Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

As I noted in Post #1890.

"As I have already repeatedly stated, Pickford's often assigned "van guards" or "van boys" to prevent pilferage by the general public or their own carmen. The Old Bailey records, which I have cited before, are full of examples.

Pickford's drivers were given a schedule of pickups and deliveries. Those pickups and deliveries were witnessed and signed for. Strange time gaps would be noticeable. And every pickup and delivery would be a chance for one, possibly several people, to notice unexplained bloodstains on the driver. Pickfords was a general goods service, not a slaughterhouse."

What evidence can you or Gary produce to show that CAL was genuinely employed by Pickford & Co. in 1888?

The words coming out of CAL's lying mouth or is there independent verification?

It's not such a problem for you, since you take CAL at face value, but it poses a paradox for Gary. If CAL lied about his name being 'Cross,' and half a dozen other things, why should we believe anything else he says? And why would he inexplicably give the correct name of his current employer if he's chopping up women? That would have been stupid, wouldn't it?

And, after all, we are told the police would not have bothered to confirm CAL's story with anyone at Pickford & Co.—all the more reason to simply lie about it.

CAL could have been sacked in the 1870s and was working as a carman for an entirely different firm by 1881.

And so, down the rabbit-hole we go!

[Fiver]

The Manager of Pickford’s Horse Department was on Harrison, Barber’s board of directors. HB had the contract to dispose of Pickford’s worn-out nags.

This is true, but irrelevant. Pickfords transported processed meat. They were not a slaughterhouse.

Several generations of the Lechmere family were involved in the horse flesh/cat’s meat business. One of CAL’s sons was described as a carter/salesman of cats meat while living in Winthrop Street a few doors from HB’s yard.

This is true, but also ignores the point that no member of the Lechmere family was known to be in the cats meat business before 1891. It also has nothing to do with CAL was the Ripper.

Of course, CAL may have carried fine china into the west end at 4.00 in the morning. He needn’t have been delivering cats meat to HB or other wholesalers in Bethnal Green/Mile end at the time when they needed it i.e. around 5 a.m. And if he did, he no doubt would have had an army of vanguards on board. The morning theft of cats meat was at epidemic proportions in those days.

Congratulations on again refuting a position no one held.


Pickfords carried a lot more than just cats meat. The nearest Market to Broad Street Station appears to have been Spitalfield's Market (fruit, vegetables, flowers).

With over twenty years of service, Lechmere probably carried horse meat as part of his cargo on some days.

But none of that has anything to do with whether Lechmere was the Ripper. Even he had worked at a slaughterhouse, showing up to work covered in fresh bloodstains would have raised questions.

[MrBarnett]

"Cooked joints". Not raw, bleeding unpackaged horseflesh.

Also, is your fragment of an article before or after Harrison Barber got their near-monopoly on cats meat in London?

Yes, but cooked the way cats preferred their meat with a bit of red still in it. And of course, Pickfords also handled raw meat out of Broad Street. The Scotch Meat and Fish express arrived there every morning around 3/4.

The clipping I provided wasn’t an extract, it was a stand-alone paragraph from 1879, before HB came into existence in 1886.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,

Can you substantiate your ‘standard practice claim’?

Gary

Hi MrBarnett,

Do I need to? If so, then you need to substantiate your claims as well.

If I do, I've pointed to Richardson, and how he was clearly checked out, and cleared. I've also argued that checking out those who found bodies is the logical thing for police to have done given they are tasked with investigating a murder and it's not a particularly complicated leap to suggest that those who claim to have found a body need to be cleared of involvement, making it a "not unreasonable" claim. Are you saying that I cannot make "not unreasonable claims" yet you may resort to such without substantiating them?

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

A grown man hanging out with dear old mom at 1.00 a.m. on a Saturday Night isn't what I consider 'normal,' unless one is Norman Bates.

And anyway, you're the one painting CAL as an abductor & mutilator, so what does 'normal' behavior have to do with your line of argument?

RJ,

Did you not pick up on the drinking with his mates bit? Or did you deliberately ignore it to make another of your trademark cheap shots?

And you seem to be missing the entire point of my discussion with 5er. He’s claiming that it’s absurd to imagine CAL being in STGITE in the early hours of his day off and I’m trying to inject a little common sense by explaining why it isn’t.

I’m not sure what you’re point is, are you suggesting a psychopathic serial killer is more or less likely to stick to a regular beddiebyes routine than a caring family man? Or that such people are impossible of acting as caring fathers and sons.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

Hi MrBarnett,

Do I need to? If so, then you need to substantiate your claims as well.

If I do, I've pointed to Richardson, and how he was clearly checked out, and cleared. I've also argued that checking out those who found bodies is the logical thing for police to have done given they are tasked with investigating a murder and it's not a particularly complicated leap to suggest that those who claim to have found a body need to be cleared of involvement, making it a "not unreasonable" claim. Are you saying that I cannot make "not unreasonable claims" yet you may resort to such without substantiating them?

- Jeff

Did Richardson find a body?

[JeffHamm]

Did Richardson find a body?

He placed himself at the crime scene at a time the police had reason to believe the body may have been present. So he was a "witness" that was investigated.

While I have no problem with you asking further questions of me, it would speed things up if you could also supply answers to the questions I've asked of you, which in short are.

Can you substantiate any of your above claims?

Do you consider it unnecessary for you to substantiate claims when you consider them "not unreasonable" to suggest because by being "not unreasonable" they must be considered?

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

This is true, but irrelevant. Pickfords transported processed meat. They were not a slaughterhouse.



This is true, but also ignores the point that no member of the Lechmere family was known to be in the cats meat business before 1891. It also has nothing to do with CAL was the Ripper.



Congratulations on again refuting a position no one held.


Pickfords carried a lot more than just cats meat. The nearest Market to Broad Street Station appears to have been Spitalfield's Market (fruit, vegetables, flowers).

With over twenty years of service, Lechmere probably carried horse meat as part of his cargo on some days.

But none of that has anything to do with whether Lechmere was the Ripper. Even he had worked at a slaughterhouse, showing up to work covered in fresh bloodstains would have raised questions.

Pickfords carried raw meat as well as cooked horse flesh. They didn’t have to be a slaughterhouse to transport raw meat.

My focus on horse meat arises from the fact that generations of Lechmeres were connected to that commodity, so it seems as good an example as any to demonstrate the flaws in your ‘alibi’ claims. But if you want to talk fruit and veg and have Lechmere’s cart being loaded/unloaded directly across the road from Hanbury Street, be my guest.

Or how about delivering/collecting from Truman’s brewery. Fish to Shadwell Market, almost anything to/from the East End docks, building materials to East End locations…

[MrBarnett]

He placed himself at the crime scene at a time the police had reason to believe the body may have been present. So he was a "witness" that was investigated.

While I have no problem with you asking further questions of me, it would speed things up if you could also supply answers to the questions I've asked of you, which in short are.

Can you substantiate any of your above claims?

Do you consider it unnecessary for you to substantiate claims when you consider them "not unreasonable" to suggest because by being "not unreasonable" they must be considered?

- Jeff

Have I made any claims?

[rjpalmer]

RJ,

Did you not pick up on the drinking with his mates bit? Or did you deliberately ignore it to make another of your trademark cheap shots?

And you seem to be missing the entire point of my discussion with 5er. He’s claiming that it’s absurd to imagine CAL being in STGITE in the early hours of his day off and I’m trying to inject a little common sense by explaining why it isn’t

I don't know if I'm normal or not, but in my drinking days I didn't go across town to hang out in my parent's neighborhood in order to drink, even though I had grown up there.

There are indications CAL was a church goer, so I could just as easily speculate that he hit the hay at 9 pm, so he was well rested for tomorrow's church services.

Isn't that likewise completely normal?

A family man with a large brood of kids, including one in nappies, & a wife who is probably at her wit's end by the end-of-the-week.

I see nothing wrong with Fiver's suggestion that CAL was tired & just spent a night in, probably in order to placate the missus.

There is nothing to show which suggestion is more likely to be true, other than personal desire.

RP

[rjpalmer]

If I do, I've pointed to Richardson, and how he was clearly checked out, and cleared. I've also argued that checking out those who found bodies is the logical thing for police to have done given they are tasked with investigating a murder and it's not a particularly complicated leap to suggest that those who claim to have found a body need to be cleared of involvement, making it a "not unreasonable" claim.

And remember that according to Christer, Lechmere initially avoided the police. He even lied to the police, yet didn't come forward until sometime after Sunday morning, September 2nd, when Robert Paul's interview was published in Lloyd's.

Yet Robert Paul also seems to have gone into hiding, for he is AWOL during the first and second sessions of the inquest, and later complains about having to attend.

So, if I understand Christer correctly, by September 3rd, the only man the police now had in their grips was Lechmere, and the only man who could confirm his story was the sketchy Robert Paul---who was still missing.

Sounds like a lot of smoke and strange goings on for the police to have simply accepted it all on faith. If what Christer says is true, then by this stage the police would have been fed-up with these two bystanders from Buck's Row, and I'm guessing both Lechmere, and later Paul, were raked over the coals, or at least quietly investigated, much like Richardson was.

This does not mean that Lechmere couldn't have bluffed his way out of it, of course.

But I'm more concerned with a reasonable explanation of what Lechmere hoped to achieve by giving a 'false name,' while still giving his address and his place of employment. Especially if he came forward in such a belated manner, which would have led to a certain amount of friction with the authorities. The enormity of the risk would have greatly outweighed any benefits. It seems more compatible with a clumsy ruse by a low-level flunkey, than the brainstorm of the psychopath that Lechmere supposedly was. When you give a false name but your correct place of business there is inherently a great risk that someone will notice. And that is one of the weaknesses of their argument, as I see it.

Best wishes.

[MrBarnett]

I don't know if I'm normal or not, but in my drinking days I didn't go across town to hang out in my parent's neighborhood in order to drink, even though I had grown up there.

There are indications CAL was a church goer, so I could just as easily speculate that he hit the hay at 9 pm, so he was well rested for tomorrow's church services.

Isn't that likewise completely normal?

A family man with a large brood of kids, including one in nappies, & a wife who is probably at her wit's end by the end-of-the-week.

I see nothing wrong with Fiver's suggestion that CAL was tired & just spent a night in, probably in order to placate the missus.

There is nothing to show which suggestion is more likely to be true, other than personal desire.

RP

Are you misunderstanding the discussion or deliberately skewing it to score a point?

5er is arguing that it is extremely unlikely that Lechmere would have been in St George’s after midnight on a Saturday. I am explaining why I believe it is likely he might have been. He had family reasons for being there and Saturday* was the one night of the week when he could have afforded to spend a few hours in the pub. And if he’d done so, Berner Street would most likely be on his route home.

The Stride killing is something of an outlier geographically and in time which Lechmere’s circumstances fit rather well.

Pinchin Street is even more of an outlier geographically and Lechmere fits well there too, although the timing seems not to work.

Who knows, between us (the community) we may be able to elevate Pinchin Street to a near knock-out blow. That’s how I would view it if we could prove that the Lechmere family had a lock-up cat’s meat shop less than a minute’s walk from the Pinchin Street arch.

But perhaps we won’t be able to link the family to the sheds in 1889, and of course there’s always the argument that the Pinchin Street victim wasn’t one of Jack’s.

*Assuming Sunday to have been his day off, which of course isn’t certain.

[MrBarnett]

And remember that according to Christer, Lechmere initially avoided the police. He even lied to the police, yet didn't come forward until sometime after Sunday morning, September 2nd, when Robert Paul's interview was published in Lloyd's.

Yet Robert Paul also seems to have gone into hiding, for he is AWOL during the first and second sessions of the inquest, and later complains about having to attend.

So, if I understand Christer correctly, by September 3rd, the only man the police now had in their grips was Lechmere, and the only man who could confirm his story was the sketchy Robert Paul---who was still missing.

Sounds like a lot of smoke and strange goings on for the police to have simply accepted it all on faith. If what Christer says is true, then by this stage the police would have been fed-up with these two bystanders from Buck's Row, and I'm guessing both Lechmere, and later Paul, were raked over the coals, or at least quietly investigated, much like Richardson was.

This does not mean that Lechmere couldn't have bluffed his way out of it, of course.

But I'm more concerned with a reasonable explanation of what Lechmere hoped to achieve by giving a 'false name,' while still giving his address and his place of employment. Especially if he came forward in such a belated manner, which would have led to a certain amount of friction with the authorities. The enormity of the risk would have greatly outweighed any benefits. It seems more compatible with a clumsy ruse by a low-level flunkey, than the brainstorm of the psychopath that Lechmere supposedly was. When you give a false name but your correct place of business there is inherently a great risk that someone will notice. And that is one of the weaknesses of their argument, as I see it.

Best wishes.

RJ,

If someone gave you a reasonable explanation, would you accept it as such?

Gary

[harry]

Anyone that can master this debate without descending into disrespactfullness is welcomed to the thread.And I demand that attitude from everyone,myself included.Now who made that demand? Well Fisherman did. Last paragraph,first post.Who is now being disrespectfull?Well Fisherman is.Why? Because posters are showing the theory of Cross as the murderer has no merit.It doesn't have any degree of proof.It doesn't stand up to a prima facie standard.He ignores me because he does't then have to answer my questions.He will very soon be going on a fishing trip,when he will be able to ignore everyone's questions.
Why does he persist.My guess is that this is a popular site,with thousands of users and casual readers.A big audience if you have a book to sell,and the advertising is free.
He will find this post disrespectfull.It was meant to be.He May even ask I be banned.Perhaps I should be,but what about him?What about his remarks to Daryll and others.

[rjpalmer]

RJ,

If someone gave you a reasonable explanation, would you accept it as such?

Gary

If I was a detective tasked with investigating a murder?

The Russians have an expression.

Доверяй, но проверяй

"Trust, but verify."

Christer painted himself into this corner. Lechmere is seen in a dark street with a woman with blood trickling out of her neck. He then doesn't come forward for over 48 hours.

Given the circumstances, I don't think it would be amiss to treat CAL with initial skepticism, regardless of how reasonable his explanation may have been. So I'm with Jeff on that one.

And if his explanation was reasonable--and it sure seems to have been---then one obvious explanation, as boring as it is, is that he was simply telling the truth.

Which is not the same as saying that a man can't bluff the police; I just don't accept that using the name "Cross" could have served any useful criminal purpose as a bluff. Far too risky; it could only have had a downside.