeat your "evidence" against the man. I know it all. It's convinced you. I believe that. I hasn't convinced me. It hasn't convinced many others. As you say, maybe some day. But not today.

I actually thought I did need to post parts of the evidence again, to show that there is a very compelling case. And a very straightforward one, where there is a logical chain of events:

Killing Nichols
Hearing Paul, and realizing that the wounds need to be covered
Leaving the spot
Passing by the police by misinforming about another PC tending to it
Getting drawn back into the case by the Paul interview
Obscuring the identity from those who read the papers

Right or wrong, these details all fit to point a finger at Lechmere. WHether people accept it today or tomorrow is of a minor interest to me.

[Fisherman]

What is odd exactly? I said that I believe that YOU BELIVE in his guilt. I contrast that with the fact that I do not. It's no slander against you.

I know that, Patrick, and I am not blaming you. I am saying that the argument HAS surfaced in the past, making it the strangest thing I ever heard in combination with the theory.