Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Fisherman]

Dave:

" There goes your case..."

All the best and good luck hunting for the relevant evidence, Dave. It is there.

Fisherman

[Sally]

What was CrossMere's purpose in taking the uterus's and other organs , and what did he do with them ?

Why? Sick of all those kids. Sort of revenge on nameless women for his wife's fecundity.

As to what he did with them - easy, kept them in the staff canteen fridge at Pickfords. They'd have blended in pretty well in there, I reckon.

[Cogidubnus]

Them's the ones

[Sally]

....small round objects!

Sloblock?

[Cogidubnus]

So the two constables (professionals, accustomed to the concept, (if not the practice), of murder, spent a whole 15 minutes discussing the issue over the body and running 300 yards to fetch the doctor....small round objects!

Whilst Paul and Cross spent just 4 minutes over the body AND reporting to Mizen a good deal further away? (equally risible in my view)...

Don't make me laugh more than I am now...you might set off my heart...

Dave

PS There goes your case...

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"If I contend this is a realistic timescale, where, please is the PROOF, not surmise please, that I'm necessarily wrong?"

Where is the proof that you are right? Exactly - we can´t prove it either way. But when you say ...

"Thain knocked up the doctor at 0349"

... we can easily see that Dr Llewellyn disagrees - at 4 or thereabouts was when Thain reached his doorstep. And then the couple took around ten minutes to arrive back in Buck´s Row. And that does not point to 4.01.

But this has already been laid out in detail on the thread, so if you backtrack you can see the reasoning.

I think that we must realize that everything cannot have happened on the same minute - that is impossible. And I furthermore think that IF the police did any polishing on the times, then that would not have prolonged but shortened the time it took them to get the show on the road. And if we can bank on any of the characters having a functioning, high-class clock on his wall, then that somebody would have been Llewellyn. His estimation of the time must carry great weight.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Remind me someone...bearing in mind that various persons have elsewhere contended that, absent a witness to decease, a time of death can't (or more correctly couldn't) in any case, be accurately established closer than about an hour, just what evidence is there to preclude a time of death at 0330 or shortly thereafter...let's say as late as ...oh...0331 or 0332...

Certainly not Neil, who visited Bucks Row at 0315 (witnessed by Sgt Kirby...The Times 03.09.88) and 0345...Incidentally where HAD he been for half an hour on an alleged 12 minute beat (cf JtR Sourcebook)...

But nonetheless, let's assume half an hour or thereabouts...

The body was discovered at 0345 says Thain...

Ah...and Doctor Llewellyn was promptly summoned by Neil via Thain...so let's check that out...the two PCs spent (judging, comparatively, and purely by the sort of timescales Paul proposes in his testimony), perhaps a couple of minutes over the body (0347) and Thain knocked up the doctor at 0349 (according to Begg it's only 300 yards away)...Allowing some waking up time and getting some clothes on, and trotting to Bucks Row...perhaps a generous 10 minutes in total, 0359 say...The doctor arrives promptly at 0401 and declares Polly's been dead no more than half an hour...bingo...

Add to this, there is a feasible witness for a scuffle if not a murder just after the passing of the train at 0330...If I contend this is a realistic timescale, where, please is the PROOF, not surmise please, that I'm necessarily wrong?

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"What was CrossMere's purpose in taking the uterus's and other organs , and what did he do with them ? "

Ever thought of asking the Oracle of Delphi...? I don´t know. Trophies, food, necrosadism, a wish to strike fear into people´s hearts - you tell me, Moonbegger.

....and I would not be too sure about my take-off. It could be imminent - don´t forget to ask the Oracle when you see her!

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Fisherman ,

I see your still scrapping it out on them landing beaches .. Fair play to you sir ! My question is more to do with the the battle once , or if , you ever make it off the beach .. But seeing as there is no real likelihood of you doing so in the near future .. i hope you don't mind me asking the question in advance ..

What was CrossMere's purpose in taking the uterus's and other organs , and what did he do with them ?

cheers

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Caz:

" what were you saying about a 'total waste of time'? "

Oh that! What I meant was that it is a total waste of time to point out that Old Montague Street was the fastest route to Broad Street, since you either don´t see the significance of this, or are sligthly phobic to the suggestion of Lechmere being the killer. And likewise, it was a waste of time to point out that Hanbury Street was the only other thoroughfare for Broad Street. It was a waste of time to tell you that he went to work from Doveton Street via Buck´s Row, and onwards to Broad Street. It was a waste of time to say that he did so six, perhaps even seven days a week at times. It was also a waste of time to point out that somebody who regularly makes this trek through the exact same district at the same time in the morning, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, will be among the small selection of men that trod the same streets at the same times with the same regularity, and will thus also belong to a smallish group of men that could be tied to the murder spots by means of this regularly reoccuring work trek.

This was all a waste of time, since - just as you so knowingly point out - we have no pictures of him doing so on the murder mornings, and we have no signed documents reassuring us that he did do the trek on these days.

Therefore, we must of course put him on par with all the other men in London about whom we cannot tell whether THAY did this trek on the murder mornings. And that will be approximately 99,99 per cent of the male population.

Way to go, Caz - there´s a master sleuth slumbering within you. Very, very deep. He´ll be either drunk or dead, but for my part I think he´s dead

That´s was really all there was to it, Caz. You see, I know very well that we can´t pin him as being in place on the relevant mornings. But that does not mean that we can´t pin his working route - it would have been Hanbury Street or Old Montague Street - or both. And that is - with respect - where the murders occurred. That means that there is a connection. And the moment you realize this, none of us are wasting our time. As it stands, though, I apparently am.

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Frank O made this point
“Not that I suppose Paul did wore worn-down shoes, but you have to suppose Cross the killer was in a ‘bubble’, cutting away at Nichols in order for him not to notice Paul too soon. Not paying attention to his surroundings would not be the best and most logical thing to do for a killer who sets out to kill out in the open in the way the Ripper did and who was eager not to get caught.”

Frank O took an a priori view that the Ripper, whoever he was, would act a way that he had proscribed.
That being that he would be alert at all times.

Na-ah, Lechmere. I wrote: ‘Not paying attention to his surroundings would not be the best and most logical thing to do for a killer who sets out to kill out in the open…’ This means that paying attention would be the best & most logical thing to do for such a killer. Nothing more, nothing less. Furthermore, I never wrote that the Ripper would be alert at all times. Given the circumstances he ‘worked’ under, judging by the fact that he was never caught red-handed it seems that he paid enough attention to his surroundings to get away before anybody spotted him.

Frank O stated his belief that for him the Ripper must be someone who could not get carried away with himself and operate, even momentarily, in a ‘bubble’.

Na-ah again, Lech. I never wrote that I think he must be someone who could not get carried away with himself. Again, I wrote it was the best & most logical thing to do and that I have a hard time believing that the Ripper would be so careless that he let Paul approach him until he was about 60-70 yards away. Neil’s testimony supports the notion that it was possible to hear someone coming from ca. 130 yards away, the case evidence supports the notion that the Ripper was someone who, while ‘working’ on his victims, was still paying enough attention to his surroundings so that he got away before he was seen. That, to me, seems more likely than that he was working in a ‘bubble’. By the way, ‘momentarily’ would mean something close to 30 seconds if Paul walked at a pace of 7 km or 4.35 miles an hour, each step getting louder and louder. That would just be too long for my taste. But that's just me.

To rule out a culprit purely based on preconceived – a priori – notions of detailed behavioural traits is in my view unrealistic.

As you may further have read in one of my last posts, I wrote that I don’t rule Cross out.

All the best,
Frank

[caz]

Of course there is no evidence that Lechmere walked these stretches on the murder mornings.

Hi Fishy,

Good of you to admit that the rest of your post was just padding made up of speculation and wishful thinking.

Now what were you saying about a 'total waste of time'?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz, Caz ...!

Alrighty, let´s do it again!

When Lechmere left Buck´s Row at it´s westernmost point, he had a choice of two streets, if he wanted to use quick thoroughfares to Broad Street.

Those two streets were Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street.

Now, we cannot prove that these were the streets he used - we can only prove that if he did NOT use them, the he was not acting rationally. There were no other useful thoroughfares from Buck´s Row and onwards, that would have been as quick as these two.

I hope you see this?

Now, the quicker route (it would have been a matter of a difference of, say, two, three minutes) was Old Montague Street. We therefore humbly suggest that a carman, with knowledge of which routes are quicer and which are slower, would have prioritized the quickest route, on a daily basis. He may, however, have used Hanbury Street for a change every now and then, but the gist of the matter is that these are the routes he would use.

Of course there is no evidence that Lechmere walked these stretches on the murder mornings. But there is very good reason to believe that this was so, since they led him to work, and the mornings the women were killed on were working day mornings, excepting Stride and Eddowes..

It is straightforward, logical reasoning, and we know that most carmen did not take the odd day off every now and then if they could avoid it - it would cost them either money or their jobs.

So, once again:
Tabram - 30 yards from Old Montague Street.
Nichols - on Buck´s Row.
Chapman - on Hanbury Street.
Stride - in Dutfields Yard, in the exact area where he had lived fror many a year and a short stretch from 147 Cable Street where his mother and daughter lived - and on a SATURDAY NIGHT!
Eddowes - same Saturday night, and in the vicinity of Broad Street where he worked, although this time it can be reasoned that he fled Berner Street, looking for a place where prostitution was rife. Anyway, Houndsditch would have taken him straight to Liverpool Street Station and Broad Street.
Kelly - killed in Dorset Street, right beteen Hanbury and Old Montague - AND we know she used to work Leman Street/Commercial Street, stretching BETWEEN Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street- meaning that she could have picked up her last customer ON one of these streets.

To state that we have no evidence that he WAS on the other four spots at the exact times is a total waste of time. Everyboy KNOWS this already. But everybody ALSO knows that he HAD reason to be there at the relevant hours of the day.

Weren´t you the one who though I was too exact, by the way? And now you want me to pinpoint Lechmere at the exact spots and times? Hm?

The pattern is there.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Lech,

No need for an apology!

I don't think I have ever argued that Cross can be 'ruled out' as such, nor even that he should be. I would just prefer to see a grain or two of evidence in this sea of speculation. I realise that it's the same thing with everyone who has ever been suspected, but that's the problem in a nutshell. The best arguments, based on speculation alone, will never elevate the case against Cross above anyone else, no matter how suspicious you consider his reported (or presumed) behaviour to have been.

But what nonsense is it that I've been reading about the murders being uncannily in line with Cross's journeys to work?

And lo and behold - there is that almighty correspondance

Sounds like Fishy is at his pulpit again, but really, is there any evidence at all for Cross being en route to work on the mornings of Saturday Sept 8, Sunday Sept 30 or Friday Nov 9, at the right times and in the right places to have encountered and attacked Chapman, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly? Or do you absolve him of the murders that would be hardest to reconcile in this respect?

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Caz
Please accept my sincere apology for neglecting to answer you post.
The discussion started thus:

Frank O made this point
“Not that I suppose Paul did wore worn-down shoes, but you have to suppose Cross the killer was in a ‘bubble’, cutting away at Nichols in order for him not to notice Paul too soon. Not paying attention to his surroundings would not be the best and most logical thing to do for a killer who sets out to kill out in the open in the way the Ripper did and who was eager not to get caught.”

Frank O took an a priori view that the Ripper, whoever he was, would act a way that he had proscribed.
That being that he would be alert at all times.

I would take the view that whoever the Ripper was, he could have acted in a variety of ways, so long as the manner proposed is within certain sensible bounds.
Hence with regard to the ‘should I stay or should I go’ discussion, it is possible, in my opinion that a culprit if semi disturbed might opt to fight (turn and face his disturber) or fly (run for it).
If someone presented a case for a culprit other than Charles Lechmere that has that culprit run off, perhaps at the sound of Charles Lechmere’s approaching feet, then I would not make an a priori claim that such a proposition is unlikely and that the culprit would necessarily always have turned as I suggest Charles Lechmere did.
It has been argued to me that a psychopathic serial killer would be more inclined to calmly turn and bluff it than panic and run, but that is an arguable point.
If a theory depended on the Ripper doing cartwheels down Bucks Row after committing the crime, then I would say it was far-fetched and argue against the possibility

Frank O stated his belief that for him the Ripper must be someone who could not get carried away with himself and operate, even momentarily, in a ‘bubble’.
I believe this is unrealistic. Again so long as a proposition is based within sensible bounds I do not think it is good practice to rule out a theory just because it does not conform to a narrow preconception
If a theory was based on a ever alert Ripper then I would not argue against it on those grounds alone, just as I wouldn’t rule out a theory that was based on the culprit getting into a zone or bubble while at the peak of his murderous activities.
I would however probably immediately rule out a theory that depended on the culprit swigging from a big can of beer and singing popular ditties while ‘Ripping’ away without a care in the world.

Can you see what I am getting at here Caz?
When presenting a case for a culprit, inevitably you are ascribing certain behavioural patterns to conform to the known evidence.
(Unless your culprit is someone like Maybrick, Tumblety, Druitt, Kosminski etc etc. where you can just say he did it with no discussion of the whys and wherefores on the actual ground.)
To rule out a culprit purely based on preconceived – a priori – notions of detailed behavioural traits is in my view unrealistic.