The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[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]

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

[John G]

I would just point out that we cannot be at all certain as to when Polly was murdered. PC Neil said that blood was "oozing" from the wound. However, Dr Biggs pointed out, "sometimes a wound will be 'propped' open by the position of the body..." And, "It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound/gravity conditions were right..."(Marriott, 2013).

[Fisherman]

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

So it appears I never said that the footsteps sounded like bomb explosions then? Well, whaddoyuknow? It seems it was just another case of presenting ludicruous information under the pretense that I was behind it.

What I said and exemplified, was that there WILL be a level of sound where anybody will be taken out of whatever "bubble" they are in. Naturally, I could not suggest that this level was a soft tap on a window or a cat walking though a room, could I?

The question you appear to want to have answered is this, I take it, and please correct me if I am wrong:

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?

A/ We may at any rate conclude that the murder took place in much darkness, so it would not be possible to discern any person at the murder spot visually, until you were quite close by. My own guess is that you would need to be no further away than, say, twenty-odd yards to be able to see anything. Personally, I think this was why Lechmere chose thirty or forty yards, to optimize things - way too close for Lechmere to be the killer, and far enough off for Paul not being able to see a iot at the scene.

B/ So! Apparently the gift of sight was not what Lechmere relied on when he said that as soon as he entered Bucks Row, he would be able to make out if anybody stirred down at the murder place. It will therefore instead have been his hearing he relied on - it was dead calm and absolutely silent, and therefore, Charles Lechmere made a great point.

C/ ... but it was only a great point if the killer did not move with no sound at all, and was able to stay moving silently throughout. And that would have been something nobody would have expected - everybody would have thought that IF Lechmere was innocent and IF he had entered the street, disturbing the killer, then that killer would have gotten up on his feet double quick, and then he would have very loudly legged it out of Bucks Row. And he would NOT, incidentally, have started out by hiding the wounds he had produced!
This was the scenario Lechmere would have hinted at.
However, I think that he himself - if he was the killer, mind you - would have decided to bluff it out, started out by silently pulling the clothes over the wounds and pocketing his weapon, and then he would have gotten to his feet and very slowly and silently crept out a step or two into the street. Ideally, he would have wanted to reach the other pavement, but I donīt think he would have had the time to do so, and therefore, he stopped backing off when he felt that Paul would soon get into eyeshot.

And then they would both leave together, their steps sounding like nuclear bombs repeatedly going off in the silent night.

Not.

[MysterySinger]

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

From at least 1877 to 1883 (possibly longer), the Forsdikes lived at 23 Pinchin Street. In the 1881 census, that's Maria (Lech's Mum), Joseph (Lech's step dad) and Mary (Lech's own daughter). I've yet to understand why Mary lived with her grandma all those years.

[David Orsam]

We also have Andy Griffiths, who has the great advantage of not being a barrister but instead a murder squad leader, who also pointed a finger at Lechmere.

The same Andy Griffiths who participated in the below exchange:

Andy Griffiths: We know that he [Paul] was late for work, as he said at the inquest, and I think it’s reasonable to assume then he was keeping an eye on the time.

Christer Holmgren: Then we’ve got a discrepancy of about 9 minutes or something like that.

Andy Griffiths: Which was a big difference in that time.

So Andy Griffiths believes that 9 minutes was a big difference "in that time".

What could he have possibly meant by this?

[Fisherman]

I would just point out that we cannot be at all certain as to when Polly was murdered. PC Neil said that blood was "oozing" from the wound. However, Dr Biggs pointed out, "sometimes a wound will be 'propped' open by the position of the body..." And, "It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound/gravity conditions were right..."(Marriott, 2013).

Biggs.

Marriott.

īnuff said.

[John G]

Biggs.

Marriott.

īnuff said.

Hello! He's a medical professional, i.e. a forensic pathologist. If you wish to challenge his comments you need to obtain a contrary medical opinion from a professional in a relevant discipline.

[Fisherman]

Hello! He's a medical professional, i.e. a forensic pathologist. If you wish to challenge his comments you need to obtain a contrary medical opinion from a professional in a relevant discipline.

Yes. Like Jason Payne-James, for example.

Biggs may be the next Nobel laureate in medicine, and it would not matter - he is NOT properly informed about the Ripper murders OR the torso series. It shows on so many levels, but you seem unable to take that in? Nichols was lying on her back, for crying out loud, and the papers reported about a two-inch wide gap in her neck! In a cut that went down to the spine and severed ALL vessels of importance.
What was there to stop the blood, John? Any ideas?

[David Orsam]

Yes. Like Jason Payne-James, for example.

But what did Payne-James say that contradicts Biggs?

Here are his comments that I have noted from the documentary:

"I think there is always an assumption that somebody stabbed to death, there is going to be blood everywhere...Although we know the carotid arteries were cut it would seem that that was after death so it may just leak out or dribble out or drain out around the contours of the neck in this case, over a period of minutes."

[GUT]

Yes. Like Jason Payne-James, for example.

Biggs may be the next Nobel laureate in medicine, and it would not matter - he is NOT properly informed about the Ripper murders OR the torso series. It shows on so many levels, but you seem unable to take that in? Nichols was lying on her back, for crying out loud, and the papers reported about a two-inch wide gap in her neck! In a cut that went down to the spine and severed ALL vessels of importance.
What was there to stop the blood, John? Any ideas?

And yet we get Scobie and Griffith quoted like they are God

[Fisherman]

And yet we get Scobie and Griffith quoted like they are God

Says a man who reads the boards like the devil.

[David Orsam]

With the timing issue, frankly it doesn't matter if you are talking to a Queen's Counsel or a detective or a professor of mathematics, if you tell someone that Person A said that he left his house at 3.30 and was then seen by Person B at a murder site at 3.45, with the walk from the house to the murder site taking 7 minutes, then OF COURSE they will tell you that there is a problem for Person A with the timings. OF COURSE they will think there is a missing or unexplained 8 minutes. OF COURSE they will opine that there is a major timing gap.

But if you accurately represent the evidence in the case, namely that Person A said he left his house at some unspecified time prior to 3.40 (or 3.35 if you prefer) and that he was seen by Person B at the murder site at some point between 3.40 and 3.45, with the walk from the house to the murder site taking between 6-10 minutes depending on how fast Person A walked and the route he took, that same QC, detective or professor will think you are utterly mad to suggest that there is a problem for person A with the timings or that there are any unexplained minutes or that there is a major timing gap.

[Elamarna]

So it appears I never said that the footsteps sounded like bomb explosions then? Well, whaddoyuknow? It seems it was just another case of presenting ludicruous information under the pretense that I was behind it.

Fish, it is how I interpreted your comment,that is what matters, you have now said that is not what you meant.


No intention of presenting false information, its my interpretation of your words, you have now clarified, however its a pity you posted such a comment which was out of context given what you were responding too.

What I said and exemplified, was that there WILL be a level of sound where anybody will be taken out of whatever "bubble" they are in. Naturally, I could not suggest that this level was a soft tap on a window or a cat walking though a room, could I?

What exactly did that have to do when I was talking about footsteps and if they could reasonably be expected to break a bubble as you call it.

Let others judge what the intent was; for myself I accept you did not mean to compare the two, after all how could you?

The question you appear to want to have answered is this, I take it, and please correct me if I am wrong:

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?

If you accept that Paul saw no movement from the body, and indeed need not have, why does the same not apply to Lechmere?

You are not answering the question I am asking, rather you are answering the question you wish to answer.

A/ We may at any rate conclude that the murder took place in much darkness, so it would not be possible to discern any person at the murder spot visually, until you were quite close by. My own guess is that you would need to be no further away than, say, twenty-odd yards to be able to see anything. Personally, I think this was why Lechmere chose thirty or forty yards, to optimize things - way too close for Lechmere to be the killer, and far enough off for Paul not being able to see a iot at the scene.

You accept it was very dark and unlikely that anything could be make out until close, so why could Lechmere see something if Paul could not?

That is the question and what you are not answering

B/ So! Apparently the gift of sight was not what Lechmere relied on when he said that as soon as he entered Bucks Row, he would be able to make out if anybody stirred down at the murder place. It will therefore instead have been his hearing he relied on - it was dead calm and absolutely silent, and therefore, Charles Lechmere made a great point.

It is your interpretation of the sources that it was absolutely silent during the whole period, however that is not the issue is it?

If Lechmere was the killer, he must have been relying on hearing. one assumes he is not cutting and looking away.

C/ ... but it was only a great point if the killer did not move with no sound at all, and was able to stay moving silently throughout. And that would have been something nobody would have expected - everybody would have thought that IF Lechmere was innocent and IF he had entered the street, disturbing the killer, then that killer would have gotten up on his feet double quick, and then he would have very loudly legged it out of Bucks Row. And he would NOT, incidentally, have started out by hiding the wounds he had produced!

No that is the view you wish to portray, I note you are still not answering the question I asked at all.

This was the scenario Lechmere would have hinted at.
However, I think that he himself - if he was the killer, mind you - would have decided to bluff it out, started out by silently pulling the clothes over the wounds and pocketing his weapon, and then he would have gotten to his feet and very slowly and silently crept out a step or two into the street. Ideally, he would have wanted to reach the other pavement, but I donīt think he would have had the time to do so, and therefore, he stopped backing off when he felt that Paul would soon get into eyeshot.

Pure speculation of course, it can be nothing else, and nothing wrong with speculation.

Why would he want ideally to reach the other pavement when he can just walk on the same side, he is far enough ahead of Paul( according to Paul), to be gone before Paul even knows there is a killing.

After all he is not sure she is dead, even when they meet Mizen

And then they would both leave together, their steps sounding like nuclear bombs repeatedly going off in the silent night.

Not.

Agreed they were so silent, that nobody heard them at all, (probably).

And of course that was another question you failed to answer last Friday, if the witness who claimed to hear whispers, did so, why did they or indeed no one hear Paul or Lechmere walking on this deadly silent night?



You have just repeated the same old line, which you have done in the past, you have not answered the question, which was:

If Paul did not see the supposed killer move, why should Lechmere?

Of course you do not attempt to give give a reasoned argument for that, your answer is purely how Lechmere did it, one assume that is because you are unwilling to answer the question asked.



Have a good night


Steve

[Abby Normal]

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).

Thank you David
as usual a very well thought out and rational post. I especially like your point 4-hadnt thought of that before. yes-less bugged now.