The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

Yet pointless in this example.

The use of an alternate name is immaterial, as this witness was known.

Monty
🙂

The use of an alternative name cannot per se be immaterial until it is known WHY the alternative name was used. Whether for innocent or nefarious reasons remains an open question, and in accordance with that, how material or immaterial the issue is, must also be left open.

[Fisherman]

How can "we" know something that can't be proven?

I'm not saying Lechmere's routes didn't coincide with the murders, I'm just asking for evidence. Point me in the right direction if you don't want to repost it.

We know that the route from 22 Doveton Street to Broad Street took him through Bucks Row on the nIchols murder morning. We also know that it was the only useful passage from Doveton Street to Broad Street, so it stands to reason that he used it on a daily basis.
After that, any logical route you choose to Broad Street will tkae you right through the killing zone.
We also know that he commenced work at 4 AM on the murder morning, wherefore the evidence points towards him having passed the other murder sites, save Stride and Eddowes, at roughly the same time.

Only the feebleminded woud claim anything else. Itīs about evidence, and not about proof as you would have it.

Take it in and digest it, Harry - this is the last time I produce it on your request.

[Fisherman]

I'm sure it was fairly common. its also fairly common for criminals to do it also, or people who have something to hide.

You cynical beast, you!

[Monty]

The use of an alternative name cannot per se be immaterial until it is known WHY the alternative name was used. Whether for innocent or nefarious reasons remains an open question, and in accordance with that, how material or immaterial the issue is, must also be left open.

Why?

It holds no evidential value, and has failed in an attempt to remain unknown.

Its immaterial.

Monty

[Harry D]

We also know that it was the only useful passage from Doveton Street to Broad Street, so it stands to reason that he used it on a daily basis.

Yes, yes it does. A carman on his regular route to work. Nothing out of the ordinary.

After that, any logical route you choose to Broad Street will tkae you right through the killing zone.

Through the killing zone but not past the murder sites.

We also know that he commenced work at 4 AM on the murder morning, wherefore the evidence points towards him having passed the other murder sites, save Stride and Eddowes, at roughly the same time.

If he started work at 4am, how does that tie into Chapman's murder? John Richardson almost certainly would've seen her body had she already been killed at that time. Then we have Cadosch's testimony which would also put her death at nearer to 5am.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Yes, yes it does. A carman on his regular route to work. Nothing out of the ordinary.

...and that sets us up for a choice between Hanbury Street or Old MOntague Street - unless he preferred a slower, perhaps more scenic, route.

Through the killing zone but not past the murder sites.

This is VERY interesting - you claim that I cannot know which routes he took, but apparently YOU can? You seem to know that he did not pass the murder sites? In fact, Nichols was killed directly on his route. We know he followed Hanbury Street afterwards, and we can therefore say that it is a reasonble guess that Chapman died along his route too. Dorset Street is a shortcut to Broad Street, and so it is a logical choice too.

That takes care of the three out of the C5. Remains Tabram, who died in more or less direct contact with Old Montague Street, thereby becoing a logical suggestion too.


If he started work at 4am, how does that tie into Chapman's murder? John Richardson almost certainly would've seen her body had she already been killed at that time. Then we have Cadosch's testimony which would also put her death at nearer to 5am.

Then we have Swanson, who did not invest in it at all. And then we have Phillips, who said that Chapman had been dead at least two hours at 6.30, and probably longer than that. And then we have the fact that to tie in with the other deeds, done in darkness, this sits better with that scenario. And then we have the fact that Cadosh and Long contradicted each other. And then we have the fact that Richardson said a god many things that do not sit well with the idea that he was on the money.


Now that we have done this dance too for the umpteenth time, you cannot look forward to me rehashing it all over again. Your time is running out in that respect, Harry.

[Fisherman]

Why?

It holds no evidential value, and has failed in an attempt to remain unknown.

Its immaterial.

Monty

Nope. Once you decisively prove that the carmans intentions where wholly innocent, it becomes immaterial. Until then it actually holds a potential evidential value pointing to guilt.

Until then, this post of yours takes over that role.

[John G]

"The press" on the whole ("the press" does not allude to a single paper only, but instead to the institution as a whole with lots and lots of papers) had all the difficulties in the world determining an address. Fair is fair, John.

But what's your evidence for this? The fact that more papers didn't publicize the address doesn't mean they didn't know what it was.

Of course, the real question is whether Lechmere would have expected his place of work and address to be publicized.

[John G]

I'm sure it was fairly common. its also fairly common for criminals to do it also, or people who have something to hide.

Yes, I agree, which means Lechmere's use of Cross as an alternative name proves precisely nothing.

[John G]

We know that the route from 22 Doveton Street to Broad Street took him through Bucks Row on the nIchols murder morning. We also know that it was the only useful passage from Doveton Street to Broad Street, so it stands to reason that he used it on a daily basis.
After that, any logical route you choose to Broad Street will tkae you right through the killing zone.
We also know that he commenced work at 4 AM on the murder morning, wherefore the evidence points towards him having passed the other murder sites, save Stride and Eddowes, at roughly the same time.

Only the feebleminded woud claim anything else. Itīs about evidence, and not about proof as you would have it.

Take it in and digest it, Harry - this is the last time I produce it on your request.

So he has no significant connection to the Stride Eddowes murder sites. And the other murder sites were simply within range of his natural routes to work. To which I would ask: so what?

[Fisherman]

But what's your evidence for this? The fact that more papers didn't publicize the address doesn't mean they didn't know what it was.

Of course, the real question is whether Lechmere would have expected his place of work and address to be publicized.

The fact that all of the papers wrote all of the addresses mentioned by the witnesses leads me to the conclusion that they would have written Lechmeres address too - if they had it.
You, however, are sooo uncertain of this - why, oh why would they write it down just because they had it? Is that not making a completely untenable assumption?

Dear, sweet me. I think I have had enough of this for today. I will leave it for masterminds like you draw the reasonable conclusions.

That should do the trick.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, I agree, which means Lechmere's use of Cross as an alternative name proves precisely nothing.

well IMHO it begs the question why at the very least.

[Fisherman]

So he has no significant connection to the Stride Eddowes murder sites. And the other murder sites were simply within range of his natural routes to work. To which I would ask: so what?

Yeah, right: that is probably what any seasoned cop would ask if he was aware of a person who had been found alone with a freshly killed victim, only to then be found to have his paths taking him right through the killingg zone where numerous other victims died:
So what?

You are making a mockery of the human capacity of a thought process right now.

But, as you say: So what?

Goodbye.

[Fisherman]

well IMHO it begs the question why at the very least.

Save your time, Abby. Go feed a troll instead - it is more rewarding.

[John G]

well IMHO it begs the question why at the very least.

I Abby, yes I agree.