Framing Charles

[MrBarnett]

Only two of the murders took place on Lechmere’s ‘logical’ working routes. GYB was not actually on a logical route and neither was Dorset Street.

Barnett had connections to St George in the East. His ‘logical’ working route may have taken him past Mitre Square. He lived and had a stormy relationship with one of the victims and left her under dubious circumstances. His working route would have taken him along the major thoroughfares where the victims were almost certainly picked up by the killer.

It’s rather unfortunate that the map you provide to show the ‘ley line’ (its as good a term as any) had the three key points obscured. You repeatedly say the line goes through 22, Doveton Street, but you do not know exactly where on the St Philip’s site the apron was found, so you cannot know exactly where the line goes after that. Drawing two lines, one through the NW corner and one through the SE corner of St Phillips gives two very different results.

Lechmere used his stepfather’s name, and his stepfather may well have been instrumental in securing him his job at Pickfords. It seems very likely he was using the name Cross in his working environment in 1876. And his not also providing the Lechmere name can be innocently explained.

The blood evidence is weak. There is nothing implausible in another killer having departed the scene a minute or so before Lechmere arrived.

And as for cats meat retailers requiring fine-toothed saws... I’d rather not bang my head against that brick wall again.

Pinchin Street is interesting, but I feel you missed out on the full significance of that. And we have no idea how long he lived there as a child. It could have been a few weeks for all we know.

All in all, I’m now more inclined to view Lechmere as an innocent witness than I was a few weeks ago.

However, I’m grateful to you for producing the book, it’s reignited my interest in Pinchin Street and Ma Lechmere.

[MrBarnett]

My last comment.

The red line is the route through Brushfield Street. Broader, straighter, safer and slightly shorter. You can see your destination of Bishopsgate as soon as you enter Brushfield Street. Along one side of it was Spitalfields market.

The black line is Christer’s suggested ‘logical route’ through notorious Dorset Street.

[Fisherman]

Only two of the murders took place on Lechmere’s ‘logical’ working routes. GYB was not actually on a logical route and neither was Dorset Street.

Which is why I generally say "along" the routes. The correlation with the suggested logical routes is astounding however we look upon things.

Barnett had connections to St George in the East. His ‘logical’ working route may have taken him past Mitre Square. He lived and had a stormy relationship with one of the victims and left her under dubious circumstances. His working route would have taken him along the major thoroughfares where the victims were almost certainly picked up by the killer.

... but he was not found alone with a victim who was so freshly killed that she would go on to bleed for many minutes. Instead, he was looked at in depth by the police and cleared - whereas it seems that Lechmere was never looked in to in depth.
There were heaps of people in London and the surrounding countryside who COULD have been in Bucks Row two minutes before Lechmere entered it. But nobody at all is on record being so. Therefore, the fact that other people MAY have been there is totally uninteresting. This is always so if we are not dealing with remote islands with two people only living there.
The fact that Lechmere was alone with Nichols, who would go on the bleed for many minutes, the fact that he gave anther version of what had transpired than the police on duty did, the fact that he used an alias, the fact that the victims wounds were hidden - these things are what urges us to say "Wow, that does not look right, let´s check him for geography". And when we get a perfect fit, more or less, "Maybe it was someone else, there are so many people living here" is not the reaction an investigating police force would get.

It’s rather unfortunate that the map you provide to show the ‘ley line’ (its as good a term as any)

No, it is not as good a term as any, since it compares what would be serious police work with what is considered quackery. It is therefore rude and wrong, and I suspect it is not as ifg you do not know that.

had the three key points obscured. You repeatedly say the line goes through 22, Doveton Street, but you do not know exactly where on the St Philip’s site the apron was found, so you cannot know exactly where the line goes after that. Drawing two lines, one through the NW corner and one through the SE corner of St Phillips gives two very different results.

A line from the arch to 22 Doveton Street travels over St Philips, and that is good enough for me, having such minuscule demands. Of course I should have realized that it is not until the line travels ight over the rag that the correlation becomes interesting. My bad.

Lechmere used his stepfather’s name, and his stepfather may well have been instrumental in securing him his job at Pickfords. It seems very likely he was using the name Cross in his working environment in 1876. And his not also providing the Lechmere name can be innocently explained.

Everything can be innocently explained, Gary. The million dollar question. is whether we should bend over backwards to do so when we have an ocean of coincidences that need explaining, or if we should admit that such a thing is typically tied to guilt.
You answer that question in one way, I do it in another.

The blood evidence is weak. There is nothing implausible in another killer having departed the scene a minute or so before Lechmere arrived.

You cannot know that, though. It postulates that Nichols must have bled for at least a minute more to be a viable suggestion, and we don´t know that she did that. What we DO know is that two renowned and highly experienced forensic pathologists both said that once the bleeding passes past the five minute mark, it becomes less likely to have occurred in their view. And we DO know that the worst possible outcome for Lechmere woud be if Nichols bled when he and Paul were there, when Neil arrived and when Mixen forst saw her. That is the rawest deal Lechmere could possibly get - and that is the deal he got.
There MAY have been anothere killer, but such a killer is less likely to have done the cutting than Lechmere is, given the circumstances. It is not as if we can lightheartedly say "It can just as well have been somone else", because it could not. It is a case of "maybe it could have been someone else, but it is basically an unlikely suggestion".

And as for cats meat retailers requiring fine-toothed saws... I’d rather not bang my head against that brick wall again.

Then I won´t bang MY head against the wall of Cats meat dealer/Horse flesh dealer.

Pinchin Street is interesting, but I feel you missed out on the full significance of that. And we have no idea how long he lived there as a child. It could have been a few weeks for all we know.

It was a street the Lechmeres kept coming back to, and so it must be considered a significant street for them. The thing is, once that torso was dumped there, it could just as well have been dumped on any of the many tens of thousands of street to which Lechmere had no connection whatsoever. And it is added on to that ocean of coincidences I spoke of earlier.
I have no doubt whatsoever that you can think up a zillion possible innocent alternative explanations for why the torso ended up in what seemingly is the most important street in the Lechmere heart country, but I would advice against accepting that these innocent explanations mean that we need not worry about Charles. Basically, I don´t think the best way to go about these matters is to ask ourselves "what would a defense lawyer say?" because they will ALWAYS say "That´s just a coincidence and bad luck on my client´s behalf". Regardless of how laughable the suggestion many times is, it is their job.

All in all, I’m now more inclined to view Lechmere as an innocent witness than I was a few weeks ago.

However, I’m grateful to you for producing the book, it’s reignited my interest in Pinchin Street and Ma Lechmere.

If I was to reason the way you do about Ley lines and innocent coincidences, I´d no doubt side with you. And we´d get a better world, cleansed of murder, ill will and fould play.
Actually, that would not be a half bad thing.

[Fisherman]

My last comment.

The red line is the route through Brushfield Street. Broader, straighter, safer and slightly shorter. You can see your destination of Bishopsgate as soon as you enter Brushfield Street. Along one side of it was Spitalfields market.

The black line is Christer’s suggested ‘logical route’ through notorious Dorset Street.

Ugh! Surely, no meek serial killer would dare to enter a notorious street like that! And yes, Dorset Street IS a short cut from Hanbury Street to Broad Street and it is of the same approximate length as the Brushfield Street suggestion as anybody who takes part of your map can see for themselves. It would have detracted seconds only from the route.
And that does not make the Dorset Street route "illogical", the same way that neither Hanbury Street or Old Montague Street are illogical choices although the would have differed in a minuscule way too.

[Fiver]

A street his mother AND himself used to live in. A street and an area that was always very closely linked to the Lechmere family. If the rag was not related, then it is another of a heap of odd coincidences all pointing to Lechmere. You seem to have missed out on it, but the rag was found directly on the straight line we may draw from the railway arch to 22 Doveton Street. The placement very much suggests the possibility that Lechmere was the person who dumped the body and then the rag on his route from Pinchin Street to 22 Doveton Street. Not to you, of course.

To you, nothing about any of the locations suggest that Lechmere was involved. And that´s fine; if you want to claim that water is not wet and never was, then that is your absolute prerogative. But you may find yourself in a lonely spot when doing so. Just saying.

I meant to say Mitre Square was about .4 miles from Lechmere's workplace, not 4.

Nothing about any of the locations provides any link to Lechmere or to anyone else. So far you have established that many of the Ripper killings took place within a half mile of Lechmere's home or his place of employment or his mother's home or places his mother used to live or places he used to live or the most common routes between these places. If you applied that wide of a standard to "prove" someone was the Ripper, you could probably prove 80% to 90% of the people accused of being the Ripper were the Ripper.

A straight line from the railroad arch to the probably totally unrelated bloody rag found the next day would pass directly through dozens of households and within half-a-block of hundreds. And that straight line does not follow the road the bloody rag was found on.

[Fisherman]

I meant to say Mitre Square was about .4 miles from Lechmere's workplace, not 4.

Okay, that' s fair enough, although it was a tad hard to pick up on. And it is not as if you have gotten all the rest of your factual information correct. But let´s leave it there.

Nothing about any of the locations provides any link to Lechmere or to anyone else. So far you have established that many of the Ripper killings took place within a half mile of Lechmere's home or his place of employment or his mother's home or places his mother used to live or places he used to live or the most common routes between these places. If you applied that wide of a standard to "prove" someone was the Ripper, you could probably prove 80% to 90% of the people accused of being the Ripper were the Ripper.

Of course the locations are linked to Lechmere by lining the district where he walked to work, plus the two main thoroughfares there were to choose from were the streets along which the murders occurred. And it is not me specifically who use geography as a litmus test, it is standard police procedure. If you have my book, then read up on killer and abductor Robert Black who was convicted on such geographical indications in places where millions of people had access to the abduction spots.
Moreover, I am not "proving" that Lechmere was the killer, I am saying that the suspicions led on by many, many factors mean that he must be checked for geography to see if Lechmere fits the bill, and he does so in a very glaring manner. In my book, I point out that the carman could have worked anywhere, to the north, south, west or east of 22 Doveton Street, but as coincidence (ehrm!) would have it, his route to work passed right through the killing fields.
Saying that others also lived there has nothing at all to do with the matter, becasue they are not under suspicion. If you can identify a person out of these people who needs to be under such suspicion, then he or she will be a good suspect, so by all means, go looking for him or her.

A straight line from the railroad arch to the probably totally unrelated bloody rag found the next day would pass directly through dozens of households and within half-a-block of hundreds. And that straight line does not follow the road the bloody rag was found on.

Why is the rag probably totally unrelated? What are the implications you have identified? And please, the line should not be drawn from the arch to the rag, it should be drawn from the arch to 22 Doveton Street - in which that line passes over where a bloody apron was found on the day after the dumping of the Pinchin Street Torso.
If, as you on no basis at all assert us, that rag was not tied to the torso, then guess what it is instead? Correct: Another drop in the ocean of coincidences that seem to point to Lechmere. Poor fellow!

[Fisherman]

To return to the title of this thread: If somebody was framing poos Charles Lechmere, didn´t that somebody do a VERY thorough job of it? Can anyone out here think of how it could have been done better? Should all the murders have occurred in Whitechapel Road and/or Commercial Street because that is where the carman would have sought for prey if he was the killer? Should there have been ten bloody rags lining the streets between the arch and 22 Doveton Street? And a further ten IN Doveton Street itself, forming an arrow´s head, pointing at door 22? Should there have been murders outside all the addresses where Charles grew up?

How could Lechmere have been framed more efficiently? Any ideas?

[MrBarnett]

Ugh! Surely, no meek serial killer would dare to enter a notorious street like that! And yes, Dorset Street IS a short cut from Hanbury Street to Broad Street and it is of the same approximate length as the Brushfield Street suggestion as anybody who takes part of your map can see for themselves. It would have detracted seconds only from the route.
And that does not make the Dorset Street route "illogical", the same way that neither Hanbury Street or Old Montague Street are illogical choices although the would have differed in a minuscule way too.

We must have a different interpretation of the term short cut. Ignoring the first direct route offered and taking a longer, winding route further on can’t be a short cut can it?

As for your bold killer, if he had been so brave he could have hunted his prey in the Ratcliffe Highway where the women were younger and had bullies to protect them - like the Tigresses of Tiger Bay, whose viciousness he would have been familiar with.

There is nothing ‘logical’ about the Dorset Street option. Logic dictates the women were located in the streets where such women looked for business. Commercial Street, Whitechapel High Street, Aldgate - you know, the streets Joe Barnett walked along to work in the early hours of the morning. The Joe Barnett with connections to St Georges and who was born in a court off Blue Anchor Yard which fell on the ley line. The Joe Barnett who lived at one of the crime scenes and had a falling out with one of the victims shortly before she was killed.

[FrankO]

Hi Christer,

As we've been over this more than once before, I'm not so much saying what I write below to you but rather to other readers to give them some counter balance. Of course, you’re more than welcome to respond anyway!

I am not saying that he stayed by the body for the kick it gave him, by the way. I am saying that it may hav e given him a kick to stay by the body, but the primary reason that he did so was probably that he did not want any commotion.

You suggest that Lechmere cut Nichols’s throat as he first heard Robert Paul entering Bucks Row. In which case he would, as you further correctly imply, have had about one minute (and probably a second or 10 more) before Paul would reach the crime spot. In that time he could easily have walked away & got more than 100 meters between himself & the crime spot without attracting undue attention before an alarm would be raised, heard & responded to. So, if he didn’t want any commotion, then walking away at that point would be the thing to do.

If he had run, then it is very likely that Paul would have heard his steps, and then, as Paul arrived to find a murdered woman, the chances were that he would raise the alarm and the hunt would be on. How was Lechmere to know that he would not run into the arms of an approaching PC, alerted by Pauls alarm, in such a case?

If it’s your contention that he heard Paul entering Buck’s Row from Brady Street, then there would have been no reason for Lechmere to run away, he could simply have walked away instead. If he would walk away at a pace synchronised with Paul’s pace, it would minimize the chance that Paul heard him or noticed the sound as something suspicious and he would be some 120 meters away from the crime spot when Paul would arrive at Brown’s Stable/Essex Wharf and then, if Paul would notice the body and would want to take a closer look, Lechmere would have had another 5 to 10 seconds or so before Paul would raise an alarm and probably another couple of seconds before any police officer heard it, had assessed where it came from and started to run that way. Lechmere, thinking fast on his feet, could very simply have figured that, walking at Paul's pace, he could get away more or less the stretch that Paul was away from him when he decided to walk away. I’m sure Lechmere had a good idea of distances & time in general and so, where such a stretch could take him. Anyway, at that point, Lechmere would have been some 140 meters away at least.

That could have taken him, for instance, at the Commercial Road entrance of Wood’s Buildings (136 meters away from the crime spot). If he would have run some stretches, he would get there before Paul would raise an alarm, check left & right in Commercial Road to see if the coast was clear and proceed from there, depending on what/who he had seen. The same goes more or less if he would have chosen Court Street to get to Commercial Road, he only needed to have run some stretch(es), as the Commercial Road end of Court Street is about 160 meters from the crime spot. And he could also have walked until one of the corners of Thomas Street north or south of Buck’s Row (130-135 meters away) and waited there for any movement as a result of the alarm. A very strategic point.

All this is assuming that there wouldn’t have been any places to hide on the wider part of Buck’s Row. But do we have to assume that there were no places to hide there, no carts or wagons like the 2 wagons in Castly Alley at the time of MacKenzie’s murder, things like that? Or entrances to small courts, alleys or even doors set back affording space to hide. And why couldn’t he have climbed over a wall or a fence somewhere, or hang down the other side of a wall until the PC had passed or why couldn’t he have escaped through the Whitechapel Station?

Even if he would have run away, at corners taking some time to check around them, he would have been about 290 meters away, which could have put him in, for instance, Mount Street, a small street south of Commercial Road, next to the London Hospital. So, I don't see why a psychopath, very well able to stay calm & think on his feet, should have feared running into the arms of an approaching PC. We certainly don’t have to assume that he would have run in blind panic and that he wouldn’t have been able to retain some control of himself and the situation.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

We must have a different interpretation of the term short cut. Ignoring the first direct route offered and taking a longer, winding route further on can’t be a short cut can it?

I feel pretty certain that we define "short cut" in the same way, Gary: When en route from A to B, any deviation from the stretch that makes you arrive faster in B is a short cut.
If you think "short cut" is the same as "shortest cut", then we disagree.It is not as if the shortest route only is THE shortcut. It may well be that there are two deviations from that A to B stretch that BOTH save time, and if so, they are both shortcuts.

In the case at hand, the time saved by choosing Brushfield Street over Dorset Street is so small that I cannot say that anybody trying both stretches would be sure that there WAS a difference. It is one of seconds only, right?

Brushfield Street and Dorseet Street were BOTH shortcuts from Hanbury Street to Broad Street.

And "winding"? Since when is it a fact that nobody will use a winding shortcut? "That road is much quicker!" "Yeah, but it winds, so it´s a no-go"...?

As for your bold killer, if he had been so brave he could have hunted his prey in the Ratcliffe Highway where the women were younger and had bullies to protect them - like the Tigresses of Tiger Bay, whose viciousness he would have been familiar with.

Could? What kind of an argument is that? An "if he was bold, he would never have walked Dorset Street, he would have hunted his prey in Ratcliffe Highway instead"-argument?

There is nothing ‘logical’ about the Dorset Street option. Logic dictates the women were located in the streets where such women looked for business. Commercial Street, Whitechapel High Street, Aldgate - you know, the streets Joe Barnett walked along to work in the early hours of the morning. The Joe Barnett with connections to St Georges and who was born in a court off Blue Anchor Yard which fell on the ley line. The Joe Barnett who lived at one of the crime scenes and had a falling out with one of the victims shortly before she was killed.

If he walked the Hanbury Street route (which we know he did on the Nichols murder night), then he would have to take a left at some stage to get to work. That is logical. One of the options - and a shortcut to Broad Street - was Dorset Street. That is logical too.
If the murders sites in a series correxponds with routes that are logical for a suspect to use, that strengthens the case. That too is logical.

It isn´t as if it is illogical to point out that there was more prostitution to be had in Whitechapel Road. But it IS illogical to say "therefore, he MUST have used that street to find his victims". And even if we DO say such a thing, it does not make the correlation of Lechmere´s logical routes and the murder sites go away.

This is the umpteenth time I point this out, and if we are to discuss further, we may need to agree to disagree about it.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

As we've been over this more than once before, I'm not so much saying what I write below to you but rather to other readers to give them some counter balance. Of course, you’re more than welcome to respond anyway!


You suggest that Lechmere cut Nichols’s throat as he first heard Robert Paul entering Bucks Row. In which case he would, as you further correctly imply, have had about one minute (and probably a second or 10 more) before Paul would reach the crime spot. In that time he could easily have walked away & got more than 100 meters between himself & the crime spot without attracting undue attention before an alarm would be raised, heard & responded to. So, if he didn’t want any commotion, then walking away at that point would be the thing to do.

... provided that Paul would not arrive at the murder spot and shout "Murder", whereupon all sorts of commotion could take place. And yes, we have been over this MANY times. There is of course also a possibility that Lechmere noted Pauls presence from 92, 79, 65 or 61 yards away. Or any other stretch. Plus there is the remark from Andy Griffiths, stating that he would never have run. There are and will be different takes on the matter, but it can never be used to nullify the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer. I think we may agree on that.

If it’s your contention that he heard Paul entering Buck’s Row from Brady Street, then there would have been no reason for Lechmere to run away, he could simply have walked away instead. If he would walk away at a pace synchronised with Paul’s pace, it would minimize the chance that Paul heard him or noticed the sound as something suspicious and he would be some 120 meters away from the crime spot when Paul would arrive at Brown’s Stable/Essex Wharf and then, if Paul would notice the body and would want to take a closer look, Lechmere would have had another 5 to 10 seconds or so before Paul would raise an alarm and probably another couple of seconds before any police officer heard it, had assessed where it came from and started to run that way. Lechmere, thinking fast on his feet, could very simply have figured that, walking at Paul's pace, he could get away more or less the stretch that Paul was away from him when he decided to walk away. I’m sure Lechmere had a good idea of distances & time in general and so, where such a stretch could take him. Anyway, at that point, Lechmere would have been some 140 meters away at least.

That could have taken him, for instance, at the Commercial Road entrance of Wood’s Buildings (136 meters away from the crime spot). If he would have run some stretches, he would get there before Paul would raise an alarm, check left & right in Commercial Road to see if the coast was clear and proceed from there, depending on what/who he had seen. The same goes more or less if he would have chosen Court Street to get to Commercial Road, he only needed to have run some stretch(es), as the Commercial Road end of Court Street is about 160 meters from the crime spot. And he could also have walked until one of the corners of Thomas Street north or south of Buck’s Row (130-135 meters away) and waited there for any movement as a result of the alarm. A very strategic point.

All this is assuming that there wouldn’t have been any places to hide on the wider part of Buck’s Row. But do we have to assume that there were no places to hide there, no carts or wagons like the 2 wagons in Castly Alley at the time of MacKenzie’s murder, things like that? Or entrances to small courts, alleys or even doors set back affording space to hide. And why couldn’t he have climbed over a wall or a fence somewhere, or hang down the other side of a wall until the PC had passed or why couldn’t he have escaped through the Whitechapel Station?

Even if he would have run away, at corners taking some time to check around them, he would have been about 290 meters away, which could have put him in, for instance, Mount Street, a small street south of Commercial Road, next to the London Hospital. So, I don't see why a psychopath, very well able to stay calm & think on his feet, should have feared running into the arms of an approaching PC. We certainly don’t have to assume that he would have run in blind panic and that he wouldn’t have been able to retain some control of himself and the situation.

All the best,
Frank

See the above. I would just like to add that a PC approaching the murder site and meeting a calmly walking carman as he simultaneously hears somebody yell "Murder!" may well detain that carman regardless of his composure.
I have noted on many occasions that people speculate that Lechmere would have left the site if he was the killer. I have also noted on other occasions that others disagree, reasoning that he may well have stayed in place. It is therefore not an issue that can decide the case in either way, other than on a personal level: if you think it is impossible, you think it impossible.
But I don´t.

[Fisherman]

As for the geographical implications, it seems that some reason that if Lechmere was the killer, then he would have searched out his prey in the streets that offered prostitution on a large scale. Whitechapel Road, Commercial Street and all that. The argument is logical enough as, and it of course brings the possibility that it could have been any killer to the table.
What has me flustered is that it would be strange if such an alternative killer just happened to kill four times out of four along Lechmeres logical routes. Mathematically, it would be an incredible coincidence. Or four of them.
However, I think that there are many more pointers to guilt on Lechmeres behalf, and so I feel convinced that he was the one who killed these women. And that is perhaps why I look at the Whitechapel Road/Commercial Street suggestion in another manner. If he was the killer, why would he pick up his prey in Whitechapel Road/Commercial Street and then compulsively take them to his work routes and kill them there?
Could it happen? Everything can, more or less, but to me, it makes sense to reason that he may have taken advantage of opportunities that offered themselves up along his route.

I am not married to either idea, but I thought’ d clarify how I reason about it all.

[MrBarnett]

As for the geographical implications, it seems that some reason that if Lechmere was the killer, then he would have searched out his prey in the streets that offered prostitution on a large scale. Whitechapel Road, Commercial Street and all that. The argument is logical enough as, and it of course brings the possibility that it could have been any killer to the table.
What has me flustered is that it would be strange if such an alternative killer just happened to kill four times out of four along Lechmeres logical routes. Mathematically, it would be an incredible coincidence. Or four of them.
However, I think that there are many more pointers to guilt on Lechmeres behalf, and so I feel convinced that he was the one who killed these women. And that is perhaps why I look at the Whitechapel Road/Commercial Street suggestion in another manner. If he was the killer, why would he pick up his prey in Whitechapel Road/Commercial Street and then compulsively take them to his work routes and kill them there?
Could it happen? Everything can, more or less, but to me, it makes sense to reason that he may have taken advantage of opportunities that offered themselves up along his route.

I am not married to either idea, but I thought’ d clarify how I reason about it all.

Lechmere’s logical routes ran roughly parallel to the main E/W thoroughfare through the East End: Mile End Road, Whitechapel Road/High Street, Aldgate, and ultimately connected with Commercial Street.

The killer did not compulsively take his victims to Lechmere’s routes, he took them, or went with them, to quiet spots just off the major routes where the prostitutes touted for business.

As I’ve said before George Yard, Miller’s Court and Mitre Square were NOT on his logical routes. If he had been obsessed with killing on his route, he would not have killed in those places.

By your reckoning Pearly Poll took her soldier to a spot on Lechmere’s route - as probably did hundreds of other prostitutes on thousands of occasions.

Lechmere’s routes ran through areas where prostitutes took their clients. It’s as simple as that.

[MrBarnett]

I feel pretty certain that we define "short cut" in the same way, Gary: When en route from A to B, any deviation from the stretch that makes you arrive faster in B is a short cut.
If you think "short cut" is the same as "shortest cut", then we disagree.It is not as if the shortest route only is THE shortcut. It may well be that there are two deviations from that A to B stretch that BOTH save time, and if so, they are both shortcuts.

In the case at hand, the time saved by choosing Brushfield Street over Dorset Street is so small that I cannot say that anybody trying both stretches would be sure that there WAS a difference. It is one of seconds only, right?

Brushfield Street and Dorseet Street were BOTH shortcuts from Hanbury Street to Broad Street.


We clearly do have a different interpretation of a ‘short cut’. A ‘short cut’ in my book requires a longer, more obvious alternative. In this case the Brushfield Street route (A-B) was shorter, more obvious and safer than the so called ‘short cut’. Having just turned into Commercial Street from Hanbury Street and reached Christchurch, Lechmere could look down Brushfield Street and see his destination, Bishopsgate. The view above is looking from Bishopsgate to Christchurch in Commercial Street.

[Fisherman]

I feel pretty certain that we define "short cut" in the same way, Gary: When en route from A to B, any deviation from the stretch that makes you arrive faster in B is a short cut.
If you think "short cut" is the same as "shortest cut", then we disagree.It is not as if the shortest route only is THE shortcut. It may well be that there are two deviations from that A to B stretch that BOTH save time, and if so, they are both shortcuts.

In the case at hand, the time saved by choosing Brushfield Street over Dorset Street is so small that I cannot say that anybody trying both stretches would be sure that there WAS a difference. It is one of seconds only, right?

Brushfield Street and Dorseet Street were BOTH shortcuts from Hanbury Street to Broad Street.


We clearly do have a different interpretation of a ‘short cut’. A ‘short cut’ in my book requires a longer, more obvious alternative. In this case the Brushfield Street route (A-B) was shorter, more obvious and safer than the so called ‘short cut’. Having just turned into Commercial Street from Hanbury Street and reached Christchurch, Lechmere could look down Brushfield Street and see his destination, Bishopsgate. The view above is looking from Bishopsgate to Christchurch in Commercial Street.

Yes, Gary, that is very true: a short cut predisposes that there is a longer alternative. But there may be more than one short cut from a route A-B. Surely that is something you are aware of?

How about I offer you to take a smoke on a piece pipe? If Dorset Street by way of being a few seconds longer, scarier and winding was a no-no for Charles Lechmere, how about this:

If Charles walked Hanbury Street to Commercial Street and took a left there, with the aim to search out Brushfield Street (but avoid Dorset Street), he would be walking down the street where Kelly was known to sell her favors as per Dew for a stretch of around a hundred yards or so. Regardless of which way he chose, he had to traverse Commercial Street.
Would you be happy to allow for the two meeting in Commercial Street and Kelly saying "I´ve got a room in the next street, dear"?

At the end of the day, any police force checking out a suspect and finding that he or she traversed the exact area where the murders they are investigating occurred - and at roughly the relevant hours - would be stoked to find such a thing out. I doubt that they would go into the finer points of winding streets and dangerous locations in such a case. A correlation is a correlation, and few correlations can be clearer than this one.