The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Joshua Rogan]

Couple of questions and observation:

do we know how long it takes to walk from lechs home to pickfords? Is there anywhere on record where lech either states what time he usually left for work or how long it took him?

Bearing in mind I'm not quite sure where the Pickford depot was, and some road layouts have changed, it's not easy to say. But using Google maps (it assumes 3mph and nicely matches my own natural pace) to find the time/distance to a couple of approximate location gives about 1 3/4 miles and 33-35 minutes. Which seems to tally with a time of 03:20 for leaving the house (if that was indeed the case).
Paul's journey from Foster St to Corbet's Court is about half as long, 0.8miles and 17 minutes.
They were both passing through Buck's Row within a minute of each other, but from there Cross had at least half a mile further to walk than Paul.

By the way Abby, I think you mean 60 yards in 30 seconds (about 4mph) rather than the other way around (1mph)

[David Orsam]

I did some timings from 22 Doveton Street to the front of Liverpool Street Station.

At a slow walk it took me 31 minutes. At normal walking pace it took 25 minutes. At fast walking pace it took me less than 20 minutes.

[GUT]

Hi David
Death by asphysixia may take two to four minutes, but a blood choke to knock someone out can be as quick as 20-30 seconds. I know this from two personal experiences. from MMA and applying blood chokes such as the triangle choke, or rear naked choke just to name two. also, someone who is exhausted during the fight can even go out sooner. secondly we used to do this as kids to get a high. just apply pressure to the arteries in your neck, start counting and you start to get "dizzy" and start to pass out right around 20 seconds...we would count while doing it.

Polly was drunk, tired probably over all weak. I could see someone doing to her in under a minute, no problem.. shes walking, standing or maybe even sitting down (sleeping? maybe) in buck row. killer comes up to her maybe says a word. grabs her around the neck forces her to the ground, 20 seconds shes out. pulls the knife out slits her throat pulls up her skirt cuts her abdomen. I could see that easily happening very quickly 50 seconds no problem.

Major difference between choke into unconsciousness and strangle to death.

[Joshua Rogan]

I did some timings from 22 Doveton Street to the front of Liverpool Street Station.

At a slow walk it took me 31 minutes. At normal walking pace it took 25 minutes. At fast walking pace it took me less than 20 minutes.

Speed-freak!

[Abby Normal]

Major difference between choke into unconsciousness and strangle to death.

Yes. Thats why I was saying mine was much faster.

[GUT]

Yes. Thats why I was saying mine was much faster.

But the proposition is that she was strangled to death, thus little bleeding when her throats was cut, so a choke to unconscious is irrelevant.

[CertainSum1]

The cutting could have taken only a minute or two to perform. That is what matters. If it had been a matter of a longer period of time, you would have had a better point.

Could it be the cutting took a few seconds?

[CertainSum1]

Expanding on my answer to Caz:

If you are going to lie, it is always better with a lie that leaves all opportunities open, just in case. You say that if he was bold enough to kill in Bucks Row, he would be bold enough to say that he heard retreating steps.

But in such a case, he would need to tell the inquest from WHERE he heard them. And if he said, for example, up at Bakers Row, he could not know if there was a PC - or somebody else - standing there at the relevant time. Somebody living there could have been awake, window open, and been able to tell that there was not a soul passing by.
You see, fixing a lie like this in time and space will always involve the risk that somebody is able to contradict you - and then you are immediately in trouble.

Leaving all opportunities open as Lechmere did, clears that risk away and is by far the smartest thing to do. Looking at how you seem to protest every time I say that this killer would have been a risktaker, it is kind of odd how you suddenly prefer him to have taken an unneccesary risk this time?

The most successful liars always include as much truth as possible in their stories.

[CertainSum1]

Beats me why Cross,if he had just committed murder,and faced with a person who didn't show much interest,didn't just comment it was a drunk sleeping it off,and suggest they both carry on to work.

Maybe because he had reason to be in that area regularly and thought he may later be recognized?

[CertainSum1]

I could see someone doing to her in under a minute, no problem.. shes walking, standing or maybe even sitting down (sleeping? maybe) in buck row. killer comes up to her maybe says a word. grabs her around the neck forces her to the ground, 20 seconds shes out. pulls the knife out slits her throat pulls up her skirt cuts her abdomen. I could see that easily happening very quickly 50 seconds no problem.

And likely sweet talking her the entire time so she didn't offer resistance and never quite knew it was happening.

[harry]

CertainSum1,
Cross was in that area regularly.Paul was the only witness.The excuse I thought it was a drunk sleeping it off,would suffice whether he was recognised the day after,a month after, or any length of time.W hat he did say, it was a woman either dead or dying,served the same purpose,but is more effectual to innocence,as he reported his observation to the authorities.

[drstrange169]

>>So Pitman was "the list"?. I see.<<

Here's what I wrote,

"Obvious place to start is the last I asked from my last batch of posts yesterday "

And doesn't that sum up your deceitfulness on these boards. When ever you are forced into corner (and it happens on regular basis) you start altering and twisting peoples post with made up stories, what is the problem with you and honesty?

The fact, as opposed to your spin, is that I went on and asked a series of questions all of which you deliberately avoided answering.

As I observed before, you don't seem to grasp this is a written medium and every time you lie or attempt to alter what people wrote, the actual wording exists for anyone to cross check.



>>It also applies that Pitmanīs mother testified and gave the address, stating that Pitman was her 14-year old son who lived with her. <<


Point one: Pitman's mother was interviewed after Pitman not before.

Point two: No newspaper that I've come across includes Annie Pitman in it's coverage of the trial.



>>Is the address given in her case? Have you checked all the papers for that? <<

See above.


>>If so, the papers DID give young Pitmanīs address, although in an indorect way.<<

No they didn't.

Is it sinking in yet?



>>Thomas Eade is an interesting example. You seem to think that he is a good way to show that sometimes the papers omitted to mention the address collectively.<<


I don't "seem to think anything" it is a fact that all the known newspapers omitted his address. No amount of squirming on your behalf can alter that.


>>While they simultaneously all or next to all of them took down the addresses of the rest of the unproffesional witnesses that day.<<

"Professional" as defined by you is a figment of your imagination. Lets stick to actual Inquest and Court procedure.

But I've already demolished this new invention of your in post#525. But, of course, that was one of the many posts you've run away from.

[drstrange169]

My post #614 Christer ran away from.

[drstrange169]

My post #615 Crister ran away from.

[FrankO]

Yes, it does. So 15 to 20 seconds, if we have 30 to 40 yards.

I can second that, Abby.