The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[drstrange169]

>>No, I am saying that IF the 3.30 departure time applies, than he should have been out of Bucks Row at 3.39. I do not state, and have never stated, as a fact that the timings are spot on. You need to realize that.<<

But that wasn't what I asked you was it?

May I remind you of what you keep repeatedly posting,

"He has also made it a habit not to answer my posts, instead opting for delivering answers to questions I have never asked, apparently in an effort to muddle things."

Seem we can add hypocrite it you curriculum vitae.

[drstrange169]

Now I see your are pulling the same trick on David Orsam.

Do you genuinely not understand just how pathetic you are looking at the moment?

It only took one post for you to break your promise to answer all questions.

Want to start again?

[Fisherman]

Now I see your are pulling the same trick on David Orsam.

Do you genuinely not understand just how pathetic you are looking at the moment?

It only took one post for you to break your promise to answer all questions.

Want to start again?

You are lying, Dusty, as always. I have not broken any promise at all. You are welcome to produce a list of questions, as I said - you have so far not done that. You got one measly question over to me, and I answered it, while you failed to produce the material I asked for in return, supposedly backing your take up.

To begin with: No effort from somebody like you could ever make me run. I could loathe it, of course, and stay away from answering for that reason. But run? The idiocy of that suggestion is unsurpassed.

To continue: You say I ran from your posts 614 and 615. I took a look, and they are both my posts, not yours. A mere trifle, of course, but it would be nice if you could at least manage to get such things right.

Now, here is the deal:

You can deposit one (1) post out here, containing any questions you have previously asked on this thread, and which you feel have gone unanswered. Reference the post(s), and then ask the exact question(s) yo want an answer to.

Do not lie again about me breaking any promise - if you do, I shall withdraw my offer immediately. You should be able to cope with the task, I hope. And you will have your answer(s).

Do not post the questions in post after post - just the one post, and then Iīm done with you. If you ask questions I have already answered, I will not do so again, but instead point to this fact. If you produce new questions, they will go unanswered too, regardless of what they are.

This is how we are going to do it, if we are going to do it at all. Any attempt on your behalf to not resond by giving me a list of questions will be noted and branded as evidence that you - as per the ususal - had nothing at all to back up what you are saying.

Similarly, any list you produce will get answered, and then we will find out that way that you are wrong.

[Fisherman]

It has not escaped my notice, and I'm sure it won't escape the notice of others, that your feigned outrage, and decision not to respond further to my posts, just happens to have occurred before you got round to answering my question about what the documentary meant when saying "Robert Paul was in Bucks Row for a full minute before he noticed Lechmere".

I guess we will now never know if this was yet another mistake in the documentary.

This is a second send-off post to you, David.

I write it because I want to make it abundantly clear how you do your debating. I donīt like it at all.

Point 1: You speak of my "feigned outrage". It is not for you to decide whether I am outraged or feigning it. For the record, I AM outraged by your posts, so there is no feigning around. It is very, very real. I widīsh it was not so, but there you are.

Point 2: You seem to imply that I was feigning outrage so that I would not have to answer your question about Robert Paul. Knowing your debating technique, I understand that you may say "No, I never said that at all", but letīs be honest and admit that this is how it will come across.

Point 3: I cannot say what the documentary meant by stating that Robert Paul was in Bucks Rof for a full minute before he noticed Lechmere. It is not for me to establish what other people, such as film crews mean when they state something. Only they will have the definitive answer, as I hope you can understand.
If I was to offer my take on what I THINK the film crew meant, it boils down to the fact that there was about 130 yards to cover from the junctions Brady Street/Bucks Row, and that they concluded that it would take around a minute for Paul to cover the first 100 yards, whereupon he saw Lechmere. Now, this can of course be discussed ad infinitum too, as you like to do. But it wonīt happen this time - I am offering you what I THINK the film crew meant: That Robert Paul arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45.00 (the exact timing chosen by me to facilitate for me to get my suggestion across), walked 100 yards in 60 seconds, and then noticed Lechmere. Obviously, if he walked at a normal walking speed of around 1,3 yards per second, he should have spent significantly less time than 60 seconds in Bucks Row before he saw Lechmere.

To you, this will no doubt represent an opportunity to say "Look, this is wrong, and so we should throw the docu out as a falsary on the whole", the way you look at Scobie and the 3.30 timing.

To me, it says that there would nevertheless have been time for Lechmere to notice Paul, to cover up the wounds and to back out into the street. To me, the case remains the same, since it was not I who said that Paul was in Bucks Row for a full minute before he saw Lechmere.

Similarly, it as not me who told Scobie that Lechmere left home at 3.30; I am saying that we cannot know when he left, only when he said he left, and as such the given time of "around 3.30" does nothing at all to dissolve the suggestion that Lechmere had time to kill Nichols.

If you want to have my picture of things, you should not confuse it with the documentary. As I said, there are things I would have done differently. As I also said, it is in my meaning still one of the very best documentaries ever made on the subject of the Ripper, and I salute the team for their effort.

All in all, that means that when a random poster on boards like these gets it into his head that Scobie having been given the information that Lechmere said he left home at 3.30, while he in fact said "around 3.30", would in any way be a reason to throw out everything Scobie said, is utterly ridiculous. It would tell me a lot more about the posters true intentions than about any major mistake on the film crews account.

In a way, it would also make me think in your terms - if this poster can write such a thing, then how can he be trusted overall?

It is a pertinent question that you will not have the joy of discussing with me. I am not going to join the discussion any more, since I think it has sunk to a level where even rats and insects would find the habitat challenging. All I have left here is to quash Dusty, which should not take too much of an effort.

Enjoy the thread.

[John G]

uh no. not joking. I dont know what to tell you. I timed myself several times walking 30 yards and its easily done in 60 seconds.

30 yards in 60 seconds? I'm not surprised you managed to do that, Abby, as that suggests a walking speed of only around 1 mile an hour, which would be fairly pedestrian. I timed myself walking at a brisk pace and covered 1.2 miles in about 20 minutes, i e. at around 3 6 miles per hour, and I'm definitely no Olympic athlete!

[Elamarna]

none. pure speculation. but a man on his way to work in a dark city whos worried about thugs would probably be walking at faster than the normal pace, IMHO.

Abby

The obvious issue with this is that if Paul took this route to work everyday, would he take a route he was scared of. I seriously doubt that myself..
Too much is being drawn from Paul's initial response to Lechmere's approach in my opinion.
There is I think no reason to think he was walking at an above average speed based purely on the evidence available.

And of course we have the old question of just what do people notice on a routine walk they do everyday.

Personally when on a regular walk I am either listening to music or one of our podcasts ;
Or more in keeping with 88 I am singing to myself or deep in thought.
And on a regular walk I tend not to even look where I am going.
The result of this is that I am often not aware of people nearby until I am right on top of them. Often a matter of a few feet away.


Steve

[Jon Guy]

30 yards in 60 seconds? I'm not surprised you managed to do that, Abby, as that suggests a walking speed of only around 1 mile an hour, which would be fairly pedestrian. I timed myself walking at a brisk pace and covered 1.2 miles in about 20 minutes, i e. at around 3 6 miles per hour, and I'm definitely no Olympic athlete!

Have you tried this whilst holding a packet of cachous, John ?

[John G]

Have you tried this whilst holding a packet of cachous, John ?

Not sure where I'd get cachous from, Jon! Actually, I've just completed a 1.2 mile walk and I timed it at just over 17.5minutes. By my calculations this represents average walking speed of just over 4 miles per hour. Okay, I was walking briskly, but that's how I normally walk!

[Jon Guy]

Not sure where I'd get cachous from, Jon! !

Morrisons have them.

Actually,
I've just completed a 1.2 mile walk and I timed it at just over 17.5minutes. By my calculations this represents average walking speed of just over 4 miles per hour. Okay, I was walking briskly, but that's how I normally walk!

4 miles per hour sounds reasonable.
I only asked as I know you had problems keeping your balance when you clutched a packet of cachous ;-)

[Fisherman]

Abby

The obvious issue with this is that if Paul took this route to work everyday, would he take a route he was scared of. I seriously doubt that myself..
Too much is being drawn from Paul's initial response to Lechmere's approach in my opinion.
There is I think no reason to think he was walking at an above average speed based purely on the evidence available.

Steve

We know he was late for work.

We know he mentioned this to Lechmere, so as to be able to leave the murder spot.

We know that in his paper interview, Paul was quoted as saying that he was late for work and hurrying along.

No reason to think he was walking at an above average speed, Steve?

[ohrocky]

Hi all

A question for Fisherman if I may....returning to the name issue.

Do any of the 100+ documents that you have that show Charles using the name "Lechmere" originate from, or directly relate to, his employment?

If not, could it possibly be the case that he used the name "Cross" when he was at work, and that his employers and workmates knew him by that name? He may always have used that name at work.

Of course, if you have documents/records from Pickfords that record his name as Lechmere, then his use of "Cross" is far more suspicious. However, I would still struggle to get over him giving a false name...but his correct address and employer.

I have read your arguments of course (I have been reading these boards almost daily for > 10 years) but I really can't see that it would make any sense to give a false name and the correct address.

Thanks

[Jon Guy]

We know he was late for work.

We know he mentioned this to Lechmere, so as to be able to leave the murder spot.

We know that in his paper interview, Paul was quoted as saying that he was late for work and hurrying along.

No reason to think he was walking at an above average speed, Steve?

Hi Christer

They were only running late once they had stopped and spent time by the body.

[Abby Normal]

30 yards in 60 seconds? I'm not surprised you managed to do that, Abby, as that suggests a walking speed of only around 1 mile an hour, which would be fairly pedestrian. I timed myself walking at a brisk pace and covered 1.2 miles in about 20 minutes, i e. at around 3 6 miles per hour, and I'm definitely no Olympic athlete!

aarrrgh. My bad. I meant to say 60 yards in 30 seconds.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

They were only running late once they had stopped and spent time by the body.

In his paper interview, Paul said that he was hurrying along. To me, that implies him being late before finding Lechmere. And regardless if he WAS late or not at that stage, it remains that he said that he was hurrying along = walking at a higher than normal speed.

Similarly, I think the two timings given by Lechmere, 3.20 and 3.30, implicated that he normally left at 3.20, but on the murder morning, he only got away ten minutes later.

And since he didnīt leave Bucks Row until somewhere around 3.47, 3.48, if Pauls testimony and paper interview is anything to go by, then he must have arrived quite late in Bucks Row, if his own story checks out. He left home at around 3.30, should have been at the murder site at around 3.37, but seems to have been there up until around 3.47, leaving him a mere 13 minutes to get to Broad Street.

[Fisherman]

ohrocky:

Hi all

A question for Fisherman if I may....returning to the name issue.

Do any of the 100+ documents that you have that show Charles using the name "Lechmere" originate from, or directly relate to, his employment?

No. There are no such old records at the Pickfords archive. It has been checked.

If not, could it possibly be the case that he used the name "Cross" when he was at work, and that his employers and workmates knew him by that name? He may always have used that name at work.

He may, and it is possible. Myself, I find it less likely than him using the name he was married by, baptized his children by and signing all sorts of official papers by.
But saying "impossible" is impossible.

Of course, if you have documents/records from Pickfords that record his name as Lechmere, then his use of "Cross" is far more suspicious. However, I would still struggle to get over him giving a false name...but his correct address and employer.

I have read your arguments of course (I have been reading these boards almost daily for > 10 years) but I really can't see that it would make any sense to give a false name and the correct address.

Then letīs just differ. To me, it meant that the papers would not be able to pin him down other than as one of hundreds of Pickfords carmen - unless, of course, he did use the name Cross.
The home address was only given to the police, in my view - it was only one paper that recorded it, and they got it 100 per cent correct in spite of the name being easily mistaken (Doveton, Doughton etc.), whereas NONE of the other papers made an effort at all to try and catch it. Going by how the Star easily got it all correct, it should have been a piece of cake.
The issue you have really hinges on the address, does it not?